Vancouver Courier
for August 23, 1998

Opposition to the Nisga'a deal is mounting and the pendulum has clearly swung away from the euphoria of the signing ceremony.

Ironically, concerns have been fanned by the refusal, due to bankruptcy of argument, of Treaty supporters to answer questions being raised, the principal ones being the rights of non natives, the aboriginal only fishery, and the constitutional question. Aggravating this concern is the precedent Nisga'a sets for future negot1ations. Glen Clark called it the "template". All the denials in the world aren't going to change that rare dollop of candor from the premier.

Before I make my main point, let me summarize my position.

There's no real protection for non natives in this agreement despite assurances to the contrary. Non Nisga'a have no say in the government. If the Nisga'a set up institutions such as a school board or a health board, they may permit non natives to participate and may let them vote or may appoint one or more. The only other "power" is that Nisga'a Council might consult them.

In spite of what defenders of the treaty say there is an Nisga'a only salmon fishery which, ironically, will adversely affect other aboriginals in the area who fish the regular fishery. And there's nothing to prevent Nisga'a citizens participating in both the regular fishery as British Columbians and the special fishery as Nisga'a.

There can be no doubt that this agreement would surrender powers under sections 91 and 92 from the federal government and the B.C. government to Nisga'a. The argument is that this is OK because it's pursuant to section 35 of the Constitution Act which, if taken literally, would permit the federal government, say, to permit aboriginal "nations" to open foreign embassies, issue passports and print their own money. The argument, short and clear, from Mel Smith, a noted constitutional expert, is available through B.C. Liberal Party headquarters.

It would be very wrong indeed, however, to think that all the treaty is bad - because it isn't. If you believe in a measure of self government for aboriginals - and I do - then there's lots good here. I'm afraid, though, that responsible legitimate concerns may be overshadowed by well meaning, or maybe even not well meaning, expressions of fear.

We're dealing with thoroughly decent people here who have forgiven a hell of a lot more than I would forgive. Yet we hear fears, backed up by some anecdote or other, that native governments may seize children of mixed parentage and spirit them away. Or deny medical coverage to non natives. We hear solemn stories about stashes of arms somewhere in the States to be shipped to Aboriginals after "independence". This sort of stuff is the height of irresponsibility but likely to increase as concerns rise.

Other concerns may be valid but must be seen in perspective.

It's said that Native governments will not be fair but will be the established chiefs and their cronies running things and getting all the rewards.

There's perhaps some truth in this. The Indian Act has ensured that certain groups on some reservations have been favoured. History shows that wherever one group has ruled another against its will, an ascendancy of favoured people has arisen. You need only look at 19th century Upper Canada and the Family Compact Party or, indeed, at the people who for decades ran British Columbia after 1871. Of course there will be problems of governance after Natives take over but, absent any action by natives themselves, there is no obligation upon the rest of us to do anything but let them sort it out themselves. And as we ponder this problem we might ask ourselves about the state of democracy in our own province which denies to its citizens the same right of referendum granted Nisga'a.

They'll never ever get off welfare is another complaint. That's probably true just as its true to say that Vancouver will never be welfare free.

The native nations, it's said, will not handle its financial affairs properly. There'll be no proper accounting for revenues to its citizens. Well, before we raise that issue perhaps we ought to ask about the appropriateness of revenue and expenditure accounting by the provincial and federal governments. A reading of the last few reports of George Morfitt, B.C.'s auditor general, should divert our attention from Nisga'a to Victoria in a hurry.

There is a huge price tag here and it could well last much longer than anticipated. For the problem is that we are creating "nations" where there are only villages. Huge bureaucracies, relatively speaking, may well be installed to deliver services to fewer people than there are bureaucrats. The per capita cost of government will be immense. And we should talk about that.

But let's all agree to approach this issue rationally. Just because Nisga'a Treaty apologists constantly spout emotional nonsense in the absence of cogent arguments is no excuse for those with concerns to do the same.