Vancouver Courier
for September 16, 1998

Sober, reflective opposition to the Nisga'a Treaty is being fogged in by the extremes reflected by Bill Vander Zalm on one side, and Vancouver Sun columnist Stephen Hume on the other..

I've changed my mind, incidentally, about the potential impact of Bill Vander Zalm. He's become a bad joke and will only attract support from those who, were there no Vander Zalm, would stay at home on election night.)

It's amusing to note that he recently declared that he'd reduce the public service by 50% and eliminate provincial income tax. Back in 1986 when running for Socred leader he was only going to slash the public service by 25% and dramatically cut the income tax. Obviously Mr Vander Zalm, like the good businessman he is, sees that the voter is in such short supply he must increase his offer.

The man's an idiot and this is no more demonstrated that by his comments on the Nisga'a Treaty.

In his recent condemnation of this treaty he complained that Indians always shower negotiators with ceremonies, dancing and headdresses thus reducing them to blithering idiots. As is so often the case with Vander Zalm there is an invisible flimsy thread between what he says and reality but no more than that. Many, including me, think that we negotiated from a deep sense of irredeemable guilt and thus made practical decisions for sentimental reasons but that had dick-all to do with headdresses, drums and dancing.

Stephen Hume is a very fine writer in the tradition of a family of very fine writers but he deliberately distorts the position of people like Mel Smith, Gordon Gibson and me, to name but three.

In his column in last weekend's Sun, Hume outlines all the consequences, trivial and catastrophic, of a repudiation by referendum of the Nisga'a Treaty indulging contortions of logic which would put to shame medieval priests arguing about the number of angels dancing on a pin. For example:- he asks if other provinces "would embrace a precedent by which constitutionally entrenched minority rights could be arbitrarily removed at the whim of some disgruntled majority? I mean wow!

Stephen, old boy, those constitutionally entrenched rights we're talking about here - the reduction of provincial powers under section 92 of the Constitution Act - only become entrenched it we approve the treaty! A rejection by referendum wouldn't remove any rights - it would simply refuse to ratify additional rights. As to rights already in the constitution, any attempt to change them would be clearly illegal and of no force and effect.

Another thing, Stephen, what's this bit about the "whim of a disgruntled majority"? Aren't free nations governed by the wishes of "disgruntled majorities"? Would you substitute rule by majorities classified by the likes of you as "disgruntled", with rule by "higher purpose persons", again like you, who always know what's best for us, the mere rabble of your world?

I don't want to destroy Nisga'a I want it changed before it's repeated 50 times or more. I want this not for my generation but for future generations who must live with it..

The Nisga'a Treaty is flawed in four major ways.

1. It does not adequately address the question of the rights of non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a land.

2. This is not municipal style government but a new level. And there's a strong constitutional argument that proposed system, because it erodes provincial jurisdiction, is a "back door" amendment to the constitution. This critically important point must be settled before the matter goes any further.

3. In setting up yet another Aboriginal fishery, this treaty discriminates between Canadian citizens on the basis of race which is contrary to the constitution and a direct denial of the principle of equality we're presumably trying to preserve.

4. There's been no planning. There are no proper studies of the economic consequences and we have no idea of the social consequences. We haven't addressed the fairness of the system of government proposed and that's no minor matter - many Nisga'a are concerned that they will be governed under a perpetual constitutionlized oligarchy. To say that this is Nisga'a business is to deny natives their basic rights as Canadians.

What's happened is this. The forerunner of 50 more such treaties has been signed without any meaningful consultation with British Columbians even though they, not the rest of Canada, must live with the results. 70% of the public, at this eleventh hour, (according to a recent poll) haven't sufficient information. We are about to have a treaty crammed down our throats by a compliant NDP caucus who, despite bleatings about a "free vote" by the Premier, will do as they're told.

In this post Charlottetown era, there will be a terrible price to pay if this deal doesn't have the approval of B.C. voters. A treaty passed by legislatures without public consent will simply become the battlefield for future serious, indeed debilitating, social and economic unrest.