Vancouver Courier
for November 18, 1998

Referendum on Nisga’a?

As you hear the ads being pumped out and the dulcet tones of Jack Munro preaching the wonders of the Nisga’a deal don’t you get that eerie feeling that you’ve heard it all before?

Well, you have – it was the Charlottetown debate of 1992. And it’s more than just the ads and the spokesmen; it’s the way, as happened with Charlottetown, public opinion is shifting in direct opposition to excessive and deceptive government propaganda.

There’s this difference, of course. In 1992 holding a referendum was not an issue – Brian Mulroney had no choice in light of Quebec and B.C. laws requiring one. With Nisga’a, the question is not public approval of the deal but whether or not the public will have that opportunity.

There’s another spooky similarity. With Charlottetown, the more the heavy hitters banged the cymbals for the deal, the more the people were put off. And here’s the spooky part – two of B.C.’s own "yes-men" who did more to swing votes to the "no" side in ’92 were Brian Smith, who appeared before the Charest Committee, and David McLean who spoke ex cathedra with considerable pomposity as president of the Vancouver Board of Trade. As you will remember, two weeks ago this dynamic duo once more sprang into the breach supporting the socialist government they’re supposed to detest, on Nisga’a. Much of the business community, I’m reliably informed, was not amused.

Nisga’a, like an amoeba, keeps splitting into different issues but the main one now is whether or not the public of B.C., apart from Nisga’a who have had their own vote, are entitled to a referendum. Premier Clark, his caucus and assorted university professors think not because, they say, "you don’t hold referenda on minority rights."

What a pert little phrase. Sounds so, well, obviously correct. Until you think about it whereupon it becomes about as cerebral as "an apple a day keeps the doctor away" or "please adjust your clothing before leaving." For the fact is – and the electorate has this burned in its collective memory – extra rights for the French Canadian minority was precisely the issue in Charlottetown.

The seed of Mr Clark’s argument falls on barren ground because it’s clear that nothing in the Nisga’a deal purports to take away any aboriginal rights – quite the contrary. And if the legislature as the extension of the voter can decide, why not the voter himself?

Mr Clark’s real opposition to a referendum is that it might not pass. If you follow that argument to its logical conclusion, governments would never hold elections.

Two recent polls show that nearly 60% want a referendum – an astonishing figure that demonstrates that the huge NDP ad campaign has only served to whet people’s appetite for a full debate and a vote.

Now that the premier is in a pickle, that snap election I speculated on in last week’s column is looking a teeny-weeny bit more plausible. If Mr Clark decides to place this matter before the legislature he risks a huge adverse fallout. Picking up on the public mood, the Liberals will not debate the merits of the deal but concentrate on the lack of democracy demonstrated by the NDP’s refusal to hold a referendum.

These polling figures also erode Mr Clark’s ability to divide the Liberals because even those who may want to support the treaty will scarcely be in a position to argue against a referendum and won’t have to.

The argument for a referendum, based upon Canadian precedent, is very strong indeed. From the outset, we’ve had public votes whenever serious changes to the social contract were proposed and Mr Clark has acknowledged that Nisga’a means massive changes to how we live. Prohibition was done or not done by local option. Laws concerning observance of the "Lord’s Day" – engrained in our society for centuries - were changed by public vote. Whether a man could be conscripted into the army was a referendum matter. Quebec has had two referenda on changing its political status.

Without question Premier Clark can force this deal through the legislature. The nonsense that it is a "free vote" is not worthy of comment other than to say that anyone who believes that would buy the Lion’s Gate Bridge from a guy in the local pub.

Glen Clark can use passage of the Treaty as a platform for an immediate election or he can hope that in time those who wanted a referendum will have forgotten. Or he can reverse himself and hold a referendum. What he cannot do is wait much longer.

The fact that the Nisga’a did have a referendum has understandably had a big impact. Why them and not us? is a valid question. Moreover, on October 26, 1992 the public of British Columbia took a very big bite out of the fruit called participatory democracy and having tasted, may just have found it habit forming.

It’s decision time for Glen Clark and the options ain’t great.