Financial Post
for July 24, 1998

The question is, is British Columbia a democracy? Or is re-election of the NDP of paramount importance?

Samuel Johnson commented that a hanging in a fortnight concentrates the mind wonderfully. Such was the effect of the handshake deal by government and the Nisga'a Nation where the premier wept while others gnashed their teeth. Now, the questions.

Why this late in the game? Two reasons.

First, there were never any approved principles upon which the public was invited to debate thus no publicly approved agenda. That puts the Nisga'a deal right up there with Meech lake and Charlottetown. Because the public was kept in the dark on the issues being discussed by negotiators, no one really knew what to ask. In a free society the public will, sooner or later, debate issues. In typical Canadian style, we choose to debate them after the deal's made.

Second, any who did ask tough questions was branded a racist, even well known and anti racist commentators like Gordon Gibson who say roughly this - "we're opposed to the present Indian Act because it's racist. Discrimination on the basis of race is fundamentally wrong and cannot be erased or ameliorated by noble intentions. For example, an Aboriginal only fishing policy is wrong because it grants special rights on the basis of race, the other side of the coin being that it derogates from the rights of others. A native homeland is wrong because it discriminates in favour of some and against others on the basis of race and, in this case, clan as well. It is wrong whether created for egregiously evil reasons as happened in South Africa or for lofty purposes as with the Nisga'a deal."

Does this mean that critics, like ancient clerics, hold to their faith without allowance for exception?

Not at all. Everyone accepts that there is a legitimate land claim - the Supreme Court of Canada emphatically says so - and understands that we must reach a settlement of aboriginal land claims. There must, perforce, be a deal.

But who'll approve that deal? The elite? The establishment? The New Democratic Party of Glen Clark hand in hand with Jean Chretien whose government faces a one time cost while B.C.'s is forever? Should it be the Legislature of B.C. which, because of the numbers, will rubber stamp what Glen Clark agrees to?

Or will it be the people in referendum? (Interestingly, the deal is [emphasis] subject to a referendum amongst Nisga'a people.)

It's said that the issue is too complicated for mere voters to understand. Well, that's what they said about Charlottetown too. Yet today very few would now deny that in the October 1992 referendum the people were right. A free people, after listening to open debate, can comprehend issues and are entitled to vote on major changes in the social contract, which Nisga'a certainly is. They are also entitled to be wrong! (On that subject, if it can be argued that the public will, for reasons of stupidity or cupidity or both, be wrong it scarcely follows that the elites in Ottawa and Victoria will be right.)

Glen Clark refuses a referendum because, he says, only the "noes" want one. What an explanation! That theory generally applied would eliminate elections.

There's a better explanation for Mr Clark's behaviour - raw, sordid, party politics.

The NDP's sole election strategy is to split the vote ensuring that the Reform Party gets enough votes in key constituencies to keep the Liberals out of power. Here's the scenario.

The Liberals, internally divided on this issue, and on same sex benefits (another skillfully and recently raised issue), will call for a referendum but not too strongly in urban B.C. where the condominium conservationists and dreamy university professors live. Moreover, they must fight the next election on a variety of issues.

The Bill Vander Zalm led Reformers (no relation to the federal party, incidentally) will especially target rural ridings where native land claims are seen as a real threat and where tempers flare very quickly when Victoria imposed policies arrive on the scene. And they will concentrate on Native land claims and gay bashing in the guise of public morality.

And, the timing is perfect. It will take six months to a year to get the Nisga'a agreement ready for ratification which is nicely within Glen Clark's election timetable.

It's got nothing to do with what's right and everything to do with what makes sense politically to Premier Glen Clark.