Financial Post
for August 7, 1998

Herewith some things this British Columbian wants to say about the Nisga'a Treaty.

It's facile and unfair to put opposition down to racism - at least the sort of racism we're used to. Vocal supporters - trendy left professors, condominium conservationists in Vancouver's West End and conscience stricken writers - cry "racist" because they fear the public would reject the deal, as it presently stands. Having no good arguments, the ad hominem attack is all that's left.

The contra arguments are, essentially, two.

First, this will add a new, constitutionally entrenched government which will diminish the constitutional powers of both Ottawa and Victoria. This, according to constitutional expert Melvin Smith, QC, means that it is an amendment to the constitution (perhaps in a subtle way but if it looks like a duck, etc) and therefore under B.C. law requires a referendum before the Legislature can approve it.

Secondly, the racism of the Indian Act is simply relocated to the Treaty. This breaks down into two sub-headings, the lack of rights for non natives in Nisga'a lands and a special salmon fishery on the Nass River for Nisga'a only. (The Nisga'a will be double dipping, literally, since they will have their own quota up to 26% of the Nass fish yet still entitled to participate in the general fishery. Non natives will not, however, be entitled to fish on Nisga'a land.)

The question of rights of non natives is vexing since in some treaty areas non natives outnumber natives but it must be addressed for surely the fundamental question of principle is this - a society where peoples' rights are determined by their race is, by definition, racist, however lofty the stated motives for it.

How can British Columbia claim to be democratic when one sort of citizen can live, work, and vote wherever he pleases yet another cannot?

How can Canadians tolerate a society where qualification for fundamental rights not only depends upon the colour of skin but officially certified racial and clan purity? (Non Nisga'a aboriginals are "foreigners" too.)

How's it possible to say a society isn't based upon race when two large commercial salmon fisheries are denied to non natives? (It's noteworthy that natives can and will continue to participate in the general fishery without restriction.)

What's perhaps of more concern to many is the precedent being set. Premier Clark called the Nisga'a Treaty a "template", a description eagerly picked up by opposition leader Gordon Campbell. There are 50 to 60 more of these agreements to be reached, the most critical of which involve overlapping Musqueam/Squamish claims to all of Vancouver. Since Nisga'a establishes the precedent that land claims forgone will bring cash in their place, native leaders will logically and forcefully argue for immense, unimaginable sums for densely populated urban areas.

It's very easy for people in other parts of Canada to be philosophical about this problem - there is no claim for downtown Toronto or Montreal for one thing. Just as Samuel Johnson's hanging in a fortnight concentrates the mind wonderfully, so does the prospect of paying for Vancouver, Stanley Park included.

The negotiations leading up to this agreement were not founded upon any agreed principles except that the rest of us were guilty as hell and ought to pay whatever it takes to ease our consciences. Skilled Nisga'a negotiators played this card shamelessly. The NDP government, full of left wing dreamy poets, ever ready for self flagellation and loving every minute of it, simply ignored trivial considerations like democracy and equality of all citizens in order to buy forgiveness, however limited. There was no meaningful consultation with the people - those who raised troubling questions were ignored or branded racists or both.

Party politics saturate the issue. The NDP, embarrassed by the Charlottetown Accord, which they supported even wearing "yes" buttons into the Legislature in defiance of the rules, decided that the lesson to be learned from being trashed by the rabble was that involving the public in decision making was just asking for trouble. They vowed that Native claims would be handled by the elite presenting a done deal to the public.

The Liberals, (despite their high moral tone) see a referendum as a bullet with Glen Clark's name on it.

Shorn of all rhetoric, the bottom line is this - the social compact in B.C. is about to be changed beyond recognition without citizen participation much less consent and a growing number of British Columbians are finding that utterly unacceptable.