Vancouver Province
for January 17, 1999

There must be a referendum on Nisga'a. And there are many reasons.

Canadian history supports the proposition that on matters going to the root of the social compact the people will be directly consulted. In fact, there's a plethora of examples of referenda on a wide range of issues from prohibition to changes in Sunday observance. Lest those things be considered minor, look at them in context - Prohibition and Sunday observance were, in their time, very big deals indeed. Until a referendum in the 50s, professional sport was banned on Sunday, a ban that which was vigorously supported by virtually all churches and labour unions which held that preserving Sunday as a complete day of rest was a vital part of the social compact. Passions ran very high indeed on these issues.

Whether a man could be forced into the army - an issue which divided the nation - went to a national referendum in 1944.

More recently, in 1992 nearly 70% of British Columbians voted against the Charlottetown deal that gave special rights to Quebec and proposed a special third order of government for natives.

Premier Clark babbles incoherently that you don't hold referenda on minority rights. What a nifty little turn of phrase. Why of course we can't do that! It violates everything right thinking people believe in! Except a moment's thought shows Clark's argument as humbug. Barnyard droppings.

Natives already possess all the rights of other Canadian citizens plus, under section 35 of the Constitution Act, their treaty rights. What Nisga'a will do is give extra rights not possessed by other Canadians. That's the very essence of what's wrong with Nisga'a.

Quite apart from the land deal and monetary matters, Nisga'a extends to its citizens three things not possessed by other Canadians - a special right  to fish, a right to exclude non Nisga'a from participating in political affairs ... and a special third form of government which on many important subjects is not answerable to either Ottawa or Victoria - precisely what British Columbians rejected in the Charlottetown referendum.

But Glen Clark says the Legislature will decide for us in a "free" vote and that's our way. Well if that's "our way", I'm for the highway. This isn't a free vote at all. What sort of idiots does he take us for? Does anyone seriously think that any NDP MLA is going to utter one word of criticism of the deal much less vote against it? Give me a break! This is just cheap politics in an effort to expose rifts in the opposition.

Furthermore, if the people's representatives can vote on minority rights, how can it be said that the people themselves can't? Is the judgment of the

NDP caucus - highly intelligent though it no doubt is - as bullied by Glen Clark, preferable to that of the people?

What Premier Clark can't or won't grasp is that if the Nisga'a treaty, and all treaties that follow, don't have the support of the people, he'll have created 50 or 60 permanently festering sores and will have set British Columbians against British Columbians for all time.

The essence of democracy is not that the majority rules but that the minority peaceably permits it to. This acceptance requires that everyone has a full share in the decision making process.

Glen Clark and the "higher purpose persons' (in Denny Boyd's delectable phrase), tell us that Nisga'a is a good deal, a fair deal and one all British Columbians should support. If that's so, why is he so afraid to ask for that support by referendum? Is it perhaps because precisely those same things were said about Charlottetown by the "we-know-what's-best-for- you-bunch" - including Glen Clark and the NDP?

A treaty passed without giving the rest of the people the same rights as Nisga'a had - a referendum - will never have public acceptance and there will never be peace.