Vancouver Province
for January 31, 1999

To understand what I’m about to say one has to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, a talent evidently missing from the likes of Glen Clark and, as we will find out very soon, everyone east of the Rocky mountains.

Mr Clark is either dumber than a sack full of hammers or unbelievably dishonest. He takes the position that the Nisga’a agreement doesn’t become part of the constitution. Well, let’s walk through that one.

Section 35 of our Constitution locks in all aboriginal treaty rights. In 1984 this was amended so as to include any future rights obtained by treaty. Without any doubt, Nisga’a sets up a form of government which is different than anything else in Canada. It certainly isn’t a "municipal form of government" as alleged by Mr Clark in his huge ad campaign. In fact it has a bit of what we might see as a traditional municipality or city, plus a hell of a lot of powers which are reserved to Ottawa and Victoria by the same Constitution, sections 91 and 92.

To amend the constitution – such as to take away federal and provincial powers and give them to an Indian band, requires an amending process called, as all political junkies know, the "amending formula". A complicated bit of machinery but for our purposes, to make a Nisga’a amendment requires the consent of Victoria and Ottawa. And, as we all know, to get a constitutional amendment passed in B.C. it must go to referendum, something Glen Clark is avoiding like the pox. Still with me?

OK. So Glen Clark says that a treaty can’t amend the constitution especially if it says it isn’t doing that. This, with the greatest respect I can sum up, is crap. If the legislature and parliament approve, and the result amounts to an amendment to the constitution because of section 35, then the constitution’s amended.

But doesn’t Victoria’s assent become void because there was no referendum?

No, because it isn’t the constitution which requires a referendum but a provincial statute. As far as the Supreme Court of Canada would be concerned, the amendment having satisfied the constitution, would be a done deal. Pretty slick, huh? If necessary, the NDP could pass legislation exempting the treaty from referendum.

This is what the lawsuits brought by the Provincial Liberals and others are all about.

What about the statement in the agreement that it’s not a constitutional amendment. It matters not a fig what a document says it is – it is what it is. A first week, first year law student will tell you that.

So now what? Well, folks, this is where it gets interesting. There’s not a band in British Columbia which will settle for anything less than what the Nisga’a got and imbedded in the constitution! Why the hell would they? We will have 50-60 semi autonomous "nations" within British Columbia and won’t that be fun!

Last November I was flogging my book, Canada:Is Anyone Listening (plug, plug) in Montreal and Toronto and to a person my interviewers, TV, radio, told me that listeners weren’t a bit interested in that B.C. story about some Indian band. Nisga’a? A non event. Well, what do you suppose will happen when Grand Chief Phil Fontaine learns that Nisga’a has just "constitutionalized" a new form of government which is in many material areas independent of both Ottawa and the province? You can bet the ranch that every Indian community across the country will be demanding the same thing. And getting it. And guess who’ll pay for it?

How has this been allowed to happen?

Read my book – it’s my Axiom I which says "you make a very serious mistake assuming that people in charge know what the hell they’re doing".

The people in charge here are all dreamers and we’ll all pay for the nightmare.