[National Post Online] July 30, 2001 B.C. treaty referendum will help reconciliation Gordon Gibson National Post The Campbell government's plan for a referendum to secure a treaty negotiating mandate in British Columbia is a small but positive step toward resolving the native question in Canada. This is directly contrary to the general view of the chattering classes -- which is, in itself, a hopeful sign considering their general woolly-mindedness on fundamental Canadian issues. It is also contrary to the view of the federal government, surely another hopeful sign in the context of its generations-long screw-up on this file. The Indian Industry, on the other hand, has some reasonable apprehensions that need to be put to rest. First, the "why" of all of this. British Columbians have been worried about, even suspicious of, the treaty process for years. Treaties are in essence amendments to our Constitution and the general view in this province (and indeed the law for all other amendments) is that the voters' blessing must be secured. A referendum could, for the first time, confer democratic legitimacy on the process. Next, to send the most famous red herring to the recycle bin: A referendum could not possibly lead to a diminution of aboriginal rights. These are protected under Section 35 of the Constitution, as enforced vigorously, even recklessly, by the Supreme Court of Canada. This will not, cannot be, a referendum on minority rights as the unlamented former NDP government used to claim, because that would be contrary to the law of the land. While a referendum could not truncate minority rights of Indians any more than those of freedom of speech, there is still a need for reconciliation. Without this, minority rights provide only half a life. Anyone who has lived in a hostile community knows that. A positive referendum, as an affirmative blessing of the process, would enhance reconciliation. The third point touches on incentives. The B.C. government needs a solution to this issue, not the scoring of political points. After all, you can't much improve on 77 out of 79 seats in the Legislature. And there are only two ways to achieve a solution in a contested situation. One is by utterly crushing the other side, which can't happen here. The other is by agreement. The B.C. government has a very strong incentive, the aboriginal question being the chief moral and arguably chief economic issue in the province. Why then would the government craft a referendum that would make agreement harder? It runs against common sense. The natural fear of the Indian Industry is that a referendum might be used for the twin purposes of whipping up and validating anti-Indian sentiment, as well as attempting to settle in advance questions that legitimately need to be discussed at the bargaining table, such as the amounts of cash, land and autonomy in the final package. A good question in response is: "What are you afraid of?" Is it the inarticulate premise that British Columbians are a bunch of rednecks who want to put down the Indian people? I reject that. But let me add, were it true, a referendum would be the least of our worries. In fact, the evidence is directly to the contrary. No part of the country has seen a greater change in racial makeup over the past 20 years than the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. One major city, Richmond, is now majority Chinese. Surrey has an immense Indo-Canadian population. Chinese is the language used in the home for 33% of the Vancouver School District. This potentially explosive situation has been handled with relative harmony. British Columbians are not rednecks, period. As for the fear that a referendum would settle details in advance of negotiations, any vote that claimed to put limits on cash, land and governance available in settlements would simply be ignored by the Supreme Court. But that in itself is not the best reason for leaving these elements out of any referendum question. Agreement rests on good faith bargaining, and such prior conditions would undermine good faith. The questions must leave full dignity and bargaining scope for all sides of the table. The B.C. government, with its 60% of the vote and 77 out of 79 MLAs, needs no further mandate in these areas. It did not object to the cash and land aspects of the Nisga'a Treaty, for example; and on governance issues, their going-in position is crystal clear from their election platform: Indian government will be delegated, not sovereign. (Of course, the court has yet to pronounce on this.) The appropriate referendum questions would ask for endorsement of the treaty process as a part of reconciliation, as well as two great principles -- namely that settlements should be full and final, and that they should not stand in the way of the voluntary political equality of all Canadians. Indian spokespersons will be extremely important in the process. If they try to prevent a referendum most British Columbians think is right and democratic, they will lose in the realm of public opinion. The senior leadership of The Summit, the major native grouping, knows this and has wisely said they will simply ignore and boycott the referendum. Others, however, have threatened "shutting the province down." We shall see how it plays out, but my guess is that public reaction would make clear the latter strategy would be very counterproductive. The referendum process will include hearings by a Legislative Committee to provide advice on the questions. These will start soon and should be over by the end of the year. The hearings will be a sounding board for extremists as well as those of goodwill. I think, however, that I know my fellow citizens well enough to say extremists on all sides will be rejected. It will be a huge education for the province. The process, including the referendum campaign that will ensue, will most certainly underscore the importance of the aboriginal issue, and highlight the huge, unavoidable eventual costs of settlement that have been most deceitfully hidden by governments until now. It is necessary this reality be understood. The process will also advance an understanding of the strong legal position of Indians, and almost certainly generate major demands that Ottawa, having caused this problem, must foot the lion's share of the bill. All of the above is to the good, but should be kept in perspective. A referendum is but a small piece in the much larger puzzle of the native question in Canada. Most of the answers lie in Ottawa. But it is clear that for British Columbia, at least, the election of a new government with an enormous mandate has changed the balance of power. There was a new climate of respect and honesty at the tripartite -- Ottawa, the province and Indians -- meeting of principals last week, the first since Gordon Campbell's government took power. Respect and honesty do not of themselves bring agreement, but they constitute a good start. Things are looking up. Gordon Gibson is a Vancouver commentator and can be contacted at ggibson@bc-home.com. ______________________________________________________________________ Other Stories by this Writer ______________________________________________________________________ 6/16/01 - Alliance is dead but not its raison d'être 6/5/01 - Wag the dog, the Ottawa version 5/29/01 - Power to the provinces 5/17/01 - Bravo, Alliance Eight Copyright © 2001 National Post Online | Privacy Policy | Corrections National Post Online is a Hollinger / CanWest Publication.