[National Post Online] April 6, 2002 Gordon Campbell v. B.C.'s bien pensants Gordon Gibson National Post As is well known, most of British Columbia is under Indian land claim -- to the dissatisfaction of just about everyone. Modern treaty negotiation has been adopted as the best route to resolve outstanding questions of Indian rights and title. After almost 10 years of hard work and the expenditure of about half a billion dollars on negotiations, the number of treaties concluded under this process is ... zero. (The Nisga'a Treaty was reached by a much older process.) Something needs fixing. In the last election campaign, the winning Liberal team made the (correct) observation that governments had never really consulted citizens on what amounts to a constitutional issue touching all of us. The Libs vowed to remedy that by means of a referendum on proposed treaty principles. Now that the ballot is looming (by way of a mail vote with a May 15 cut-off) there is a rising level of hysteria developing in B.C. among referendum opponents. We are being bombarded with the curious idea that the holding of a vote is inconsistent with democracy. To deal with a very stale red herring, this cannot possibly be the "referendum on minority rights" it is so often claimed to be. Indian rights are robustly protected by Section 35 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a very activist Supreme Court. This referendum is only about the appropriate initial provincial negotiating stance. But since many people appear to have bought the idea that the referendum is illegitimate, and are working (with assistance from a sympathetic media) to discredit the process, it is worth analyzing how the vote might unfold. I see three groups of voters. The first group consists of those influenced by the "Charlottetown Effect." Those explaining the surprising defeat of the Charlottetown Accord in the national referendum of 1992, despite its support by virtually every establishment voice in the country, attribute much of the negative vote to antipathy toward Brian Mulroney, the Accord's major booster. The then Prime Minister was at that time the most despised person in the country, and voting No was a fine way of sticking a finger in his eye. Premier Gordon Campbell has not achieved Mulroney status, but his unpopularity -- already considerable among the 40% who did not vote Liberal last year -- has grown as the government has taken strong measures on health care, labour law and so on. The second group consists of those so wonderfully described by former Vancouver Sun columnist Denny Boyd as "Higher Purpose People." These are the folks who know better than you and me on just about everything. They talk to each other on the Peoples Network of Canada, and view with alarm from pulpit, university and punditry pedestals the uninformed thoughts of the great unwashed. Among other beliefs of the Higher Purpose People is that they know what is best for Indians. Of course, the estate of Indians in Canada today is directly chargeable to the HPPs of the past century; but never mind, they'll get it right this time, and without the ignorant input of the public, thank you. This group and their flocks will vote No and propagandize mightily to that end. They are a potent force. There is a darker side to this. The hidden premise of the HPPs is that British Columbians are a bunch of racist rednecks who will not treat their fellow human beings fairly. That is not my take, but let's get it out on the table for if that is true, the referendum is the least of our worries. The third group is still probably a majority, being ordinary citizens who will take the referendum as a chance to consider the questions carefully and cast their vote on the merits. Only this group has the need to actually look at the questions in an open-minded way, so to that issue. The biggest controversy surrounds the following referendum proposition: "Aboriginal self-government should have the characteristics of local government, with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia." People who believe in the political equality of all Canadians cheer at this one. For them it is the most important question, but it gets right up the nose of those who passionately believe in a degree of Indian sovereignty. In fact, it doesn't really matter what position B.C. adopts on this issue. All the province can do is argue at the bargaining table, and in the end the governance issue will almost certainly be sorted out by the courts. (The decisions to date are ambiguous, to say the least. All sides take comfort from that; my guess is that none should.) Since local-type status was a firm election policy of the Libs anyway, this question was really unnecessary, but there it stands as a major irritant. Most Indian organizations oppose the referendum for the very understandable reason that it might give more legitimacy to the bargaining position of the provinces. One way or another, however, the referendum will go ahead. And it is having the clearly beneficial impact of focussing the attention of the public on the most important moral issue in this province. And one way or another, the course of wisdom is to make the best of it and move on. ggibson@bc-home.com ______________________________________________________________________ Other Stories by this Writer ______________________________________________________________________ 3/14/2002 - Next? Alliances with PCs 3/9/2002 - The courts must settle the Haida claim quickly 2/23/2002 - B.C. will hurt if Ottawa goes soft on lumber 2/13/2002 - This is the story of Robbie's elbow Copyright © 2002 National Post Online | Privacy Policy | Corrections National Post Online is a Hollinger / CanWest Publication.