B.C. treaty referendum questions called 'ridiculous'

Page 6

After everyone expected them to be full of fire and gunpowder, some say the questions being recommended to the British Columbia Liberal government on treaty negotiating principles are weak and innocuous.

But the Native leadership isn't letting down its guard.

First Nations Summit representative Bill Wilson was outraged by the proposed questions.

"I think it's a colossal waste of time and money," said Wilson. "We think this is a morally repugnant exercise that is dredging up racism around the province. We urge all citizens to boycott it.

"The questions may seem innocuous, but all of them put together with a 'yes' would simply dictate that the province continue with business as usual. It's a sham."

Chair of the Aboriginal Affairs committee that recommended the questions, however, sees value in the exercise.

"This will give British Columbia treaty negotiators a firm mandate at the table," said John Les, "a mandate that is confirmed by the consent of the public."

The mail-in referendum is to be conducted before next May, but a specific date has not been chosen. Specific details, including how the process will work, who will get ballots and whether there will be a public education campaign, have not been decided.

Though Les has great hopes for the referendum and the 16 questions, reaction around the province has been less than encouraging.

"It confirms our worst thoughts about this whole process," said Summit executive member Kathryn Teneese. "We don't agree with an approach like this, where the rights of a minority are being placed in front of a majority, and in this case a relatively uninformed group of constituents, who are going to be asked some questions without any information."

Teneese said some of the questions address Aboriginal rights already affirmed in Canadian courts and Section 35 of the Constitution. She wondered whether the province would use the referendum as a way of backing out of the existing treaty process altogether.

University of Victoria political scientist Norman Ruff called the referendum an injustice to Aboriginal people.

"By instinct I'm not against referendums, but at this stage in the [negotiation] process, I think it is a betrayal of trust."

The mainstream press variously characterized the questions as "ridiculous," "a rather mild farce," "like a 16-part social studies test," "like one of those snap quizzes that high school teachers were always springing on us," and "innocuous to the point of absurdity."

Even members of the Liberal party are calling on government to reconsider.

"I'm a Liberal," Clive Tanner, a former MLA, told the legislative committee that toured the province to sample public opinion on the proposed treaty referendum. "I'm as proud of my leader as punch and I think he's doing a hell of a job. But he's wrong on this. I think he should stand up and say 'I made a mistake.' So should you all.

"I have read no editorial or commentary, I have heard no television or radio point of view, I have seen no academic treatise and I know of no business organization that supports a referendum," Tanner said. "So you made an election promise. Well, my friends, it takes a big man to say 'I've changed my mind after due consideration.' But if he's forthright and prepared to face some criticism, and if he has 77 of 79 seats and his popularity is in the 60- or 70 per cent range, then . . . don't hold a referendum. You weren't elected to send out questionnaires. You were elected to make decisions. Now get out and make them."

The cost of the referendum is estimated at $9 million. For a province where the health care system is said to be falling apart, nurses complain they are underpaid and the government is slashing social expenditures to the bone in the name of "sound fiscal management," a lot of anger is directed against the provincial Liberals over the referendum cost.

As a Vancouver Sun editorial expressed it: "The question has 16 parts and 278 words. It'll cost $9 millio to ask it. The process will fulfill a Liberal provincial election promise. And it'll accomplish virtually nothing."

Despite these criticisms, B.C.'s Attorney General Geoff Plant, who is also the minister responsible for treaty negotiations, supports the referendum and will take the recommended questions seriously.

"The objective is to get a clearer mandate for the province's negotiators. My hope is that will make treaties easier to achieve."

Plant is also taking seriously the recommendation that the provincial government issue an "expression of regret" to Aboriginal people for past injustices. While the report that accompanied the referendum questions never mentions the word apology and neglects to describe the injustices for which it recommends the government be regretful, Plant said he would consider offering an apology.

"The general intention is to achieve some measure of reconciliation in moral terms," he said.

"The history of Aboriginal people in British Columbia post-contact (with Europeans) has been very difficult," Les said. "Let's acknowledge that. It seems self-evident." However, he stopped short of calling it an apology for past treatment of Aboriginal people. Average British Columbians today don't feel responsible for these problems, he said. "This is a process that would have us say yes, we recognize that many aspects of the past relationship were unfortunate, unproductive and impacted very negatively on Aboriginal people."

The Summit's Teneese dismissed the olive branch.

"Unless there's some sincerity associated with those kinds of words, don't bother saying them," she responded. "We want action; we don't need patronizing words."

The questions

Openness

1. Treaties should be negotiated in as transparent a manner as possible.

Yes or No

2. Treaty negotiation should be responsive to the input of local community and economic interests. Yes or No

3. Local government participation in the treaty process is guaranteed.

Yes or No

Property and Inerest Issues

4. Private property is not negotiable, unless there is a willing seller and a willing buyer.

Yes or No

5. Continued access to hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed for all British Columbians.

Yes or No

6. The province will maintain parks and protected areas for the use and benefit of all British Columbians.

Yes or No

7. All terms and conditions of provincial leases and licences will be honored.

Yes or No

8. Fair compensation for unavoidable disruption of commercial interests will be assured.

Yes or No

Aboriginal Governance

9. The province will negotiate Aboriginal government with the characteristics and legal status of local government.

Yes or No

10. Treaties must strive to achieve administrative simplicity and jurisdictional clarity among various levels of government.

Yes or No

11. Province-wide standards of resource management and environmental protection will continue to apply.

Yes or No

12. Treaties should provide mechanisms for harmonization of land-use planning between Aboriginal governments and local governments.

Yes or No

Settlement

13. Affordability should be a key factor in determining the amount of land provided in treaty settlements.

Yes or No

14. Treaties must ensure social and economic viability for all British Columbians.

Yes or No

15. The existing tax exemptions for Aboriginal people will be phased out.

Yes or No

16. Treaty benefits, including cash and land, should be distributed and structured to create economic opportunities for all, including those living on and off reserve.

Yes or No