Scrap treaty referendum, B.C. told

Page 8

An environmentalist and an Anglican clergyman both told British Columbia's Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on Oct. 18 they should just forget about holding a referendum on the future shape of the treaty process.

The two men addressed the committee during the Vancouver public input session. They and two others addressed the committee during the evening session of the committee's day-long stop in the province's largest city. The newly elected British Columbia Liberal government plans to hold a referendum on what British Columbians want from the treaty process. The government wants the public to decide what the provincial negotiators' bottom line should be in treaty talks. The standing committee is holding sessions throughout the province. The committee's report is due on Nov. 30.

Paul George, a non-Native member of the Western Canadian Wilderness Club, and Craig Vance, speaking as a member of the Anglican diocese of New Westminster, both urged the Liberal MLAs to re-think their government's position.

Asking the majority to vote on the extent of a minority's rights is "beyond foolishness," said George who urged the committee to call off the vote.

"Even if you have no mandate to recommend not holding a referendum, I recommend not holding one," he said.

Vance, saying he was speaking for himself and not officially representing the church, predicted a council of all the major churches in the province was leaning towards and would likely arrive at a position of "urging the government to withdraw the referendum."

Committee chair, MLA John Les, told the presenters the process wasn't about limiting Native rights in the province.

"This is not a discussion about Native rights," he said. "That's not on the table. It's about how do we incorporate these rights in the British Columbia mosaic."

Vance argued the "public won't get the nuance" and would vote in a way that reflects an uninformed, emotional response rather than an informed understanding of the issues.

George agreed with that assessment.

"What the vote really means is, if you vote one way you're favorably disposed to the rights of Aboriginal people in British Columbia; if you vote another way, you're unfavorably disposed," he said.

Donald McKenzie, publisher of Indigenous Business Magazine, told the committee the question should reflect affirmative responses to a series of questions. He said he believed the question should be along the lines of whether Aboriginal people should be treated fairly and with compassion in British Columbia or whether Supreme Court of Canada decisions should apply in the province.

McKenzie pointed to past treatment of Native people, saying the government should be careful not to let historical antagonisms between Indigenous peoples and colonizers resurface.

"We must remember that small pox, a sort of bio-weapon, was used intentionally against Aboriginal people. Kind of like some of these envelopes we've been hearing about for the last little while," he said.

That comment drew a protest from committee member Dennis MacKay.

"I can't believe small pox was intentionally used," the MLA said. "I find it personally offensive to think our grandfathers and grandmothers would do such a thing."

The next day, at the annual conference of the Indigenous Bar Association, hosted just a few blocks away, former NDP cabinet minister Edward John, grand chief of the Tl'azt'en Nation in northern B.C., noted that non-Native people are generally not well informed about Aboriginal issues.

"If you put a question to the public in British Columbia and you understand the context in which these people are going to vote, it's troubling," he said. "The context that I will outline is simply this: In my own knowledge, the people who live in communities next to us, their knowledge of our people is very, very, very limited, very superficial, if it exists at all. Now those are the people who are going to be asked to determine the nature of the mandate for thir government to bring to the negotiating table."

John said that Allan McEachern, the former British Columbia chief justice who presided over the Delgamuukw trial, was given every opportunity to come to an understanding of the Aboriginal point of view and that learned man handed down a decision that was shredded by the Supreme Court of Canada.

"I talked to many of the chiefs and they felt that despite all of the efforts and the time they had put into this one man to understand who they were, that he did not get it. Now you have a few months to try to educate the average citizen in this province- it's doomed to failure," he said.

John noted that the standing committee sessions have been poorly attended so far.

"It probably goes to show that people may not have as much interest in this initiative as politicians they ought to have or may have," he said.

He also said the Liberal Party's claim to be polling the public in the province would leave one part of the public out.

"When one party decides to take a time-out and say we want to get a mandate from the people, I don't know it's wise that the other two parties will be involved in the selling of that mandate," said John. "Politically, it would not be appropriate and, certainly, if there are any court challenges in the future, it's likely that participation by First Nations in the referendum, directly in the voting, will be raised as an issue in the courts."

The other person to address the committee that evening, Marlie Beets, vice president, Aboriginal affairs for the Council of Forest Industries (COFI), said uncertainty over Aboriginal title issues is a major problem for her industry.

"When Aboriginal people are looking for attention from the media or government, they find it very convenient to hold forestry operations hostage," she said. "What COFI would like out of treaties is the end of those hostage situations and more Aboriginal commercial involvement."

But the industry doesn't feel it should pay for anyprograms that would increase Aboriginal participation, Beets said, adding the province contributes resources so the federal government should contribute money.

Native leaders scoff at the concept of the province saying it pays its share by allowing access to resources. Native leaders say the whole idea behind treaty talks is who owns the resources and, therefore, the province can't claim credit for contributing something it doesn't clearly own.

Beets said there's not much room for Native people in the industry at the moment.

"We don't need an Aboriginal labor force. We already have a labor force," she said.

Since Aboriginal people don't have a lot of investment capital and their labor isn't needed, Beets said, they don't have a lot to offer to the industry right now.

"To be brutally frank, what First Nations have to offer to the industry is a commitment not to blockade," she said.

Nuu-chah-nulth Nations protest referendum hearing

David Wiwchar, Raven's Eye Writer, Port Alberni

The B.C. Liberal government's standing committee on Aboriginal Affairs came to Port Alberni, and was greeted by a large group of protestors outside of the Echo Centre.

The 60 protestors sang, drummed and danced while the Liberal MLA's ran through a gauntlet of placards proclaiming the proposed referendum as a breach in "good-faith" treaty negotiations.

Chanting "negotiation is the key, referendum is not for me," Hupacasath Chief Councilor Judith Sayers spoke on the dangers a referendum would pose to treaty negotiations around the province. "Most people that will be voting in this referendum are non-Aboriginal, and they're the ones who will have a say over our rights," said Sayers. "Premier Gordon Campbell is in China right now saying B.C. is open for business, but how can he say that when he hasn't settled with us yet?"

Inside the select standing committee was grilled by Alberni Valley residents, accusing the Liberals of creating problems rather than working to solve them.

"The Nativ people have a legitimate claim to these lands and your referendum only serves to further alienate people since it's a foregone conclusion what the results of it will be," said Athanasius Bachmeier. "Who is going to invest their money in this province knowing what they're up against."

The 10 Liberal MLA's on the committee spent all day touring the island on Nov. 1, going from a morning session in Nanaimo to an afternoon session in Port Alberni to and evening session in Campbell River. The committee has toured the province over the past month, stopping at 15 cities, hoping to develop questions that will be put to B.C. voters in a one-time referendum on the treaty making process in B.C.

"We've had some really good feedback all around the province," said Alberni-Qualicum MLA Gillian Trumper. "It's split 50/50 between the people who want, and who don't want a referendum."

"This process is not about Aboriginal rights," said committee chair John Les (MLA Chilliwack-Sumas), responding to numerous speakers. "Aboriginal rights are entrenched in the Canadian Constitution so they can't be touched. What this process is about is reinvigorating the treaty-making process in this province through developing a clear mandate from the people of this province," he said.

"Treaty making is all about defining our Aboriginal rights," said Cliff Atleo Sr. of Ahousaht. "We are no longer engaged in good faith negotiations because the mutual respect and understanding is gone. We can't be a real part of B.C. and Canadian society until treaties are resolved, and this referendum is a huge slap in the face to First Nations and the negotiation process we bought in to."

Half of the dozen speakers in Nanaimo spoke against the referendum process in front of more than 50 people gathered at the Coast Bastion Hotel. Although representatives from the Sneneymuxw were in attendance they did not speak to the committee as they have repeatedly said they would not legitimize a process they are against.

"I