Monday, April 29, 2002
Notes on the Native referendum - THE COMMENTARY
By Joseph Planta
VANCOUVER -- A couple of weeks ago, I was privy to a lively discussion between two friends on the subject of Native Indians regarding the on-going referendum on treaty negotiations. What I came away with is the sense the role of Natives in Canadian society is indefinable at best.
We have skirmishes on the federal scene with some whispers that the Indian Act is up for gutting. Matthew Coon Come, head of the Assembly of First Nations thinks that’s a silly idea. The Natives themselves are bickering as to who actually represents them. Then here in BC, we have a government fulfilling a silly election promise. Native bands are in no way acting as a collective. Non-Indians are tired, and at times upset at Natives “getting so much.”
A few days ago, a patron of this space asked what I thought of this referendum the Campbell government is holding. Ballots are out and they’re due in under a month. If you asked Mr. Campbell, he’d say holding this referendum would give the government the mandate to negotiate. However Angus Reid, the famous pollster, has called the ballot utterly useless. As a pollster, he’d never use such inept questions. He called them loaded and skewed to get certain responses.
There have been some, like the New Democratic Party, who have called for people to boycott the referendum. Some, like the Anglican church, have said to spoil the ballots. Some Native Bands are encouraging using ballots for art or something like that.
Usually during an election, I try to lobby pals (and readers of this space) to vote. This time around, I am not. This referendum is nothing more than the fulfilment of a silly promise made by the Premier during last year’s election. It’s a cosmetic thing that come the next election he can say he did. Nothing more.
You’d think some exercise like this will yield some sort of tangible action like a signed treaty. In actuality, it will not. The Native community is at best divided by this referendum. You see one band suing the government for the oil and mineral rights off the Queen Charlottes. You see another group asking people to send in their ballots for the art displays. Then you have the Nisga’a, who this past weekend hosted Premier Campbell. In the oddity of this present situation, rather than seeing vociferous campaigning for one side of the referendum (either yes or no), you are seeing vociferous campaigning over the entire process. It’s clear the Campbell government hasn’t thought this over with much sense.
The Attorney General, Geoff Plant, has said a yes vote would be binding on the government. However in the same breath he will say a no vote would merely charge the government themselves with directing the course negotiators will take in the future. What use would it be then for a referendum in the first place? I guess we could blame the New Democratic government, as it was them after all that approved Nisga’a. There should have been a referendum then, because Nisga’a was a template for all future treaties. Now that Nisga’a has been in practice for a few years now, what good would it be that a new format be used on the rest of Natives, whilst Nisga’a be permitted to reign free.
I got my referendum ballot about a month ago. The questions on their own are meaningless and difficult to comprehend. If you ask yes or no to the following statement: (Question 1) “Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements,” one may answer no. No, that private property should not be expropriated. Reid was right, because asking a double negative question is not only disingenuous, but poor use of the English language. At $9 million, the government could have used a proof-reader.
The questions are so loaded, that it’s disgusting really. Take question 3, “Hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities on Crown land should be ensured for all British Columbians.” Now is that implying, with a healthy dose of presumptuousness, that a Native government constituted as a municipal-style government, would prevent a non-Native to hunt and fish on their newly designated reserve?
What also makes the whole situation difficult is the fact it’s hard to find someone to believe. First, the New Democrats led by Joy MacPhail are calling for a boycott of the exercise saying the majority has no right to impose their will on a minority. In actuality, Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees Native rights. So, there would be no abrogation of Native rights with this referendum or anything the Campbell government could promote or pursue in the future.
But I did not boycott the referendum, much to the chagrin of Ms. MacPhail or David Schreck. I got my ballot about a month ago and signed the envelopes. However when it came time to answering yes or no, I left the ballot blank. I guess you could call it spoiled, because I see no need to dignify the egotistical referendum of Mr. Campbell. The process is meaningless and I think of it as nothing but something Campbell can point to as an accomplishment once his current mandate is over. By then we’ll forget everything. At least that’s what he hopes. Also, I’d like to see how many agreements-in-principle will be signed by 2005.
See you all next month.
- 30 -
Questions and comments may be sent to: editor@thecommentary.ca
An archive of Joseph Planta's previous columns can be found by clicking HERE .