February 20, 2001
Kamloops Daily News


Opposition leader Gordon Campbell says that if his party
forms the next government of B.C., he  will conduct a
referendum on treaties with B.C.'s natives.  Campbell claims
that such a referendum would establish "the principles that
will guide treaty negotiations at the provincial side of the
table". 

What "principles" is he referring to?  Not those rights
guaranteed under the constitution, Campbell assures us.  I
guess not.   The result of a referendum can't change native
rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The rights of
minorities can't be removed, even by a majority vote in a
referendum.

Campbell can't be talking about legal precedents when talks
about "principles".  Those are well established as a result
of former B.C.  governments who have tried to remove native
rights.  In 1984, for example, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en
natives claimed rights to 57,000 square kilometres of
traditional territories near Hazelton.

The government of  B.C. claimed that those rights were no
longer valid and the case went to court.  The Supreme Court
of B.C. and the Supreme Court of Canada disagreed with the
government of B.C..  The resulting court ruling, called the
Delgamuukw decision,  has become a landmark legal precedent. 

The Real Estate Foundation of B.C., who has more than a
passing interest in land claims, commissioned a study on the
Delgamuukw decision and its implications.  It says that
"First Nations may have rights to use traditional land
without having  Aboriginal title over that land." 

Real Estate Foundation study goes on to say that Delgamuukw
provides for the use of traditional lands for traditional
purposes by natives. They may also use such lands for modern
purposes as long as that modern purpose serves the communal
good. 

Limits on modern use are that natives can't destroy the
potential of the original, traditional, use.  For example,
natives can't cut the trees of traditional land that would
result in destruction of the habitat for animals who are
traditionally hunted.  

If "principles" in a referendum can't override native
constitutional and legal rights, what is their purpose?  The
only purpose such a referendum could serve is to stall the
settlement of native land claims.  That has been Campbell's
strategy all along.  He was opposed to B.C.'s first native
treaty with the Nisga'a from the start.  Then, after the
agreement was ratified, he attempted to have it nullified
through the courts because he didn't like some provisions of
it.

Campbell hopes to capitalize on the misguided ideas of
people  he thinks will vote for him.  One of these ideas is
that natives should abandon their land claims and become
citizens like the rest of us.   It's well-intentioned but
not much different than the failed idea of forcing native
children into Residential Schools where they were to be
indoctrinated into our culture.

The Fraser Institute, who I am not normally fond of quoting,
understands something that Gordon Campbell doesn't.  In a
report it says "Accordingly in British Columbia, both those
Indians who are the legitimate inheritors of Delgamuukw
rights and governments have an incentive to sort these
issues out in a mutually agreeable way. One technique for
doing so is to make treaties which, ... trump the Delgamuukw
uncertainties."

In other words, if governments don't like the sweeping
powers of Delgamuukw, then treaties must be negotiated with
natives.  Natives hold the upper legal hand until they do. 
The Delgamuukw decision is a recognition of native
sovereignty.  The Nisga'a treaty upholds that idea.

What galls Campbell more that anything is that it wasn't his
government that negotiated B.C.'s first native treaty.  He
has a case of treaty envy.  He thinks that if he had been
first, it would have done it right.   Never mind that the
federal Liberals agree with the NDP and the Nisga'a people
that it is a good treaty. 

The lack of signed treaties in B.C. costs one billion
dollars a year in lost investment.  Sun Peaks stands out as
a frail exception to this.  As recently demonstrated, even
it is threatened by land claims.  Without the goodwill of
some Shuswap native chiefs, an estimated $1.3 million would
have been lost if the televised Much Music spectacle hadn't
gone ahead. 

Campbell must let go of the past as surely as B.C.'s natives
must grasp their's more firmly.

go back to my Columns in the