EDITORIAL PAGEA — Politics of exclusion

It is hard to imagine, particularly after the Meech Lake fiasco, why any government would negotiate agreements of major public interest behind closed doors. But concern is growing in British Columbia that the New Democratic Party (NDP) government is doing exactly that.

For several months now, the government has been engaged in land claim negotiations with native bands representing about 2.8% of the province’s population. For the most part, the negotiations are being conducted under a veil of secrecy, even though they are of obvious interest to the non-natives who make up 97.2% of the population.

By most accounts, the British Columbia Treaty Commission has received at least 40 statements of claim in which natives are seeking rights to territory and self-government (and, in some cases, damages for loss of land and resources). Previous attempts to secure these rights through the courts were largely unsuccessful, so it is not surprising that natives have seized the opportunity to negotiate directly with a sympathetic NDP government. The problem is not so much that the government and native groups are working to settle outstanding land claims but, rather, that non-native interests are being so grossly excluded from the process. Small wonder that concern is growing about what kinds of deals the government will strike with the province’s 90,800 natives, and how much they will cost all British Columbians in real financial terms.

In theory at least, a mechanism was put into place to represent non-native interests, both commercial and non-commercial. But some members of this “treaty negotiations advisory committee” are publicly complaining that the opportunity for input has been “woefully inadequate.” Similar views are being expressed by mining industry organizations represented on the committee. And in one small rural community after another, the case is being made that the government is running the risk of damaging relations between native and non-native citizens if deals, particularly unworkable or unpopular ones, are completed without public consultation.

John Cashore, the province’s minister for aboriginal affairs, argues that the government is somewhat restricted in bringing in “third-party” interests because of previously negotiated confidentiality clauses. He admits, however, that the process does need to be improved to allow for more public input and third-party consultation.

So why wait? Why not start defusing this potential time bomb by making the advisory committee part of the negotiation process? Each and every land claim settlement negotiated between the government and native leaders should have the benefit of non-native input and public scrutiny before being implemented. The settlement of native land claims is an important economic issue, and one that is too important to be left solely to professional treaty negotiators, government bureaucrats and lawyers.

It is a safe bet that, given the opportunity, natives and non-natives in British Columbia could craft workable agreements on a local scale, taking into account their mutual needs and interests. Municipal-type, native self-government with taxing authority may be one solution. It would certainly be less expensive than Ottawa’s recent Nunavut settlement with the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic.