In Canada, and within the provinces, when native treaties are close to being finalized, native Canadians affected by the treaty conduct a referendum to vote on the treaty-in-principle. Shouldn't the people who are paying the bill also get a say Guy Chevrette, a mediator appointed by the province of Québec thinks so.

For more than 25 years, Québec has been embroiled in legal battles with the Inuit, Innu and Cree to develop natural resources and major hydro-electric projects in northern Québec. As a result, treaty negotiations have occurred.

In Québec most treaties are made between the federal, provincial and native governments. To date the bulk of treaty negotiations - and settlements - have been done behind closed doors. Citizen groups have not been able to raise their concerns at the negotiation table.

Mr. Chevrette would like to see that changed. He proposes creating a forum for committees of non-native citizen groups, residents and municipalities to present their concerns and proposals to the province's negotiator(s) during talks.

It is important for citizens to have a say at the negotiation table since they will ultimately pay for any finalized treaty. For example, last spring the province of Québec finalized a treaty with the Inuit of northern Québec. In this treaty the Inuit received more than 500,000 square kilometre, or roughly one-third of Québec, plus $360-million over 25 years for the economic development of this land. In addition Québec agreed to spend $115-million over 10 years on capital projects. Did the citizens of Québec have any input, let alone say in this decision No.

A more recent example is the Innu agreement-in-principle. When finalized, this treaty will abolish Innu reserves and establish an Innu government without extinguishing traditional rights. The Innu government will have the right to collect income tax and other taxes from their people, and adopt fiscal and social policy laws. The Innus will receive a capital transfer of $275-million from Canada and $102-million from Québec. In addition, they will receive a minimum of 3 percent - approximately $6-million per year - of the value of all natural resource development on the land.

Since Mr. Chevrett released his proposal, the Innu have agreed to delay ratification of the agreement-in-principle until after public hearings have taken place. But here's the rub: chief negotiator for the Innu, Rémy Kurtness stated, "The Innu are open to having residents in the communities to be associated with the talks. But if the agreement-in-principle is reopened then there will not be a treaty." So much for open dialogue and consultation.

British Columbia recently conducted a province-wide referendum on treaty principles; perhaps the federal government and other provinces should consider such a move.

For years, the Swiss have used referendums to settle contentious issues. Recently, the Swiss used a referendum to reject the idea of hosting the 2010 winter Olympics. Canada has also used referendums to decide controversial issues such as wartime conscription and more recently, the Charlottetown Accord.

Native policy issues are quite possibly the most important moral issue facing Canada today. Meaningless dialogue and lip service are not substitutes for direct democracy or adequate consultation.

Treaties are far too significant not to solicit the opinions of citizens. In the end, any finalized treaty will affect the citizens of Canada for generations.