Recently the chief federal negotiator for the Nisga'a treaty chastised former British Columbia premier Bill VanderZalm for not being "more familiar with the treaty he attacks." While Bill VanderZalm erred when he confused the worth of the land as separate from the $487 million in total compensation for the Nisga'a, it was probably an honest mistake. No such grace can be given to Tom Molloy then, who professes to know the treaty so well.

For starters, Mr. Molloy's claim that the Nisga'a government will ‘look very similar to other local governments in Canada' is patent nonsense. Ordinary municipalities do not possess power over citizenship, culture, health services, children and family services, adoption, elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education, cultural property, management of fishing resources, and ownership of mineral and timber resources. The Nisga'a government will. And contrary to Mr. Molloy's blustery, the treaty clearly states at least seventeen times, that in the event of an inconsistency between a particular Nisga'a law and federal or provincial law, the Nisga'a law or settlement legislation (the treaty) prevails to the extent of the conflict. The "Nisga'a nation," as the new government is labeled on the treaty cover, resembles a nation-state, not a municipality.

As a result, this plethora of jurisdictions will make the new Nisga'a government expansive in power and expensive for taxpayers. The $487 million estimated cost of the treaty should be viewed similarly to how most numbers that come from this provincial government are digested: with serious skepticism. For example, that figure does not contain any estimate of mineral, water, or fisheries resources to be transferred. In addition, taxpayers will pay all of the $32.1 million in annual transfer payments to the Nisga'a for the first five years after treaty implementation with only an ‘objective' from the Nisga'a government to reduce such amounts over time.

Unfortunately, even Mr. Molloy does not expect the Nisga'a government to be self-sufficient any time soon. Last year, he told the Globe and Mail that taxpayers would still be paying for at least 75% of the ongoing cost of the Nisga'a government 15 years from now. At a minimum then, at least $400 million will be shelled out by taxpayers over 15 years in addition to treaty costs, never mind the $487 million estimate itself. And given the plethora of Nisga'a side agreements yet to be negotiated, the vast amounts of land, crown corporations, responsibilities, and money to be administered by the Nisga'a government, self-sufficiency is highly unlikely as many of the Nisga'a will likely be employed by some level of government, be it Nisga'a or otherwise. Few will be in the private sector where the wealth created would help the Nisga'a government to be self-supporting. Only a federal civil servant could think this treaty is in any way ‘final,' or promotes private sector wealth creation.

One last point: Mr. Molloy argues that the Nisga'a will establish a democratic government, "under which every adult Nisga'a has a vote," and then states he fails to see how this would create a province divided by race and laws. Let me help explain Mr. Molloy. It used to be thought that democratic governments were ones every adult could vote for regardless of race. Exclude some adults in an area where a government would have some influence over their lives, and you no longer have a democratic government, unless one defines it in some Orwellian manner.

While non-Nisga'a will not be directly taxed for now, there is nothing stopping federal and provincial governments from allowing the Nisga'a government that authority in the future. In the meantime, non-Nisga'a living on Nisga'a lands have had their right to vote for any government that might affect their life in any way permanently given away with respect to the Nisga'a government.

The relevant sections of the treaty merely provide that the Nisga'a government "will consult" with non-Nisga'a about issues that "directly and significantly" affect them. And the treaty mentions that a future Nisga'a government may provide for the "possibility" for non-Nisga'a to vote on occasion. How touching. In other words, the treaty is written to ensure that voting is seen as a privilege and not a core political right. Just out of curiosity, and maybe Mr. Molloy or Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault could elaborate on this one day, what gives any politician or negotiator the belief that they can turn a long fought-for political and civil right into a mere privilege? The treaty deserves to be opposed on that ground alone.