Ever since the Liberals took power in B.C. six months ago, their approach to treaty issues has been one of "more water, less wine."
First dropped was their lawsuit against the Nisga'a treaty. Before the election, a subtle hint existed in the absence of the lawsuit in the Liberal pre-election "New Era" booklet of promises. The Premier's argument that legal advice after the election is why the case was dropped is itself curious. If that's the case, why wasn't the promise to pursue the treaty in court in the New Era document That document was prepared long before the election.

More dilution has now occurred with the proposed treaty referendum. There are a few solid questions in the series of sixteen referendum queries recently released by the provincial committee that examined the topic. Ending tax exemptions (based on race) over time is explicit. But other questions are less clear. For example, in their election guide, the Liberals stated they would "Insist on equal, non-discriminatory voting rights for all Canadians in respect of the governments that rule their lives."


Thus, voters could assume that promise meant non-natives living on native land in British Columbia would have - what should be a basic right - backed up by the new provincial government at the treaty negotiating table. But where is this promise in the referenda questionnaire The closest it comes to being mentioned is Question Nine (which must be answered 'yes' or 'no'): "The Province will negotiate Aboriginal Government with the characteristics and legal status of Local Government." Conceivably, this could mean that -similar to a municipality- if you live full-time on a reserve, you can vote in local elections. So why not make that point more explicit Given the Nisga'a flip-flop, observers are right to be skeptical about Liberal promises here.

One other important issue of note: Among the treaty questions, not a single one prevents British Columbia from being racially carved up like a Thanksgiving turkey over resource rights. For example, the BC Fisheries Survival Coalition notes that after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a native-only commercial fishery was not a constitutional right, the politicians went ahead and negotiated a native-only fishery anyway.

Repeat: native-only commercial fisheries -and many other items some native leaders assert are inalienable constitutional rights, are nothing of the sort. Yet past governments barged on ahead to divide non-native and native Canadians on the basis of race, as if a Vietnamese Canadians (and other non-natives) should sit on the dock while a native Canadian alone earns a living.

Question Five in the referendum treaty questionnaire: "Continued access to hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities will be guaranteed for all British Columbians." But 999 fish out of every 1,000 could be reserved for a native-only fishery. The other fish could be given to the non-native fishery, and the government could still argue that "access" had been preserved, albeit quite unequally and with patent unfairness.

For those who think such points are racist, think again: the point is the precise opposite. And as a test, apply the logic of native-only fisheries to your own workplace. Anyone want to show up to work, only to be told that you cannot work today because you're the wrong ethnic group Jobs are easy to divide up and give away on race-based grounds when they're someone else's. That doesn't make it morally right or philosophically defensible, and the government must strengthen its referendum questions on equality.

The B.C. Liberal track record on treaties, principled at times, and laudable on the referendum idea despite much elite opinion stacked against it, looks anything but principled at others. The Liberals should stop adding any more water to their previous strong position on treaties.