Like the energizer bunny, the treaty process threatens to become one of those issues in British Columbia that just keeps on going. Many natives and non-natives of B.C. find themselves asking: when will it all end? We all remember the election promise made by Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell. He promised to hold a referendum, and so allow every British Columbian a say in the fate of First Nations in the province.

Has colonization ever been about fairness for all parties involved? How can the Liberal government justify placing the rights of First Nations people up for a majority vote?

Once again, first nations people are subject to the tyranny of the majority and the issue at heart is how to best satisfy the needs and wishes of the dominant culture.

Consequences of colonialism on First Nations peoples have been devastating from the start. It is a story of loss. When the people of North America were colonized, the colonizers took everything — land, traditional hunting territories, language, culture, and eventually, even their children. Some argue it was merely misplaced Christian charity, but to simplify an age of wrongs into one trite phrase is to make light of an immense wrong, a gaping wound that is not yet healed.

I realize that the average British Columbian feels distanced from the issue in general, and feels that it may be ancient history to bring up old wrongs, but allow me to put perspective on the issue. My grandmother went to the residential school at Coqualeetza in Chilliwack when she was a just a young girl. The residential school model was not abandoned until 1951, one year before my mother was born, fortunately for her. It's a history of wrongs not as ancient as might imagine.

Righting past wrongs is not about placing blame. It's about making restitution and restoring full rights to the First Nations, and thereby restoring dignity and rebuilding communities that are still suffering the effects of colonialism's errors.

Joseph Conrad called the discovery of America "the occasion of the greatest outburst of cruelty and reckless greed known in history." And yet I've heard people say we cannot look into the future if we are facing backwards, that is, dwelling on the past. An eloquent sentiment, but one that is hopelessly flawed when you consider that what seems like ancient history to most British Columbians is still a living reality today for many first nations.

Even without considering that many families still suffer the devastating personal effects of residential school abuse — mental, physical and sexual—we can take a look at the conditions that many First Nations live in today. Worse than substandard housing, lack of adequate emergency medical facilities, and in some cases a lack of electricity and indoor plumbing.

Let's not forget the incident in Saskatchewan two years ago, where two police officers were accused of abandoning a First Nations man on the side of the road in January after taking away his coat. They drove him to the edge of Saskatoon, took his jacket and told him to find his own way back. Fortunately for him, he did. But, only days later, frozen bodies of two other aboriginal men were found in the same area. The officers were charged a couple of months later. If this is a new millennium, why does it bear such striking resemblance to the last one?

I had an opportunity to speak before the Liberal panel organized to hold meetings throughout B.C. to consult with the public on the treaty referendum (in other words, to ask the public what they should ask the public). This seems to me to be a conflict of interest to allow the public to pose the question to themselves, and then vote on it. If the Liberals truly had all of British Columbians' interests at heart, why was there not one First Nations person sitting on the panel? It was a strange experience, to be addressing a room full of right-wing Liberals in suits (if Liberals can be right-wing). Perhaps my carefully planned presentation fell on deaf and indifferent ears, but speaking out is one of the last weapons first nations people have, even if we're merely flailing hopelessly at a Goliath.

Needless to say, I have my doubts as to the effectiveness of a treaty referendum. I fear the Liberal government in this province has a cure-all plan that will make everybody happy, when the reality is the treaty process must continue regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Maybe we should ask, what is it really going to accomplish? Likely it will only lead to more confrontation.

I desperately hope this referendum is not simply a tactic of the Liberal government attempting to please a referendum-happy electorate. I think the best chance the provincial government — who has shown little support or belief in the treaty process, even to the point of filing a lawsuit challenging the Nisga'a Agreement in 1998 — has to alleviate these fears and suspicions, if and when the elusive question is finally framed, will be with the full participation and consultation of a diverse party of individuals. Persons representing the First Nations, persons from the previous government who initiated the process, and members from the B.C. Treaty Commission, who have been studying and working on the issue for the past few years should all participate. This is the best I can offer to such a flawed proposal.

If they truly desired to streamline the process, is it really a good idea to bring four million British Columbians to the table? If it was called a tri-partite committee before, what does four million people and three parties make? To me it seems only to be more political strong-arming. It doesn't take a mathematician to see how easily four million people can twist the arm of a few hundred thousand. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to ask the uninformed public to cast a vote based on media information, and knee-jerk reactions on an issue that will affect the lives of B.C.'s first nations, who since first contact, have had their voice stifled time again.

If the provincial government decides that it is reasonable, then I must also suggest it is only reasonable to include representatives from First Nations people in the drafting of that all-important question, and to allow the first nations peoples a vote in deciding who will frame such a question—perhaps Matthew Coon Come, or Ovide Mercredi, or Miles Richardson, who sits on the B.C. Treaty Commission.

Even this is the equivalent of walking in circles hopelessly, affirming and reaffirming what first nations peoples have known since first contact: that any negotiations must be on the colonizer's terms, and in his time. He must not be asked to give back even a little of what has been stolen, and he must not be asked to make costly restitution for wrongs suffered at his hands. It's just not good for the economy. It's not reasonable.

First Nations peoples continue to hope that the Liberal government will get to the task at hand, sit down with us and get a deal hammered out. Maybe I'm too cynical, but First Nations peoples can hardly be blamed for our suspicions. It's actually quite typical of aboriginal affairs in B.C. It's practically a tradition. And besides, as one of my favorite playwrights, George Bernard Shaw, put it, "the power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

When Canada was formed, the First Nations were guaranteed their way of life would not be disturbed—that if they submitted to the English rule of law, they would be protected by it because all would be considered equal under the law. But it was a false promise indeed. They were denied the vote, they were not permitted to purchase any land, and even prohibited by law from hiring a lawyer to represent their cause.

Eventually, the government of British Columbia was forced by the Supreme Court of Canada to admit that aboriginal title was a fact and they would have to deal with this issue. They finally set forth with the treaty process just a few short years ago. Obviously, this process cannot now be halted. My hope is that the government of this province will not let us down again.

And yet still I hear a faint chanting in the background, is it fading, or slowly growing louder? "We are the Borg(substitute with dominant culture of your choice)…you will be assimilated…resistance is futile...your culture will adapt to service ours...freedom is irrelevant…self-determination is irrelevant...negotiation is irrelevant…you will comply! You will become one with the Liberals…You will all become one with the Liberals!"

Copyright © 2002 K Jordon. All Rights Reserved.