Re: NisgaBԪַa proving critics wrong (B.C. Views, Dec. 3).
Tom Fletcher seems to have had an epiphany thatBԪַs led to his urging acceptance of Supreme Court of Canada rulings which enabled the creation by the NisgaBԪַa Nation of (FletcherBԪַs words) BԪַa parallel stateBԪַ in B.C.
Fletcher may never have learned that BԪַtwo wrongs donBԪַt make a right.BԪַ
The first long-standing wrong at issue is the sorry treatment of aboriginals in both B.C. and across Canada. Despite significant improvements over recent years, more remains to be done.
The second wrong is that the Supreme Court of Canada now enables a new layer of government in B.C. WhatBԪַs been created is a BԪַlanded gentryBԪַ of sorts who have, in effect, received authority to exercise sovereign powers. They now plan to establish multiple export-enabling liquid natural gas terminals on the B.C. coast.
B.C. taxpayers will follow such developments with interest, particularly if there is no parallel commitment by the NisgaBԪַa to assume increasing responsibility for both federal and provincial government services, as their BԪַparallel stateBԪַ business plans prove profitable.
The old adage that BԪַthereBԪַs only one taxpayerBԪַ could, with NisgaBԪַa concurrence, remain a truism. ItBԪַs based on the realization that whether itBԪַs for services provided by local, provincial or federal governments, most voters and elected leaders have long recognized itBԪַs the voting taxpayer who determines both government funding levels and program priorities.
Unanswered questions include: Will this aboriginal BԪַparallel stateBԪַ acknowledge a responsibility to participate BԪַ within its anticipated capability BԪַ as a fully functional entity within our national federation?
Will it fund a portion of the many provincial and federal government services it now receives?
Will it commit to creating and funding its self-determined unique government service programs?
Historical antipathy between First Nations, local, provincial and federal agencies indicates a need for strong, but flexible leadership at all four governmental levels.
In seeking a comprehensive governmental rebalancing, weBԪַll hopefully avoid historically based emotional rhetoric supporting retributive rationale if weBԪַre to minimize costly, confrontational negotiations.
In B.C., our often-envied Canadian cultural mosaic is at risk of becoming a dysfunctional and tattered societal quilt.
Ron Johnson
Saanich