FOOTBALL WAS FUN

Reading your Sunday, Nov. 22 paper, I came across an article in the sports section entitled "Raiders ousted in overtime", regarding a minor football team. The article was on the Midget Raiders, the coach was full of praise for the inaugural season which was nice to see. What was not nice to see was that in the second-to-last paragraph, the coach omitted to also commend the fine play of the 18 year olds who also made up the team.

This was the final year of play for these young men. Their choices now if they wish to continue playing football, are to make the roster of a university team or to play for a junior team (18 to 22 year olds). At this moment Richmond does not have a junior team.

Once upon a time the junior Richmond Raiders existed and there are some hard-working people trying to resurrect this team. Please watch The Review for meeting announcements, and if you have a love for football or were ever a Raider, come out and show your respect.

Yes, I am a parent of one of these 18 year olds, but I am not writing this on his behalf only. It is for all 18 year olds in the Lower Mainland whose last year this could be with football.

I want to thank all those players from Richmond and other areas. I have watched minor football for eight years now and have enjoyed every moment. I will continue to got out on a Sunday and support Richmond football teams.

Oh, and let's not be remiss and forget about the coaches. Congratulations to you gentleman and good luck in whatever you choose to do next year.

Rhainne Kiernan
Richmond

TREATY CORRECTS WRONGS

My concern about the current debate surrounding the Nisga'a Treaty extends beyond the immediate question of the Nisga'a Treaty to the success of the treaty-making process under way throughout the province.

For example, there have been concerns that treaties reinforce racism and inequality. It is my opinion that treaty settlements will in fact further the cause of equality. Treaties will go a long way to increasing self-sufficiency in aboriginal communities and allow aboriginal people access to the economic mainstream. They will allow aboriginal people to go forward with dignity, equipped with the confidence that they can make critical contributions to the social, political and economic life of B.C. and Canada. Treaties offer a significant step toward healing a society that has suffered atrocious human rights abuses.

Treaties will not solve all the economic and social problems besetting aboriginal people in B.C. However, the establishment of a solid economic base for their communities is an essential step. The certainty that treaties will bring to the province will encourage increased investment. Aboriginal people, too, will invest settlement money in the province. As income disparity diminishes between aboriginal and non-aboriginal individuals, there will be savings in social expenditures and less reliance on government support.

Without treaties, aboriginal people will on average continue to live well below Canadian norms for income, life expectancy, employment, education, housing and all other measures of quality of life. They will continue to suffer higher infant mortality, suicide rates, unemployment and welfare dependency and below-average income and life expectancy.

It is time to recognize that previous policies designed to assimilate aboriginal people were wrong.

On Dec. 10, we will be celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. On Jan. 1 the new British Columbia Human Rights Code will have been in effect for two years. During my term as chief commissioner, I have observed that British Columbians have taken significant steps towards achieving a society where all are equal in dignity and rights. I count among those achievements the tremendous energy and generosity of spirit that motivated people all across B.C. to speak out against hatred and racism in their communities. I count the growing number of partnerships that equality-seeking organizations and individuals are entering with the commission, and without whom programs like Youth Awareness in Action 1998 would not be possible. Youth Awareness in Action is an educational program which provides an opportunity for youth throughout British Columbia to explore human rights issues and to learn the values of equality, dignity and self-worth inherent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I count the provincial government's initiative in recognizing the rights of gay men and lesbians by enacting legislation, which has set a precedent for other Canadian jurisdictions. I count the Coquitlam School District's approval of comprehensive anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy as setting an example for other school districts. And, of course, I count the treaty process which resulted in the Nisga'a Treaty.

You can agree or disagree with the specifics of the Nisga'a Treaty. While you are considering where you stand on the issue, please remember the treaty process is designed to restore the rights of aboriginal British Columbians and to correct current and historical human rights abuses.

DEBATE TREATY NOW

Last week Premier Glen Clark informed British Columbians that the legislature would soon be recalled to deal with the Nisga'a Treaty, perhaps as early as the end of the month.

We, in the B.C. Liberal caucus, believe that the constitutional issues raised by our court challenge should be resolved before the treaty is debated in the legislature. It would serve no one's interest to debate - and perhaps enact - a treaty that may be unconstitutional.

We also believe it is wrong to bring the treaty into the legislature without hearing directly from the people, in the form of a referendum on the principles underlying treaty negotiations.

But if the premier ignores these concerns and recalls the legislature, then the question arises what will that debate look like? Will we have a chance to debate the real treaty, rather than the "wanna be" treaty which is the subject of the government's hugely expensive advertising campaign?

I want to give an example of the kinds of issues that have not yet been debated but should be.

Chapter 18 of the treaty is entitled "Local and regional government relationships." Its main point is to clarify the relationship between the new Nisga'a government and the Regional District of Kitimat Stikine.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details.

Section 4 of this chapter is the real zinger. It reads: "British Columbia will not make any changes to electoral area boundaries that would result in Nisga'a lands being in more than one electoral area, without the consent of the Nisga'a lisims government."

Now obviously the Nisga'a want to ensure that their influence in provincial politics is not diluted by an electoral boundary change which might divide their communities in half.

The Nisga'a are not unique in this desire. The residents of my home community of Richmond also hope their sense of community identity is not someday fractured by inappropriate electoral boundary changes.

But the citizens of Richmond have no constitutional right even to be consulted about their electoral wishes, let alone a veto. The Nisga'a, however, will be given a veto by the provision I have just quoted.

This is a treaty promise. It will have constitutional protection under section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. Once made, the promise cannot be repealed. This section means quite simply that the Nisga'a will have a different constitutional status as electors than all other Canadian citizens (including all other aboriginal Canadians).

No one has ever suggested that aboriginal rights and title have anything to do with voting rights in provincial elections. I am astonished that our treaty negotiators made this commitment on our behalf.

The point is not simply theoretical. Some proponents of electoral reform argue for a system of proportional representation, which would essentially place all British Columbians in two electoral areas: one being their local constituency as in the present system, the other being a larger constituency for the election of what New Zealanders call "list" MPs. Would this change even be possible in B.C. without Nisga'a consent?

Some will no doubt argue that in practical terms this is a small concession. The argument is that there are not many Nisga'a, and they have reason to worry that a provincial government may seek to limit their political influence. I am not comforted. There are 50 or 60 more treaties to come. I do not think it is in anyone's interest to create a patchwork quilt of frozen electoral boundaries across the province.

To date, the provincial government has largely ignored the real Nisga'a Treaty, and instead tried to put British Columbians to sleep with a $5 million mixture of pan-pipe music, bird noises and picturesque shots of David Suzuki in Stanley Park. I say let the real debate begin and let's put an end to the NDP's Nisga'a propaganda once and for all.

Geoff Plant
Richmond-Steveston MLA

RE-THINK MISTAKES

What a mistake we made by voting thumbs down for ex-prime mininster Kim Campbell in the 1993 election, who wanted to update our helicopters, and who would have settled the "Somalia affair," and as a woman would have managed the store much better than those now in power.

In B.C., before we jump from the frying pan into the fire, which I believe we have already with this no-strategy-government in power, let's take a look back and re-think the wonderful abilities of Gordon Wilson, who we overlooked in the past.