Fraser Institute Asks: Is the Nisga'a Treaty Moral?

Contact:

Suzanne Walters, Director of Communications
The Fraser Institute, (604) 714-4582 Email: suzannew@fraserinstitute.ca

Release Date: 28 May, 1999

Vancouver, BC>>> By subjecting Indians to a different legal and policy regime from other Canadians, the Nisga'a Treaty does not measure up to the bedrock principles of Canadian society, says respected commentator Gordon Gibson in a new paper, A Principled Analysis of the Nisga'a Treaty, released today by The Fraser Institute.

The proposed Nisga'a Treaty has been examined from many different perspectives, but in this new paper Gibson argues that the proposed Treaty is not a fundamentally moral one because it subjects future generations of Indian children to an approach based on race.

"Here is the moral question. What right has our society to treat any newborn child differently from another, based strictly on whether or not the parents are Indians?" asks Gibson. "What right has society to construct a strong set of incentives to adhere to a particular collective which may or may not be a constructive addition to the child's welfare?"

Gibson argues that we are not justified in constitutionally applying a unique set of legal and financial incentives to a small subset of society. "By setting up special legal, financial, and policy regimes for aboriginal Canadians, we interfere with their lives in unusual ways. How do we justify this?" Gibson says this question is "revolutionary" in the context of current policy but must be asked.

The paper also argues that the proposed treaty contravenes the basic principles of Canadian society in a number of ways. Democracy and accountability are contravened because of the large amount of power concentrated in a small government. "Because most cash and resources in the economy will flow through the Nisga'a government by virtue of the terms of the treaty, people will be uncommonly dependent upon and beholden to that government," observes Gibson. He says that the result may be governments that control people rather than people controlling government.

The treaty also has dramatic implications for personal freedom, as almost the entire material endowment of the Nisga'a people is to be owned and controlled by the Nisga'a government.

Neither the treaty nor the ratification process gives individual Nisga'a the option of owning and controlling his or her share, or even part of his or her share, of the land, capital, and other asset endowments established by the treaty.

The treaty also raises troubling questions about participation in the democratic process, both among resident and non-resident Nisga'a themselves, and among non-Nisga'a residing on Nisga'a lands. Thus, the true nature of equality and citizenship accorded to the Nisga'a can also be questioned under the terms of this treaty.

"The results of this 'Indians-as-different' approach are known to all. It has been a human tragedy by many social, economic, and cultural measures, notwithstanding a great deal of money and the best of intentions in recent years. That tragedy should introduce a bit of humility into the plans of the policy makers," concludes Gibson.

Established in 1974, The Fraser Institute is an independent public policy organization based in Vancouver.

Suzanne Walters,Director of Communications The Fraser Institute, (604) 714-4582, Email: suzannew@fraserinstitute.ca

info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580

You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.