Public Policy Sources:

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

This is a bottom-line goal for most non-aboriginals, and probably for most aboriginals not a part of the Indian Industry. However, a significant number of the Indian elite draw their status and livelihood from non-resolution. Finality is not in their personal interest. They attempt to justify this by an in-principle argument against the traditional treaty words of "cede, release, and surrender" with respect to potential claims not covered by the treaty, and to give the lack of finality institutional life in requirements for ongoing consultations and negotiations and co-manage- ment schemes.

On the other hand, "when it's over, it's over" is the intent of ordinary people. This treaty making among Canadians is a very painful, costly business that is bearable only because of the hope that there will be an end to it sometime.

From the aboriginal side, "resolution" has an additional component, specifically, giving constitutional protection to treaties. This is because there are historically unusually favourable negotiating conditions now from the aboriginal perspective, which conditions are unlikely to endure as the public gains a greater understanding of the issues. Therefore, any agreement which could be re-opened later might be attacked and undermined in the future, unless constitutionally protected.

This approach of constitutional protection of treaties, however, has the effect of casting the arrangements in concrete. This, in turn, leads to caution on both sides and a quest for perfection. The "best deal" becomes the enemy of a "good deal" - the latter, of course, far more easily achievable. Indeed, it is in part this "forever" problem that makes agreements so difficult to arrive at.

This "forever" problem also makes it all the more undesirable to try to constitutionalize such continually evolving areas as governance. Times change, and as will be suggested later, governance should be and remain a delegated (i.e., non-constitutionalized) matter.

Finality is very difficult to achieve. Partly this is because no one can know what a court will say in the future about any form of words, however perfect. More importantly, finality is a threat (both practical and psychological) to a lot of people who have lived their lives focused on grievance and its redress. It is awfully hard to renounce a major basis of one's life, in saying that the issue is finally over.

That said, and all of the difficulties canvassed, without the maximum practical finality there is no point in doing the hard dealing. There must be a payoff in treaties for all parties in interest, or agreements simply will not happen.

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

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

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Thursday, August 5, 1999.