Public Policy Sources #38:
Equity

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

The overwhelming majority of Canadians want to be "fair" in terms of quantum of settlement. Unfortunately, this broad area of public generosity does not necessarily overlap with the minimum expectations of Indians, who have been led to believe by a generation of fuzzy-talking politicians that just about anything is possible. These misled expectations may for many citizens escape the bounds of generosity into the land of the ridiculous. But that said, the markers so far laid down by the courts suggest that we are going to be talking about very large sums of money and areas of land.

Additionally, Indians do not see settlements as being in any sense voluntarily "generous." They see them as a matter of right, grudging concessions gained only after a long struggle. Therefore, non-aboriginal Canadians should not expect any sense of gratitude whatsoever for settlements reached.

Fortunately, there are two mitigating factors for this problem of differing expectations. First, the real-world negotiating experiences of both federal and provincial negotiators in the BC treaty process has educated governments immeasurably as to the magnitude of their problem. Their increasingly harder lines in turn have gradually educated Indian negotiators as to realistic possibilities. Unhappily, both sides are caught in the expectations of their constituencies, who want to pay less on the government side and expect much more on the Indian side. There is no way to square this circle except by lengthy and painful grinding of the immoveable object against the irresistible force.

The happier factor is that in economic terms, this question of the quantum of generosity doesn't really matter as much as the huge numbers (in terms of land and cash) would seem to indicate. The political reality is that Canadians generally are determined that a social safety net will be furnished, in quantities as required, to everyone who needs it. This is as true of Indians in need as anyone else. Therefore, a great deal more cash and other resources will have to be dedicated to improving the native condition whatever happens. Huge dollars are inevitably involved. The issue is how best to spend them.

From this point of view, the only question is the timing and manner of payment. Will it be by way of continuing the pattern of endless, soul-destroying welfare, or by a new way of capital payments (in cash and kind) and investment in human resources that establish an ongoing patrimony to displace welfare payments?

As to transfers of land, does it really matter in economic terms whether the government of British Columbia owns a forest and uses the proceeds to subsidize an Indian band, or whether the band owns the forest and takes the profits directly?12

Cynics may rightly argue that history teaches us that capital payments or asset transfers to any disadvantaged group are often soon dissipated without enduring effect. However, if, at a minimum, the payments concerned meet the test of reconciliation and finality, so that from that date forward Indians are treated as ordinary Canadians from a social policy standpoint, then that in itself is a development of great value.13 And of course, capital payments may, in fact, be used to great advantage, depending upon the prudence of the recipients.

[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.