Public Policy Sources #38:
Disentanglement

[Previous] [Contents] [Next]

It is a curious reality that notwithstanding the stated wish of Indian bands to get on with their lives under their own control, and the wish of governments to extricate themselves from the myriad problems of the existing situation, treaty solutions arrived at to date or under negotiation tend to provide for a good deal of two-way responsibility and continuing entanglement of one party with the other. For example, the Nisga'a Treaty provides for up to 50 future sets of negotiations or consultations.

To a certain extent this is unavoidable. For example, when a senior level of government provides ongoing funding for a social program purpose, ongoing negotiations, expected program standards, and auditing are required. This is true whether the recipient of the funds is a native government or a municipality or a voluntary agency.

But some of the greatest problem areas are totally avoidable, particularly with respect to resource administration. Provisions for "co-management" of timber, wildlife, and fishery resources are simply a recipe for continuing disagreement and bureaucracy.13 This is one of those areas where the Indian Industry (on both sides of the table) is set on building in its own continuing importance, rather than working itself out of business.

To the maximum extent possible, treaty arrangements should allow each party to do its ongoing routine business without reference to the other. It does not matter a great deal whether, for example, a given block of wildlife resource or timber is under the control of a tribal council (or any other private owner, or a municipality, for that matter) or the provincial minister. Where it does matter is having it nominally under the control of both.

In the same vein but as an even greater problem, the Nisga'a Treaty provision that the government of British Columbia must consult with the Nisga'a government on any future legislation that might affect the subject matter of the treaty is simply too broad, to the point of being ridiculous. No municipality, even the largest, has such an undertaking, nor should much smaller Indian governments.

[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.