![[Search]](/img/navbar/searchoff.gif)
![[Media Releases]](/img/navbar/mediaoff.gif)
![[Events]](/img/navbar/eventsoff.gif)
![[Online Publications]](/img/navbar/onlineoff.gif)
![[Order Publications]](/img/navbar/orderoff.gif)
![[Student]](/img/navbar/studentoff.gif)
![[Radio]](/img/navbar/radiooff.gif)
![[National Media Archive]](/img/navbar/archiveoff.gif)
![[Membership]](/img/navbar/membershipoff.gif)
![[Other Resources]](/img/navbar/resourcesoff.gif)
![[About Us]](/img/navbar/aboutoff.gif)

The Economic Freedom Network
|
|
Public Policy Sources #38: Asset Management
[Previous]
[Contents]
[Next]
The matter of administering commonly held property is a very different
issue. Much of the work of the Third Order of government proposed in the
Nisga'a Treaty would relate to asset management, and those aspects of the
treaty can be easily preserved.
Administration of Indian community property by organizations controlled
exclusively by Indians is nothing different in principle from the many
corporations and societies that manage property under ordinary Canadian
law. There is no conflict here.
However, Indian asset management entities as set up in the Nisga'a Treaty
(or by Band Councils across the country, for that matter) are no ordinary
societies or corporations, which are merely instrumental or supplementary
to most private property holdings in Canada. Rather, they are holding vehicles
for essentially the entire asset base of a community in many cases.
It can be argued, and I do so here, that community ownership of most property
is inferior to private ownership of most property, in terms both of husbandry
and freedom. Indeed, that is one of the major lessons of the twentieth
century, in the economic and political failures of the communist experiments.
And in respect of the freedom issue, power over asset management (through
the bestowal or withholding of benefits or related jobs) can become just
one more route by which a government has the power to control its people
and their votes.
Of course, adopting the communal property route as a part of treaty settlements
is a judgement to be made by the owners of Indian property and no one else.19
But other choices should be open, and assessed and chosen by the community,
rather than having this single model not just assumed, but actually imposed
by treaty. Other Canadians have no right to use their legal power to impose
such a model as a matter of law, which is what the Nisga'a Treaty (for
example) does.
[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.
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Modified: Thursday, August 5, 1999.
|
|