Proponents of the Northern Gateway Pipeline have touted the obvious economic and trade benefits of the proposal while expressing frustration at the length and complexity of the regulatory process.
A rigorous regulatory process is indeed a foundational element of sound decision-making. It is also crucial to building the public consensus fundamental to the successful development of large-scale projects. At the same time, a process should be timely and efficient. While these twin objectives are far from incompatible, they require intellectual integrity and transparency from all sides.
In what has passed for “debate” thus far on the issue, we’ve only heard the shrill doomsday rhetoric from opponents and advocates alike. Their cases have been far from comprehensive and sometimes appear to deliberately ignore key questions. For that reason, their arguments have been far from convincing. In fact, they have been dangerously polarizing and have sown confusion and distrust. There can be no winners when confidence erodes and leadership abdicates responsibility to provide citizens with a full and complete picture. That is the only way we can make reasonable judgments.
There has been an elephant in the room that all parties have been assiduously avoiding. The lack of any serious movement on treaties with First Nations is the central obstacle to any meaningful development of much of Canada’s resource endowment.
Global capital markets call the uncertainty surrounding the land claims of BC First Nations the “Canadian Discount”. It is impossible to quantify the opportunity cost of this perpetual state of uncertainty with respect to who holds title to what are “disputed” lands. But as long as that cloud exists, any meaningful development will not occur.
First Nations are increasingly entering into agreements with private sector partners, but it isn’t happening enough. Moreover, I do not know of any First Nation that specifically relinquishes their land claims over their “traditional territory” in executing these deals. There is more than enough jurisprudence to give sophisticated investors pause.
Both the federal and provincial governments are aware of this. Yet, the treaty process has run at slower than a snail’s pace for literally decades. Lack of movement on treaties is the single greatest impediment to economic development in British Columbia and much of Western Canada.
In an unprecedented expression of her exasperation, Sophie Pierre, chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, said that the process – and her office – should be “shut down”. It was a powerful rebuke. She suggested that Ottawa and Victoria were insincere in their expressed determination to settle treaties. The treaty “process” has gone on for more than 25 years and directly cost Canadian taxpayers at least $1 billion. In all that time, barely anything has been accomplished. To her credit, Ms. Pierre has called governments on their complacency. Of course, in all that time economies went undeveloped. The human cost of that neglect is incalculable.
The problem has not been the federal and provincial negotiators. These people, typically very capable officials, must function within the very narrow confines of the parameters established by their respective cabinets. The problem clearly is an almost complete absence of political will to resolve these long-standing claims, by both Ottawa and Victoria. There is an ideological aversion to treaties among many members of the Conservative caucus in Ottawa, despite the Supreme Court of Canada affirming their constitutionality.
As economist Hernando de Soto illustrated, the history of economic development and growth stems from having clarity of title to land. He estimated that Africans own an astonishing $1 trillion in ‘dead capital’ because their land cannot be used as collateral. That is what has happened to Aboriginal Canadians hand-cuffed by the arcane Indian Act and the unresolved claims on the traditional territories of First Nations in BC and elsewhere.
Treaties are urgently required for legal certainty. With that will come significant investment flow, jobs, and the kind of partnerships that will lift these societies from their complete dependency on Ottawa.
The only way to unlock the massive economic potential of First Nations and the Canadian resource economy is to aggressively address the fundamental issue of treaties. As Calvin Helin and others have correctly pointed out, there is no lack of opportunity in these communities. Gordon Gibson called it “opportunity rich, cash poor”.
Political will can turn that ‘dead capital’ into ‘live capital’. If that happens, it will transform for the better, not only the national economy, but the lives of countless thousands of our fellow citizens whose only wish is to be fully contributing members of Canadian society.
Original Article
Source: iPolitics
Author: Daniel Veniez
A rigorous regulatory process is indeed a foundational element of sound decision-making. It is also crucial to building the public consensus fundamental to the successful development of large-scale projects. At the same time, a process should be timely and efficient. While these twin objectives are far from incompatible, they require intellectual integrity and transparency from all sides.
In what has passed for “debate” thus far on the issue, we’ve only heard the shrill doomsday rhetoric from opponents and advocates alike. Their cases have been far from comprehensive and sometimes appear to deliberately ignore key questions. For that reason, their arguments have been far from convincing. In fact, they have been dangerously polarizing and have sown confusion and distrust. There can be no winners when confidence erodes and leadership abdicates responsibility to provide citizens with a full and complete picture. That is the only way we can make reasonable judgments.
There has been an elephant in the room that all parties have been assiduously avoiding. The lack of any serious movement on treaties with First Nations is the central obstacle to any meaningful development of much of Canada’s resource endowment.
Global capital markets call the uncertainty surrounding the land claims of BC First Nations the “Canadian Discount”. It is impossible to quantify the opportunity cost of this perpetual state of uncertainty with respect to who holds title to what are “disputed” lands. But as long as that cloud exists, any meaningful development will not occur.
First Nations are increasingly entering into agreements with private sector partners, but it isn’t happening enough. Moreover, I do not know of any First Nation that specifically relinquishes their land claims over their “traditional territory” in executing these deals. There is more than enough jurisprudence to give sophisticated investors pause.
Both the federal and provincial governments are aware of this. Yet, the treaty process has run at slower than a snail’s pace for literally decades. Lack of movement on treaties is the single greatest impediment to economic development in British Columbia and much of Western Canada.
In an unprecedented expression of her exasperation, Sophie Pierre, chief commissioner of the B.C. Treaty Commission, said that the process – and her office – should be “shut down”. It was a powerful rebuke. She suggested that Ottawa and Victoria were insincere in their expressed determination to settle treaties. The treaty “process” has gone on for more than 25 years and directly cost Canadian taxpayers at least $1 billion. In all that time, barely anything has been accomplished. To her credit, Ms. Pierre has called governments on their complacency. Of course, in all that time economies went undeveloped. The human cost of that neglect is incalculable.
The problem has not been the federal and provincial negotiators. These people, typically very capable officials, must function within the very narrow confines of the parameters established by their respective cabinets. The problem clearly is an almost complete absence of political will to resolve these long-standing claims, by both Ottawa and Victoria. There is an ideological aversion to treaties among many members of the Conservative caucus in Ottawa, despite the Supreme Court of Canada affirming their constitutionality.
As economist Hernando de Soto illustrated, the history of economic development and growth stems from having clarity of title to land. He estimated that Africans own an astonishing $1 trillion in ‘dead capital’ because their land cannot be used as collateral. That is what has happened to Aboriginal Canadians hand-cuffed by the arcane Indian Act and the unresolved claims on the traditional territories of First Nations in BC and elsewhere.
Treaties are urgently required for legal certainty. With that will come significant investment flow, jobs, and the kind of partnerships that will lift these societies from their complete dependency on Ottawa.
The only way to unlock the massive economic potential of First Nations and the Canadian resource economy is to aggressively address the fundamental issue of treaties. As Calvin Helin and others have correctly pointed out, there is no lack of opportunity in these communities. Gordon Gibson called it “opportunity rich, cash poor”.
Political will can turn that ‘dead capital’ into ‘live capital’. If that happens, it will transform for the better, not only the national economy, but the lives of countless thousands of our fellow citizens whose only wish is to be fully contributing members of Canadian society.
Original Article
Source: iPolitics
Author: Daniel Veniez
No comments:
Post a Comment