Sure, Abbott, a former Liberal aboriginal affairs minister and Christy Clark leadership rival, was treated shabbily. Aboriginal Affairs Minister John Rustad recruited him six months ago. Abbott's selection had been vetted with the federal government and First Nations Summit, partners in the treaty process, and he was slated to be chief commissioner.
Then, less than two weeks before his term was to begin, the government pulled its support of Abbott. The reason? After several days of silence, Clark said her government plans to overhaul B.C.'s treaty process.
It should have seemed likely that this was more than a settling of old scores, given the political cost of this public bungling.
This week, Clark confirmed the government is tired of the B.C. Treaty Commission's lack of progress and prepared to walk away from the process.
The Treaty Commission has been a failure, with blame to be shared by all three partners and the commission. After 23 years and more than $1 billion, two treaties have been signed and are to be implemented. Another three First Nations are perhaps, close to an agreement.
Even if all those come to fruition, we are talking about treaties covering about 4,200 people after more than two decades.
First Nations alone have spent at least $627 million on the process; hiring lawyers, consultants and researchers. The federal and provincial governments have provided about $134 million in grants to help cover treaty negotiation costs. The federal government has loaned First Nations another $493 million that they must repay if they reach treaties or pull out of the process.
Dismal progress
The federal and provincial governments have likely spent at least the same amount to keep negotiations going for 23 years, with their lawyers and teams of negotiators. The provincial budget this year allocates $14 million for negotiations with First Nations.
The dismal progress is reason enough for the federal and provincial governments and First Nations Summit to take a serious look at whether the process can be fixed.
But Clark's unilateral attack on the process, with no consultation or apparent plan, is no solution.
Clark said a cabinet committee on First Nations has been working on the issue since last summer. But the committee was a secret until last week. It has held no consultations.
The working group, as she later characterized it, signals the government's priorities. Clark is the chair, and seven ministers are members. Rustad, of course, and Finance Minister Mike de Jong and Attorney General Suzanne Anton; plus Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman, Mines Minister Bill Bennett, Forests Minister Steve Thomson and Environment Minister Mary Polak.
It looks like a committee set up to find ways to advance the province's economic agenda, rather than deal with First Nations' issues. Given the dismal social and educational conditions for too many First Nations, where is Children and Families Minister Stephanie Cadieux or Education Minister Peter Fassbender?
Since former-premier Gordon Campbell launched the "New Relationship" initiative in 2005, the government has placed much more emphasis on interim agreements with First Nations. The deals most often cover revenue sharing and land management for resource development.
The approach has undermined the treaty process, according to a 2006 joint report by the federal and provincial auditors general. First Nations are reluctant to put time and money into a slow treaty process if they could get some of the benefits with a side deal.
But a reliance on interim agreements creates three main problems. First, the deals are often negotiated when the province, or a business, wants something. A large number of bands are never going to see any benefits.
Second, they are limited in scope and impact. Real treaties give First Nations the autonomy, certainty and resources needed to begin building stronger societies.
Moral obligation
And third, the interim agreements leave major issues unresolved. The commission was created to meet a moral obligation to reach treaties, but also in recognition that the alternative was decades of costly and risky court cases. Interim agreements don't remove that risk.
A thoughtful, carefully considered and critical look at the treaty process, with the other partners, would be a very good idea.
But the bungled Abbott appointment suggests the government has lost the plot on a key file.
If the government really has been developing a thoughtful position on the treaty process since last summer, how could Abbott have been considered the best choice until days before he started the role?
The treaty commissioners representing the federal government and First Nations criticized the flip-flop on Abbott, and expressed surprise at Clark's announcement that the province is prepared to give up on the process.
"In terms of next steps -- whether or not the Treaty Commission will be changed, whether or not it will continue to exist, how all that future will unfold with respect to treaties -- is going to be something that we do together with First Nations," Clark told reporters.
Dropping a bombshell on the other partners without warning is hardly going to encourage a co-operative approach.
Abbott's fate also suggests the government is leaning toward radical change. If the goal was to fix the process, then Abbott could be counted on for support. He was, after all, a Liberal cabinet minister for more than a decade, under Campbell and Clark.
But Abbott might not be quiet in the face of an attack on the commission that threatened the principles of treaty making.
Clark's surprise announcement has introduced tremendous uncertainty into the relationship with First Nations. That means yet another delay in the treaty process, and likely a slowdown in progress on other agreements as parties wait to see just what lies ahead.
The government needs to reveal, as quickly as possible, what its next steps will be. And it needs to demonstrate that its work on this file is not as slipshod as it now appears.
Original Article
Source: thetyee.ca/
Author: Paul Willcocks
No comments:
Post a Comment