Part one of two-part series
Premier Christy Clark made a remarkably clumsy move in rescinding former cabinet minister George Abbott's appointment to the B.C. Treaty Commission at the last minute.
But the federal report on the overall treaty process released last week shows there's a pretty sound argument for a major rethink of what is now widely acknowledged to be a monumental waste of time and money. It wasn't on her desk last month when she said a new approach is needed, upending months of work prepping Abbott and everyone else for his new role as chairman of the commission. But she likely had an inkling of the direction Doug Eyford was headed in his special report to the federal minister responsible for the treaty process.
He has arrived at the same conclusion that many others have reached over the past several years. The treaty process just isn't working. Eyford's conclusion applies to treaties across Canada, but particularly in B.C. There's nothing new or startling in his conclusion. But the fact an important adviser to the senior partner in the process is now in that camp gives it much more weight.
It's dismaying to read -- and agree with -- the conclusion, given the high hopes when modern treaty-making started more than 20 years ago. The commission was set up to be the keeper of the brand-new process in 1992. Negotiations started in 1993 and there were optimistic estimates that the whole mammoth effort would be signed, sealed and delivered by 2000.
It took 15 years to get just one treaty concluded. Twenty-two years later, four treaties have been done (the Nisga'a Treaty was done separately, outside the process). There are 53 negotiating tables with about half the 198 bands in B.C. involved. Only four are anywhere near a final agreement, and Eyford said no more than 10 will arrive at deals in the foreseeable future.
First Nations borrow money to cover the cost of negotiations, and the accumulated loans just in B.C. amount to about $500 million. That outstanding debt is a barrier to closing the deals and exiting from the process, said the report.
"The commission has consistently acknowledged the concerns about indebtedness. Nevertheless, it continues to allocate funding even where little progress is being made and the conclusion of a treaty is unlikely."
The national scorecard is just as bad. Since 1973, just 26 agreements have been finalized, from 122 land claims. Today, 75 claims are under negotiation, and 80 per cent of them have been in the process for longer than 10 years, some for more than two decades. The federal government has advanced more than $1 billion to bands through loans and grants and spends $23 million a year participating in talks that go mostly nowhere.
After six months studying the process, Eyford noted "a conspicuous lack of urgency." He described the pace as "languorous."
There are three parties at most tables -- First Nations, the province and Canada -- and all three share the blame for the stall. Eyford's mandate focused on the federal role and he found lots of fault. There are common complaints the federal government can't agree on its own position, given the number of departments involved. Cabinet approval is required at various stages of talks, and each approval can take two years or more.
The original idea of treaties being aspirational, nation-building initiatives is gone. They're just another government program mired in bureaucratic intransigence and inertia, some believe.
"Canada is considered an uncreative negotiating partner," Eyford reported.
But he noted many aboriginal groups are hesitant to close deals out of apprehension about the permanence and finality of treaties.
"The fact the treaty process provides a constant source of funding and employment ... can also serve as a disincentive."
Bernard Valcourt, the minister responsible, now has a report that indisputably labels the process a failure. Clark essentially said the same thing when she yanked Abbott's appointment, and various First Nations have had that stance for years.
So it's close to unanimous. But deciding on an alternative is where the arguments start.
More tomorrow.
