A Fraser Institute report released this week suggested the British Columbia First Nations treaty process had consumed more than $1 billion over 15 years and produced precious few results.
The B. C. Treaty Commission was set up in 1993 to help negotiations to settle treaty disputes with First Nations in B. C. The $1 billion represents money from the provincial and federal governments, as well as First Nations communities. Today, only one treaty has been successfully ratified with another expected soon, while 56 remain in negotiations.
"It's money that has been spent without a tremendous amount to show for it," Mark Milke, author of the report, said in an interview.
We're curious how much the Fraser Institute paid for its report since its conclusions about the B. C. treaty process could easily be filed under: Things We Already Know.
So the creation of a new commission to facilitate treaty negotiations did not produce an miracle solution to speedily resolve century-old disputes? The treaty process moves slowly and costs big bucks? Who knew?
Next, the right-wing think tank is going to tell us that the dispute settlement system in NAFTA doesn't work fairly and that the United Nations is beset by gridlock.
It's always valuable for the public to have more information and perspectives about how government money is being spent.
In Brantford, we've heard much about the salaries of those sitting at the negotiating table for talks stemming from the Six Nations land claim dispute in Caledonia.
But we're doubtful that there's anyone out there who thinks realistically that there's a cheap, quick fix for native land claims anywhere in Canada.
In B. C., the treaty process is different than the rest of Canada since lands were never legally ceded by First Nations. The basic issue, however, of two groups vying for a finite amount of land remains the same.
In Brantford, we can see at least four levels of governance involved in the land claims process -- the federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as Six Nations leadership -- with none of them having a common goal except, perhaps, resolution.
So negotiations are slow and expensive. Is there a better way?
The public may well feel that the money spent on negotiations would be better spent elsewhere. It's easy to see it as an added cost on top of the price of the eventual land claim settlement, if there is one in our lifetimes.
Nothing, however, gets settled without negotiation.
We've also seen locally how land claim protests have resulted in court action by both Brantford city council and the Six Nations elected council.
Is the public any happier seeing its money going to high-priced lawyers than it is watching it go to high-priced negotiators?
And does either hold more promise for any sort of resolution, much less a speedy one?
So the Fraser Institute is welcome and even encouraged to continue filing reports and keeping track of the money spent on settling disputes with aboriginals.
We're not sure it's going to change the unfortunate and unavoidable fundamentals of the centuries-old conflict between natives and non-natives in Canada.