The Globe and Mail is Canada’s national newspaper with the second largest broadsheet circulation in the country. It has enormous influence on Canada’s political and business elite.
Current unpredictability in world oil markets aside, Canada’s economic prosperity lies in the development of its natural resources. What’s equally evident is that aboriginal communities are going to demand, and receive, a greater share of that wealth.
It wasn’t long ago that the notion of apportioning a percentage of resource revenue to First Nations was considered lunacy. But a series of court decisions over the past couple of decades has imposed a change of thinking on the country’s political class. Consequently, governments have slowly begun coming around to the idea there might be more to be gained by making aboriginal groups legitimate economic partners in resource development than by continuing to shut them out of the action.
But the approaches taken by provincial entities and territorial governments have been ad hoc, creating a patchwork of revenue-sharing arrangements. Some governments, such as British Columbia, have aggressively pursued these agreements, while Saskatchewan and Alberta remain holdouts.
In a well-reasoned paper being released Friday by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, author Ken Coates argues that it’s time for the country to more fully embrace resource revenue pacts as a means of improving the lives of First Nations people and creating a more stable resource development environment.
“There is an excellent foundation for improving resource revenue sharing in Canada,” writes Mr. Coates. “In the current environment, proceeding without due recognition of aboriginal rights and interests is untenable, for a variety of moral, legal, political and economic reasons.”
He’s right, of course, but not everyone agrees. As mentioned, Alberta and Saskatchewan both refuse to make resource revenue a pillar of economic development. Premier Brad Wall has said that as long as he’s in charge, there will be no special deals for any groups in terms of natural resource revenue sharing. There are a raft of such arguments, Mr. Coates points out.
There is a view, for instance, that the money the federal government sends to support First Nations communities is already partially supported by resource revenue. Some believe many aboriginal governments don’t have the administrative capacity to handle substantial cash infusions. There is also a feeling that aboriginal communities could become dependent on this money and would not properly prepare themselves for inevitable downturns in the market or the eventual disappearance of the resource itself.
For the rest of this article, click here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/aboriginal-revenue-sharing-is-an-idea-whose-time-has-come/article22589275/