[quote=“chiefdave”]I am in no way advocating for Kitkatla, far from actually, but, there are definately other factors in at play in the dollar amounts you are refferring.
Firstly revenue sharing is not exactly a defined term, simply meaning that I don’t think the numbers are based on the revenue for any particular year. Rather the dollar amounts were negotiated based on the negotiators skills and, secondly the assumption of Rights and Title not being recognized(over time or ever). Something like compensation, without actually compensating…I guess.[/quote]
I appreciate that you are in no way advocating for Kitkatla’s leaders. My read of your comments on this and other issues is that you reflect a different and more constructive approach within the aboriginal community that Kitkatla’s leaders unfortunately do not seem to support at this time.
The amount of money that has been paid over as “revenue sharing” has been based on per capita allocations to each band that has signed an agreement; not on the skills of particular negotiators. By my read of the policy (available online), no negotiator should be getting big bonuses for these deals. Here is what the Ministry’s FAQ says:
“Will each First Nation across the province get the same amount? No, but each First Nation that signs a Forest and Range Agreement will receive a share of the available forestry revenue sharing budget on a per capita basis.”
It appears that at least $50 million a year has been budgeted since around 2005/06.
I think that your comment that the funds paid are “Something like compensation, without actually compensating” says a lot about the overall situation. The BC Treaty Process was supposed to compensate and otherwise resolve all major concerns, but it gives every appearance of being a colossal failure, with over $1 billion having been spent with precious little in the way of concrete results so far.
I hesitate to say this, but the much-maligned Liberal government has shown considerable creativity in coming up with alternative approaches. By entering into deals with most of the bands in the province, that provide for “revenue sharing” and forest tenures, the government pretty much ended “the war in the woods”. Here is one summary from the policy statement of what they hoped to achieve:
“These agreements provide the Ministry with operational stability and assist First Nations to achieve their economic objectives by providing revenue and direct award of timber tenure.”
“Operational stability”, that’s what the government has been hoping for in return for all of these millions that have been paid out; and it looks like in most of the province that has been achieved.
The government’s forest agreements come across as loosely structured deals that are largely based on good faith, with the bands being provided no strings attached funding, and an opportunity for a direct award of a forest tenure (which may or may not be a good deal; times being rather tough). The only caveat is that if problems arise they will be discussed at a governmental level without the interests of innocent third parties, including businesses and workers, being held for ransom due to blockades or other forms of retaliatory action.
The overwhelming majority of bands seem to have bought into that vision. I cannot recall the last time that I heard of a logging blockade anywhere, until now. That’s what I find objectionable about the Kitkatla leadership’s approach. They accept millions that the government has made available under what is called the “New Relationship”, but they evidently want to practice the old style of politics. They should not be able to have it both ways.