Treaty talk secrecy creates confusion
With so much confusion swirling around native land claims treaties it shouldn't come as a surprise that some have chosen to lash out against treaties and the process that governs them.
One would think this reactionary fervour would lead officials involved in treaty talks to be up front and disclose all that will be a part of future negotiations, either with the aim of winning over the cynical public or just to make Joe Public understand what it's all about.
So far that hasn't been the case. Even our own civic leaders have been kept in the dark. A case in point was Monday night's council meeting which saw those involved in treaty discussions disclose that parks and other city assets may be involved in treaty talks. Before that, all talk focussed on surplus Crown lands - that's it.
Now we're told it will entail more. Just what and how much and in what way isn't known, but it's doubtful to include transferring title of such city assets. Rather, it may take the form some revenue sharing swaps or a co-management agreement.
But in order for the general public to get behind the treaty process they have to be given an opportunity to understand what it entails and why such lands and assets should become part of settlements.
That isn't going to happen with such secrecy. This secrecy has only served to stew the pot of confusion. In the absence of clear leadership, it's no wonder there has been a continuing backlash against the treaty process.
