Premier Christy Clark鈥檚 plan 鈥� if there is a plan 鈥� to reform the treaty process is off to a bad start. It鈥檚 a process requiring consultation, communication and trust, but none of those are apparent in the cabinet鈥檚 inexplicable dumping of George Abbott days before he was to become chief commissioner of the sa国际传媒 Treaty Commission. It seems a whimsical and erratic move, and that doesn鈥檛 bode well for future interactions involving the government and First Nations.
Participants could be forgiven for wondering when the next goofy decision will be dumped on them.
Abbott, a former Liberal cabinet minister whose portfolios included aboriginal relations and reconciliation, was offered the treaty commission post last September by Aboriginal Relations Minister John Rustad. That initiated a process that was to culminate in his replacing current chief commissioner Sophie Pierre next week.
The appointment had the support of the NDP Opposition, the endorsement of the First Nations Summit chiefs and the tacit approval of the federal government.
But last week, as Abbott was in transition meetings, he was informed by Rustad that the provincial cabinet had vetoed the appointment. It was a move that shocked and disappointed principals in the treaty process, including the retiring chief commissioner.
鈥淭his retraction of the chief-commissioner selection after months of agreement, expectation and reliance by the other parties raises questions about sa国际传媒鈥檚 commitment to the treaty-negotiation process,鈥� Pierre said. 鈥淭his is not how to effect reconciliation.鈥�
Grand Chief Edward John expressed sympathy for Abbott and concern for the process: 鈥淚鈥檓 sure it says a lot about government commitment, and agreements that are reached, that they simply can just disregard them.鈥�
In the legislature this week, Clark was long on apologies, but short on explanations.
鈥淭he communication with George was terrible,鈥� she told reporters. 鈥淚 do very much regret the fact that communication with George was done very, very badly.鈥�
She said Abbott was rejected because the cabinet decided to take the treaty process in a different direction, but that鈥檚 the stock phrase used by hiring managers when they reject an otherwise-qualified candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with potential job performance.
Clark said the treaty process has been going on for 22 years at a cost of $600 million and has produced only four treaties. 鈥淲e have to be able to move faster,鈥� she said.
Fair enough, but before you start moving faster, you need to determine which direction you鈥檙e going. That the current process needs improvement isn鈥檛 in question, but Clark has no idea how the government will fix it.
鈥淲e are not going to go out and unilaterally define what the process is going to look like,鈥� she said.
After unilaterally blindsiding all the other participants in the treaty process, could she really say that with a straight face?
Two possible scenarios emerge. The cabinet woke up suddenly one morning last week with the realization that the treaty process has been long and costly, or it has been pondering changing the process for months, but didn鈥檛 bother to tell Abbott, the current chief commissioner, the other treaty participants or even Rustad.
Neither possibility inspires confidence or speaks well of the government鈥檚 capability to move the treaty process in a better direction.
The treaty process is inextricably tied to sa国际传媒鈥檚 future, especially since the Tsilhqot鈥檌n decision. This isn鈥檛 a sideshow 鈥� it鈥檚 a main act.
If Clark and her government have a better plan for moving the treaty process ahead, they should share it. Disrupting the process simply because they don鈥檛 like it is not good enough.
