Is it true that under a core treaty you are just punting difficult questions to the future? And if so, I hear that is not always good (negotiators leave, resource not there anymore to continue, etc.).

Some other nations are taking a different approach. For example, we understand that some First Nations are using the Core Treaty concept to build treaties incrementally if they choose not to negotiate all elements of the treaty now. It may be that some Nations might want to leave more difficult issues for the future, and that is their right. As K’omoks is well advanced in treaty negotiations, we want to negotiate a comprehensive Nation to Nation Relationship, but not all that relationship should be in the treaty and receive constitutional protection. Only those matters involving recognition of K’omoks rights should be included in a treaty and receive constitutional protection, other matters can go into the appendix and side agreements or other constructive arrangements. We will not be “punting” the hard issues. But it will take time.