Treaties and Land Claims: Current Problems

BC


July 15, 2020


Duty to Consult/FPIC

Bill 17 ignores Duty to Consult

NationTalk -The Tŝilhqot’in Nation has been actively involved in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources’ Comprehensive Review of BC Hydro, which contains many progressive ideas which, if intelligently implemented, would have positive impacts on energy policy benefiting all British Columbians. The changes contained in Bill 17 have never been raised during these engagements and these changes diminish the progressive ideas discussed in that review. It is disconcerting to realize that while this government was “consulting” on BC Hydro’s future, Bill 17 was secretly being developed.

Bill 17 would introduce a poorly conceived policy detrimental to regional economies and CleanBC targets, as well as the economic and self-sufficiency aspirations of First Nations in this province. The government’s myopic focus on the single priority of ‘affordability’ has blinded it to the ramifications this Bill has for many other government priorities. On the altar of ‘affordability’ would be sacrificed: Reconciliation, First Nations’ economic and governance aspirations, regional economic development opportunities, the energy self-sufficiency we enjoy in BC, clean energy and the NDP’s much touted environmental goals.


November 24, 2021


Duty to Consult/FPIC

Coastal First Nations vs Government of Alberta and 2 Métis organizations

Coastal First Nations – In the wake of the news that two Métis groups received funding from the Alberta Government to legally challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Coastal First Nations (CFN) will continue to fight to protect our waters, lands and resources from potential oil spills.

“We will do whatever it takes to protect our Territories,” said CFN executive director Christine Smith-Martin, adding that the decision to fund two groups, who claim to represent the Métis people, to challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act has nothing to do with reconciliation. “It shows how desperate the Alberta government is to challenge the Act that they would attempt to create division between First Nations and Métis groups.”
In a statement on November 15, Métis Nation of Alberta president Audrey Poitras called the Fort McKay and Willow Lake groups “unaccountable, undemocratic and illegitimate organizations.”
President Poitras further stated: “These organizations are not elected or accountable to anyone and are made up of non-Métis individuals. These organizations do not speak for the Métis Nation, the Métis people or Métis communities in Alberta.”

The Fort McKay group was recognized by the Alberta government as an autonomous Indigenous community in 2020. “If this group, which has been around for two short years thinks our communities will stand idly by, they are mistaken,” says Smith-Martin. “We fought too long to get the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in place.”
CFN communities have protected our Territories for at least 14,000 years, Smith-Martin said. “We know first-hand what an oil spill will do to our waters. The Heiltsuk Nation is still feeling the impacts of the Nathan E. Stewart spill.” “We take very seriously any threat or political maneuvering to challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act by organizations that are not the title holders of the coastal communities in which these tankers would have traveled,” she adds.

The Act protects our lands and waters for future generations. “Pipelines and oil tankers will exacerbate climate change and move us away from creating a sustainable economy. We respect the rights of legitimate groups to their economic aspirations but not at our expense. These two groups do not hold any rights in the Great Bear Rainforest and certainly have no say in what happens in our coastal Territories.”


November 24, 2021


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Coastal First Nations vs Government of Alberta and 2 Métis organizations

Coastal First Nations – In the wake of the news that two Métis groups received funding from the Alberta Government to legally challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, Coastal First Nations (CFN) will continue to fight to protect our waters, lands and resources from potential oil spills.

“We will do whatever it takes to protect our Territories,” said CFN executive director Christine Smith-Martin, adding that the decision to fund two groups, who claim to represent the Métis people, to challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act has nothing to do with reconciliation. “It shows how desperate the Alberta government is to challenge the Act that they would attempt to create division between First Nations and Métis groups.”
In a statement on November 15, Métis Nation of Alberta president Audrey Poitras called the Fort McKay and Willow Lake groups “unaccountable, undemocratic and illegitimate organizations.”
President Poitras further stated: “These organizations are not elected or accountable to anyone and are made up of non-Métis individuals. These organizations do not speak for the Métis Nation, the Métis people or Métis communities in Alberta.”

The Fort McKay group was recognized by the Alberta government as an autonomous Indigenous community in 2020. “If this group, which has been around for two short years thinks our communities will stand idly by, they are mistaken,” says Smith-Martin. “We fought too long to get the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act in place.”
CFN communities have protected our Territories for at least 14,000 years, Smith-Martin said. “We know first-hand what an oil spill will do to our waters. The Heiltsuk Nation is still feeling the impacts of the Nathan E. Stewart spill.” “We take very seriously any threat or political maneuvering to challenge the Oil Tanker Moratorium Act by organizations that are not the title holders of the coastal communities in which these tankers would have traveled,” she adds.

The Act protects our lands and waters for future generations. “Pipelines and oil tankers will exacerbate climate change and move us away from creating a sustainable economy. We respect the rights of legitimate groups to their economic aspirations but not at our expense. These two groups do not hold any rights in the Great Bear Rainforest and certainly have no say in what happens in our coastal Territories.”

See also Treaties and Land Claims post from Feb. 13, 2020 on Métis Nation of Alberta opposition to two Métis organizations designated by government of Alberta


December 11, 2021


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision,

Union of BC Indian Chiefs – UBCIC marks the 24th anniversary of the Supreme Court of Canada’s ground-breaking Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision, which confirmed the continuing existence of the Wet’suwet’en and Gitxsan Title and Rights, contrary to provincial claims that their Title, if it had existed, had been extinguished. On December 11, 1997 the six members of the Court taking part in the judgment were unanimous in their conclusions that the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Title and Rights were never extinguished by Crown occupation, and recognized Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en Title as inalienable, collective rights, based on their continuing use and occupation of their territories.

Since 2019 the RCMP have used force, aggression, and intimidatory tactics against Wet’suwet’en Nation members and allies, and UBCIC notes that while the CGL pipeline has been approved by both provincial and federal governments, it has come under criticism from Amnesty International, B.C.’s Human Rights Commission and the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, who say all First Nations affected by the pipeline should give free, prior and informed consent before it can proceed.

The governments of Canada and British Columbia continue to openly ignore the Supreme Court of Canada’s precedent-setting Delgamuukw decision, greenlighting the RCMP to engage in whatever violent tactics it deems appropriate to remove peaceful land defenders from their territories. UBCIC also notes that in 2020 the governments of Canada and B.C. signed an MOU with the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs which included:

  • Canada and B.C. recognize that Wet’suwet’en rights and title are held by Wet’suwet’en houses under their system of governance.
  • Canada and B.C. recognize Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal rights and title throughout the Yintah.
  • Legal recognition that the Wet’suwet’en Houses are the Indigenous governing body holding the Wet’suwet’en Aboriginal rights and title in accordance with [their] lnuk Nuatden.
  • Legal recognition of Wet’suwet’en title as a legal interest in land by Canada and B.C.

The UBCIC calls on Canada and BC to uphold the landmark Delagamuukw-Gisday’wa decision and federal and provincial legislation to implement the UN Declaration, and stop any violent or discriminatory practices against Wet’suwet’en land defenders defending their unceded territories.


May 24, 2019


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Heitsuk Nation arguments ignored by Appeal Court

Heiltsuk Nation – the B.C. Court of Appeal handed down a decision that reduces the power of provinces to protect lands and waters from inter-provincial infrastructural projects and that fails to recognize the role of Indigenous peoples in protecting the environment. Heiltsuk and Haida made arguments related to their inherent Indigenous title and rights and addressed gaps in the existing spill response framework that B.C.’s proposed legislation would address.

However, today’s reasoning makes no mention of Indigenous arguments, instead referring solely to federal and provincial jurisdiction. Ignoring Indigenous jurisdiction reflects continued unwillingness to take practical steps towards reconciliation and recognition of title and rights in the real world.

Heiltsuk’s experience with the Nathan E Stewart oil spill brought to light gaps in federal spill response that…were not even addressed by the court and, as a result of today’s decision, they remain in place:
Gaps in compensation for Indigenous losses because compensation under Canada’s Ship-source Oil Pollution Fund and Marine Liability Act’s definition of “pollution damage” focuses exclusively on “loss of profit”, ignoring the devastating impacts spills may have on food, social, and ceremonial losses.

No requirement for a robust Environmental Impact Assessment: An environmental impact assessment is critical to understanding both the short and long-term effects of an oil spill on the natural environment.


June 7, 2021


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Hišuk ma c̕awak Declaration

Huu-ay-aht, Ditidaht, and Pacheedaht First Nations – have been stewards of the forest, fisheries, and all resources within their ḥahahuułi (traditional territories).

On June 4, 2021, the three Nations signed the Hišuk ma c̕awak Declaration to take back their power over their ḥahahuułi. For more than 150 years they have watched as others decided what was best for their lands, water, and people. This declaration brings this practice to an immediate end.

“We have made a commitment to our people to manage the resources on our ḥahahuułi the way our ancestors did – guided by our sacred principles of:

  • ʔiisaak (utmost respect)
  • ʔuuʔałuk (taking care of), and
  • Hišuk ma c̕awak (everything is one)

explained Huu-ay-aht Tayii Ḥaw̓ił ƛiišin (Head Hereditary Chief Derek Peters), Ditidaht Chabut Satiixub (Hereditary Chief Paul Tate), and Pacheedaht’s Hereditary Chief Frank Queesto Jones.

“We are in a place of reconciliation now and relationships have evolved to include First Nations. It is time for us to learn from the mistakes that have been made and take back our authority over our ḥahahuułi.”
This Declaration acknowledges that three sacred principles are often ignored, and the Nations are the last to benefit from what is taken out of the territory and the last to be asked what must be put back.


March 8, 2022


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Nuchatlaht Nation Aboriginal Title case with BC Supreme Court

Windspeaker.com – The Nuchatlaht Nation began its legal battle in 2017 fighting BC and the federal government to get their land back. Their territory includes a large part of Nootka Island off the west coast of Vancouver Island. It has been impacted by industrial logging and fishing for almost a century since Nuchatlaht was displaced by the BC government. BC has awarded licenses to corporations to work the land. Western Forest Products, one of those licensees, is also a defendant in the case.

The remedy being sought, said Woodward, is that Aboriginal title exists and BC’s Forest Act ceases to apply.

“The forest companies are going to have to deal with Nuchatlaht, not with the provincial government and Nuchatlaht may decide they’re not going to keep cutting down those trees,” he said.

Woodward said he had just received the province’s statement of defence on the case, which outlined three arguments, that :

  • Nuchatlaht did not presently occupy the land; 
  • BC laws displaced or extinguished Aboriginal title; and
  • Nuchatlaht was “too small and weak” to have Aboriginal title.

Woodward chided the province for its “disgraceful argument” and called on the attorney general David Eby to “turn it around.” Woodward also called on the province to implement the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), which came into law in November 2019. BC was the first province to pass legislation that established the United Nations Declaration for the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP) as its framework for reconciliation.

The Nuchatlaht case will be the first land title to be tested against DRIPA and could be precedent setting.

Woodward said there are a number of other potential cases – Haida, Coquitlam, Cowichan Tribes – that could be impacted by this decision. The Nuchatlaht case is also a direct application of the precedent-setting 2014 Tsilhqot’in decision. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a semi-nomadic tribe can claim title to a tract of land even if used sporadically.


March 26, 2020


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Site C Dam and COVID-19

Open Letter from Union of BC Indian Chiefs to Premier John Horgan and Adrian Dix, Minister of Health – to halt construction of Site C Dam due to concerns around COVID-19. Through UBCIC Resolution 2011-25, UBCIC highlighted the environmental dangers of the Site C Dam and pointed to the devastating effects it will have on the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights of Treaty 8 First Nations. BC Hydro has confirmed that 16 of its construction workers at the Site C Dam site are under self-isolation with flu like symptoms. Given the close quarters and inevitable contact points at the 1,600-worker camp, an outbreak of COVID-19 would be disastrous and with dire implications for nearby communities, including First Nation communities.

There is an extreme shortage of health services in northeast British Columbia, with virtually no hospital beds available to handle an outbreak in Fort St. John or nearby Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. BC Hydro’s recent news release also reveals that it is barrelling ahead with Site C Dam construction, including work on river diversion, transmission lines, highway realignment, clearing and other elements. This negligence and irresponsible continuation of construction places the welfare of workers and communities at an unacceptable risk and is utterly inconsistent with the health advice provided by Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry.


July 2, 2020


Supreme Court

Trans Mountain Pipeline Appeal

Vancouver (Musqueam, Squamish and Tsleil-Waututh Territory- The Squamish Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation and Coldwater Indian Band – have been denied leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada. “We are extremely disappointed by today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Canada,” said Chief Leah George-Wilson. It reduces consultation to a purely procedural requirement that will be a serious barrier to reconciliation.” Although today’s decision marks the end of the road for this legal challenge, First Nations have vowed to explore all legal options to protect their rights, land, water and climate.

The impact of Coldwater First Nation v. Canada 2020 FCA 34 (“Coldwater decision”) of Feb. 4, 2020 is to weaken the constitutional duty to consult to “a procedural duty to provide reasons Instead of looking at what happened during consultation to determine whether it was meaningful and upheld the honour of the Crown (the test for meaningful consultation), the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) limited their review to the reasonableness of Cabinet’s own assessment of whether it had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate. The court held that Cabinet’s decision, including the outcome reached and justification for it, was reasonable, relying on Cabinet’s own decision document and accompanying explanatory note.

Because the Canadian government also owns the TMX project, Cabinet’s assessment of the adequacy of their own consultation should not invite the level of deference conferred to decision makers in Vavilov.
http://nationtalk.ca/story/media-release-and-legal-backgrounder-first-nations-extremely-disappointed-by-supreme-court-of-canadas-refusal-to-hear-tmx-appeal-but-vow-to-keep-fighting


April 7, 2020


Supreme Court

Trans Mountain Pipeline Appeal

The Squamish Nation, Tsleil-Waututh Nation, the Ts’elxwéyeqw Tribes and Coldwater Indian Band – announce they are seeking leave for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. These four First Nations have fought and challenged the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) Project through every Federal court. They now intend to seek a challenge at the Supreme Court of Canada. The First Nations are challenging the adequacy of Indigenous consultation leading up to the second approval of the oil pipeline project.

“The Supreme Court of Canada needs to deal with the Federal Court of Appeal’s decision that essentially lets the government be the judge and jury of its own consultation efforts. We need the opportunity to address the flawed consultation and engagement conducted by the Federal government, given the strength of rights and title of the Squamish People to Burrard Inlet and Vancouver. Indigenous peoples have a constitutional right to meaningful consultation and the courts must scrutinize that process. This flawed decision cannot stand, and we must challenge it, not just for us but for any future project that may be challenged by First Nations,” said Khelsilem, Squamish Nation Spokesperson and Councillor.


March 3, 2021


Aboriginal Rights and Title

Treaty 8 and Site C Dam

First People’s Law – The Site C dam, downstream of the WAC Bennett Dam, capitalizes on the destruction of Treaty 8 territory and the ongoing infringement of treaty rights. It will also cause additional, irreversible impacts on the lands and rights of Indigenous Peoples in Treaty 8 on both sides of the Alberta-BC border.

In July 2020, the BC government revealed there were significant structural problems with the foundation of the Site C dam. The Province commissioned a series of expert reports to assess the safety issues but allowed construction to proceed in the interim. The Province also refused to share the reports with First Nations or the public. Six months later, the BC government announced it had determined, based on the expert reports, that the proposed solutions were adequate and that it intended to move ahead with the project. The announcement did not address the impacts on Treaty 8 territory or the fact that significant legal challenges remain outstanding. It also did little to resolve First Nations’ safety concerns, particularly given BC’s refusal to share the reports until after the decision was issued.

The Indigenous signatories to Treaty 8 entered into treaty to establish a relationship of mutual respect, benefit and peaceful co-existence with incoming settlers. In exchange, the Crown promised, among other things, that the Indigenous treaty parties would be free to hunt and fish after the treaty as they would be if they never entered into it. The Site C dam, which would result in the permanent destruction of significant portions of Treaty 8, is antithetical to this promise.

BC’s decision to forge ahead with the Site C project, even when both treaty rights and public safety is at stake, is further testament to how treaty rights can be undermined when the entity that determines whether a project goes ahead–the provincial government–also has a vested interest in the project proceeding.

However, BC’s failure to honour its treaty obligations does not mean Site C will proceed. First, courts have confirmed the importance of implementing treaties in a way that respects and protects the Indigenous treaty parties’ rights and territories, including by taking into account the cumulative effects of resource development and justifying any infringement of the treaty. The BC Supreme Court will determine whether the Province has met these obligations in West Moberly First Nations’ treaty infringement action, which is scheduled to be heard over 120 days beginning in March 2022.

In addition, there are signs the Province’s announcement will serve to strengthen First Nations’ commitment to work together in Alberta and BC to ensure their rights are respected. In February, the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta issued a Declaration of Indigenous Solidarity calling for the immediate suspension of the Site C project until the Crown’s consultation obligations are fulfilled and until the court has determined West Moberly’s treaty infringement claim.

https://www.firstpeopleslaw.com/public-education/blog/a-monument-to-indigenous-environmental-racism-bc-doubles-down-on-site-c-dam


February 8, 2022


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

Canada’s National Observer – Gidimt’en land defenders are calling for the United Nations to visit Wet’suwet’en unceded territory to witness the alleged violation of Indigenous rights. On Monday, the land defenders filed a formal submission to the UN Human Rights Council’s expert mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous People arguing Canada is violating several articles under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

The submission specifically outlines three significant police raids into the Wet’suwet’en yintah in January 2019, February 2020 and November 2021, which led to the arrests of 74 people in total.
“Ongoing human rights violations, militarization of Wet’suwet’en lands, forcible removal and criminalization of peaceful land defenders, and irreparable harm due to industrial destruction of Wet’suwet’en lands and cultural sites are occurring despite declarations by federal and provincial governments for reconciliation with Indigenous peoples,” the submission reads.

“By deploying legal, political, and economic tactics to violate our rights, Canada and B.C. are contravening the spirit of reconciliation, as well as their binding obligations to Indigenous law, Canadian constitutional law, UNDRIP and international law.”

Notably, the UN says Canada “provided no information on measures taken to address the concerns raised by the committee,” and that Canada is improperly interpreting UNDRIP. As the letter describes, Canada’s interpretation of obtaining free, prior and informed consent is “to guarantee a process, but not a particular result,” which contradicts the basic premise of consent. The UN asked Canada to respond to its comments by Nov. 15.

Ottawa neglected to file its response by the deadline and now says it aims to respond sometime this year.


November 18, 2021


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

“Toronto Star – Fifteen people, including Indigenous elders, media and legal observers, had been arrested by the afternoon, according to Jennifer Wickham, a spokesperson for the hereditary chiefs and their supporters. Wickham stressed they had been acting peacefully.

Wickham said armed RCMP officers in tactical gear with canine units and heavy machinery moved into the Gidimt’en blockade at the 44-kilometre mark of the Morice Forest Service Road, using a vehicle and other obstacles to block the road. The blockade had been in place since Sunday after being set up by members of the Gidimt’en clan, one of five in the Wet’suwet’en Nation. They described the blockade as an effort to enforce an “eviction notice” on the company that the nation had first issued last year.

Wickham said Thursday the memorandum of understanding was meant to work toward agreements on Wet’suwet’en rights and titles; it did not include consent to the pipeline. She said pipeline opponents largely stepped back from protests due to the pandemic and to see how the talks progressed.
But they have not gone anywhere, she said.”


October 15, 2020


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

(Xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam), Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish) and səlilwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) Vancouver, B.C. – On Oct. 13, Coastal GasLink called in the RCMP to remove a group of Wet’suwet’en women and community members who are holding ceremony at a proposed drill site for Coastal Gaslink’s pipeline. Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC) – UBCIC stands in solidarity with the Indigenous land defenders who are protecting the Wedzin Kwa, the river that sustains and gives life to their Nation, from test drilling. These land defenders are lawfully exercising their right to steward their unceded territories and strengthen their cultural ties to their lands through the sacred responsibility of prayer, smudging, and ceremony. The presence of the RCMP and the threat they represent – surveillance, intimidation, arrest, discrimination, and violence – undermines the authority and self-determination of the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs who have full jurisdiction over Wet’suwet’en lands.

Given the forthcoming provincial election and renewed statements from political leaders regarding the importance of reconciliation and advancing Indigenous relations, it is worrisome that systemic violations of fundamental Indigenous and human rights continue to occur over major energy projects such as the CGL pipeline and the Trans Mountain Expansion Project (TMX). Given the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the myriad of additional challenges First Nations are facing, the Province can no longer afford to deem industrial projects like the CGL pipeline and the TMX as essential services and adopt a “business as usual” approach. The health and safety of Indigenous communities must be prioritized.

Indigenous land defenders and community members cannot be criminalized and targeted for asserting their Title and Rights and conducting ceremonial and cultural traditions; this stands in acute opposition to the provincial government’s obligations under the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.


February 6, 2020


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

Union of BC Indian Chiefs – RCMP began aggressively raiding Wet’suwet’en traditional and unceded territories under the watch of the Provincial and Federal Governments. Chief Don Tom, Vice-President of the UBCIC concluded “Using armed force to take Indigenous peoples off their unceded and traditional territories against their will is not reconciliation, it is colonialism in all of its ugliness and hypocrisy.


January 6, 2020


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

Unist’ot’en Camp – Hereditary Chiefs of all five Wet’suwet’en clans have rejected BC Supreme Court Justice Marguerite Church’s decision granting an interlocutory injunction, which criminalizes Anuk ‘nu’at’en (Wet’suwet’en law), and have issued and enforced an eviction of CGL’s workers from the territory.

“Canada and the B.C. government have both pledged to implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but are trying to impose their laws over Wet’suwet’en laws. If this was really about the ‘rule of law’ then governments would be honouring the rights and title of First Nations in their traditional territories, which are recognized by Canada’s own courts. The AFN supports the governance and decision-making process of the Wet’suwet’en leaders. Canada and B.C. should do the same. There is no reconciliation in the actions that unfolded yesterday.” AFN National Chief, Perry Bellegarde

Feb. 6, 2020: Union of BC Indian Chiefs – RCMP began aggressively raiding Wet’suwet’en traditional and unceded territories under the watch of the Provincial and Federal Governments. Chief Don Tom, Vice-President of the UBCIC concluded “Using armed force to take Indigenous peoples off their unceded and traditional territories against their will is not reconciliation, it is colonialism in all of its ugliness and hypocrisy.


January 10, 2019


Indigenous Laws and Governance

Wet’suwet’en protests against Coastal GasLink

“What happens when you engage Hereditary Chiefs in the Process vs excluding them?

Union of BC Indian Chiefs – “There are not a lot of similarities between the Broughton and the Unist’ot’en engagement with the Province (as stated by Premier John Horgan). In June, government-to-government work between our three Nations and the Province was confirmed in a letter of understanding (LOU) formalizing ongoing talks regarding salmon aquaculture in the Broughton Archipelago. Importantly, this was a jointly developed consent-based process where our Title and Rights were recognized and as a result, we included our hereditary leadership in decision-making on outcomes.

That’s an extremely important distinction because for us, that’s how we respected Delgamuukw and the wishes of our people. The Province also followed its own decision-making process. There was space in the process to revisit any Tenure decisions that weren’t jointly accepted. I’m confident that we would not have reached a point of RCMP action at Gitimd’en if a jointly designed, consent-based process had been in place.” Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwikwasutinuxw Haxwa’mis First Nation