5:00 pm Pacific
A controversy is intensifying in northwest British Columbia where the emerging Sheslay district, with distinct possibilities for hosting a series of world class Cu-Au porphyry deposits across a 30-km long mineralized corridor, is caught up in a high stakes drama involving the provincial government, industry and First Nations.
The government, unquestionably, is walking a “tight rope” – it’s anxious to maintain and enhance the province’s reputation among investors as an exploration and resource-friendly jurisdiction, while at the same time it’s also trying to accommodate a variety of interests and advance a broad agenda. The companies directly involved have legal rights and obligations (and the understandable enthusiasm, given recent and historical exploration results) to push ahead in this prolific area just over 100 km northwest of the Red Chris mine, but their efforts are being stymied at the moment. First Nations have their own legitimate interests to protect, and concerns that must be addressed. A “Sheslay Circus” would benefit no one.
Tensions ramped up two weeks ago when Tahltan Central Council President Chad Norman Day led several other Tahltan into a blockade of Doubleview Capital Corp.’s (DBV, TSX-V) Hat Project as hole #25 was in progress, a dramatic 1-km step-out from hole #23 (the best yet) and the Lisle Discovery Zone to the southeast. All drilling has temporarily stopped while DBV and other companies review their options, armed with legal 5-year permits issued by the B.C. Ministry of Energy & Mines following normal consultation processes.
There are multiple layers to this story as we’ve been reporting ever since Day blindsided the companies and unfortunately created increased uncertainty among investors in B.C.’s exploration sector with his May 21 letter that even boldly asserted Tahltan aboriginal title and rights to the Sheslay region (see BMR article June 7, 2015).
Time to start reviewing fiction and facts. We encourage the government, the companies and First Nations to work together to solve this problem as quickly and amicably as possible.
The drills should be turning, which would give the struggling junior resource sector fresh hope for what it desperately needs at the moment – more excitement on the ground, and not from protests.
ABORIGINAL TITLE & BOUNDARIES
STATEMENT:
“Tahltan have Aboriginal Title and rights to the Sheslay region…our people have been clear that mining in the Sheslay will not be tolerated, and the Tahltan Nation does not support mineral exploration activities occurring in this area.” – Chad Day, May 21, 2015, in letter posted on TCC website and delivered to Doubleview, Garibaldi Resources (GGI, TSX-V) and Prosper Gold (PGX, TSX-V). Interestingly, the much bigger Teck Corporation (TCK.B, TSX), which has carried out exploration at the Eagle Project contiguous to GGI’s Grizzly, was not targeted by Day.
FACTS:
Besides Day’s revisionist history that contradicts recent and decades-old Tahltan involvement in exploration in the district (as we pointed out in previous articles), the 28-year old TCC President is asserting aboriginal title and rights here. That’s a serious message directed at not only the three companies but also, perhaps more significantly, the provincial government and another very critical stakeholder.
The fact of the matter is, though, that Tahltan aboriginal title over the Sheslay “region” has not been officially recognized by the B.C. government or a court. Furthermore, it’s worth noting that in his public comments, Day has yet to define the boundaries of what he calls the Sheslay “region”. The first three sentences of his May 21 letter referenced, rather confusingly, Sheslay River, Sheslay, and Sheslay region – in that order – with no lines drawn.
Real boundaries DO exist on paper, however, through an historic agreement signed in 2011 (see link at bottom of this article). This highly significant agreement, parts of which still require “legal designation” according to certain experts we’ve spoken to, shows that Day is over-reaching, though he does have legitimate Tahltan interests he’s trying to protect.
District Already Under Land Use Agreement
Doubleview’s entire Hat land package, and ground held by Garibaldi, Prosper, Teck and others is already subject to a Land Resource Management and Shared Decision Making Agreement (Atlin Taku Land Use Plan) signed between the provincial government and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation on July 19, 2011. An agreement, by the way, that was the first of its kind in B.C. and allows for both exploration and potential resource development in the Sheslay district.
So it’s fair to ask – how can Day, as if he’s holding “veto” power, unilaterally proclaim that “exploration and mining activity will not be tolerated in the Sheslay district” when there’s already an agreement, signed by the government that runs contrary to that statement?
The 2011 agreement also designated a “Sheslay River Valley Protected Area” (or “Upper Sheslay Corridor”) along with the “Kennicott Lake Protected Area”, which are both outside of where the companies are carrying out exploration.
In total, the agreement covers 3 million hectares of land, protects 13 new areas, and “provides resource development opportunities and investment certainty” (our emphasis) – B.C. govt. news release, July 19, 2011.
The Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia (AME BC), in commenting on the agreement, pointed out that the Land Use Plan kept “90% of the high value (our emphasis) mineral areas…open to exploration” – AME BC news release, July 19, 2011.
Sheslay District Area Map & Land Use Plan Boundary
Claim “Overlap” – Who Holds The Upper Hand?
So there are “overlapping” claims in the Sheslay district between two First Nation groups that historically fought a bloody war against each other (the subject of a fascinating book). To this day their relationship, at least at official levels, cannot be described as “close”.
Why would Day want to risk re-opening old wounds between the Tahltan and the Tlingits, even if the stakes surrounding the Hat discovery and adjoining properties, and the overall importance of the district in general to the Tahltan, are incredibly high? It’s bad enough that Tahltan in this story have been pitted against Tahltan, some of whom were carrying out work while the Hat blockade started July 7.
One can make the argument that the Taku River Tlingits (a much smaller nation than the Tahltan) do hold the upper hand with regard to this claim overlap because of their 2011 deal with the province, currently in effect.
The Tlingits are also in an advanced stage of the B.C. treaty process (the Tahltan are not) which gives them what’s called a “comprehensive claim” as confirmed to BMR by Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (B.C. Region), though that treaty process is currently in limbo after the B.C. government’s abrupt decision in March to rescind its approval of a new B.C. treaty commissioner. Whether that comprehensive claim covers the exact boundaries of the Land Use Plan, we have yet to determine. There appears to be little doubt, however, that the Tlingits’ comprehensive claim covers at least large portions of the Sheslay exploration district (comprehensive land claims deal with the unfinished business of treaty-making in Canada).
In fairness to Day and the Tahltan, it’s important to note the following paragraph (Section 2.3.2) in the 2011 Atlin Taku Land Use Plan:
“The Parties recognize that the Tahltan Nation has interests in the Planning Area and further, B.C. recognizes that the Tahltan assert claim to an area that covers roughly the lower one-third of the southern portion of the Plan Area (our emphasis). Although the Province has attempted to engage and seek input from the Tahltan on a Government to Government level, the Tahltan have not engaged in the planning process or provided contributions. Throughout the planning process the Province has kept the Tahltan informed and consulted on draft land use planning procedures.”
On the issue of aboriginal title, the first and only time in history that a Canadian court has granted a declaration of aboriginal title of course came just over a year ago. The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision regarding the Tsilhqot’in Nation in B.C. was a landmark ruling, for sure, and it has understandably emboldened Day and First Nations across the country. B.C. Premier Christy Clark accepted the existence of aboriginal title last September when she stated, “The Supreme Court of Canada has said aboriginal title exists in this country, and in my government we embrace that decision. We see title as creating opportunities to make joint decisions, in true partnership.” – Globe and Mail, Sept. 14, 2014.
In the case of the Sheslay district, it would be an extremely challenging, rigorous, expensive and drawn-out process for Day and the Tahltan Nation to prove they hold title to the area, especially in this particular situation when another First Nation group is involved.
Aboriginal title includes the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land, the right to the economic benefits of the land, and the ability to determine how the land is used.
Readers may wish to check out an excellent article by the Vancouver Sun’s Don Cayo June 24, 2015. “Contrary to a lot of sensational commentary about the judgement, the Tsilhqot’ in themselves were awarded only 40% of their claim area, which was itself only 5% of their traditional territory, meaning that the title area is 2% of their traditional territory,” Cayo quoted Dwight Newman, a senior fellow at the Ottawa-based Macdonald-Laurier Institute, who came out with a new analysis of that decision. Newman also concluded, “We have already seen cases of what might be described as over-reach by First Nations, pushing for rights beyond those they can plausibly attain within the legal system.”
Where To From Here?
It’s curious that Day’s sudden eruption May 21 regarding the Sheslay district came at a very sensitive time during “discussions” between the Tahltan and the government, following up on their 2013 Shared Decision Making Agreement (SDM), as confirmed by the wording of his letter which has since been removed from the Tahltan website. Late May was also a critical time in the exploration history of the area (it remains a critical time) which has added to the perception among many that Day has attempted to take one of the country’s most promising mineral districts “hostage” to gain leverage against different parties.
While this entire Sheslay situation is multifaceted and perhaps complex for some to understand, one thing is certain in our view – it’s not in any group’s best interest to be at odds with another. Close consultation and a partnership approach with First Nations are indeed critical, but there are responsibilities on all sides of the Sheslay dynamic. Undeniably, the provincial government has an important and active leadership role to play.
Atlin Taku Land Use Plan
https://www.for.gov.bc.ca/tasb/slrp/pdf/srmp/ATLIN-TAKU-LUP.pdf
Tahltan may have concerns, but no right to stop exploration. They can converse to government concerning their issue but exploration and drilling should resume immediately in my opinion.
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2015 @ 4:29 pm
Good report Jon, thanks for the effort. Seems to be enough grey areas of contention for this to drag out for a long time.
Comment by PaulH — July 22, 2015 @ 4:37 pm
Yes absolutely, an excellent report Jon. No grey areas when it comes to the issued exploration licenses. Other agreements when it comes what the natives are entitled to if this becomes a mining district can be worked out later in my opinion.
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2015 @ 4:42 pm
Obviously Farshad has to be sensitive to this issue but he did say they planned on resuming drilling as soon as possible. Why hasn’t there been an update? He owes it to his shareholders. Just like GGI owes an update on Mexico. Jon how confident are you that drilling will resume this summer?
Comment by Dan — July 22, 2015 @ 5:42 pm
Dan, the fact the district is already under a Land Use Plan agreement is very beneficial for DBV and all the players. There has been some considerable over-reach here since May 21 from Chad, but all parties need to work together for their mutual benefit. There’s no reason why drilling should not happen this summer. The permits are in place, the Taku Nation I suspect is probably quite eager to enjoy some benefits out of this (they don’t have the resources the Tahltan do), and the Tahltan have interests they want to protect and advance as well.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 22, 2015 @ 5:57 pm
Jon- excellent report and good detective work….this is what we needed!
Thanks
Comment by d4 — July 22, 2015 @ 6:10 pm
Thank you Jon and I enjoy reading all comments… Dan, PaulH, d4…
Comment by Theodore — July 22, 2015 @ 6:20 pm
I don’t believe for one minute that the area in which DBV is located is sacred ground as was indicated by Chad Day . Chad Day wants an agreement that is beneficial to the Talhtal people and he is taking a big gamble in doing so. If this area of exploration is put on hold for an indefinite period Chad Day risks being throw out of office by the people who are now blocked from working and also those in the future should the area become an open pit mine. Chad Day isn’t the only one to see the potential $$$$$$$$$ and there is considerable pressure on him to get some kind of agreement. The longer it drags the bigger the risk everyone loses including Chad Day. IMHO
Comment by Les — July 22, 2015 @ 6:26 pm
Thank you BMR crew for all your hard work in shining a light on this gray area.
Comment by Les — July 22, 2015 @ 6:28 pm
Excellent coverage on the story John and Jon. I hope you send off this report to all of the parties involved including all newspapers and media in BC and the National papers. At some point someone else may realize that Mr. Day has been found out and the facts do not support their claim (if any) to the entire area involved.
Unfortunately, with so many groups potentially to be heard from and even if they agree to talk this issue could go on for some time. DBV has given the Tahltan enough time to review all of the information available and they should now continue drilling. Then the BC Government will likely have to take a more active roll. IMO.
Comment by Andrew — July 22, 2015 @ 6:34 pm
Yes, it would be in Chad Day’s best interest to get this resolved ASAP by negotiating with DBV before the nation realizes the true story and he embarasses his people.l
Comment by d4 — July 22, 2015 @ 6:37 pm
As BMR has written above, “Doubleview’s entire Hat land package, and ground held by Garibaldi, Prosper, Teck and others is already subject to a Land Resource Management and Shared Decision Making Agreement (Atlin Taku Land Use Plan) signed between the provincial government and the Taku River Tlingit First Nation on July 19, 2011.”
There is no legal reason why the BC Government should stand by and do nothing by any other party if they are breaking the law with blockades. If the Tahltan finally wants to talk to the Government to discuss the southern portion of the area and define what the boundaries should be, go right ahead but leave the companies alone to continue their work.
It is time for action and to hold the Tahltan to account for their actions.
Comment by Andrew — July 22, 2015 @ 6:44 pm
Yes Jon great job, but I must say this needs to be resolved quickly, I’m talking days, not weeks or months, the way the markets and resource sector have done as of late, I’m sure no one wants to see a love storey develop here, sometimes we do need to put our foot down and get hardnosed, and say Enuff of this crap.future development and investment in our province hinders on a prompt resolution here….just my opinion..
Comment by Tombc — July 22, 2015 @ 6:52 pm
If DBV has the legal permission to drill, then they should be drilling, simple as that. There is something going on with Farshad that we don’t know about.
Comment by dave — July 22, 2015 @ 6:54 pm
The Tahltan Nation was informed of the Land Use Agreement being put in place.
From the Atlin Taku Land Use Plan dated 19 July 2011 – Para 2.3 “Under the Framework Agreement, BC and the TRTFN agreed to jointly, or individually, undertake discussions regarding land use with First Nations who have interests in portions of the Plan Area. These discussions, when they occurred, informed the development of this Land Use Plan and such discussions will continue during plan implementation.”
Para 2.3.2 Tahltan Nation
The Parties recognize that the Tahltan Nation has interests in the Planning Area and further, BC recognizes that the Tahltan assert claim to an area that covers roughly the lower one-third of the southern portion of the Plan Area. Although the Province has attempted to engage and seek input from the Tahltan on a Government to Government level, the Tahltan have not engaged in the planning process or provided contributions. Throughout the planning process, the Province has kept the Tahltan informed and consulted on draft land use planning products.
Comment by Andrew — July 22, 2015 @ 6:56 pm
EXCELLENT REPORT!
Comment by STEVEN1 — July 22, 2015 @ 7:56 pm
Call me crazy but I have been thinking about that letter that was sent out to the 3 companies back in May, DBV GGI and Prosper, why not Teck? could Teck be behind this, could they already have a deal with Chad Day contingent on them being able to acquire the properties held by DBV,GGI and Prosper? Teck is a major company that surely can outlast financially DBV and GGI, knowing that a blockade by Chad Day and the Tahltan would surely drive down the values of DBV GGI and then Teck comes in and picks up all of their land for pennies of what they may be worth? Conspiracy theory for sure, but really how far fetched could this be??
Comment by Greg — July 22, 2015 @ 8:50 pm
Dave, GGI has the legal permission to drill as well, and $1 million to spend. The issue is that these companies in the district are being “intimidated”, so it’s not as “simple” as you make it out to be. And they’re being “intimidated” even though Chad Day, as we know, doesn’t even hold official “title” to the “house”, so to speak. An absurd situation, but the government needs to provide some leadership here.
As we stated before, there wouldn’t be this battle if there wasn’t something of high value at stake – the Hat, the Grizzly, other properties, plus the interests of all stakeholders including First Nations. Everyone’s interests have to be respected – including of course the Tlingits whose overlap claim covering the Sheslay district is (importantly) within the signed 2011 Atlin Taku Land Use Agreement with the provincial government, a document that gives the “green light” to exploration and potential resource development in the area.
The district is regarded by some of the best geoscientists and geologists out there as a potential new world class mining camp. Hence the frustrating noise, but no major discovery turns into a mine these days without this kind of noise. Time for everyone, however, to work together and resolve this.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 22, 2015 @ 8:51 pm
Let the companies speak when they have something to say. I hear that Farshad has employed a negotiator to deal with Tahltan. Sensible move and not something that can be rushed, but a resolve in the short term is not impossible.
Comment by Tom UK — July 23, 2015 @ 12:51 am
Jon, thank you for summarizing the events surrounding the Tahltan blockade and the stop of drilling in the area. As you noted the government needs to leadership role in resolving this crisis. If I was a fly on the wall in the government’s inner sanctum I would imagine hearing words like “we all native bands to perceive that we are addressing the Tahltan concerns in a fair and just manner”. “We should set up a tribunal to investigate and receive input from all stakeholders”. “The tribunal’s finding should be in-sync with the outcome of back door negotiations and diplomacy”. “Target mid summer 2016 to have this resolved. If the mineral deposit is as huge as some suggest we need to have stability in the region for at least 20 years”. Conclusion: There won’t be any drilling anytime soon. Look for a long term agreement to be negotiated that would be binding on all companies exploring and mining in the Sheslay District.
Comment by Ted — July 23, 2015 @ 3:19 am
Much respect and gratitude to BMR for this impressive piece of journalism.
Comment by Concerned Citizen — July 23, 2015 @ 3:30 am
After 15 days of blocking…..nothing from the BC governement. Jon have you been able to contact some member of the government concerned ?
Comment by Guy Delisle — July 23, 2015 @ 4:34 am
Jon have you been able to reach any government officials regarding this matter? I have emailed multiple officials with no response from any of them.
Comment by Sam — July 23, 2015 @ 4:57 am
Yes, we have Sam. More on that in the next couple of days.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 5:03 am
HOW ABOUT SOME GOLD UPDATES? PREDICTIONS? ETC…JON…
Comment by STEVEN1 — July 23, 2015 @ 6:29 am
JON: WHERE DID YOU SAY THE VENTURE MIGHT TEST AGAIN?….WE ARE AT, IT APPEARS, EXTREME READINGS TO BE DOWN HERE…APPARENTLY AT A 16 YEAR LOW!
Comment by STEVEN1 — July 23, 2015 @ 6:30 am
Closest support levels on John’s most recent chart, Steven, are 609 (where the Venture is now) and 598. As far as Gold is concerned, quite straightforward – nearest strong support is $1,066, and then below that the $1,000 level. Gold came within $14 of $1,066 Monday.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 6:32 am
John thanks for all your research!
Comment by James — July 23, 2015 @ 7:36 am
I know why Chad Day did this, he wants a royalty like I said from day one, and I know why he wants it too.
Comment by dave — July 23, 2015 @ 7:42 am
STEVEN – I posted earlier this week on gold. Could see 980 to 1020 range. At least that is what all the smart analysts are saying.
Comment by dave — July 23, 2015 @ 8:13 am
Personally, I wouldn’t be looking at anything having to do with gold right now, I am watching some social media’s for a small bounce if they set up right with TA.
Comment by dave — July 23, 2015 @ 8:18 am
Jon, I don’t mean to disagree with you on your post #18, but to be intimidated is to be weak. When someone tries to intimidate me, I punch them in the nose and they run, then I move on. Is Farshad weak?
Comment by dave — July 23, 2015 @ 8:25 am
Great article, Jon. Very informative.
Comment by chris — July 23, 2015 @ 8:32 am
Dave, this isn’t a school yard fight….a lot is at stake here; I believe that Farshad is likely playing this carefully and I’d bet that each step he takes going forward is very calculated. That’s my two cents anyway.
Comment by Steve A. — July 23, 2015 @ 8:38 am
Dave, “intimidation” has come from a certain party since late May…there’s a difference between that and whether in fact the companies are actually intimidated…to suggest that Farshad is “weak” totally contradicts the evidence of how things have developed in the Sheslay district over the last 2 years…if he was “weak” he never would have mortgaged his house and drilled those holes in late 2013 that led to the discovery…if he was “weak” he never would have resumed drilling in early July…this situation requires a combination of resolve and diplomacy…I understand your line of thinking (we’ve all gone through the bully in the schoolyard scenario), but in this sensitive political situation the answer IMHO is not to just immediately run up and punch the bully in the nose…
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 8:38 am
Thanks for the article today Jon. I agree that there is a way of dealing with both the Tahltan and Government bodies. Diplomacy is the way but I am concerned as to how this will affect the DBV treasury if it is drawn out for several months and the drills won’t turn again until next Spring.
Comment by Tom UK — July 23, 2015 @ 8:52 am
The only weak people here are those that bought DBV knowing the outcome of DBV prevailing but they bailed and only have negative things to say about it……I’m sure when they buy back their sentiment for DBV will suddenly change….
Comment by d4 — July 23, 2015 @ 8:56 am
Not sure if this is an issue the govt. can afford to have drag on, Tom. The companies have every legal right to drill (they were issued 5-year permits from the Ministry of Energy & Mines), and the government lauded the 2011 Land Use Plan as an agreement that creates “investment certainty“. Does the govt. not stand behind its own agreements? They signed a deal with the Tlingit First Nation that created a specific land use plan that includes the Sheslay district, approving exploration and potential resource development. Those are the facts.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 9:00 am
Jon, well put, lets see what happens.
Comment by dave — July 23, 2015 @ 9:01 am
Although DBV can legally drill it’s not the diplomatic thing to do and not the best long term strategy. Farshad is going about this the right way. It will take longer but will ensure long term success for the shareholders that have done their DD and will reap the rewards if Dr Razique is correct……only the flippers and those that haven’t done their DD want Farshad to take the non diplomatic route and immediately start drilling. Let the weak hands complain and sell.
Comment by d4 — July 23, 2015 @ 9:02 am
Yes Jon those are the facts, but my opinion of politicians is pretty low at the best of times. The Gov. departments appear to be treading carefully at the moment, but I would be very happy to see them grow a pair very soon and explain the facts of life to Chad Day and his band of small followers.
Comment by Tom UK — July 23, 2015 @ 9:09 am
Tom UK , if Fashad hired a negotiator to deal with the Tahltan this indicates that the parties are not close on achieving any agreement , this will most likely extend the halt in exploration for quite some time , maybe months . This is very concerning as we all know the DBV finances are quite limited. How is it that Chad Day gets what Chad Day wants ?
Comment by Les — July 23, 2015 @ 9:18 am
More small struggling companies have been killed by greedy people than you can shake a stick at , Chad Day in his quest may kill another one but that would appear to be irrelevant to him as some major could swoop in and take over for a couple cents a share. Chad Day would still be sitting pretty and this is starting to make my blood boil.. Chad Day if you read any of this bb quibble , you can be sued.
Comment by Les — July 23, 2015 @ 9:36 am
Wondering if bmr could find out if that is indeed fact or not from post #19. That may be important here.
Comment by Tombc — July 23, 2015 @ 9:37 am
He shouldn’t have to hire a negotiator! The BC government should be stepping in and negotiating.
Comment by Sam — July 23, 2015 @ 9:39 am
I have no idea if that’s the case, Tom. There are a lot of rumors flying around. We’re just trying to deal with the known facts.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 9:42 am
Tombc that is a rumour that truly needs verifying .
Comment by Les — July 23, 2015 @ 9:44 am
Jon. Have you (or anyone else) approached the Taku River Tlingit First Nation personnel and asked them for their stance on the matter? Have they come out publicly to support the companies and their work? How many of their people are working with the companies in the area? Just a few questions to consider but I would think that Tlingit First Nation would certainly be behind the companies.
As an interim measure because of the boundary dispute of the southern area the BC Government may choose to get an agreement with both First Nations that for the disputed area only, if any development actually goes into production in the future, the percentage of royalties for the First Nation would be put into a trust account and held until the boundaries are agreed upon and passed into another law/agreement. Whether it is done by negotiation by both First Nations or through the courts by the Tahltan if they choose to take a few decades to go this route.
Comment by Andrew — July 23, 2015 @ 9:48 am
Np Jon, thanks, facts are good, just to mention that a mediator would speed things up not slow it down, I would think.
Comment by Tombc — July 23, 2015 @ 9:52 am
I heard el chapo and his drug cartel mafia goons are available for hire to “negotiate” this for us. I heard they have strong tactics that can make this little problem disappear quickly lol
Comment by Sam — July 23, 2015 @ 10:00 am
We’ve done our homework, Andrew. You can be sure the Taku Tlingit First Nation is well aware of the Sheslay situation, and of course they would have been included in the consultation process with regard to exploration and drill permits. I’ll leave it at that for now. This is just my opinion, if I were the Taku Tlingits, I’d be concerned about Chad Day claiming aboriginal title to the prolific Sheslay district.
Keep in mind, aboriginal title includes the right to exclusive use and occupation of the land, the right to the economic benefits of the land, and the ability to determine how the land is used. As we stressed in the article yesterday, there are high stakes involved here; it’s critical that the government provides leadership and that all parties work together. It’s bad enough that Tahltan have been pitted against Tahltan in this situation.
Comment by Jon - BMR — July 23, 2015 @ 10:00 am
Tahltan against Tahltan is good as it puts pressure on Chad Day . IMHO
Comment by Les — July 23, 2015 @ 10:10 am
The more pressure on chad the better
Comment by Sam — July 23, 2015 @ 10:17 am
If anyone is interested, I have posted a web-link below, which deals with the issues related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves
Recommendation 8
This was one of 19 recommendations from the Task Force Report that provide the framework for the BC treaty negotiations process. The process was given legal force through the British Columbia Treaty Commission Agreement, 1992 and legislation establishing the Treaty Commission.
Read the report on BC Treaty Commission website…
Comment by Andrew — July 23, 2015 @ 2:40 pm
Thanks Andrew
Comment by Les — July 23, 2015 @ 3:06 pm
One sentence in my post 54 above should have read as follows: “First Nations resolve issues related to overlapping traditional territories among themselves.”
Comment by Andrew — July 23, 2015 @ 3:34 pm