I would say that that comment is somewhat disingenuous and akin to a situation where hostage- takers retort "Hey, we sent them a list of our demands... we did our part...ball is in their court ...it is the family members who are squabbling amongst themselves as to whether they want to meet those demands and if so, who is going to pay for each..."

Yes I concede that the above (my comment) is an exaggerated example, but the situation is more nuanced than the brief article would suggest. For example, there hasn't been a unified voice amongst the First Nations potentially affected by the intended development , and there has been input by those First Nations communities who reside far outside the intended development, whose way of life would only be marginally affected if at all, by the development (and sometimes those voices have in fact been louder than those who would be most affected) .

At the end of the day, there are plenty of fingers to be pointed...

Cheers,

Luker