This is in BC that never got many treaties and Ontario has more solid treaty documents where FNs joined Canada for benifits of being part of country.

The world received two blunt messages this week on Enbridge Inc.'s proposed $5.5-billion Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to B.C.'s northern coast.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper told the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, that the government will "make it a national priority to ensure we have the capacity to export our energy products beyond the United States, and specifically to Asia."

But that pitch for the pipeline megaproject, which would open up the largely landlocked oilsands resource to non-U.S. buyers, was countered by a report quoting Assembly of First Nations National Chief Shawn Atleo.

Atleo said the federal government and Calgary-based Enbridge required the "consent" of B.C. First Nations, who are mostly opposed to the project.

So do aboriginals have the legal ability to stop a major energy megaproject that the Harper government touts as the key to creation of numerous jobs and billions of dollars in new wealth?

They probably don't, legal experts said this week, though uncertainty remains about how courts might deal with a legal challenge.

Atleo's claim was made at a news conference after this week's CrownFirst Nations summit in Ottawa.

"The notion of First Nations having free, prior and informed consent means exactly that," he said.

Atleo, of B.C.'s Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation, avoided using the word "veto." Instead, he adopted the "free, prior and informed consent" that is taken directly from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Another of B.C.'s aboriginal leaders, Jody Wilson-Raybould, concurred. "There are impacts of major development projects that, based upon our rights and our territories, may and potentially will require the consent of First Nations," said Wilson-Raybould, a lawyer and the AFN's regional chief in B.C.

"This notion of free, prior consent has no legal basis in Canada - none. Zip," said Vancouver lawyer Thomas Isaac, a former B.C. government chief treaty negotiator who has acted in the past for Enbridge.

"That's not to say that people ought not to seek consent. That's a different question. But is there a basis in law? Not a shred," Isaac said.

University of B.C. law professor Gordon Christie said in an email it "is a bit strong to say a veto of some sort exists at this point in time."

But First Nations along the route "do have powerful claims that just might prevent the state from simply pushing a pipeline through their territories and, most troubling, across their riverways."

There are two touchstones cited in legal arguments that assert that First Nations do potentially wield a veto in the event that the National Energy Board panel approves the project, as many expect it will, in late 2013.

The first is international in nature. Atleo's notion of "consent" comes directly from wording sprinkled throughout United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2007 and endorsed, after considerable hesitation, by the government in 2010.

The declaration says states should obtain from indigenous peoples "their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources."

But the declaration is not a treaty, said Nigel Bankes, chair of natural resources law at the University of Calgary's law faculty.

"I think most people would say that part of the declaration is aspirational in nature rather than customary law."

Of greater relevance is Canadian case law that has required governments in Canada to "consult" and "accommodate" First Nations on land-use decisions.

But common-law precedents don't say aboriginals with established title to the land in question have a blanket veto on land-use decisions.

The Supreme Court of Canada's landmark 1997 Delgamuukw decision specifically spells out the government's right to "infringe" on aboriginal title.

"The development of agriculture, forestry, mining, and hydroelectric power, the general economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protection of the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure and the settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds of objectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify the infringement of aboriginal title," the decision said