Consultations must be full and thorough, accommodation to first nations’ concerns must be made where possible, and compensation must be paid where interests are damaged.

But – and this is a crucial point for Northern Gateway – first nations do not have a veto. The court was very clear in Delgamuukw that “the building of infrastructure … can justify the infringement of aboriginal title.” Consultation, accommodation, compensation? Yes. Veto? No.

Treaty 8 first nations are in a situation that is different in law but similar in practical effect. They surrendered their aboriginal title, but Treaty 8 gave them the right to continue hunting, fishing and trapping on Crown land until the government took up such lands for other purposes. The Supreme Court decided in Mikisew (2005) that the government had to consult Treaty 8 nations before approving infrastructure that might affect their wildlife harvesting rights, even off reserve. Again, consultation, accommodation and compensation are involved but not a right of veto.

Treaty 9 ?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/first-nations-dont-have-a-pipeline-veto-but-they-do-have-options/article2342491/