Kitkatla Blockade Negotiation



A. Project Schedule
A. Project Schedule


B. Client List
B. Client List
Client Names Involved in the Negotiations
→ The Kitkatla First Nation (the Indigenous group that claims the land in dispute as their traditional territory)
- The Forest Stewardship Council (Website). NOT A CLIENT BUT HELPFUL ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL FRONT & CONSULTATION / CONSENT STANDARD IN FOREST SECTOR
C. Project Materials
C. Project Materials
Aboriginal Law Readings (remember that you have already started to complete the ground work on both Delgamuukw and Tsilhqot'in)

Project Evaluation
Topographic Maps of Traditional Kitkatla Territory




Supporting Materials
D. Workshops









Tsimshian Gitxaala Backgrounder
(In particular sections 2.1 The Tsimshian and Other Northwest Coast Nations, 2.2 The Tsimshian, 2.3 The Tsimshian and their Territories, 2.4 The Adawx, Northwest Coast Nations and the Tsimshian, 2.5 Adawx in this Context) (In particular section 10 Gitkxaala Territories - Banks Island & 10.4 Banks Island East Side)



Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia Minister of SB, T, and C (this is the outcome of the real case as negotiations failed)
Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia Minister of SB, T, and C (this is the outcome of the real case as negotiations failed)
Balancing Aboriginal Claims and Economic Interests
→ Provincial law may legitimately strike a balance "between the need and desire to preserve aboriginal heritage with the need and desire to promote the exploitation of B.C.'s natural resources".
→ ASSERTED ABORIGINAL RIGHTS VS. OTHER SOCIAL & ECONOMIC VALUES
→ Aboriginal groups must establish claims of aboriginal rights or title on a balance of probabilities, by persuasive evidence.
→ Kitkatla Band claimed aboriginal rights in the area and had been engaged in treaty negotiations with the province.
→ Interfor was concerned with the presence of native heritage sites and objects including culturally modified trees (CMTs) in the harvest area.
→ The BC Heritage Conservation Act authorizes the cutting and processing of CMTs during logging operations. The Band asserted a claim of aboriginal rights in the continued existence of the CMTs and applied for a court order to restrain the Minister from granting the site alteration permit (argued unconstitutional).
→ MAIN ISSUE in case = whether a claim of aboriginal rights to a forest resource ousts the jurisdiction of the province over the natural resources of the province.
→ The Kitkatla argument was based in the assertion that provincial law infringed on the federal power to legislate in respect of "Indians".
→ Kitkatla argued that the importance of the CMTs goes to the core of their values & identity.
→ The Court found that there was little evidence that permitting the destruction of aboriginal heritage objects (CMTs) impairs the status or capacity of Indians (i.e., cuts to the core of Indianness and thus a federal power).
→ "little evidence has been offered by the Kitkatla with respect to the relationship between the CMTs and Kitkatla culture in this area." (at para. 70)
LINK to full case.