\u201cThe [foundation agreement] negotiations will be based upon recognition of Tahltan Aboriginal Title and Rights in Tahltan Territory,\u201d reads a 2020 \u201cshared prosperity agreement\u201d<\/a> that defines the geographic area as \u201cthe traditional territory identified by the Tahltan.\u201d<\/p>\n Tahltan\u2019s territorial claim spans an area larger than Portugal, including 70 per cent of the Golden Triangle, one of the richest mineral districts<\/a> in Canada, which the BC Geological Survey estimated in 2021 to hold a total contained metal value of\u00a0C$1.28 trillion<\/a>.<\/p>\n In a\u00a0statement<\/a>\u00a0last November after meeting with the premier, the Tahltan reaffirmed the scope and the need to finalize and implement the agreement \u201cto embed consent-based and shared decision-making across all resource, land, and environmental governance systems, and to invest in housing, health, and essential services in our communities.\u201d<\/p>\n The foundation agreement goals are also apparently shared by the federal government,<\/a> according to an agreement announced on July 2 between Ottawa and B.C. that commits the Carney government to determining \u201cmechanisms to participate in and contribute to the Tahltan Foundation Agreement\u2026 including through separate agreements or arrangements.\u201d<\/p>\n Six years in the making, with no signed foundation agreement yet, the BC NDP government has already handed unprecedented jurisdiction to Tahltan with the province\u2019s first consent-based decision-making agreements over approval of two multi-billion-dollar mining projects\u2014Eskay Creek gold and silver mine and Red Chris gold and copper mine.<\/p>\n Consent-based decision-making under\u00a0Section 7<\/a>\u00a0of the\u00a0Declaration on the Rights of indigenous Peoples Act\u00a0(DRIPA<\/a>) enables agreements requiring the consent<\/a> of an Indigenous community for a project to proceed on its claimed territory, without any test of the claim in court. Withheld consent effectively amounts to a veto.\u00a0<\/p>\n [BC Geological Survey]<\/p>\n [BC Geological Survey]<\/p>\n Government documents<\/a>\u00a0indicate these two consent-based decision-making deals are a template for more of the same and part of a wider \u201cterritory plan\u201d that includes the building up and \u201crecognition\u201d of Tahltan\u2019s government structures, improved shared revenue streams, \u201charmonization of the Parties\u2019 respective jurisdictions and titles,\u201d joint development of standards and processes regulating mining and natural resources, transfer of unspecified \u201cagreed-to lands\u201d related to reserve land expansion, natural resources and other tenures, all in pursuit of looks to be sovereign state-like powers.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Governments appear to accept Aboriginal title claim<\/p>\n Premier David Eby and his cabinet officials do not appear to have ever publicly acknowledged the foundation agreement prior to disclosure of the FOI documents by Public Land Use Society in May.\u00a0<\/p>\n Eby was cagey when asked at a press conference on June 19 if his government intended to recognize Aboriginal title across the whole area Tahltan has asserted as its territory. The foundation agreement will \u201cprovide a structure for us moving forward, including in relation to crucial economic development in Tahltan territory,\u201d he said, noting it contains \u201c11 mines and more than $30 billion in potential investment.\u201d<\/p>\n The premier did say he spoke with the Prime Minister, asking for federal support, \u201cbecause of the very strong title claim that the Tahltan has, but also because of the incredible opportunity of collaboration here with Tahltan central government for all of us.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s unclear on what evidence Eby based his assessment of a \u201cvery strong title claim\u201d given Tahltan has not proven its claim in court, nor has it been settled by treaty. Under Canadian law, a strong claim may trigger duty-to-consult, but asserted territory does not equate to proven Aboriginal title. Section 35 of the Constitution and related case law, to which the government proports to adhere, requires a specific\u00a0burden of proof<\/a>\u00a0for recognition of Aboriginal title, a test the Tahltan claim has not met.\u00a0<\/p>\n When asked if the province would go a similar route with the Tahltan as it did with Haida, when the B.C. and federal governments recognized the entirety of the Haida asserted claim as Aboriginal title (including over private property), then, supported a court order<\/a> that gave Haida title<\/a> constitutional protection, the premier said the two situations were quite different. <\/p>\n However, in a July 2 press conference jointly hosted by Eby and Prime Minister Mark Carney, announcing a \u201ccooperative prosperity agreement\u201d<\/a> between the two governments covering billions of dollars in multiple major projects, Canada commits to engaging with First Nations in the north west, including through \u201cexisting tripartite forums\u201d and promises to support the Tahltan foundation agreement, possibly through a separate agreement. This could align with the process taken for Haida title. The federal government also announced $500 million in funding \u201cto support\u201d the Red Chris mine.<\/p>\n For Tahltan Central Government president Kerry Carlick, the question of recognition of title is not if, but when.<\/p>\n \u201cWe are moving forward rights and [recognition] of title. We do have jurisdiction in our territory. We are working towards that,\u201d Carlick said at the same June 19 press event attended by the premier.<\/p>\n The Tahltan\u00a01910 declaration<\/a>\u00a0lays it out: \u201cWe claim the sovereign right to all the country of our tribe \u2014 this country of ours which we have held intact from the encroachments of other tribes, from time immemorial, at the cost of our own blood.<\/p>\n The Tahltan Central Government is the administrative governing structure for the\u00a0Tahltan<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Iskut<\/a>\u00a0Indian bands representing two clans who together make up the Tahltan Nation with 636 people living on reserve and 2,444 registered members living elsewhere.<\/p>\n The most stubborn obstacle to securing recognition of Tahltan title may might not be having to prove it in court\u2014both senior levels of government appear inexplicably eager to dispense with the constitutional standard of proof, as they did with\u00a0Haida title.<\/a>\u00a0Nor have governments openly expressed any concern for the public interests or the usurping of its governance authority over Crown land. Rather, the biggest pushback may come from neighbouring Indigenous communities.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Tahltan Nation continues to affirm Aboriginal title over our vast territory, but we face serious challenges,\u201d writes the Tahltan\u2019s Carlick in a July 2025\u00a0social media post.<\/a>\u00a0\u201cOverlapping territorial claims with neighbouring [First] Nations like the Kaska Dena and the Taku River Tlingit create real complications over who has the right to use, govern, and benefit from the land. These overlaps delay negotiations and threaten our ability to maintain full authority on our own territory.\u201d<\/p>\n Tahltan \u2018consent\u2019 has netted billions, with no end in sight<\/p>\n Even without a finalized foundation agreement or formal recognition of Aboriginal title,\u00a0the province has already funded the build-up of Tahltan government structures and ceded select Crown governance decision-making powers, netting the Tahltan a significant financial windfall.\u00a0<\/p>\n A provincial grant of $20 million 2020 kicked off negotiations towards the foundation agreement, with another undisclosed amount of funding in the works. An unknown amount financed Tahltan\u2019s efforts to lead land-use planning in the region (more on this later). But it is Tahltan\u2019s \u201cconsent\u201d to Skeena Resources and Newmont to operate the Eskay Creek and Red Chris mines respectively that is worth billions.<\/p>\n A Tahltan document dated May 22, 2026 referenced\u00a0two streams of funding<\/a>\u00a0that will soon begin flowing into community coffers, one from the province, the other from mining proponent Newmont; both triggered by the band\u2019s\u00a0environmental approval<\/a>\u00a0of the $3-billion Red Chris gold and copper mine amendment to convert production from an open pit to\u00a0block cave.<\/a><\/p>\n Details of these revenue agreements are not yet public, but the Eskay Creek gold and silver mine agreement with the Tahltan set a high bar.\u00a0<\/p>\n Operated by Skeena Resources and\u00a0jointly approved<\/a>\u00a0in January by the province and Tahltan, Eskay Creek is the first official test drive of the BC NDP government\u2019s consent-based agreement (aka a veto<\/a>) under DRIPA and will reportedly net the Tahltan about $2 billion in cash, jobs and other benefits over the 13-year life of the mine.\u00a0<\/p>\n An additional agreement commits the province to sharing a reported 37.5 per cent of a portion of its mineral tax revenues with the Tahltan community, which could reach a billion, more or less, depending on the price of silver and gold, and the profitability of the mine.<\/p>\n Beyond that, Tahltan has asked for a slew of infrastructure investments from the federal government as \u201ccritical to maintaining the support of the Tahltan people\u201d for resource development of critical minerals, according to\u00a0pre-budget submissions<\/a>\u00a0to the House of Commons standing committee on Finance. The investments span transportation, emergency services, policing, health services, housing, ecological protection, and wildlife management.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n On June 26, the federal government heeded that call with funding, possibly also triggered by approval of the Red Chris mine, when the Ministry of Mines and Resources\u00a0announced $2 million<\/a>\u00a0\u201cto co-develop, assess, and participate in decision-making on major critical mineral projects in Tahltan Territory.\u201d<\/p>\n The Tahltan heralded the investment as a signal of confidence in its pursuit of its effective sovereignty. \u201cIt is about recognizing Tahltan Title and Rights, advancing consent-based decision-making, and ensuring the Tahltan Nation has a meaningful seat at the table when decisions are being made in Tahltan Territory,\u201d according to\u00a0a statement<\/a>\u00a0posted by the group. Arguably, if government will not allow development without Tahltan consent, Tahltan will essentially have the only \u201cseat at the table.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s unknown if Tahltan will pitch in to cover any infrastructure costs from their own revenue base or will contribute to costs of services community members access from other communities in the region.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rural mayors, particularly in hub cities, have the long argued for a greater portion of regional resource development revenues to help defray costs of serving the sector and the surrounding communities that rely on their infrastructure, health care and other services. In 2023, northwest mayors finally succeeded in\u00a0securing a commitment<\/a>\u00a0from the Eby government for $250 million, dispersed to 21 communities over five years. A zero-to-hero victory for the municipalities involved, but a drop in the bucket compared to B.C.\u2019s estimated total municipal\u00a0C$24 billion infrastructure deficit,<\/a>\u00a0and what has been earmarked for the Tahltan, which has no public service mandate, with a duty only to its extremely limited membership.<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t want to take away from the fact that Skeena Resources willingly negotiated a deal with Tahltan who also willingly negotiated that deal with Skeena,\u201d said Todd Stone, CEO of B.C.\u2019s Association of Mineral Exploration, in an interview last January. \u201cThat is their right to do. But, more broadly speaking\u2026 it\u2019s important for the province to retain its role as the final decision maker. And, by the way, the investment community around the world, it needs to see that certainty of authority.<\/p>\n \u201cWe believe that the ultimate, final authority on these decisions must rest with the Province of British Columbia, on behalf of the Crown and on behalf of the public interest,\u201d Stone said.<\/p>\n Minister tells Opposition: \u2018use Google\u2019 to learn about government agreement<\/p>\n Not only is the B.C. government incrementally ceding authority to Tahltan over Crown interests, BC NDP officials are not telling British Columbians they\u2019re doing it.\u00a0<\/p>\n The province has never publicly announced the foundation agreement, nor disclosed its terms. Nor has it consulted voters on whether it should hand one small Indigenous community veto power and billions in revenue over Crown resources in a strategically vital part of the province. Consequently, the public remains in the dark about whether the deal has been finalized, whether it requires federal approval, or how far B.C. will go in transferring decision-making governance powers or enabling those by granting the Tahltan fully territorial Aboriginal title with the assistance of the federal government.<\/p>\n When Opposition critic Scott McInnis asked the minister of Indigenous Relations for details on the \u201csecret\u201d Tahltan foundation agreement in question period in May, Spencer Chandra Herbert haughtily dismissed the question.<\/p>\n \u201cWell, I don\u2019t know what the member\u2019s definition of \u2018secret\u2019 is. If you typed in Google: \u2018Tahltan-B.C. government,\u2019 you could find your way to one press release, two press releases, three press releases, all around what the member is talking about.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThis process has actually been underway for quite a number of years,\u201d said Herbert. \u201cSo I would encourage the member to try to use Google more than to use conspiracy theory when it is public.\u201d<\/p>\n Watch the Question Period exchange <\/a>in May between Indigenous Relations Minister Spencer Chandra Herbet and Opposition critic Scott McIsaac on the foundation agreement.<\/p>\n In fact, when asked to share the supposedly public agreement, Herbert\u2019s ministry and government withheld more than 400 pages in its FOI disclosure to the Public Land Use Society, including all records directly concerning title recognition. And the very limited and glancing references to the foundation agreement that are publicly accessible took much more than a Google search to find.<\/p>\n The only direct public reference to the agreement was in backgrounder attached to\u00a0a press release<\/a>\u00a0from five years ago that characterized the foundation agreement as a \u201creconciliation agreement\u2026 to define the parties\u2019 intergovernmental partnership and transparent \u2018rules of the road.\u2019\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The press release introduced a\u00a0\u201cshared prosperity agreement\u201d<\/a>\u00a0signed 15 months earlier between the BC government and Tahltan that laid out the framework for getting to a foundation agreement. The agreement itself was dated Mar. 30, 2020, mere days after COVID pandemic measures shut down the entire economy, when legislature was not sitting, and media, Opposition legislators, and the public\u2019s attention were elsewhere.\u00a0<\/p>\n There was zero public notice, with not even an Order in Council from Cabinet authorizing it, as might be expected (and publicly available) to approve negotiations of this magnitude. And the agreement itself instructs signatories to \u201cavoid the need for Provincial legislative changes to be made to implement the Interim Strategies.\u201d<\/p>\n Another related press release<\/a>\u00a0was posted on June 15, 2021, again without fanfare. This one did not note the foundation agreement at all except via a link back to the first release. It did however announce two significant goals that would become key in negotiations towards the foundation agreement, namely seeking agreements with Tahltan on the Eskay Creek gold and silver mine and the Red Chris mine. It also mentioned consent decision-making under Section 7 of the\u00a0Declaration Act,<\/a>\u00a0but did not link to the Declaration or explain what consent-decision-making entails.<\/p>\n A\u00a0second version<\/a>\u00a0of the so-called prosperity agreement, with an amendment dated\u00a0July 28, 2021,<\/a>\u00a0does not appear to have been publicized in any way, with the first appearance captured on the government website at its current url on June 4, 2024. The main difference between this version and the March 2020 original lies in the scale of decision-making. The 2020 version talked about \u201ccollaboration\u201d between governments and \u201cshared decision-making,\u201d where the July 2021 update referenced \u201cjoint and consent-based decision-making\u2014\u201d essentially a transfer of governance authority from the province to Tahltan.<\/p>\n This amendment is significant. From collaborating on decisions, to handing over governance authority. The amendment was no doubt a nod to another deal former premier John Horgan was working on that time under the guidance of then attorney general David Eby\u2014an agreement to give Tahltan consent-based decision-making over the Eskay Creek gold and silver mine, which\u00a0Horgan and several ministers signed<\/a>\u00a0on June 6, 2022.<\/p>\n The Tahltan are running land-use show in northwest<\/p>\n Six years into negotiations on a foundation agreement with massive public policy and democratic governance implications, Tahltan\u2019s authority appears to have expanded to what amounts to veto or de facto veto powers over select mining projects, mineral exploration permitting, and the land-use planning table. Many in the industry characterize land use planning and permitting processes under joint control of government and Tahltan as amateurish, rushed, and structurally biased with preconceived outcomes stacked against proponents.\u00a0<\/p>\n Meanwhile the provincial government and Tahltan Nation are one year behind on their commitment to share a land-use plan for public engagement and all new mineral exploration permitting has been paused in the northwest until 2028, with the province reportedly saying<\/a>\u00a0it needed time to complete land-use planning and provide long-term certainty for First Nations and industry.<\/p>\n Why has the province put the Tahltan in charge of land use planning for the whole region, asked the CEO of a mineral exploration company who declined to be identified out of fear of reprisal from the Tahltan. The owner of a company he said has spent $6 million over several years, working and employing residents in the region, he\u00a0described one land-use planning meeting, billed as public consultation, a sham. Industry participants were not allowed to speak because the decisions had already been made behind closed doors, he said.\u00a0He also questioned why the province was only consulting with Tahltan and not industry and community members and then putting together a plan that works for everybody.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s just Tahltan Central Government and the B.C. government putting together what works for the Tahltan.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Association for Mineral Exploration recently withdrew from a northwest land-use planning engagement session run by the provincial government and Tahltan, calling for transparency on agreements between Tahltan and the provincial government related to land-use planning. The organization continues to participate in the planning process but is calling for disclosure of a land-use planning map\u2014already one year overdue\u2014so its members can see which areas are proposed for conservation and which are open for mineral exploration.<\/p>\n \u201cThe fact that the public, communities and industry were shut out of that [land-use planning] process for literally years and were only invited into the process at the 11th Hour is totally unacceptable,\u201d association president Stone said. \u201cWe need the province to step up and assert its authority as the Crown in defense of the public interest, and anything less than that is, frankly, a dereliction of responsibility on the part of the provincial government.\u201d<\/p>\n The consequences are reaching the courts, where it has been alleged the province \u201cimpermissibly delegated\u201d authority to the Tahltan. In a 2024\u00a0petition<\/a>\u00a0filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Torr Metals Inc accused the province\u2019s then-chief inspector of mines of delegating decision-making authority to the Tahltan when she denied an exploratory drilling permit for copper and gold within the Golden Triangle. The company stated the chief inspector \u201cerred in law by failing to undertake the required balancing of aboriginal and non-aboriginal interests, as mandated by the Supreme Court of Canada in\u00a0Haida Nation v. Canada<\/a>\u2026\u201d and that there were no terms under which the B.C. government would issue a permit without Tahltan consent \u201cregardless of the merits\u2026 thereby giving the [Tahltan Central Government] a\u00a0de facto\u00a0veto.\u201d<\/p>\n The judge\u00a0dismissed the petition<\/a>\u00a0earlier this year, refusing to compel the ministry to divulge more records or open the mines inspector to cross examination over her decision to refuse to issue a permit. The court concluded that the province followed lawful procedures \u201cabsent evidence to the contrary.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n However,\u00a0Northern Beat\u00a0has spoken directly with other mineral exploration operators from across the province who\u00a0report<\/a>\u00a0similar conditions of a prejudiced permitting process, consisting of endless delays, where decision-makers are paralyzed, awaiting de facto consent from Indigenous communities that sometimes never comes. Some proponents have compared the new regulatory set up they encountered as a pay-to-play extortion-type scheme enabled by government where indigenous groups demand payments upfront before they will even commit to consulting on a permit application, let alone approve it. Meanwhile, mineral prospectors, many small operators, try to hang on financially long enough to get approvals for notice of work permits just to drill a hole to see if there are minerals worth mining.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s important that [prospectors] are successful, but it\u2019s also equally important that when a mine is in its earliest stages that there\u2019s a good relationship with the local First Nation,\u201d said the premier when asked in April about the de facto veto mineral exploration operators were encountering. Two months later, his government extended its\u00a0pause on new mineral exploration<\/a>\u00a0permitting in the northwest and north-central B.C.<\/p>\n Mineral permitting process mired in confusion and uncertainty\u00a0<\/p>\n The mineral prospecting sector has been in upheaval since a 2024 BC Supreme Court decision found the mineral claims process was in breach of the province\u2019s duty to consult and ruled Indigenous communities need to be consulted prior to a claim being staked. Previously, a prospector could go online, pick a site and stake a claim in minutes. Then in November 2025, the BC Appeal Court struck down the\u00a0Mineral Tenure Act\u00a0itself for breaching the Declaration Act, leaving open the possibility that any B.C. law could be similarly challenged.<\/p>\n Since then, parties on all sides grapple with \u2018consult\u2019 versus \u2018consent,\u2019 <\/a>how to properly adhere to the requirement and whether that means government or Indigenous groups are the final decision-makers.<\/p>\n Mineral exploration operators say consent-based decision-making leads to conflicts-of-interest when the decision-makers are equity shareholders in the mines, employee suppliers, priority contractors, community benefit recipients, Crown land-use planning partners, and the final governmental authority signing off on their own project\u2019s environmental assessment.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is an inherent bias in having an interested party \u2013 the Tahltan Nation, which is directly involved in several mining projects in the area \u2013 co\u2011develop a plan that will govern third\u2011party interests,\u201d wrote Brixton Metals in a\u00a0letter cc\u2019d to the premier<\/a>\u00a0last December. Brixton Metals said it has spent $70 million developing a mineral site in Tahltan\u2019s asserted territory, including direct payments to the Tahltan Central Government and jobs to members.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Tahltan Nation must act in the interests of its members, not the general public; this creates obvious concerns for third parties seeking impartial processes for decisions affecting their operations. Failure to address this perceived impartiality undermines democratic principles and erodes investor confidence.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The Tahltan model is not confined to the northwest. Similar pockets of\u00a0consent-based arrangements<\/a>\u00a0have\u00a0been signed<\/a>\u00a0or are\u00a0in the works<\/a>\u00a0across the province through\u00a0landscape planning,<\/a>\u00a0conservation agreements,<\/a>\u00a0resource project vetos,<\/a>\u00a0provincial park closures,<\/a> <\/a>land title deals,<\/a>\u00a0forestry tenure transfers,<\/a>\u00a0archeology requirements,<\/a>\u00a0development permitting<\/a>, and more, all in the name of reconciliation and the\u00a0Declaration Act.<\/p>\n One agent who represents dozens of mineral prospectors in British Columbia said certainty is what\u2019s missing in the permitting process. He said several of his clients have been well into the permitting process when they were hit with a slate of new conditions for approval because the Indigenous group asserting claim over the territory where the work was located had suddenly signed a land use agreement with the province.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cThey\u2019re popping up all the time,\u201d said Nicholas Gust. \u201cOnce [the First Nation] has the agreement in place, then they have all these new obligations that the government has agreed to with the Indian band that didn\u2019t exist before.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Gust says the deals are done before the public or the proponents are even aware the agreements were being negotiated. \u201cIt\u2019s strictly between government, Indigenous relations staff and the bands.\u201d<\/p>\n Sector representatives call out corrupted regulatory system<\/p>\n By granting the Tahltan governance authority \u2014 including the power to approve or block projects and shape the rules that regulate them \u2014 over territory from which they stand to substantially profit, the B.C. government has abandoned the fundamental principle that decision-makers should not have a direct financial interest in the outcomes they control. This creates a clear and structural conflict of interest that would be unacceptable in virtually any other regulatory context.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n In Eskay Creek, the community benefits agreement from Skeena Resources was approved by Tahltan\u00a0\u00a0following a $40 million up front payment to the community, including\u00a0$10,000 payments to each member<\/a>\u00a0whose consent the province had made necessary for the project to proceed.\u00a0<\/p>\n Critics say payments to statutory decision-makers to gain permitting approvals are extortion and bribery, and that just because an agreement is advanced in the name of reconciliation, should not mean it gets a pass on the standards and ethics guiding the governance of all our democratic institutions.<\/p>\n The similarities to the SNC-Lavalin affair are striking.\u00a0<\/p>\n SNC made payments to government officials to obtain commercial advantage in high value projects.\u00a0In British Columbia, mining companies are making substantial payments \u2014 including direct cash transfers and long-term benefit agreements \u2014 to a so-called Indigenous government that now holds the power to craft land use planning in the region and approve or veto resource projects. The distinction in B.C. is that the provincial government is both granting and enforcing this process.<\/p>\n Attorney general dismisses $40 million upfront payment to Tahltan as \u2018terms of cooperation\u2018<\/p>\n Mineral exploration and mining executives worry privately that B.C. is creating a resource-approval system where the success of a proponent negotiating a multi-billion-dollar project that powers the province\u2019s economy hangs on\u00a0the whim of a small community<\/a> with no duty to the public interest. A system where only the biggest players can afford to play by the increasingly exorbitant rules of consent. And that land-use approval for Crown-land development is now associated with private payments to the political community whose permission is required.<\/p>\n The\u00a0Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act\u00a0fights corruption by forcing transparency around payments to \u201cany government in Canada or in a foreign state.\u201d But mere disclosure does not address the complex capture issues when the payee is also the decision-maker authority for the project.<\/p>\n In an interview in January, B.C. Attorney General Niki Sharma rejected the characterization of conflict-of-interest on the part of Tahltan and dismissed the $40 million upfront payment from Skeena Resources to Tahltan as business-as-usual.<\/p>\n \u201cThose are things that are negotiated between industry and the First Nations governments. It\u2019s not an uncommon thing for there be terms of cooperation, and sometimes the payments flow throughout different levels of steps and processes and procedures in the permitting and process of projects.\u201d<\/p>\n Even when the entity whose consent is required is also statutory decision maker who will profit from the decision? Is that not buying the vote of the statutory decision-makers, she was asked.<\/p>\n \u201cI disagree with that assessment,\u201d Sharma said, shrugging it off as \u201ca very common practice for industry and First Nations to sit down and have an economic benefits agreements for the work that\u2019s happening on the land and that\u2019s something that\u2019s been a practice for probably decades in B.C.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Metal-endownment-Golden-triangle-1.28B-BC-geological-Survey-338x360.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Tahltan-territory-map-Tahltan-site-1136x720.jpg\")
Tahltan assert territorial sovereignty over 96,000 square kilometres or 11 per cent of B.C.\u2019s total land base, an area larger than the country of Portugal, containing 11 active mining projects expected to draw $30 billion in investment. [Tahltan Nation map]<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Herbert-McIsaac-google-it-member-May-26-Hansard-TV.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Tahlatan-Nation-camp-support-Tahltan-Nation-Development-Corp-TNDC-1260x720.jpg\")
Tahlatan Nation camp support site. [Tahltan Nation Development Corp]<\/p>\n