Tsimshian Framework Agreement Tsimshian Nation Framework Agreement
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014
PART C — ABORIGINAL GROUPS INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Environmental Assessment Certificate Application LNG Canada Export Terminal Section 13 – Background on Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups October 2014 The copyright of this document is vested in LNG Canada Development Inc. All rights reserved. LNG Canada Export Terminal Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 13: Background On Potentially Affected Aboriginal Groups 13 BACKGROUND ON POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ABORIGINAL GROUPS As set out in the June 6, 2013, section 11 Order, the following Aboriginal Groups may be affected by the Project: . Schedule B (Facility and associated activities) Haisla Nation . Schedule C (Shipping activities) Haisla Nation Gitga’at First Nation Gitxaala Nation Kitselas First Nation Kitsumkalum First Nation Lax Kw’alaams First Nation, and Metlakatla First Nation. Schedule D (Notification) Métis Nation British Columbia As a Schedule D group, Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) is included in this section of the Application. The section 13 Order issued by the EAO on August 7, 2013, amended Schedule D of the section 11 Order to clarify that the consultation activities (i.e., notification) with MNBC listed on Schedule D are to be conducted by BC on behalf of the Government of Canada, and is not an acknowledgement by BC that it owes a duty of consultation or accommodation to Métis in BC under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In accordance with the AIR, this section of the Application provides available background information for those -
PART C - DIGBY ISLAND SITE OPTION Project Description PART C - DIGBY ISLAND SITE OPTION Section 9: Digby Island June 2014
PART C - DIGBY ISLAND SITE OPTION Project Description PART C - DIGBY ISLAND SITE OPTION Section 9: Digby Island June 2014 9 DIGBY ISLAND 9.1 Site Location Digby Island is on the northwest coast of BC, approximately 700 km north of Vancouver. The potential Project site is located on the southeast corner of Digby Island, approximately 3 km southwest of Prince Rupert, and 50 km south southeast of the US border (Figure 9-1). Digby Island is situated within the Skeena-Queen Charlotte Regional District (SQCRD) and the North Coast Forest District. The LNG facility will be located on approximately 200-400 ha of provincial Crown land. Coordinates for the approximate centre of the site are: • Latitude/Longitude - 54°16’5”N/130°22’58”W • Universal Transverse Mercator – Zone 9 East 409945.6 North 6014228.5 The marine terminal will be located at the south end of Digby Island. 9.2 Land Ownership and Zoning Digby Island is a small island with two small communities of Dodge Cove and Crippen Cove. These communities are located on small lots of private lands on the east side of the island approximately 2 km and 6 km from the Project site, respectively. The northeastern portion of the island is a First Nations Reserve belonging to the Metlakatla (S 1/2 Tsimpsean 2), which is located about 5 km from the Project site (Figure 9-2). Other nearby First Nations reserves include Wilnaskancaud 3, Shoowahtlans 4, Tugwell Island 21, which are located approximately 10 km from the proposed site. The nearest identified permanent, temporary or seasonal residence is located approximately 0.4 km north to the proposed project site. -
The Boundary Point CASE COMMENTARIES on PROPERTY TITLE Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2014 and BOUNDARY LAW
The Boundary Point CASE COMMENTARIES ON PROPERTY TITLE Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2014 AND BOUNDARY LAW The Boundary Point is published by Four Point Learning as a free monthly e-newsletter, providing case comments of decisions involving some issue or aspect of property title and boundary law of interest to land surveyors and lawyers. The goal is to keep you aware of decisions recently released by the courts in Canada that may impact your work. In June, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released a significant judgment in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia1. For now, Tsilhqot’in Nation represents a pinnacle in a long line of cases which have clarified aboriginal title and the concept of land as an entity which belongs to a first nation. However, this does not leave other rulings irrelevant or no longer important to consider – especially when it comes to surveying practice and boundaries. In this issue we explore how a reserve was surveyed and set aside as part of a specific treaty making process, and in the course of doing so, the Crown excluded a parcel within the reserve. In Canada v. Kitselas First Nation2, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Canada from a finding that Canada had breached its fiduciary obligation to the Kitselas First Nation by non-inclusion of a 10.5 acre parcel of land in a reserve in 1891. Kitselas First Nation is important in terms of defining the nature of that duty, but also in giving us better insight to surveying and the reserve creating process at that point in time. -
27 Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests
Pacific NorthWest LNG Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 27: Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests 27 ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND RELATED INTERESTS 27.1 Aboriginal Rights 27.1.1 Introduction The purpose of this section is to satisfy the requirements under Sections 9.2 (Potential or Established Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests) and 10.2 (Adverse Impacts on Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests) of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Guidelines and the requirements of Section 27.1 (Aboriginal Rights and Related Interests) of the Application Information Requirements. For the purposes of the EIS/Application, the term “Aboriginal Rights” means asserted or determined Aboriginal and treaty rights. The Aboriginal groups discussed in this section are: . Metlakatla First Nation . Lax Kw’alaams First Nation . Gitxaala Nation . Kitselas First Nation . Kitsumkalum First Nation. The objectives of this section are to: . Describe the relevant asserted or determined Aboriginal Rights of each Aboriginal group as identified through secondary research techniques or provided directly through consultation activities (Section 27.1.4). Describe background information on the ethnography, language, governance, and reserves of each Aboriginal group (Section 27.1.2). Describe available and relevant traditional knowledge (TK) and/or traditional use (TU) information (Section 27.1.2, Section 27.1.4, and Section 27.1.7.2). Summarize efforts undertaken to engage with the Aboriginal groups as part of collecting the information identified above, including a summary of engagement conducted prior to the submission of the EIS/Application (see Section 27.1.3). Summarize specific issues and concerns raised by Aboriginal groups in relation to the potential adverse impacts of the Project on potential or established Aboriginal Rights and related interests. -
The Path to a Better Future / Bringing Our People Back Home / the Looking
BC TreaTy Commission annual reporT 2012 Learning from our success / the path to a better future / bringing our people back home / the future is looking good / free from the indian act / opportunity to excel / we have a lot to contribute / countdown to independence / land is something you can hand down to future generations The title of this Annual Report “Learning from our Success” was inspired by the words of the late Chief Joe Mathias: “It has been said that one learns nothing from success, that one only learns from failure, that experience is a crude teacher. With the signing of the Treaty Commission Agreement today we now have the opportunity to turn that saying around, indeed we have the opportunity to turn history around. The process we have put into motion today affords us the chance to learn all about success for all peoples. Not only for the First Nations peoples but for the people of British Columbia and Canada.” ’ ’ —— t ’échux- anm-t siyÁm / Late chief joe mathias / squamish nation at the signing of the british coLumbia treaty commission agreement september 21, 1992 contents 20 years... 3 status report... 13 about us... 25 commissioners… 29 bc treaty commission annual report 2012 / 1 leTTer from The / chief commissioner “A Commitment Worth Preserving…” is how the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples opens its June 2012 interim report on reviving the BC treaty negotiations process. In this, my last Annual Report as Chief Commissioner of the BC Treaty Commission, I cannot agree more strongly with this statement. The BC treaty process is indeed worth preserving. -
MGC Strategic Plan 07May15.Pdf
This page intentionally blank TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1 2 MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR............................................................................................................................................... 2 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 4 WHO WE ARE, AND WHAT WE DO ............................................................................................................................................................. 5 4.1 METLAKATLA FIRST NATION ...............................................................................................................................................................5 4.2 METLAKATLA TRADITIONAL TERRITORY .................................................................................................................................................6 4.3 METLAKATLA GOVERNING COUNCIL .....................................................................................................................................................7 4.4 METLAKATLA TREATY PROCESS AND LAWS .............................................................................................................................................8 4.5 STRATEGIC -
The Boundary Point CASE COMMENTARIES on PROPERTY TITLE Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2014 and BOUNDARY LAW
The Boundary Point CASE COMMENTARIES ON PROPERTY TITLE Volume 2, Issue 10, October 2014 AND BOUNDARY LAW The Boundary Point is published by Four Point Learning as a free monthly e-newsletter, providing case comments of decisions involving some issue or aspect of property title and boundary law of interest to land surveyors and lawyers. The goal is to keep you aware of decisions recently released by the courts in Canada that may impact your work. In June, 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada released a significant judgment in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia1. For now, Tsilhqot’in Nation represents a pinnacle in a long line of cases which have clarified aboriginal title and the concept of land as an entity which belongs to a first nation. However, this does not leave other rulings irrelevant or no longer important to consider – especially when it comes to surveying practice and boundaries. In this issue we explore how a reserve was surveyed and set aside as part of a specific treaty making process, and in the course of doing so, the Crown excluded a parcel within the reserve. In Canada v. Kitselas First Nation2, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Canada from a finding that Canada had breached its fiduciary obligation to the Kitselas First Nation by non-inclusion of a 10.5 acre parcel of land in a reserve in 1891. Kitselas First Nation is important in terms of defining the nature of that duty, but also in giving us better insight to surveying and the reserve creating process at that point in time. -
Terrace2017 Official Visitor Guide
Visit Terrace2017 Official Visitor Guide www.VisitTerrace.com • 1.877.635.4944 Authorized Retailer ii | toll-free 1-877-635-4944 Kermodei Tourism Terrace Visitor Centre 4511 Keith Avenue, Terrace, BC V8G 1K1 What’s Ph: 250-635-4944 • TF: 1-877-635-4944 [email protected] Available at the Terrace Visitor Centre Inside Message from the Mayor, Tourism Manager & Board of Directors ......... 2 X Free Wi-Fi X Guest Computer Welcome to Terrace ....................................................................... 3 X Sani-Dump Station X Retail Sales Facts about Terrace ................................................................... 3 X Potable Water X Picnic Area Getting Here .................................................................................. 4 X Restroom X Wheelchair Accessible Routes & Tours ............................................................................. 5 Motorcycle Touring ........................................................................ 6 X Charging Station Our History ................................................................................... 7 Top 6 Historical Attractions ......................................................... 8 First Nations Culture ....................................................................... 10 Conquering the Skeena ............................................................. 12 Nass Valley ............................................................................. 13 Wildlife & Ecology ........................................................................ -
1 Introduction and Project Overview
Pacific NorthWest LNG Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment Certificate Application Section 1: Introduction and Project Overview 1 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW Pacific NorthWest LNG Limited Partnership (PNW LNG) proposes to construct and operate the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project (the Project), a liquefied natural gas (LNG) facility on Lelu Island, within the District of Port Edward, British Columbia (BC) (see Figure 1-1). The Project will be located primarily on federal lands and waters under the jurisdiction of the Prince Rupert Port Authority (PRPA). The Project will convert natural gas into LNG for export to Pacific Rim markets in Asia. At full build-out (on completion of Phase 2, with three production trains), the facility will receive approximately 3.2 billion standard cubic feet per day (Bcfd), or 9.1 x 107 cubic metres (m3) per day, of pipeline grade natural gas, and produce up to 19.2 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) of LNG. The natural gas will be transported to the LNG facility by a new pipeline from northeast BC. The pipeline is the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project, which is being proposed by a third party (TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.) and will be assessed under a separate regulatory process. 1.1 Purpose of the EIS/Application This Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Assessment Certificate Application (EIS/Application) is prepared to provide the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEA Agency) with the information necessary to prepare an Environmental Assessment Report (EAR) in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), and to provide the BC Environmental Assessment Office (BC EAO) with the information necessary to issue an Environmental Assessment Certificate (EAC) under the BC Environmental Assessment Act (BCEAA). -
A Case Study with the Metlakatla First Nation
Cultural Values in Cumulative Effects Management: A Case Study with the Metlakatla First Nation by Brennan Hutchison B.Sc.(Env.), University of Guelph, 2014 Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Resource Management (Planning) in the School of Resource and Environmental Management Faculty of Environment Report No. 684 © Brennan Hutchison 2017 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Fall 2017 Copyright in this work rests with the author. Please ensure that any reproduction or re-use is done in accordance with the relevant national copyright legislation. Approval Name: Brennan Hutchison Degree: Master of Resource Management (Planning) Report No. 684 Title: Cultural Values in Cumulative Effects Management: A Case Study with the Metlakatla First Nation Examining Committee: Chair: Chloe Boyle Master of Resource Management Candidate Murray B. Rutherford Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Thomas Gunton Supervisor Professor Date Defended/Approved: August 28, 2017 ii Ethics Statement iii Abstract Conventional approaches to environmental impact assessment and cumulative effects assessment (CEA) have largely failed to incorporate the cultural values of Aboriginal communities and have inadequately addressed the negative impacts of development on these values. The main objective of this study is to develop and demonstrate an improved methodology for identifying and assessing cultural values to inform CEA and other decision-making processes. After reviewing the major weaknesses and recommendations discussed in the literature on CEA and cultural values, I describe the new method and demonstrate its application as part of an innovative cumulative effects management program instituted by the Metlakatla First Nation for their traditional territory in northwestern British Columbia. I compare my results with the results of a recent conventional assessment conducted for the Pacific NorthWest LNG Project in Metlakatla territory. -
Land Use Plan 2019
Note: graphics/design elements will be developed after the draft plan has gone Kitselas First Nation to community and council for review Land Use Plan and follow up revisions have been 2019 completed. The Land Use Plan must be reviewed as part of all decision-making processes on Kitselas’ Reserve lands. This is to ensure that any proposed future decisions related to the use of land are consistent with the Plan. Any decisions related to new development or expansion or relocation of existing development must adhere to the Land Use Plan. Examples of projects that would require input from the Land Use Plan include, but may not be limited to: Residential development (homes and subdivisions) Commercial development Industrial development Infrastructure development Community facilities Resource extraction activities (i.e. forestry and mining) Preamble This Land Use Plan will be interpreted in accordance with the culture, traditions and customs of Kitselas First Nation. The preamble for the Kitselas Reserve Lands Management Act (posted on the Kitselas First Nation website) provided guidance for the development of the Land Use Plan. The Act sets out the principles and legislative and administrative structures that apply to Kitselas land and by which the Nation exercises authority of this land. The preamble to the Kitselas Reserve Lands Management Act is derived from the Men of Medeek, the oral translation of the Kitselas people as described by Walter Wright. It states: The Kitselas People have occupied and benefited from their home lands since time out of memory and govern their lives and lands through a system of laws and law making based on the following principles: Laws they had; but these were few; laws framed by Wise Men who watched the face of nature; who pondered long on the workings of Gyamk, the Sun God who lived in the Sky City of Lahah; laws that were made as they watched cause and effect work out their ends in the lives of men. -
APPENDIX 16.0-A Kitsault Aboriginal Group Profiles
KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT APPENDICES APPENDIX 16.0-A Kitsault Aboriginal Group Profiles VE51988 – Appendices KITSAULT MINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL BACKGROUND KITSAULT ABORIGINAL GROUP PROFILES TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................... I UNITS OF MEASUREMENT .................................................................................................................. II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... III 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Limitations ...................................................................................................................