text: "Ms. Notley said indigenous people do not have a veto over the project."  While true at the moment that may change depending upon what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say when the issue comes before them.
  
  In the Haida and Taku River decisions in 2004, and the Mikisew Cree decision in 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown has a duty to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate when the Crown contemplates conduct that might adversely impact potential or established Aboriginal or Treaty rights. The Court explained that the duty stems from the Honour of the Crown and the Crown's unique relationship with Aboriginal peoples.
  
  A 2014 SCOC decision edged right up to a veto power.  The unanimous 8-0 ruling was written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin saying “(a)boriginal title confers the right to use and control the land and to reap the benefits flowing from it,” in  setting aside timber licences granted by BC.  See Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, 2014 SCC 44