RE:Road to no whereHaven't posted in a while but for someone who has meticulously studied indigenous agreements as well as frameworks for national projects for the better part of 10 years ... The ripping apart of the old agreements were a good thing as they just don't work.
Some of the hardest things to do is negotiate a multi-group agreement that each group needs to agree to without disagreement. Similar to other trade agreements, if 1 member declines, the whole agreement is thrown out and often takes decades for agreement if there is more then 5 members (think CETA which started in 2009, needs to be ratified by 28 governments and is expected to take decades from it's finished agreement in 2014)
It should of been done this way in the past, where regional assessments were made with the consultation of the indigenous groups affected and then individual agreements made based on the Indigenous groups as once 1 is signed, you can move to the other. The 2 that did sign don't need anyone else to build a road out there (Webekuie being almost on the ring of fire and Martin falls to make a corridor to existing infarstructure). The other 7 are for the actual mine WHEN it's in production. It's harder to negotiate when a road isn't out there yet for what those other groups want.
I am by no means a fan of Ford but if you actually read between the lines, yes it was 2 steps back as the agreement was torn up and we previously had 3 groups on board but the same groups who signed new are technically the ones needed for a road. Now there is much more negotiation room for the other groups wants, needs or demands. We took 3 steps back down the wrong path to take 2 steps up the right one.
Multi group agreements in Canada (greater then 5) is typically where Canadian projects go to die. This was a step in the right direction and a correction from what the liberals started.... Even if it was just a photo op and fluff opportunity (as I would of preferred they said this... And work starts this spring)