Liam, this is my version of "in summary:"
1. The band signs a deal taking over Toquaht Bay on the condition the province takes responsibility for any contamination. This shows a) an awareness of either the contamination or a very high probability of it, and b) a high level of sophistication and forward thinking so as not to get saddled with a disaster. This is not a clause put in by naive bumpkins.
2. The band signs an MOU with a mining company. This shows at least a general acceptance of the mining concept.
3. Mining company distributes marketing information explicitly showing the use of Toquaht band land. This must have some level of complicity with someone in the band. It is not reasonable to think a company would promote completely unauthorized use of private land with no reasonable expectation of access. Also, the fact the Toquaht band didn't/hasn't objected shows some level of acceptance. I mean, unsanctioned use of Indian land? Worth a very loud outcry unless you're accepting. Also, bad business for the mining company to pin hopes on a strategy that could be killed by a simple 'no.'
4. Toquaht band undertakes activity that triggers an environmental assessment. But why? I'm sure it could have been quietly agreed between the province and the band that an expansion of existing use is not cause for the assessment, especially with the known likelihood it would be found to be a contanimated property requiring a cleanup that would close the campsite.
Here's the million dollar question: who triggered the assessment? Not who undertook it, but who actually put finger to phone and said this must be done.
I guarantee this is what DID NOT happen: a bureaucrat read something, jumped up from his desk and said, "Hey folks, the Toquaht are planning some new campsites and an outhouse. That triggers Clause #253 subsection 6 of the Maa-nulth Treaty. Let's get busy with that testing gear!"
But this is roughly the scenario that we are expected to believe: that it was just a random following of protocol.
5. Band takes position of oops, we were naive. Which #1 shows the band is not.
6. Band member says to Liam the mine isn't a factor as it wouldn't be viable. To be credible, said band member would a) have to have intimate knowledge of the mining project and mining industry overall and spent an inordinate amount of time studying all this, or b) this comment is passed on third-hand as a remarkably convenient deflection. Not to say the guy was lying, Liam, but it's funny how unsubstantiated comments can become used as gospel especially if they are convenient to provide a basis for acting as you have.
Here's an analogy: you sign an MOU with Costco for the development of your house, you set in motion specific steps that lead to the demolition of your house, fortuitously to be paid for by the government and oddly in keeping with the Costco initiative, then say, "Naa, I didn't blow up the house because of Costco. They're not going to expand right now, it's too expensive to build." Meanwhile, Costco is distributing blueprints for its plans...
Sorry, Liam, the "oops, we didn't know" excuse is far less credible than the "conspiracy" theory. Not that all band members were in the loop. Nope, find who made the call to put the assessment in motion and you have the answer to the who and why.