Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #45 on: February 12, 2020, 01:02:16 am »
It isn't about which is the rightful bargaining agent. It's about all of them being consulted.

The traditional Chiefs and Council are the Aboriginal rights and title holders on behalf of the people. (SCoC: Delgamuukw 1997)

Their objection is that the BC Crown did not consult with them, though their title is recognized.

uhhh... you contradict yourself across the above... and below... quotes! You are confused - yes?

The Crown has a duty to consult with Aboriginal rights, title and treaty holders. Those are not Canada's First Nations elected Band Counicil but the larger Indigenous Nations they belong to who existed at contact or at treaty signing (where applicable).

no individuals, whether hereditary chiefs or Council chief/members, are title holders. Rather, the Indigenous group, at large, is the title owner. The onus can't be on "the Crown/industry" to figure out who to consult with... to decide who the decision makers are. Respective First Nations need to get their shyte together and realize consensus within - and present that consensus and representatives aligned with that consensus to the Crown/industry for consultations in regards, for example, energy related development initiatives.

you keep using the phrase and calling for "fair dealings". Is this fair: as an example, as I'm aware, the 5 hereditary chiefs of the largest clan of the Wet'suet'en are/were also Band Councillors... and, accordingly, were apart of and/or privy to the last 5 years of consultations with Coastal GasLink (CGL). I expect some number of those other 8 hereditary chiefs (of the total 13 hereditary chiefs) were also Band Councillors within their respective Wet'suet'en clans, and accordingly, would also have been a part of the consult/negotiations.

do you really expect the Crown/industry to bring differing opinion holders together (say hereditary versus band chiefs/councilors) and attempt to have them reach a consensus within their own ranks... as a part of the consult itself? Really? Talk about your expressed call for "fair dealings"!

and.... notwithstanding the Wet’suwet’en Nation across its respective band makeup is made up of less than 3500 persons in total... less than 3500 persons in total:

as you continue to place emphasis on that "duty to consult", I'll again bring some perspective/reality to your misplaced... and overreaching... emphasis; in the form of the crafted 'Sparrow test' laid out by the Supreme Court of Canada; a test that can, as its conditions are met, override Indigenous title in the public interest. Again:

prior member Granny post mentioned the quite dated, 'Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010'... principles from Delgamuukw were restated and summarized in the more current:

June 26, 2014 - 2014 SCC 44 - Tsilhqot'in Nation v British Columbia --- Supreme Court provides testing conditions mechanism by which the Crown can override Indigenous title in the public interest
Quote
(para 77) To justify overriding the Aboriginal title-holding group’s wishes on the basis of the broader public good, the government must show:

- (1) that it discharged its procedural duty to consult and accommodate;

- (2) that its actions were backed by a compelling and substantial objective; and

- (3) that the governmental action is consistent with the Crown’s fiduciary obligation to the group
Agree Agree x 1 View List