Author Topic: BC v Wet'suet'en  (Read 11513 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8713
Re: BC v Wet'suet'en
« Reply #105 on: February 14, 2020, 01:02:33 pm »
It's up to FN to get their act together and presented a united position. How the hell is government supposed to deal with a people who can't even agree among themselves.

**** winner **** (incidentally a position put forward by the National's At Issue Panel... that rarely has consensus within)

we read, at ad nauseum, member Granny squawking like a parrot: "Crown's duty to consult, Crown's duty to consult".... which in this circumstance is actually... "Crown's duty to figure out who to consult with, Crown's duty to figure out who deciders are, Crown's duty to figure out what the FN decision is - to arrive at a consensus for them"!

waldo reference point; re: duty to consult: a recent days (Feb 4) ruling by the Federal Court of Appeal unanimously rejected an appeal by four First Nations of the Canadian government's approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

Quote
The court repeatedly said in its ruling that neither the duty to consult First Nations nor the concept of "consent" translates into a veto. The court noted that the Canadian government tried to get the consent of First Nations opposed to the pipeline expansion project. Failing to get that consent does not mean the project can be stopped.

The judges ruled that “reconciliation does not dictate any particular substantive outcome” on a given resource project. They wrote that requiring a “perfect” level of consultation would in turn create a kind of de facto veto on major projects, and said First Nations “cannot tactically use the consultation process as a means to try to veto it.”

“Canada was under no obligation to obtain consent prior to approving the Project,” the judges wrote. “That would, again, amount to giving Indigenous groups a veto.”