Private companies soon won't touch Canada with a barge pole when it comes to infrastructure projects. Governments will have to do them on their own. Trans Mountain is just the first.
Coastal Gas Link was selected to build the line in 2012 and filed its first environmental assessment application in 2014. In future, what company is going to spend hundreds of millions and years in an exercise that is likely to be futile.
Nobody on this forum is, to my knowledge, a lawyer on aboriginal rights and law in BC/Canada.
that waldo guy plays one on tee-vee... and with that pretext: there have been several posts in this thread presuming upon SCOC rulings; however, in the waldo's humble opinion, none of these rulings are the definitive resource in regards the oft stated "Crown duty to consult". Rather, that duty stems from S.35 of the 1982 Constitution itself - hence more relatively recent emphasis on the singular word and phrases that include "
reconciliation". More pointedly in regards establishing land title, this duty is not one of blanket application; rather, it applies, 'case-by-case' with an onus on First Nations to apply and make their case... with, it seems, judicial oversight required to determine the legitimacy of these 'case-by-case' submissions.
what extends from the waldo's personal interest in seeing First Nations participation in improving their own economic standing, is my targeted review of related SCOC rulings that speak to limitations on granted title - limitations that particularly reflect resource related developments on claimed (or established) First Nations lands. Developments with a greater public interest attachment; ones that particularly bring significant benefits to impacted First Nations themselves. And again, my targeted review of those related SCOC rulings has been done to:
=> emphasize Crown duty to consult does not present First Nations, "a veto, a right to veto", say... public interest resource developments, and
=> tests have been established to more pointedly help ascertain and determine whether, for example, resource developments meet that test of being, 'in the public interest'. In that pointed regard, near the very beginning of this thread, I wrote:
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
(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
and yes, member wilber, private company engagement and investments therein are at risk until greater certainty becomes ingrained in relationships concerning First Nations land claims (titled, or not). If nothing else, the element of time/process required to determine said public interest (broader public good), might be enough to negatively influence a private company's decision making in considering resource related developments - something that, perhaps, protestors implicitly factor (knowingly, or not).