First Nations in Canada have long struggled to participate effectively in resource development decisions. In 2004, the Supreme Court established that the federal and provincial governments of Canada have a duty to consult First Nations in cases where their treaty rights, land claims, or traditions may be adversely affected by government decision-making or third-party development. To determine whether the duty to consult has made an impact on the empowerment of First Nations in these decisions, I assess three case studies using four criteria. This research finds that, while the duty to consult has made a positive impact on the empowerment of First Nations, it still does not go far enough in truly empowering communities to achieve sustainable development on their own terms. This study concludes that the duty to consult may be supplemented with Aboriginal self-government – signaling the potential for positive change in the empowerment of communities seeking environmental justice.

In Canada, the duty to consult doctrine has been articulated as a legal remedy to address the potential infringement of Aboriginal and treaty rights by the Crown. The political dimension and implications of this legal duty on the evolving federal relationship between First Nations and the provincial Crown concerning lands and resources have yet to be fully explored. This research presents the argument that the duty to consult jurisprudence and the new relationship policy in British Columbia are moving towards the articulation of a treaty federalism relationship between the Crown and First Nations. The implications of these findings are then analyzed within the Saskatchewan policy environment, and a potential consultation framework is offered for this province. Crucial linkages between duty to consult jurisprudence and Aboriginal governance, and their implications for policy are highlighted, which contribute to further understanding the complex relationship between First Nations and the Crown in Canada on land and resources.

In Canada, the duty to consult doctrine has been articulated as a legal remedy to address the potential infringement of Aboriginal and treaty rights by the Crown. The political dimension and implications of this legal duty on the evolving federal relationship between First Nations and the provincial Crown concerning lands and resources have yet to be fully explored. This research presents the argument that the duty to consult jurisprudence and the new relationship policy in British Columbia are moving towards the articulation of a treaty federalism relationship between the Crown and First Nations. The implications of these findings are then analyzed within the Saskatchewan policy environment, and a potential consultation framework is offered for this province. Crucial linkages between duty to consult jurisprudence and Aboriginal governance, and their implications for policy are highlighted, which contribute to further understanding the complex relationship between First Nations and the Crown in Canada on land and resources.

Le présent mémoire est consacré à l'étude de l'obligation faite à l'État canadien de consulter les autochtones lorsqu'il envisage de prendre des mesures portant atteinte à leurs droits et intérêts. On s'y interroge sur le sens que peut avoir cette obligation, si elle n'inclut pas celle de s'entendre avec les autochtones. Notre étude retrace d'abord l'évolution de l'obligation de consulter dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada, pour se pencher ensuite sur l'élaboration d'un modèle théorique du processus consultatif. En observant la manière dont la jurisprudence relative aux droits ancestraux a donné naissance à l'obligation de consulter, on constate que c'est en s'approchant au plus près de l'idée d'autonomie gouvernementale autochtone - soit en définissant le titre ancestral, droit autochtone à la terre elle-même - que la Cour a senti le besoin de développer la consultation en tant que véritable outil de dialogue entre l'État et les Premières nations. Or, pour assurer la participation réelle des parties au processus de consultation, la Cour a ensuite dû balancer leur rapport de forces, ce qu'elle a fait en admettant le manque de légitimité du pouvoir étatique sur les autochtones. C'est ainsi qu'après avoir donné naissance au processus de consultation, la jurisprudence relative aux droits ancestraux pourrait à son tour être modifiée substantiellement par son entremise. En effet, l'égalité qu'il commande remet en question l'approche culturaliste de la Cour aux droits ancestraux, et pourrait l'amener à refonder ces droits dans le principe plus égalitaire de continuité des ordres juridiques autochtones. Contrairement à l'approche culturaliste actuelle, ce principe fait place à la reconnaissance juridique de l'autonomie gouvernementale autochtone. La logique interne égalitaire du processus de consultation ayant ainsi été exposée, elle fait ensuite l'objet d'une plus ample analyse. On se demande d'abord comment concevoir cette logique sur le plan théorique. Ceci exige d'ancrer la consultation, en tant qu'institution juridique, dans une certaine vision du droit. Nous adoptons ici celle de Lon Fuller, riche de sens pour nos fins. Puis, nous explicitons les principes structurants du processus consultatif. Il appert de cette réflexion que l'effectivité de la consultation dépend de la qualité du dialogue qu'elle engendre entre les parties. Si elle respecte sa morale inhérente, la consultation peut générer une relation morale unique entre les autochtones et l'État canadien. Cette relation de reconnaissance mutuelle est une relation de don. / In this essay, we study the Canadian State's duty to consult Aboriginal peoples when it purports to infringe on their rights and interests. We start with the following question: What meaning, if any, does the duty to consult have, if it does not include a duty to reach a consensus ? Our study is divided in two parts. First, we trace the evolution of the duty to consult in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Secondly, we discuss a theoretical model for the consultation process. Our study of the genesis and subsequent evolution of the duty to consult reveals that this duty gains some ambit when the Court is called upon to define the notion of aboriginal title - the type of aboriginal right that cornes closest to full aboriginal self-government on a piece of land. In its effort to construct the consultation process, the Court soon realizes that if it wants both parties to really engage in it, it has to balance their relationship, something the Court does by admitting the State's lack of legitimate authority over the Aboriginals. But affirming the equal status of both parties in the consultation process leads to further consequences than the mere effectiveness of that process. Aboriginal equality does not fit weIl within the Court's cultural approach to aboriginal rights. The common law doctrine of continuity of the aboriginal legal orders is more congenial to that equality, as it leads naturally to the legal recognition of a measure of aboriginal autonomy within Canada. Thus, after giving birth to the consultation process, the law of aboriginal rights could itself be substantially modified through the logical implications of its own offspring. Having exposed the egalitarian logic inherent to the consultation process, we proceed to study that logic in further detail. We ground our quest for the inherent structure of consultation in a larger understanding of the law itself, which proceeds from Lon Fuller' s view of law as facilitating human interaction. We then discuss the principles that give content to a consultation process directed to achieve reconciliation. Effective consultation depends on the quality of the dialogue that it generates. Appropriately conceived and implemented, the consultation process between Aboriginal peoples and the State embodies a unique moral relationship, one of mutual recognition, capturing the' spirit of giving'.

Le présent mémoire est consacré à l'étude de l'obligation faite à l'État canadien de consulter les autochtones lorsqu'il envisage de prendre des mesures portant atteinte à leurs droits et intérêts. On s'y interroge sur le sens que peut avoir cette obligation, si elle n'inclut pas celle de s'entendre avec les autochtones. Notre étude retrace d'abord l'évolution de l'obligation de consulter dans la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême du Canada, pour se pencher ensuite sur l'élaboration d'un modèle théorique du processus consultatif. En observant la manière dont la jurisprudence relative aux droits ancestraux a donné naissance à l'obligation de consulter, on constate que c'est en s'approchant au plus près de l'idée d'autonomie gouvernementale autochtone - soit en définissant le titre ancestral, droit autochtone à la terre elle-même - que la Cour a senti le besoin de développer la consultation en tant que véritable outil de dialogue entre l'État et les Premières nations. Or, pour assurer la participation réelle des parties au processus de consultation, la Cour a ensuite dû balancer leur rapport de forces, ce qu'elle a fait en admettant le manque de légitimité du pouvoir étatique sur les autochtones. C'est ainsi qu'après avoir donné naissance au processus de consultation, la jurisprudence relative aux droits ancestraux pourrait à son tour être modifiée substantiellement par son entremise. En effet, l'égalité qu'il commande remet en question l'approche culturaliste de la Cour aux droits ancestraux, et pourrait l'amener à refonder ces droits dans le principe plus égalitaire de continuité des ordres juridiques autochtones. Contrairement à l'approche culturaliste actuelle, ce principe fait place à la reconnaissance juridique de l'autonomie gouvernementale autochtone. La logique interne égalitaire du processus de consultation ayant ainsi été exposée, elle fait ensuite l'objet d'une plus ample analyse. On se demande d'abord comment concevoir cette logique sur le plan théorique. Ceci exige d'ancrer la consultation, en tant qu'institution juridique, dans une certaine vision du droit. Nous adoptons ici celle de Lon Fuller, riche de sens pour nos fins. Puis, nous explicitons les principes structurants du processus consultatif. Il appert de cette réflexion que l'effectivité de la consultation dépend de la qualité du dialogue qu'elle engendre entre les parties. Si elle respecte sa morale inhérente, la consultation peut générer une relation morale unique entre les autochtones et l'État canadien. Cette relation de reconnaissance mutuelle est une relation de don. / In this essay, we study the Canadian State's duty to consult Aboriginal peoples when it purports to infringe on their rights and interests. We start with the following question: What meaning, if any, does the duty to consult have, if it does not include a duty to reach a consensus ? Our study is divided in two parts. First, we trace the evolution of the duty to consult in the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Secondly, we discuss a theoretical model for the consultation process. Our study of the genesis and subsequent evolution of the duty to consult reveals that this duty gains some ambit when the Court is called upon to define the notion of aboriginal title - the type of aboriginal right that cornes closest to full aboriginal self-government on a piece of land. In its effort to construct the consultation process, the Court soon realizes that if it wants both parties to really engage in it, it has to balance their relationship, something the Court does by admitting the State's lack of legitimate authority over the Aboriginals. But affirming the equal status of both parties in the consultation process leads to further consequences than the mere effectiveness of that process. Aboriginal equality does not fit weIl within the Court's cultural approach to aboriginal rights. The common law doctrine of continuity of the aboriginal legal orders is more congenial to that equality, as it leads naturally to the legal recognition of a measure of aboriginal autonomy within Canada. Thus, after giving birth to the consultation process, the law of aboriginal rights could itself be substantially modified through the logical implications of its own offspring. Having exposed the egalitarian logic inherent to the consultation process, we proceed to study that logic in further detail. We ground our quest for the inherent structure of consultation in a larger understanding of the law itself, which proceeds from Lon Fuller' s view of law as facilitating human interaction. We then discuss the principles that give content to a consultation process directed to achieve reconciliation. Effective consultation depends on the quality of the dialogue that it generates. Appropriately conceived and implemented, the consultation process between Aboriginal peoples and the State embodies a unique moral relationship, one of mutual recognition, capturing the' spirit of giving'. / "Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des études supérieures en vue de l'obtention du grade de maîtrise en droit, option recherche". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 5% des mémoires de la discipline. Commentaires du jury : "Excellent mémoire qui devrait être soumis aux fins de publication et à différents concours pour les prix récompensant des mémoires de maîtrise".

In this thesis I offer a brief overview of the current legislative, regulatory and treaty frameworks impacting emergency management in British Columbia, with a particular emphasis on Crown-identified First Nation roles. I show that the regime overwhelmingly positions non-First Nation governments, contractors and other organizations to manage emergencies on behalf of First Nations. I explore emergency management as a manifold process that includes protracted planning, mitigation and recovery phases, which, unlike emergency response, are carried out with lower levels of urgency. I consider Canadian Constitution Act, 1982 (s. 35) Aboriginal rights in light of the lack of statutorily prescribed inclusion of First Nations in off-reserve emergency management, particularly at the planning, mitigation and recovery phases concluding that the jurisprudence to date (including the duty to consult and Aboriginal title) does not appear to have revolutionized the regime. While the constitutional status of Aboriginal rights should operate to insure adequate First Nation direction in each stage of emergency management, the regime continues to restrictively prioritize other constitutional priorities, such as division of powers and civil liberties. To better understand the omission, I theorize the lack of Crown implementation of s. 35 Aboriginal rights generally as an ‘obligation gap’, highlighting how an analysis of s. 35 Aboriginal rights as ‘negative rights’ fails to compel implementation of the full scope of Crown obligations implicit within the jurisprudence to date. I then offer a new framework for s. 35 as justiciable ‘recognition rights’ and juxtapose ‘recognition rights’ with the idea of justiciability of government inaction through a brief comparative analysis of socioeconomic rights in South Africa’s constitution and Canada’s constitutional Aboriginal rights. With a decided emphasis on the obligations of the Crown, this thesis attempts to offer fodder to First Nations and legal practitioners seeking to challenge the emergency management landscape where First Nations seek an enhanced role in protecting and restoring their respective territories in anticipation of, and in the wake of, disaster. For convenience and clarity, contemporary geographical and jurisdictional references to the areas now known as Canada and British Columbia are used throughout the thesis without intention to detract from the integrity of First Nation claims to their traditional and ancestral territories.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.