Category: Aboriginal Page 15 of 32

By: Amy Matychuk

PDF Version: The Alberta Energy Regulator Grants Rare Participation Rights to Three Indigenous Groups

Decision Commented On: The Alberta Energy Regulator decision on participation in the hearing of Prosper Petroleum Ltd.’s Rigel Project, March 16 2017

On March 16, 2017, the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) held that three indigenous communities were directly and adversely affected by the Prosper Petroleum Rigel Oil Sands Project and granted these groups participation rights in the hearing on Prosper’s project application.

The AER has been publishing its participation and procedural decisions since September 2015. Since then, there have been 42 decisions dealing with claims by First Nations or Métis communities that they are directly and adversely affected by a proposed project. The AER has denied every claim until now. This decision only gives the three indigenous communities the right to participate in the hearing where the AER will decide whether to green light Prosper’s applications. It does not ensure that their lands or traditional activities will actually be protected, only that they will have the opportunity to explain how the project will affect them. However, given the pattern of decisions since 2015, this is a significant development.

The Rule of Law in Canada 150 Years After Confederation: Re-Imagining the Rule of Law and Recognizing Indigenous Peoples as Founders of Canada

By Kathleen Mahoney

On March 29, 2017

In Aboriginal, Rule of Law

By: Kathleen Mahoney

PDF Version: The Rule of Law in Canada 150 Years After Confederation: Re-Imagining the Rule of Law and Recognizing Indigenous Peoples as Founders of Canada

The 150^th anniversary of Confederation is upon us. The starting point for nation-wide celebrations will be Canada’s origin story, namely, that we are a nation founded by 2 peoples, the British and the French. Their concept of a nation, British North America Act, is held up as a monumental achievement forming the constitutional bedrock of our Canadian identity as well as the foundation for the rule of law and the free and democratic nation we believe ourselves to be.

But here’s the problem: our origin story is incomplete and misleading. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples wrote, “A country cannot be built on a living lie.” (Vol II, at 1) My argument is that Canada’s origin story must be corrected through legislation that will recognize Canada as a country of three founding peoples, the British, the French, and the Indigenous. The rule of law is at the very root of Confederation but its application to indigenous peoples for the past 150 years has been dysfunctional, mired in racism and inequality. It must be re-imagined.

The Alberta Utilities Commission Rules on Its Jurisdiction to Assess Crown Aboriginal Consultation

By Kirk Lambrecht, Q.C.

On March 7, 2017

In Aboriginal, Energy

By: Kirk N. Lambrecht Q.C.

PDF Version: The Alberta Utilities Commission Rules on Its Jurisdiction to Assess Crown Aboriginal Consultation

Decisions Commented On:

AUC Ruling on jurisdiction to determine Questions stated in Notices of Questions of Constitutional Law, October 7, 2016, and Sent to Parties Currently Registered in Proceeding 21030 Fort McMurray West 500-kV Transmission Project Proceeding 21030 Applications 21030-A001 to 21030-A015 (Appendix J); and

AUC Decision 21030-D02-2017, Alberta PowerLine General Partner Ltd. Fort McMurray West 500-Kilovolt Transmission Project, February 10, 2017

Introduction

This post offers critical analysis of the first Ruling of the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC) to grapple with the issue of whether the AUC has jurisdiction to consider the adequacy of Crown Aboriginal consultation in the course of AUC proceedings (the Preliminary AUC Ruling). The Preliminary AUC Ruling was issued on October 7, 2016. It was followed on February 10, 2017, with a ruling on the merits of the Application (the AUC Ruling on the Merits). Both are discussed here. The Preliminary AUC Ruling is attached as Appendix J to the AUC Ruling on the Merits.

The AUC is a quasi-judicial regulatory tribunal with power to determine all questions of law and constitutional law which arise in the course of its regulatory functions. It exercises a final approval function in relation to the construction of the Fort McMurray West 500-kV transmission line Project. The Project is generally described here. Appendix A to the current Alberta policy on Aboriginal consultation suggests that large-scale regional transmission line projects have high impact and require extensive consultation (see The Government of Alberta’s Guidelines on Consultation with First Nations on Land and Natural Resource Management, July 28, 2014). A deep consultation requirement of this kind is consistent with the description of the Project as critical in nature. It is also consistent with the finding of the AUC, described below, that the Project would introduce industrial development which would adversely impact Aboriginal groups in way which is not easily mitigated.

The AUC has not been at the center of Alberta’s policy development in relation to Aboriginal consultation. That development has tended to focus on the Alberta Energy Regulator, rather than the AUC. In this proceeding, absent guidance from Provincial policy, the AUC concluded that it had no jurisdiction in relation to Crown consultation and accommodation.

Reasons, Respect and Reconciliation

By Nigel Bankes

On March 3, 2017

In Aboriginal, Administrative Law, Property

By: Nigel Bankes

PDF Version: Reasons, Respect and Reconciliation

Case Commented On: Kainaiwa/Blood Tribe v Alberta (Energy), 2017 ABQB 107 (CanLII)

Reconciliation between Canada’s settler society and First Nations and other indigenous communities certainly requires mutual respect but it should also require reasons in appropriate cases according to Justice Paul Jeffrey, at least where the Crown dismisses an application for the exercise of a statutory discretion which is closely linked to efforts to right an historic grievance. This is an important decision which should be required reading for every Minister of the Crown with a responsibility for the relationship between Her Majesty and Canada’s first peoples, and for all senior civil servants responsible for advising those Ministers.

The Sixties Scoop & the Duty to Consult: A New Frontier in Aboriginal Litigation?

By Alex Darling

On February 23, 2017

In Aboriginal, Torts

Case Commented On: Brown v Canada (Attorney General), 2017 ONSC 251 (CanLII)

PDF Version: The Sixties Scoop & the Duty to Consult: A New Frontier in Aboriginal Litigation?

By: Elysa Hogg and Alex Darling

*Note on terminology: “Indian” is used to describe a person defined as such under the Indian Act, and is not intended to carry any derogatory connotations.

Introduction

From 1965- 1984 governments across Canada removed tens of thousands of Indian children from their families on reserve and placed them with non-Indian adoptive families or in foster homes and group homes. As a result, many of these children lost touch with both their families and their First Nations identities, with devastating consequences including emotional scarring, substance abuse, and heightened rates of suicide and incarceration. This dark period in Canada’s history is commonly known as the “Sixties Scoop”.

Brown v Attorney General (Canada) 2017 ONSC 251 (CanLII) (Brown) is a decision regarding a class action lawsuit by nearly 16,000 individuals in Ontario who were negatively affected by the Ontario Government’s child welfare policies during the Sixties Scoop. Specifically, the claimants focus on the period between 1965 when Ontario extended its child welfare services to reserves and 1984, when Ontario amended its child welfare legislation to recognize that “aboriginality” should be a factor considered in child protection and placement (at para 14).

The Court held that Canada breached its common-law duty of care by failing to take reasonable steps to prevent removed children from losing their indigenous heritage (at para 85), but declined to find that the Crown breached any fiduciary duty.

This post will aim to provide the following:

Background information on the period commonly referred to as the “Sixties Scoop”;
A brief look at the procedural history of Brown, as well as an analysis of the decision; and
Thoughts on how this ruling, and its implications on tort law and Aboriginal rights, may fit into the federal government’s promises to Canada’s indigenous peoples, and how it may affect Sixties Scoop claimants across the country, including Alberta.