|
BUSINESS |
||
|
COVER: BIOGRAPHY: Sandy Scofield: Native Songstress BUSINESS: Duty
to Consult Now Legal Duty For Provincial Crown and Third Parties OIB
Demands Meeting With Weyerhaeuser
MODERN TREATIES:
Federal
Court Ruling Grants Tax Immunity to Treaty 8 Peoples HUMOUR:
|
Duty to Consult
Now Legal Duty For Provincial Crown and Third Parties Two recent
decisions of the BC Court of Appeal have extended the duty to consult
BC First Nations to a legal duty for the province and third parties and
recognized the existence of aboriginal title as an encumbrance on third
party development activities on Crown lands without forcing BC First Nations
to go to court to prove the existance of aboriginal title. In Taku River
Tlingit First Nation v. Ringstad, the highest court in the province refused
to allow the Tulsequah Chief mine project in northern BC to go ahead.
The Court of Appeal said the province of BC did not take into account
how much the proposed mining project woulf effect the aboriginal people
of the area. "This
is a great victory for the Tlingits," said John Ward, spokesperson
for the Taku River Tlingit First Nation. "The Court of Appeal has
confirmed our place in the fabric of British Columbia. Finally, the government
must recognize that 'business as usual' means doing business with us in
a way that sustains our way of life, not without us in a way that destroys
us. First Nations are here to stay. We now expect that the government
of BC will do the honourable thing and respect our rights and act accordingly,"
said Ward. In 1998, the
provincial NDP government approved the Tulsequah Chief project, a multi-metals
mine on the Taku River in northwestern BC. The project was subsequently
the subject of a three and a half year environmental assessment. The project
called for the creation of a 160 km road from the mine site to Atlin that
would run right through the heart of the Taku River Tlingit's traditional
territory. Evidence from
the environmental assessment and in court showed that the road would ruin
the Tlingit way of life, affect their aboriginal title and rights and
threaten their very existance as a people. The Tlingits
successfully challenged the mine approval in the BC Supreme Court arguing
that the province did not adequately consult with the Tlingit concerning
the project's impact on their aboriginal title and rights. The province
subsequently appealed the decision, arguing that they did not have a legal
or fiduciary duty to consult with the Tlingits until those rights or title
are proven in court. A majority
of the Court of Appeal rejected this argument, noting that the Crown's
position, of ignoring the existance of aboriginal title and rights has
"the effect of robbing s. 35 (1) of much of its constitutional significance"
and would "effectively end any prospect of meaningful negotiation
or settlement of aboriginal land claims." In its judgement, the court of Appeal clearly stated that the provincial government has a legal duty to consult with BC First Nations about their traditional lands and resources with the aim of addressing those concerns and that it is not necessary for BC First Nations to prove the existance of their rights. The court
further noted that for the provincial government to proceed with land
and resource approvals without taking into account assertions of aboriginal
title would be a constitutional violation of aboriginal rights that would
lead to a "serious injustice." Three weeks
later the same court ruled that both the province and Weyerhaeuser had
breached a legal and enforceable duty to consult with the Haida Nation
regarding the replacement and transfer of Tree Farm Licence 39 on the
Queen Charlotte Islands. In Haida Nation v BC and Weyerhaeuser, the province issued a tree farm licence (TFL) to MacMillan Bloedel, who subsequently transferred the TFL to Weyerhaeuser. In finding the obligation to consult the Haida Nation, the court went on to suggest that the Haida would probably win in an aboriginal title claim to most of their claimed territory. The court ruled that: The strength of the Haida case [to succeed in an aboriginal title claim] gives content to the obligation to consult and the obligation to seek an accomodation the aim of the remedy [in this case] should be to protect the interests of all parties pending the final determination of the nature and scope of aboriginal title and aboriginal rights. Commenting on the success
of the Haida Nation, Union of BC Indian Chiefs president, Chief Phillip
Stewart stated, " As in the Taku River Tlingit decision, the court
has recognized that the province of British Columbia's approach to consultation
is fundamentally flawed
What we find compelling in the Haida decision
is the Court of Appeal ruled that there is an 'enforceable, legal and
equitable duty to consult' to both the provincial Crown and to third parties.
This will certaily open the door to some frantic rethinking of strategy
by the Attorney General's office and the big corporations."
|
|