Who speaks for whom? Implementing the Crown's duty to consult in the case of divided Aboriginal political structures

Abstract

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined that the Crown has a duty to consult Aboriginal peoples on government decisions that may adversely affect their rights, but the Court did not define who the Crown should consult on behalf of Aboriginal people when two or more groups claim the right to speak for them. For government officials attempting to fulfil the Crown's duty, this can create challenges. This article reviews the jurisprudence and scholarly commentary to provide some guidance to government officials on how to effectively implement the Crown's duty to consult as a practical matter of public administration.

Understanding consultation and engagement of Indigenous Peoples in resource development: A policy framing approach

“…The first stream is comprised of analysis of government consultation processes and industry engagement activities by legal and public administration scholars. This stream tracks the evolution of the duty to consult in the courts and its implementation by governments (Newman ; Charowsky ; Promislow ; Lambrecht ; Noble and Udofia ; Peach ; Ritchie ). The second stream, emerging from community development and environmental studies, examines the impact of resource development in Indigenous communities.…”

Counter-institutionalizing First Nation–Crown relations in British Columbia

“…This is partially the result of 'consultation fatigue' among poorly resourced First Nation groups who continuously struggle to respond to Crown referrals, which they receive in abundance (McIlwraith and Cormier, 2016). This raises questions as to who it is that must be consulted, with case law thus far demonstrating a need for consultation processes to be carried out at a representative level for the sake of practicality, rather than referencing only an individual land-user level (Peach, 2016). Aggregating up and so enhancing agency is also realized by the advancing of individual First Nation interests via bodies representing multiple smaller First Nation groups.…”

“…We tend to agree, and we further suggest that if any uncertainty around the duty to consult does exist, it has to some degree enhanced the position of First Nations, which is a positive development within the context of historically and continuing asymmetric First Nation–Crown relations. Where there remains uncertainty perhaps is in what ‘adequate’ or ‘meaningful’ consultation and accommodation means (Budhwa, 2005; Gregory et al., 2008; Peach, 2016). What is apparent is the need for engagement and joint decision-making processes that encompass two continua: potential impacts and strength of claims.…”

Editor’s introduction/Introduction du rédacteur

“…The next two articles (Hotte et al ; White ) explore the emergence and challenges of overseeing arm’s length entities created by Indigenous communities to further economic development and further other community priorities, and by comprehensive land claim agreements to further co‐management of resources. Peach () previously explored in Canadian Public Administration the new expectations and meaning of the “duty to consult” with First Nations flowing from Supreme Court decisions, and here Boyd and Lorefice () explore how the different frames that Indigenous and non‐Indigenous peoples bring to engagement. I took the liberty of placing two articles by Joanne Heritz in this issue since they nicely dovetail: the first provides a national perspective on Indigenous urban representation, and the second takes a closer look in three Saskatchewan cities (Regina, Saskatoon, and Prince Albert), complementing Heritz () on Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg and Toronto.…”

“…; White ) étudient l’émergence et les défis posés pour superviser les entités indépendantes créées par les collectivités autochtones afin de promouvoir le développement économique et d’autres priorités communautaires, et par des ententes sur les revendications territoriales globales pour promouvoir la cogestion des ressources. Alors que Peach () avait auparavant étudié, dans Administration publique du Canada, les nouvelles attentes et la signification du « devoir de consulter » avec les Premières nations qui découle des décisions prises par la Cour suprême, ici, ce sont Boyd et Lorefice () qui se penchent sur les différents types d’encadrement apportés aux processus d’engagement par les personnes autochtones et non autochtones. J’ai pris la liberté de publier dans ce numéro deux articles par Joanne Heritz, étant donné qu’ils s’harmonisent bien : le premier offre une perspective nationale sur la représentation des Autochtones dans les centres urbains, et le deuxième article se penche de plus près sur la situation dans trois villes de la Saskatchewan (Regina, Saskatoon, et Prince Albert), ce qui complémente l’article d’Heritz () sur Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg et Toronto.…”