HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Free
Message: Re: Supreme court & consultation--Toront... Star/ Supreme Court
9
Jul 26, 2017 05:01PM
3
Jul 26, 2017 05:58PM
2
Jul 26, 2017 08:57PM
8
Jul 27, 2017 11:50AM
9
Jul 27, 2017 12:22PM
19
Jul 27, 2017 02:11PM
12
Jul 27, 2017 04:09PM
4
Jul 27, 2017 04:20PM
11
Jul 27, 2017 10:39PM
7
Jul 28, 2017 11:12AM
3
Jul 29, 2017 06:53PM
By THOMAS WALKOMNational Affairs Columnist
Fri., July 28, 2017
 

The Supreme Court has confirmed that Indigenous nations do not have the right to veto resource development projects. This is the upshot of two separate rulings released Wednesday.

That is good news for proponents of oil and gas pipelines such as the controversial Kinder Morgan project in British Columbia.

It is bad news for those who had hoped that Indigenous resistance would be sufficient to derail such projects, including pipelines designed to move heavy oil from Alberta to tidewater.

The two decisions are particularly important in that they provide a road map for resource companies and their regulators on how to organize proposed projects in a way that passes legal muster.

At the heart of this is the fact treaties signed between Indigenous nations and the Crown are part of Canada’s constitution. The courts have long held that this alone requires the government to consult with First Nations before authorizing projects that could affect treaty rights.

What hasn’t been entirely clear is what consultation requires. Is it a weak requirement that means Indigenous views, like those of environmentalists, must be taken into account by government before a final decision is made?

Or is it a strong requirement that means affected Indigenous nations must give their consent before a resource project like a pipeline can go ahead?

This week, the top court, came down firmly against the latter interpretation.

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply