THE GENESIS OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO CONSULT UBC – Institute for Resources, Environment & Sustainability September 16 th , 2014 Date: Presented by: Rosanne M. Kyle 604.687.0549, ext. 101 rkyle@jfklaw.ca
Aboriginal Rights in Canada “Aboriginal rights are simply the rights to which native people are entitled because they are the original peoples of Canada.” Thomas Berger’s Forward in Nisga’a – People of the Nass Valley
The Recognition of Aboriginal Rights in Canadian Legal History • Royal Proclamation of 1763 • implicitly recognized aboriginal interests in lands in North America • protected aboriginal possession and use of lands reserved to First Nations
The Royal Proclamation • Aboriginal interests and customary laws were presumed to survive the assertion of sovereignty unless: • they were incompatible with the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty; • they were surrendered voluntarily via the treaty process; or • the government extinguished them. Mitchell v. Minister of National Revenue , [2001] 3 C.N.L.R. 122 (SCC)
The Recognition of Aboriginal Title 1888: Aboriginal title is a “burden” on the Crown. St . Catherine’s Milling & Lumber v. R .(1888), 14 A.C. 46 (J.C.P.C.)
The Treaty-Making Process • Royal Proclamation mandated treaties prior to settlement of lands • Lack of historical treaties in British Columbia -exceptions: “Douglas Treaties” (Vancouver Island); Treaty 8 (northeastern B.C.)
Assertion of Aboriginal Title in B.C. • 1880s: First Nation demands to enter into treaties • 1920s: formation of Allied Tribes of British Columbia to advance claims • 1992: B.C. Treaty Commission established • 1999: Nisga’a Treaty
Aboriginal Title as an “Inherent” Right 1973: “… the fact is that when the settlers came, the Indians were there, organized in societies and occupying the land as their forefathers had done for centuries. This is what Indian title means ….” Calder v. Attorney General of B.C. ( 1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (SCC)
Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982: “The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.”
The Meaning of Section 35 “The constitutional recognition afforded by … [s. 35] … gives a measure of control over government conduct and a strong check on legislative power. While it does not promise immunity from government regulation in a society that, in the twentieth century, is more complex, independent and sophisticated, and where exhaustible resources need protection and management, it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise.” R. v. Sparrow (1990), 70 D.L.R. (4 th ) 385 (SCC)
The Test for Aboriginal Rights • the nature of the aboriginal rights claim must be delineated in terms of the particular practice, tradition or custom under which it is being claimed; and • the claimed aboriginal right must have been an integral part of the First Nation’s distinctive culture prior to contact R. v. Van der Peet , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507
The Test for Aboriginal Title • claimed land must have been occupied by the First Nation at sovereignty; • if present occupation is being relied upon as proof of occupation pre-sovereignty, First Nation must show continuity; and • occupation at the time of sovereignty must have been exclusive R. v. Delgamuukw , [1997] 3 S.C.R.1010
Content of Aboriginal Title • aboriginal title encompasses the following rights: • exclusive use and occupation of the lands • right to choose to what uses the lands can be put • inescapable economic component R. v. Delgamuukw , [1997] 3 S.C.R.1010
Tsilhqot’in (William) v. British Columbia , 2012 BCCA 285 • The B.C. Court of Appeal held that Aboriginal title can only exist over intensively occupied small areas such as village sites, cultivated or enclosed fields, particular rocks, salt licks, or buffalo jumps. • The Court’s definition of Aboriginal title does not protect a land based culture. The Court believes that practice based Aboriginal rights are the primary way to ensure cultural security and protect traditional lifestyles.
The Tsilhqot’in Case • The Aboriginal rights found by the trial judge were confirmed. The Tsilhqot’in have the right to capture and use horses, to hunt and trap in the claim area, and to trade in skins and pelts to secure a moderate livelihood. The Court also found that the Province had unjustifiably infringed those rights in its management of forestry. • In the words of the Court, an approach to Aboriginal title that goes beyond small spots is “antithetical to reconciliation.”
Infringement • if an existing aboriginal right is interfered with, there will be a prima facie infringement of s. 35 of the Constitution Act • onus is on First Nation claimant to prove infringement R. v. Sparrow , (1990), 70 D.L.R. (4 th ) 385 (SCC)
Justifiable Infringements of Rights “The government is required to bear the burden of justifying any legislation that has some negative effect on any aboriginal right protected under s. 35(1).” R. v. Sparrow , (1990), 70 D.L.R. (4 th ) 385 (SCC)
Justification of Infringement • infringement must be in furtherance of a legislative objective that is compelling and substantial; and • infringement must be consistent with the special fiduciary relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples R. v. Delgamuukw , [1997] 3 S.C.R.1010
Consultation – Part of the Justification Test “The aboriginal peoples, with their history of conservation - consciousness and interdependence with natural resources, would surely be expected, at the least, to be informed regarding the determination of an appropriate scheme for the regulation of the fisheries.” R. v. Sparrow (1990), 70 D.L.R. (4 th ) 385 (SCC)
Reasonable Efforts to “Inform and Consent” “… the need for the dissemination of information and a request for consultations cannot simply be denied. So long as every reasonable effort is made to inform and to consult, such efforts would suffice to meet the justification requirement.” R. v. Nikal , [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013
Accommodation – Part of the Justification Test -whether the government accommodated the aboriginal right is relevant to determining whether an infringement is justified R. v. Gladstone , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723
Reconciliation – Part of the Justification Test “… the aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1) must be directed towards the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.” R. v. Van der Peet , [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507
Further Expansion and Definition of the Duty to Consult “There is always a duty of consultation. Whether the aboriginal group has been consulted is relevant to determining whether the infringement of aboriginal title is justified….” R. v. Delgamuukw , [1997] 3 S.C.R.1010
Content of the Duty to Consult “The nature and scope of the duty of consultation will vary with the circumstances …. consultation must be in good faith, and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of the aboriginal peoples whose lands are at issue.” R. v. Delgamuukw , [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
Existence of a Duty to Consult Prior to Proof of Rights B.C. Court of Appeal decisions in 2002: • Taku River Tlingit First Nation v. B.C. • Haida Nation v. B.C.
Supreme Court of Canada’s Decisions in Haida and Taku River Tlingit • November 2004 : • SCC affirmed the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decisions that a duty to consult does arise prior to proof of title
Haida Nation and Taku River Tlingit • Government has a duty to consult with and, where appropriate, accommodate aboriginals prior to proof of aboriginal rights or title where it: • has real or constructive knowledge of the potential existence of the rights or title; and • contemplates conduct that might adversely affect the rights or title.
The Duty to Consult • The scope of the duty is proportionate to: • the strength of the aboriginal rights or title claim being asserted, and • the seriousness of the potential impact of the activity to be undertaken on the aboriginal interests.
The Duty to Consult • governments must carry out meaningful consultation in good faith • the duty to consult does not include a duty to reach agreement • First Nations must also show good faith in the consultation process • consultation does not give First Nations a veto power
The Duty to Accommodate • a duty to accommodate arises when the consultation process reveals a strong aboriginal rights or title claim and a likelihood of adverse impact from the proposed activity • accommodation requires governments to reasonably balance aboriginal interests with other societal interests
Musqueam Indian Band v. B.C. 2005: Musqueam Indian Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Sustainable Resource Management) , B.C.C.A. -sale of golf course to U.B.C. -land claimed by Musqueam
Musqueam Indian Band v. B.C. • “spectrum” of consultation – depends on circumstances • timing of consultation critical • degree of interim accommodation required will vary
Canada v. Mikisew Cree First Nation 2005: Canada v. Mikisew Cree First Nation , SCC -Canada has a duty to consult with First Nations even though lands surrendered pursuant to treaty
Recommend
More recommend
