Status Quo Sorrows: The Failures of Energy Project Consultations and Reconciliatory Paths Forward

O. Rozen
{"title":"Status Quo Sorrows: The Failures of Energy Project Consultations and Reconciliatory Paths Forward","authors":"O. Rozen","doi":"10.5206/uwojls.v12i1.13620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Canada’s prevailing Aboriginal consultation regime for major energy projects is not working. Indeed, Indigenous peoples, industry proponents, and the Crown have all expressed increasing frustration and dismay at the uncertainty and acrimony that a legal regime intended to facilitate reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples has counterproductively generated. In this paper, I describe the underlying principles of a process-oriented reconciliation that animate the Court’s jurisprudence on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I then identify the failures in effectively translating these principles to the major energy context, focusing in particular on the harms generated by the lack of accountability and transparency of the National Energy Board/Canada Energy Regulator administrative scheme. I finally consider two alternatives or additions to contemporary resource project consultations – namely, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and a proposed Indigenous veto – finding that an Indigenous veto may be an especially effective means of introducing greater equity, fairness, and certainty to major energy project development in Canada, to the benefit of all relevant stakeholders.","PeriodicalId":40917,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5206/uwojls.v12i1.13620","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Canada’s prevailing Aboriginal consultation regime for major energy projects is not working. Indeed, Indigenous peoples, industry proponents, and the Crown have all expressed increasing frustration and dismay at the uncertainty and acrimony that a legal regime intended to facilitate reconciliation between Canada and Indigenous peoples has counterproductively generated. In this paper, I describe the underlying principles of a process-oriented reconciliation that animate the Court’s jurisprudence on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I then identify the failures in effectively translating these principles to the major energy context, focusing in particular on the harms generated by the lack of accountability and transparency of the National Energy Board/Canada Energy Regulator administrative scheme. I finally consider two alternatives or additions to contemporary resource project consultations – namely, Impact and Benefit Agreements (IBAs) and a proposed Indigenous veto – finding that an Indigenous veto may be an especially effective means of introducing greater equity, fairness, and certainty to major energy project development in Canada, to the benefit of all relevant stakeholders.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现状的悲哀:能源项目磋商的失败与协调的前进道路
加拿大现行的主要能源项目原住民协商制度不起作用。事实上,土著人民、行业支持者和王室都对旨在促进加拿大和土著人民和解的法律制度产生的不确定性和激烈争论表示越来越沮丧和沮丧。在本文中,我描述了以程序为导向的和解的基本原则,这些原则激发了法院对1982年《宪法法》第35条的判例。然后,我确定了在将这些原则有效转化为主要能源环境方面的失败,特别关注国家能源委员会/加拿大能源监管机构行政计划缺乏问责制和透明度所造成的危害。最后,我考虑了当代资源项目协商的两种替代方案或补充方案,即影响和效益协议(IBA)和拟议的土著否决权,发现土著否决权可能是为加拿大重大能源项目开发引入更大公平性、公正性和确定性的一种特别有效的手段,有利于所有相关利益攸关方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊最新文献
Deductibility of Surrogacy Payments in Canadian Tax Law Are Delayed Complaints of Sexual Harassment Not Worthy of Human Rights Protection? The Conflation of the Justification Framework for Infringement of Aboriginal Rights with the Oakes Test in Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia Indeterminate Sentences and Section 12 of the Charter Harm Reduction in Prisons: Restraints within the Prisoners’ Rights Discourse
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1