Skip to content

Client Update: Newfoundland and Labrador Aboriginal Consultation Policy

The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador (“NL”) has recently released its “Aboriginal Consultation Policy on Land and Resource Development Decisions” (the “Policy”). A copy of the Policy can be accessed here.

This new Policy is the product of consultations with Aboriginal organizations, industry stakeholders, and the public. The Policy aims to clarify NL’s role in the Aboriginal consultation process and sets out NL’s expectations of project proponents and Aboriginal organizations in that process. The ultimate goal is to help ensure that resource development decisions minimize or eliminate potentially adverse impacts on asserted Aboriginal rights. The Policy is primarily aimed at land use and resource projects and developments, but it applies broadly to also include wildlife management decisions.

Although the Policy will have application to both recognized and unrecognized Aboriginal rights claims, it will not apply to consultation with either the Labrador Inuit (whose consultation rights are formalized in the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act ) or the Labrador Innu (whose consultation rights will be covered by the land claims agreement which has been settled in principle with NL and the Government of Canada).

Practically speaking, the new Aboriginal Consultation Policy will have principal application to those aboriginal groups which have asserted claims in Labrador which have not been recognized or accepted for negotiation by Government. These include claims asserted by NunatuKavut Community Council, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, and the Quebec Innu communities of Matimekush-Lac John, Uashat mak Mani-Utenam, Ekuanitshit, Nutakuan, Unamen Shipu and Pakua Shipi (all of which are specifically named in the Policy).

KEY FEATURES

NL expects that land use and resource proponents will benefit from the Policy as it will ensure that potential impacts of development activities are understood and addressed in a timely and transparent fashion.

Some key features of the Policy, which introduces new process and cost burdens which depart from conventional Aboriginal consultation principles and practice, include the following:

    • the Policy will in most cases operate to transfer the burden of consultation and accommodation from NL to project proponents – effectively, proponents will be expected “to resolve any outstanding issues between the proponent and Aboriginal organization(s)”;
    • the Policy will require consultation to be initiated at the earliest stage of a land or resource development activity;
    • the Policy will require a proponent and an impacted Aboriginal group to exchange information relevant to the proposed development activities and to the aboriginal rights claimed, and will require meaningful good faith discussions between the parties;
    • the Policy will require a proponent to provide “any consultation supports or capacity funding reasonably required by Aboriginal organization(s)” in the consultation process – simply put, this means that a proponent will be required to pay for certain unspecified categories of an Aboriginal group’s consultation costs, including the costs associated with the Aboriginal group’s position as to the impact of the proponent’s proposed activities on the asserted Aboriginal rights;
    • the Policy prescribes the expectation that, during the consultation process, a proponent will discuss project-specific opportunities with the impacted Aboriginal group “with the goal of achieving a positive, sustainable and mutually beneficial outcome” – this arguably introduces an expectation of project benefits in any agreement achieved in the consultation process; and
    • the Policy also requires a proponent to pay financial consideration in regard to any necessary accommodation of the infringement of Aboriginal rights.

 

    The Policy’s emphasis on a proponent-led consultation may prove to be a positive change, as this will likely allow a greater measure of control over the process by the proponent.
    However, the Policy’s provisions regarding capacity funding, benefits expectations and accommodation compensation introduce unconventional consultation requirements and costs. These provisions effectively formalize elements which have not traditionally been required to form part of the consultation process (although they can, in practice, be matters which are negotiated and form part of an access or other form of agreement achieved in consultation).

NEW CONSULTATION GUIDELINES TO BE PROCLAIMED

NL is presently preparing Consultation Guidelines which will implement the Policy in a regulatory framework. It is anticipated that the Consultation Guidelines will prescribe the detailed procedures and timelines which will govern the consultation process, including the process leading up to decisions by NL as to land use and resource developments. It is understood that the Guidelines will address consultation respecting specific activities such as mineral exploration, environmental assessment of resource developments and post-environmental assessment permitting.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU

The Policy has wide-ranging implications. Most significantly, it imposes new procedural and financial obligations on land use and resource proponents. It is anticipated that the Consultation Guidelines will clarify these new obligations. The Consultation Guidelines will themselves involve consultation with land and resource use stakeholders and with a broad range of Aboriginal groups. It is not expected that the Guidelines will be formalized until year-end 2013. This means that there will be some uncertainty in the consultation process until the Consultation Guidelines are settled and published.

The foregoing is intended for general information only. If you have any questions, or for a detailed listing and description of the competencies of members of our Labrador Practice Group.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Restart the Clock!: Confirmation and resetting limitation periods in Tuck v. Supreme Holdings, 2016 NLCA 40

August 11, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Giles Ayers2 Limitation periods serve a critical function in the civil justice system. They promote the timely resolution of litigation on the basis of reliable evidence, and permit litigants to assess their legal exposure…

Read More

Client Update: SCC issues major decision affecting federal employers: Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited

July 15, 2016

On July 14, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada issued a significant decision affecting federally regulated employers across Canada. In Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited the Court held that the purpose of the unjust dismissal…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a mortgage brokerage and mortgage administrator in New Brunswick

July 7, 2016

On April 1, 2016 New Brunswick’s Mortgage Brokers Act came into force, requiring businesses acting as mortgage brokerages or as mortgage administrators in New Brunswick to be licensed. A mortgage brokerage is a business that on behalf…

Read More

Copyright does not monopolize facts – documentary filmmakers’ claim against book author and publisher fails

June 29, 2016

In May 2016, the Federal Court of Canada confirmed that copyright does not protect facts, even where a book’s author is clearly inspired by the content of a film (Maltz v. Witterick, 2016 FC 524 (CanLII)).…

Read More

Solicitor-client privilege vs the Canada Revenue Agency: the SCC speaks

June 10, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor “…firms of notaries or lawyers…must not be turned into archives for the tax authorities”1 So says the Supreme Court of Canada in one of two highly anticipated decisions on solicitor-client privilege, offering lawyers…

Read More

Why can’t we be friends?: Lessons on corporate dissolution from Smith v. Hillier

May 30, 2016

Joe Thorne1 and Clara Linegar2 As joint owners of a business, what do you do when the business relationship falls apart? And what if one owner undermines the business in the process? In Smith v Hillier,3 Justice Paquette…

Read More

Client Update: Supreme Court of Canada dismisses appeals in punitive damages cases

May 26, 2016

The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed the appeals in Bruce Brine v. Industrial Alliance Insurance and Financial Services Inc.1 (with costs) and Luciano Branco, et al. v. Zurich Life Insurance Company Limited, et al.(without costs). Both of…

Read More

Client Update: Pension update: Countdown to Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans

May 17, 2016

On May 4, 2016, the Nova Scotia Pooled Registered Pension Plans Act (“PRPP Act”) was proclaimed in force, and finalized Pooled Registered Pension Plan Regulations were released. While there were no major changes from the previously released draft regulations, the proposed rules…

Read More

Pension Primer: Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) in Nova Scotia

April 22, 2016

By Level Chan and Dante Manna Pooled Registered Pension Plans (“PRPPs”) are closer to becoming a reality for Nova Scotian employers. PRPPs were established by the Federal government in an effort to address the lack of retirement savings…

Read More

Client Update: Perrin v Blake reaffirms the law on contributory negligence and recovery of damages

April 14, 2016

In a case where there is a contributorily negligent plaintiff and two or more negligent defendants, can the plaintiff recover 100% of her damages from any of the defendants? The answer in Nova Scotia is…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top