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


 
 

Good Faith Fisheries: New case on Crown consultation & regulation of Aboriginal fisheries

March 22, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Why is this case a big deal? It started with two salmon. Now, after several years of litigation, the Nova Scotia Provincial Court in R v Martin, 2016 NSPC 14 has stayed proceedings against…

Read More

Atlantic Employers’ Counsel – Winter 2016

March 10, 2016

THE EDITORS’ CORNER Michelle Black and Sean Kelly One day, the line between mental and physical disabilities may not be so pronounced, but, for now, distinctions are still drawn between Employee A with, for example, diabetes and…

Read More

Hiring the “Right” Employee

February 24, 2016

By Lisa Gallivan Employees can be your biggest asset, if you hire the right people. This can often be one of the biggest decisions that you make as a business owner or employer. The “right” employee…

Read More

Bye, Bye Canadian P.I.?: What Apple’s fight against the FBI means for the protection of Personal Information in Canada

February 23, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Kathleen Leighton Order Up: Apple, P.I. Recently, the public safety versus personal privacy debate has been brought to main headlines. Apple is facing a court order (available here) requiring the company to assist the FBI in the investigation of…

Read More

Client Update: Outlook for the 2016 Proxy Season

February 12, 2016

In preparing for the 2016 proxy season, you should be aware of some regulatory changes and institutional investor guidance that may impact disclosure to and interactions with your shareholders. This update highlights what is new…

Read More

Left Sharks and Copy Cats: The Super Bowl’s Impact on Protecting a Brand

February 5, 2016

By Burtley Francis and Michael MacIsaac You remember Left Shark… The Super Bowl is a lot of things to a lot of people and is arguably the most anticipated event of the year that is not a holiday…

Read More

The Labour Relations of First Nations’ Fisheries: Who gets to decide?

February 2, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Summary The Canada Industrial Relations Board recently held that it had no jurisdiction as a federal board to certify a bargaining unit comprised of fisheries employees of the Waycobah First Nation. The decision…

Read More

Can an employer prohibit tattoos and piercings?

January 21, 2016

By Peter McLellan, QC In the 1970s the issue for employers was long hair and sideburns. In the 1980’s it was earrings for men. Today the employer’s concerns are with tattoos and facial piercings. What are…

Read More

Settling for it: Two new NS decisions on settlement agreements and releases

January 15, 2016

By Jennifer Taylor Introduction It sounds simple: Two disputing parties, hoping to resolve their disagreement without drawn-out court proceedings, will mutually agree to a settlement on clear terms; release each other from all claims; and move…

Read More

Labour and Employment Legislative Update 2015

December 23, 2015

2015 ends with changes in workplace laws that our region’s employers will want to be aware of moving into 2016. Some legislation has been proclaimed and is in force, some has passed and will be…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top