Decision in Ehattesaht First Nation v. British Columbia here.
Article here.
via @dougswhite
Author: Kate Fort
Article On the Cost of Community Protests on Extraction Industry Projects
From the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Here (pdf):
In this report we investigate company–community conflict and its role in the regulation of sustainability performance in the extractive industries. We estimate the cost of conflict to com- panies and identify conflict as an important means through which environmental and social risks are translated into business costs and decision-making. The paper clarifies the relationship between the environmental and social risk experienced—and interpreted—by local communities, and the business risks experienced—and interpreted—by corporations. Findings reveal that, at least for the case of the extractive industries, these two types of risk can co-constitute each other. The central importance of corporate strategy and behavior for sustainability science is highlighted.
***
Timing in the Project Cycle. When conflict occurs within the project cycle it has a significant influence on how companies respond to it. Conflict early in the cycle is more likely to lead companies to withdraw from an investment (which may imply reduced social and environmental impact, or may also mean the transfer of impacts to another location) and to consider fundamental re- design of the project. When conflict occurs later in the project cycle, companies are more likely to adapt the design or add on social responsibility activities, the latter of which provides impact compensation rather than impact reduction.
Oral Arguments Today in the Canadian Supreme Court in Keewatin v. Ontario
The case on Harvesting Rights in Treaty 3. Description here:
The case is about Ontario’s authority to issue forestry authorizations in Treaty 3, which covers most of north-western Ontario and extends into Manitoba. After one of the longest and most thorough treaty interpretation trials in Canadian history, Justice Sanderson of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice decided that the Ojibway made treaty in 1873 with Canada, not Ontario. This, coupled with Canada’s exclusive responsibility for “Indians, and lands reserved for the Indians” under the constitution, meant that only Canada had the authority to issue forestry authorizations that would significantly affect Treaty 3 hunting and fishing rights.
A unanimous Court of Appeal disagreed. Relying heavily on the Privy Council’s 1888 decision in St. Catherine’s Milling, the Court held that Ontario’s ownership of Crown lands in Treaty 3 left no role for the federal government in land-use decisions affecting treaty rights. To involve Canada, said the Court, would create an “unnecessary, complicated, awkward and likely unworkable” process.
First Peoples Law firm blog posted the briefs (or factums).
First Nations’ briefs here.
Government’s briefs here.
Comments on the BIA Guidelines from AAIA, NICWA, NARF, NCAI, and Indian Law Professors
Report of Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Here (weblink) and here (pdf).
80. But despite positive steps, daunting challenges remain. Canada faces a continuing crisis when it comes to the situation of indigenous peoples of the country. The well-being gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in Canada has not narrowed over the last several years, treaty and aboriginals claims remain persistently unresolved, indigenous women and girls remain vulnerable to abuse, and overall there appear to be high levels of distrust among indigenous peoples toward government at both the federal and provincial levels.
Squaxin Island Tribe Will be Live Streaming Billy Frank’s Services on Sunday
Here, on May 11 from 1pm EDT to 3pm EDT.
via RW.
News Coverage of Honor the Earth Arguing For a Voice in Pipeline Route in Front of Minnesota ALJ
Here.
Attorneys for the company contend that the commission has no business
deciding the meaning of federal treaties. Even so, much of the two-hour discussion before Judge Eric Lipman focused on 10 treaties signed between 1825 and 1864 by Minnesota Indian tribes.
“It would represent a dramatic departure from the commission’s precedent and would significantly impact not just pipeline projects but all large energy projects sited in northern Minnesota,” said Christine Brusven, an attorney for the Calgary-based pipeline company that’s proposing to build the 610-mile pipeline to carry North Dakota oil.
Headed for the courts?
Lipman, who is overseeing the regulatory review of the pipeline, is expected to rule on the treaty rights question, but the final decision rests with the Public Utilities Commission. The issue ultimately could land in federal court.
H/T Jean O’Brien
Oral Arguments Set in Saginaw Chippewa v. NLRB
For 9:00am, Thursday, June 26th. Panel will be announced two weeks prior at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov
Document here.
Previous coverage here.
Chickasaw Nation Files Petitioner’s Reply Brief in Chickasaw Nation v. NLRB
E.D. Washington Denies Yakama Nation’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order
Opinion on the TRO (not the merits of the case) here.
Of interest to us is the continued use of “public interest” in direct opposition to “tribal interests” when it comes to equity, injunctions, and restraining orders:
Nor does the Court find that the last two Winters factors militate for issuance of a TRO. First, the balance of the equities does not tip strongly in favor of issuance of a TRO. Though the Tribe certainly has a strong interest in preservation of its culture and spiritual interest, the public also has an interest in being allowed to see and experience the land, as long as precautions are taken to preserve the nature of the place. Without a clearer articulation about how the tours harm that experience—limited as they are in time and scope—the Court perceives no strong tip of the balance of equities such that a TRO/preliminary injunction is warranted. Similarly, prohibiting the final two wildflower tours appears to weigh against public interest, as the wildflower tours represent a rare chance for the public to have access—in a limited way—to this area.
Previous coverage here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.