Episode 23: Did Trudeau just give away Nunavut? Is B.C. about to create an Indigenous veto?
Jan 31, 2024
auto_awesome
Implications of Nunavut transferring control to the Inuit. Indigenous veto on B.C. land decisions. Concerns about cybersecurity law. New York City mayor calls social media an 'environmental toxin'. Ontario youth challenge climate change plan in court.
The Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement grants the Inuit control over undeveloped lands and resources, including authority over royalties and $9 million annually in natural resources revenues.
British Columbia's potential changes to the lands act, driven by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, raise concerns of indigenous veto powers over land use decisions, which may override the majority and impact the economy.
Deep dives
The Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement: A Step Towards Indigenous Self-Governance
Justin Trudeau signed the Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement, which transfers administration and control of undeveloped Nunavut Lands and natural resources to the Inuit. This agreement allows Nunavut to have control and approval over royalties for onshore oil and gas projects and grants them the authority to keep at least $9 million a year in natural resources revenues. The agreement also transfers federal taxpayer-owned office buildings, public housing, and other infrastructure to the territorial government. While this agreement is considered significant, it does not fundamentally change the existing control the Inuit already have over land and resource development decisions in Nunavut.
Concerns Regarding Indigenous Veto Powers in British Columbia
British Columbia's plan to honor the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) raises concerns about indigenous veto powers over crown land tenures and resource development projects. The province's potential changes to the lands act could grant indigenous groups the final say in decision-making, even when the majority of British Columbians may support resource development projects. This unequal democratic representation and potential impact on the economy has sparked concerns among ranchers, tourism operators, and others who depend on land use approvals. Respecting and accommodating Aboriginal rights and title, as required by the constitution, should be the guiding principle rather than giving a small minority the power to override the majority.
Bill C26: Balancing Cybersecurity and Individual Rights
Bill C26, a proposed cybersecurity bill in Canada, raises concerns about the potential impact on individual rights and privacy. The bill, if passed, would allow the government to secretly order telecom providers to take specific actions and potentially weaken encryption standards. It also grants the power to terminate internet services without explanation or recourse. The bill enables the government to collect large amounts of information from telecoms and lacks clear safeguards for privacy and proportionality. The lack of mandatory public reporting and the authorization of secret evidence in court further contribute to concerns about potential overreach. While cybersecurity is important, it is crucial to strike a balance between security measures and protecting individual rights and freedoms.
Challenges in Determining Climate Change Policies through Legal Means
Youth-led challenges to Ontario's climate change plan raise questions about whether the government should be allowed to pursue policies that may exacerbate the effects of climate change. However, it is problematic to rely on judicial standards to determine the sufficiency or scientific basis of specific government climate policies. Courts cannot prescribe granular details or positive obligations on governments in this area. Constitutional claims cannot impose positive obligations on the government, and the government does not have a constitutional duty to pursue specific climate change policies. Climate change court challenges may have limited legal grounds, as courts can only review government actions for compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements, rather than dictating specific policies to combat climate change.
On Episode 23, we discuss the new Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Agreement and whether B.C. is planning to give First Nations a veto over certain land use decisions, and we get into the details of a concerning new cybersecurity law that could lead to secret hearings and orders to cut off Internet access without due process. Plus, Bad Legal Takes from New York's mayor and climate change activists.
Stories and cases discussed in this week's episode:
Not Reserving Judgment is a podcast about Canadian constitutional law hosted by Josh Dehaas, Joanna Baron, and Christine Van Geyn.
The show is brought to you by the Canadian Constitution Foundation, a non-partisan legal charity dedicated to defending rights and freedoms. To support our work, visit theccf.ca/donate.
Remember Everything You Learn from Podcasts
Save insights instantly, chat with episodes, and build lasting knowledge - all powered by AI.
