Honouring the Truth Reconciling for the Future

358 • Truth & Reconciliation CommissionCanadians. Corporations invest time and resources in developing large-scale projectsthat create jobs and aim to produce profits for their shareholders. Although the corporatesector is not a direct party to Treaty and land-claims agreement negotiations,industry and business play an extremely significant role in how the economic, social,and cultural aspects of reconciliation are addressed, including the extent to whichopportunities and benefits are truly shared with Indigenous peoples and the environmentof traditional homelands is safeguarded.The 1996 Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples noted that, historically,land and resource development activities, such as hydroelectric dams,mines, and agricultural and urban development, have had many adverse impactson Aboriginal communities. Communities were not consulted before they were relocatedfrom their vast traditional territories to much smaller, more remote, and morecrowded reserves to make way for government and industrial land and resourcedevelopment projects. Even when they were not relocated, Aboriginal peoples wereeconomically marginalized in their own homelands when irreversible environmentaldamage was done in the name of ‘progress.’ All too often, economic developmenthas disrupted Indigenous peoples’ cultural, spiritual, and economic ties to the land,resulting in the devastation of traditional economies and self-sufficiency, communitytrauma, public welfare dependency, and poor health and socio-political outcomes. 270In the post-rcap period, the Supreme Court of Canada has developed a body of lawon the federal, provincial, and territorial governments’ duty to consult with Aboriginalpeoples where land and resource development might infringe on their Aboriginal orTreaty rights. 271 The court has ruled that governments can still infringe on Aboriginalrights if it can demonstrate that it is in the broader public interest to do so. In theDelgamuukw case, the court described the nature of that public interest:[T]he development of agriculture, forestry, mining and hydroelectric power, thegeneral economic development of the interior of British Columbia, protectionof the environment or endangered species, the building of infrastructure andthe settlement of foreign populations to support those aims, are the kinds ofobjectives that are consistent with this purpose and, in principle, can justify theinfringement of aboriginal title. 272Governments must also demonstrate that any infringement of Aboriginal rights isconsistent with the Crown’s fiduciary duty towards Aboriginal peoples and upholdsthe honour of the Crown. To meet these legal obligations, governments in all jurisdictionshave developed Aboriginal consultation policies.Although the court has ruled that the duty to consult rests solely with governments,it has also said that “the Crown may delegate procedural aspects of consultation toindustry proponents seeking a particular development.” 273 On a practical level, thebusiness risks associated with legal uncertainty created by the duty to consult havemotivated industry proponents to negotiate with Aboriginal communities to establish