Since the release of The Duty to Consult (Purich, 2009), there have been many important developments on the duty to consult, including three major Supreme Court of Canada decisions. Governments, Aboriginal communities, and industry stakeholders have engaged with the duty to consult in new and probably unexpected ways, developing policy statements or practices that build upon the duty, but often using it only as a starting point for different discussions. Evolving international legal norms have also come into practice that may have future bearing. Newman offers clarification and approaches to understanding the developing case law at a deeper and more principled level, and suggests possible future directions for the duty to consult in Canadian Aboriginal law.

The honour of the Crown is not a new concept in Aboriginal law; for instance, in 1895, the Supreme Court explained that the honour of the Crown is "faithfully fulfilled as a treaty obligation of the Crown."20 The honour of the Crown, along with the goal of reconciliation, is central to the Crown's relationship with Indigenous peoples, and may require it to consult Indigenous groups and, where appr [...] Certain factors must be considered in determining the level of consultation required: the strength of the claim, the nature of the right and the severity of the potential harm of a Crown decision or action on the Aboriginal or treaty right. [...] As is the case with determining the scope of the duty to consult, court orders to remedy a failure to meet the duty to consult vary significantly according to the situation. [...] In that regard, finding interim solutions within the consultation process may prevent irreparable harm or minimize the effect of infringement.46 The Supreme Court has also stated that, at the accommodation stage, the rights of the Indigenous groups must be balanced with other societal interests.47 As with the duty to consult, the duty to accommodate the interests of Indigenous peoples is grounded [...] However, on 11 October 2018, the Supreme Court revisited the matter in Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Governor General in Council),55 in which the Court considered the appeal by the Mikisew Cree First Nation of a 2016 decision of the Federal Court of Appeal.56 The questions addressed by the Federal Court of Appeal were as follows: Did the Crown have a duty to consult prior to passing omnibus.

Canada’s Supreme Court has established a new legal framework requiring governments to consult with Aboriginal peoples when contemplating actions that may affect their rights. Professor Newman examines Supreme Court and lower court decisions, legislation at various levels, policies developed by governments and Aboriginal communities, and consultative round tables that have been held to deal with important questions regarding this duty. He succinctly examines issues such as: when is consultation required; who is to be consulted; what is the nature of a “good” consultation; to what extent does the duty apply in treaty areas; and what duty is owed to Métis and non-status Indians? Newman also examines the philosophical underpinnings of the duty to consult, and the evolving framework in international law and similar developments in Australia.

This is the Final Report of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its six-year investigation of the residential school system for Aboriginal youth and the legacy of these schools. This report, the summary volume, includes the history of residential schools, the legacy of that school system, and the full text of the Commission's 94 recommendations for action to address that legacy. This report lays bare a part of Canada's history that until recently was little-known to most non-Aboriginal Canadians. The Commission discusses the logic of the colonization of Canada's territories, and why and how policy and practice developed to end the existence of distinct societies of Aboriginal peoples. Using brief excerpts from the powerful testimony heard from Survivors, this report documents the residential school system which forced children into institutions where they were forbidden to speak their language, required to discard their clothing in favour of institutional wear, given inadequate food, housed in inferior and fire-prone buildings, required to work when they should have been studying, and subjected to emotional, psychological and often physical abuse. In this setting, cruel punishments were all too common, as was sexual abuse. More than 30,000 Survivors have been compensated financially by the Government of Canada for their experiences in residential schools, but the legacy of this experience is ongoing today. This report explains the links to high rates of Aboriginal children being taken from their families, abuse of drugs and alcohol, and high rates of suicide. The report documents the drastic decline in the presence of Aboriginal languages, even as Survivors and others work to maintain their distinctive cultures, traditions, and governance. The report offers 94 calls to action on the part of governments, churches, public institutions and non-Aboriginal Canadians as a path to meaningful reconciliation of Canada today with Aboriginal citizens. Even though the historical experience of residential schools constituted an act of cultural genocide by Canadian government authorities, the United Nation's declaration of the rights of aboriginal peoples and the specific recommendations of the Commission offer a path to move from apology for these events to true reconciliation that can be embraced by all Canadians.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission urged a better understanding of Aboriginal law for all Canadians. This book responds to that call, outlining significant legal developments in straightforward, non-technical language. Jim Reynolds provides the historical context needed to understand the relationship between Indigenous peoples and settlers and explains key topics such as sovereignty, fiduciary duties, the honour of the Crown, Aboriginal rights and title, treaties, the duty to consult, Indigenous laws, and international law. He concludes that rather than leaving the judiciary to sort out essentially political issues, politicians need to take responsibility for this crucial aspect of building a just society.

In Canada, the fundamentals of law relating to Aboriginal peoples are unclear and Indigenous communities lack appropriate guidance in terms of efficiently accessing the legal system to address breaches of their rights. This is yet another injustice endured by Aboriginal peoples in Canada. However, the Supreme Court of Canada has begun to place greater emphasis on the honour-of-the-Crown principle and less on the paternalistic, complex notion that governments owe a fiduciary duty to Aboriginal peoples. Dickson explores both theoretical and practical implications of this fundamental shift and possible future outcomes.