Real Talk: The Search for Clarity and Certainty in Aboriginal Consultation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With project applications in Canada's extractive industries on the rise, the assertion of Aboriginal rights has brought the duty to consult to the forefront of public consciousness. The Crown is obligated by case law and the Constitution to consult with Aboriginal communities on any action that may affect their rights, treaty rights and title. While some steps have been taken to clarify the process of consultation, ambiguity concerning criteria, responsibilities and expectations persists, creating a great deal of uncertainty for proponents and Aboriginal groups who may benefit from resource projects. The revenues brought by resource developments are vital to Canadian economies, and the ability to strategically plan is central to their success. Uncertainty and inconsistent consultations serve to weaken plans and prolong poor relationships between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples. Moreover, variable consultative practices may be a source of inequality amongst different Aboriginal communities, as well as within them. The purpose of this project is to provide an analytical map of the ongoing areas of ambiguity and controversy with respect to the duty to consult. Such a consolidation of the issues and policy options does not exist, and this research aims to provide a systematic (as opposed to piecemeal) effort at clarifying this important but murky policy area. A series of general interviews were conducted with individuals involved in, or highly familiar with, Aboriginal consultation. Participants included a government official, a former council member of an Alberta First Nation, and several industry representatives. lnput was also sought from an industry association, an expert in Aboriginal Law, and an independent consultant. Findings from these interviews suggest there are significant problems surrounding consultation processes: the guidelines provided by provincial governments are vague, do little to elaborate on specific responsibilities of different parties, and - in their current form - may have the effect of creating a minimum standard of consultation; the Crown, while obliged to conduct consultations, delegates the procedural aspects of the process, creating misaligned expectations and inconsistent information flows; and insufficient Aboriginal capacity funding places extra demands on proponents for compensation, leading to ill-defined and problematic consultation fees. Three policy recommendations may alleviate these issues: I) the creation of a one window or single desk approach - akin to the BC Oil and Gas Commission's - to streamline processes and handle monetary exchanges; 2) the establishment of a fee schedule of negotiable fee allotment windows based on an assessment of the characteristics of the community and proposed project; and 3) greater Crown involvement in consultation and policy revision.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,121 | 0,166 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,039 | 0,076 |
| Communication savante | 0,027 | 0,024 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,033 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,007 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».