<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Davis LLP - Aboriginal Law Blog]]> </title>
	<link>http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/aboriginal-law</link>
	<description><![CDATA[Current issues in aboriginal law]]></description>
	<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog" /><feedburner:info uri="davisllp-aboriginallawblog" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
		<title><![CDATA[Can Individuals Assert Collective Aboriginal and Treaty Rights? Maybe.]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/VVw7rRpBp4w/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/litigation/can-individuals-assert-collective-aboriginal-and-treaty-rights-maybe-/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On May 9, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada issued its decision in Behn v Moulton Contracting Ltd., 2013 SCC 26. Moulton brought an action against several members of the Aboriginal Fort Nelson First Nation (&ldquo;FNFN&rdquo;) after said individuals had erected a camp blocking the company&rsquo;s access to its logging sites. Moulton had received authorization from the Ministry to harvest timber on the FNFN lands. Throughout the licensing process, the Behn family headman had not responded to any of the consultation efforts, and first challenged the Government&rsquo;s authorizations only after issuance. Neither the FNFN nor the defendant individuals raised concerns with Moulton when the licences were originally granted. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/litigation/can-individuals-assert-collective-aboriginal-and-treaty-rights-maybe-/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/litigation/can-individuals-assert-collective-aboriginal-and-treaty-rights-maybe-/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Government of Alberta Introduces Bill 22 - Aboriginal Consultation Levy Act]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/D8zkgQEH5RQ/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/government-of-alberta-introduces-bill-22-aboriginal-consultation-levy-act/</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 23:27:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The Government of Alberta introduced Bill 22 - the Aboriginal Consultation Levy Fund in the legislature today. A copy of the Bill can be found here. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/government-of-alberta-introduces-bill-22-aboriginal-consultation-levy-act/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/government-of-alberta-introduces-bill-22-aboriginal-consultation-levy-act/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[BC and Canada Sign Memorandum of Understanding on the Substitution of Environmental Assessments]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/4EkXSSqnSng/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/environmental-energy-and-resources-law/bc-and-canada-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-the-substitution-of-environmental-assessments/</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 23:26:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The BC Environmental Assessment&nbsp;Office&nbsp;(BC EAO) and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) announced today that they have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the &quot;MOU&quot;)&nbsp;on the substitution of environmental assessments for single projects and for classes of designated projects, and the coordination of Aboriginal consultation on such projects.&nbsp;Substitution means the substitution of the provincial process for&nbsp;the federal process&nbsp;while still requiring two separate decisions by the BC&nbsp;Minister of Environment and the Federal Minister of Environment. It does not&nbsp;involve the implemetation of an&nbsp;equivalent process. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/environmental-energy-and-resources-law/bc-and-canada-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-the-substitution-of-environmental-assessments/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/environmental-energy-and-resources-law/bc-and-canada-sign-memorandum-of-understanding-on-the-substitution-of-environmental-assessments/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[New Mining Act Regulations for Aboriginal Consultation Proposed]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/xgLf1GZMkm0/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/new-mining-act-regulations-for-aboriginal-consultation-proposed/</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Mar 2012 12:56:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Recently, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines (the &ldquo;Ministry&rdquo;) posted proposed regulations pursuant to section 176 of the Mining Act on Ontario&rsquo;s Environmental Registry (the &ldquo;EBR&rdquo;). The proposed regulations attempt to clarify Aboriginal Consultation requirements for early exploration activities with a graduated system of consultation which will reflect the type of activity that is taking place on the land. The Proposals have been posted for a 50 day public review and comment period which will continue until May 01, 2012. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/new-mining-act-regulations-for-aboriginal-consultation-proposed/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/new-mining-act-regulations-for-aboriginal-consultation-proposed/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Ontario Superior Court Grants Injunction Against Mining Company for Failing to Consult]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/-J7O65r3Z4Q/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-superior-court-grants-injuction-against-mining-company-for-failure-to-consult/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:45:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On January 3, 2012, Ontario Superior Court Justice Carole&nbsp;Brown J. granted an injunction to the Wahgoshig First Nation&nbsp;(the &quot;WFN&quot;) restraining&nbsp;a junior minor from engaging in all mining exploration activities for 120 days on Treaty 9 lands&nbsp;upon finding that the company failed to consult the&nbsp;WFN prior to conducting its exploratory drilling. See, Wahgoshig First Nation v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario et al., 2011 ONSC 7708. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-superior-court-grants-injuction-against-mining-company-for-failure-to-consult/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-superior-court-grants-injuction-against-mining-company-for-failure-to-consult/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[First Nations Transparency Act Passes 2nd Reading]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/SFKOyvdBCZU/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/First-Nations-Transparency-Act-Passes-2nd-Reading/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:56:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Bill C-575, a private member&#39;s bill brought forward by Conservative MP Kelly Brock to create the First Nations Transparency Act passed second reading on March 2nd in the House of Commons and will be referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for review. 151 MP&#39;s voted for the Bill, and 128 against the Bill. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/First-Nations-Transparency-Act-Passes-2nd-Reading/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/First-Nations-Transparency-Act-Passes-2nd-Reading/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Québec&#39;s Plan Nord: Nunavik Representatives meet in Kuujjuaq with Québec Government Officials]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/fnE3ex4k6a8/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Quebecs-Plan-Nord-Nunavik-Representatives-meet-in-Kuujjuaq-with-Quebec-Government-Officials/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 12:09:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On March 3rd, representatives from Nunavik met with Qu&eacute;bec Government officials in Kuujjuaq to discuss the province&#39;s ambitious northern development plan, the Plan Nord. On hand for the province were Nathalie Normandeau, Qu&eacute;bec&#39;s Deputy Premier, Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife and Minister responsible for the Plan Nord, Mr. Geoffrey Kelley, Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs and Mr. Pierre Corbeil, Minister responsible for the Abitibi-T&eacute;miscamingue and Nord-du-Qu&eacute;bec regions. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Quebecs-Plan-Nord-Nunavik-Representatives-meet-in-Kuujjuaq-with-Quebec-Government-Officials/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Quebecs-Plan-Nord-Nunavik-Representatives-meet-in-Kuujjuaq-with-Quebec-Government-Officials/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Canada Confirms Consultation and Compensation Requirements for Past (Historical) Infringements of Aboriginal Rights]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/FjUOtEF4W34/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Supreme-Court-of-Canada-Confirms-Consultation-and-Compensation-Requirements-for-Past-Historical-Infringements-of-Abori/</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. v. Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, 2010 SCC 43 in which the respondents, the Carrier Sekani Tribal Council, argued that the duty to consult on a decision by BC Hydro to purchase electricity under a new electricity purchase agreement may be triggered by a failure to consult on the larger, existing electricity development to which the agreement was to apply. At issue was whether a fresh duty to consult could arise with respect to the Crown decision before the Commission. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Supreme-Court-of-Canada-Confirms-Consultation-and-Compensation-Requirements-for-Past-Historical-Infringements-of-Abori/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/Supreme-Court-of-Canada-Confirms-Consultation-and-Compensation-Requirements-for-Past-Historical-Infringements-of-Abori/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[BC Supreme Court Finds a Failure to Meaningfully Consult and Accommodate Warrants a Stay of a Mines Act Permit and Suspension of a Licence to Cut]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/MvwTNvmKr0c/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-finds-a-failure-to-meaningfully-consult-and-accommodate-warrants-a-stay-of-a-mines-act-permit-and-suspe/</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Mar 2010 14:31:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The BC Supreme Court stayed the effect of First Coal Corporation&#39;s Mines Act Permit Amendment for Advanced Exploration and suspended its forestry Licence to Cut last Friday on finding that the provincial Crown failed to meaningfully consult and properly accommodate the petitioner&#39;s, West Moberly First Nations, traditional right to hunt caribou in its treaty territory (see West Moberly First Nations v. British Columbia (Chief Inspector of Mines), 2010 BCSC 359). The remedy follows the jurisdiction of the court &quot;when considering a constitutional right...to stay the effect of the impugned decisions for a determined period and to give directions as to the accommodation which should be put in place within that time,&quot; (per Platinex Inc. v. Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug First Nation (2006), 272 D.L.R. (4th) 727) <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-finds-a-failure-to-meaningfully-consult-and-accommodate-warrants-a-stay-of-a-mines-act-permit-and-suspe/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-finds-a-failure-to-meaningfully-consult-and-accommodate-warrants-a-stay-of-a-mines-act-permit-and-suspe/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[No Aboriginal Right for Lax Kw&#39;alaams Indian Band to Commercial Fishery says BC Court of Appeal]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/D6Y_9DqCDMw/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/no-aboriginal-right-for-lax-kwalaams-indian-band-to-commercial-fishery-says-bc-court-of-appeal/</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:46:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The BC Court of Appeal released its decision on December 23rd on Lax Kwa&#39;aams&#39; appeal from the Supreme Court&#39;s decision that it did not have a commercial right to fish all species within their &quot;Claimed Territory.&quot; Unlike other Aboriginal fishing cases, this case arises not from an alleged regulatory offence, but in an action brought by Lax Kw&#39;alaams for declarations that it has aboriginal rights to harvest all species of Fisheries Resources and to sell them on a commercial scale. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/no-aboriginal-right-for-lax-kwalaams-indian-band-to-commercial-fishery-says-bc-court-of-appeal/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/no-aboriginal-right-for-lax-kwalaams-indian-band-to-commercial-fishery-says-bc-court-of-appeal/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act Introduced to Help First Nations Develop Commercial Real Estate on Reserves]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/bBIct0KwT4M/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/first-nations-certainty-of-land-title-act-introduced-to-help-first-nations-develop-commercial-real-estate-on-reserves/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:32:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On December 10, 2009, the Government of Canada introduced the First Nations Certainty of Land Title Act (the &quot;Act&quot;) to amend the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act, which was developed in consulation with five First Nations: the Squamish Nation in British Columbia; the Fort McKay First Nation and Tsuu T&#39;ina Nation in Alberta; the Carry the Kettle First Nation in Saskatchewan; and, the Fort William First Nation in Ontario. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/first-nations-certainty-of-land-title-act-introduced-to-help-first-nations-develop-commercial-real-estate-on-reserves/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/first-nations-certainty-of-land-title-act-introduced-to-help-first-nations-develop-commercial-real-estate-on-reserves/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Nisga&#39;a Nation Passes Legislation to Establish Private Property Rights]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/hwku7uIxib8/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/nisgaa-nation-passes-legislation-to-establish-private-property-rights/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:11:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[The Nisga&#39;a Nation has passed a historic law allowing Nisga&#39;a citizens to own their own property. It is the first time in Canada that an aboriginal group has approved legislation to allow for private property rights. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/nisgaa-nation-passes-legislation-to-establish-private-property-rights/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/nisgaa-nation-passes-legislation-to-establish-private-property-rights/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[BC Hydro Releases Q&#38;A on First Nations Consulation with Respect to Power Calls]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/_xKv1VIG9c8/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-hydro-releases-qanda-on-first-nations-consulation-with-respect-to-power-calls/</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:42:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On November 18, 2009 BC Hydro released Questions and Answers (Q&amp;A) on its website regarding BC Hydro&#39;s role with respect to First Nations consultation. The Q&amp;A stems from uncertainty in the nature and scope of consultation required as a result of BC Court of Appeal decisions in Carrier Sekani Tribal Council v. British Columbia Utilities Commission, (2009 BCCA 67) and Kwikwetlem First Nation v. British Columbia Utilities Commission (2009 BCCA 68). <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-hydro-releases-qanda-on-first-nations-consulation-with-respect-to-power-calls/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-hydro-releases-qanda-on-first-nations-consulation-with-respect-to-power-calls/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[BC Supreme Court recognizes Aboriginal Right for Nuu-chah-nulth Nations Bands to Fish and Sell Fish Commercially]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/4xiKEJpHRFE/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-recognizes-aboriginal-right-for-nuu-chah-nulth-nations-bands-to-fish-and-sell-fish-commercially/</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:09:00 PST</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, in Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 1494, Madam Justice Garson of the BC Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiffs in the action (the Ehattesaht, the Mowachaht/Muchalaht, the Hesquiaht, the Ahousaht, and the Tla-o-qui-aht - five Nuu-chah-nulth Nations aboriginal bands whose territories are located on the west coast of Vancouver Island) have the aboriginal right to fish any species of fish within their respective traditional territories (to a seaward boundary extending nine miles) and to sell fish commercially. Justice Garson found that these rights stem from ancestral practices, which translate into broader modern entitlements to fish and to sell fish, beyond the small-scale sale of fish in commercial markets, however, limited. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-recognizes-aboriginal-right-for-nuu-chah-nulth-nations-bands-to-fish-and-sell-fish-commercially/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-recognizes-aboriginal-right-for-nuu-chah-nulth-nations-bands-to-fish-and-sell-fish-commercially/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[BC Supreme Court rules against Nlaka&#39;pamux Nation Tribal Council -  Finds that EAO fulfilled duty to consult]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/x2LD5eTyfUE/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-rules-against-nlakapamux-nation-tribal-council-finds-that-eao-fulfilled-duty-to-consult/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[On September 17, 2009, in Nlaka&#39;pamux Nation Tribal Council v. Griffin 2009 BCSC 125, the Honourable Mr. Justice Sewell of the BC Supreme Court ruled against the Nlaka&#39;pamux Nation Tribal Council (NNTC) in a case involving the proposed expansion of the Cache Creek landfill (Expansion) and NNTC&#39;s Petition against a section 11 Order (Order) issued by the British Columbia Environmental Assessment Office (EAO) on October 22, 2008. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-rules-against-nlakapamux-nation-tribal-council-finds-that-eao-fulfilled-duty-to-consult/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/bc-supreme-court-rules-against-nlakapamux-nation-tribal-council-finds-that-eao-fulfilled-duty-to-consult/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[2nd Anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples - Canada not signed on]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/96fWqlbAMBs/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/2nd-anniversary-of-the-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-canada-not-signed-on/</guid>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 17:28:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Two years ago, on September 13, 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, after 143 Member States voted in favour of it. Notably, 11 countries abstained, and four: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States - voted against it. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/2nd-anniversary-of-the-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-canada-not-signed-on/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/2nd-anniversary-of-the-un-declaration-on-the-rights-of-indigenous-peoples-canada-not-signed-on/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Ontario announces two programs to enhance Aboriginal participation in the new green economy]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/sHaX1aRoN_k/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-announces-two-programs-to-enhance-aboriginal-participation-in-the-new-green-economy/</guid>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, Ontario announced the early closure of 4 of OPG&#39;s coal-fired generating units. The Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure described the announcement as the first of its 10 steps to &quot;transition the province to electricity generated from green energy which will open investment and opportunities in Ontario&#39;s green economy.&quot; The Ministry announced steps 2 and 3 last Friday. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-announces-two-programs-to-enhance-aboriginal-participation-in-the-new-green-economy/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/ontario-announces-two-programs-to-enhance-aboriginal-participation-in-the-new-green-economy/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Chiefs reject proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/1F2HBPWD4Co/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/chiefs-reject-proposed-recognition-and-reconciliation-act/</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:52:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[At British Columbia&#39;s All Chiefs Assembly, a gathering of 250 chiefs (elected and hereditary) met with native elders to discuss the BC government&#39;s proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act, and formally rejected the proposed legislation on Friday (August 28, 2009). The Chiefs issued a statement to the media, quoting Grand Chief Edward John as stating that &quot;The Province of British Columbia cannot and does not have jurisdiction over our Indigenous Title and Rights and as such the proposed legislation is dead. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/chiefs-reject-proposed-recognition-and-reconciliation-act/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/chiefs-reject-proposed-recognition-and-reconciliation-act/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	<item>
		<title><![CDATA[Haida Signs MOU for an Option to Invest in Naikun Offshore Wind Energy Project]]></title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/DavisLlp-AboriginalLawBlog/~3/RRSUCznVRPs/</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/haida-signs-mou-for-an-option-to-invest-in-naikun-offshore-wind-energy-project/</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2009 14:17:00 PDT</pubDate>
		<description><![CDATA[Haida Enterprise Corporation (&quot;HEC&quot;), the business arm of the Haida Nation, has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NaiKun Wind Energy Group Inc. (&quot;Naikun&quot;) for an option to purchase an up to 40% stake in the Naikun Wind energy project off BC&#39;s north coast. HEC and the Haida Nation plan to seek federal support for their participation, and consider the initiative to fit with the new Federal Framework for Aboriginal Economic Development. <a href="http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/haida-signs-mou-for-an-option-to-invest-in-naikun-offshore-wind-energy-project/">[More…]</a>]]></description>
	<feedburner:origLink>http://www.davis.ca/en/entry/aboriginal-law/haida-signs-mou-for-an-option-to-invest-in-naikun-offshore-wind-energy-project/</feedburner:origLink></item>
</channel>
</rss>
