ABSTRACT
This chapter presents data from interviews with regulatory personnel involved at the initial ‘planning’ phase of the regulatory process. It explores three key clusters of process-specific tension surrounding First Nation consultation, all of which are premised on an underpinning provincial, paternalistic justification which serves to legitimate decisions made during this stage of the process. The first key area of conflict sits outside the regulatory process but intersects heavily with it, centring on the extent to which First Nations were consulted on the Lower Athabasca Regional Plan prior to its introduction in 2012 – a strategic tool which is supposed to inform regulatory decision-making to ensure development does not exceed environmental thresholds. The second area of conflict focuses on the delegation of consultation responsibilities to individual proponents following the disposition of land leases. The third area centres on the Government of Alberta’s narrow interpretation of Treaty rights relative to that maintained by First Nations. Although this ‘planning’ phase could encompass other, more specific sub-stages, focus on these three in particular has been dictated by the dominant themes identified by the involved personnel. The final section of the chapter describes the role of the underpinning paternalistic justifications for decisions pertaining to expansion, along with the associated tension between the Government of Alberta and the Supreme Court of Canada.
