Skip to main content
This website uses cookies. By continuing to use this website you are agreeing to our use of cookies as described in our privacy policy.
Media Coverage

Financial Post quotes Kevin O’Callaghan in an article on British Columbia’s Bill 41

Fasken
Reading Time 1 minute read

“Why B.C.’s Indigenous rights bill is ‘impractically broad’ and inconsistent with Canadian law” by Julius Melnitzer, Financial Post

Financial Post quotes Vancouver lawyer, Kevin O’Callaghan, in an article on British Columbia’s Bill 41.

Kevin O’Callaghan, a lawyer with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, says while the vast majority of UNDRIP’s content is non-controversial and supported by the province’s industry, sections dealing with free, prior and informed consent in the context of building projects on lands within the claimed traditional territories of Indigenous peoples gets all the attention.

“The problem stems from uncertainty about whether UNDRIP demands more than what is already provided by s. 35 of the Constitution,” O’Callaghan said in an emailed comment. Many people, including the B.C. government based on the statements made in debating DRIPA, believe that these requirements in UNDRIP are met by the combination of the duty on the Crown to consult generally with affected Indigenous people, coupled with the requirement for consent in the case of proven Aboriginal title or treaty requirements.”