1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Journal of Argumentation in Context
  4. Volume 14, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2211-4742
  • E-ISSN: 2211-4750
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Despite pledging to engage in two-sided dialogues during resource consultations with Indigenous Peoples ( 2004, para 44), the administrative Canadian state often defaults to one-sided reasoning, emphasizing the project’s necessity and managing evidential gaps in the project’s assessments by giving the benefits of doubt to the industry while promising Indigenous communities adaptive management programs to mitigate all potential adversaries. Such reasoning strategies raise doubts about Canada’s genuine commitment to administering the promised meaningful dialogue in Indigenous consultations. The lack of normative criteria for assessing the meaningfulness of dialogue within the Canadian administrative system further complicates the evaluation of government officials’ commitment.

This article applies Walton’s dialogue system to evaluate how government agencies engage in consultative exchanges with Indigenous Peoples, focusing on their reasoning as commitments. It differentiates between dialogical and procedural elements in controlled exchanges across three contentious projects — the Mackenzie Valley, Trans Mountain, and Site C projects — theorizing the differences between one-sided, two-sided, and collapsed dialogues in Indigenous consultations. The article reveals that officials’ actions in these dialogues often leveraged their institutional authority and statutory discretion to impose compliance costs on epistemically diverse communities (Pimenova 2025). This strategy sometimes weakens these communities’ capacity to challenge project developments by subordinating their diverse testimonial credibility to the dominant argumentative discourse centered on consumption, mitigation, and epistemic ignorance.

© 2025 John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
2025-08-19
2026-03-12

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aakhus, Mark
    2013 “Deliberation Digitized: Designing Disagreement Space through Communication-Information Services.” Journal of Argumentation in Context2(1): 101–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aikenhead, Glen S., and Masakata Ogawa
    2007 “Indigenous Knowledge and Science Revisited.” Cultural Studies of Science Education21: 539–620.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alcantara, Christopher
    2013 “Preferences, Perceptions, and Veto Players: Explaining Devolution Negotiation Outcomes in the Canadian Territorial North.” Polar Record49(2): 167–179.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berger, Thomas R.
    1977 Northern Frontier, Northern Homeland: The Report of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40
    Clyde River (Hamlet) v. Petroleum Geo-Services Inc., 2017 SCC 40 [2017] 1 SCR 1069.
  6. Cobbe, Jennifer
    2019 “Administrative Law and the Machines of Government.” Legal Studies39(4): 636–655.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Cummings, Louise
    2015 “The Use of ‘No Evidence’ Statements in Public Health.” Informal Logic35(1): 32–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Deloria, Vine
    2003 God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. 30th Anniversary Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO: Fulcrum.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Edwards, Kari, and Edward Smith
    1996 “A Disconfirmation Bias in the Evaluation of Arguments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 5–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Fricker, Miranda
    2007 Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford Scholarship Online.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Fuller, Lon L., and Kenneth I. Winston
    1978 “The Forms and Limits of Adjudication.” Harvard Law Review92(2): 353–409.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodwin, Jean
    2007 “Argument Has No Function.” Informal Logic27(1): 69–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Goudge, Stephen
    2016 “The Berger Inquiry in Retrospect: Its Legacy.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law28(2): 393–407.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73
    Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73 [2004] 3 SCR 511.
  15. Herd, Pamela, and Donald P. Moynihan
    2018 Administrative Burden: Policymaking by Other Means. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Howitt, Richard
    2006 “Scales of Coexistence: Tackling the Tension between Legal and Cultural Landscapes in Post-Mabo Australia.” Macquarie Law Journal61: 49–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Huscroft, G.
    2019 Principles and Pragmatism in Canadian Constitutional Law. 5th ed.Toronto: Carswell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Joint Review Panel
    Joint Review Panel. May 2014 Report of the Joint Review Panel: Site C Clean Energy Project. B.C. Hydro and Power Authority. British Columbia.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Klaczynski, Paul
    1997 “Bias in Adolescents’ Everyday Reasoning and Its Relationship with Intellectual Ability, Personal Theories, and Self-Serving Motivation.” Developmental Psychology33(2): 273–283.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Kunda, Ziva
    1990 “The Case for Motivated Political Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin108(3): 480–498.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Lagewaard, Tobias J.
    2021 “Epistemic Injustice and Deepened Disagreement.” Philosophical Studies178(5): 1571–1592.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Levi, Margaret
    1981 “The Predatory Theory of Rule.” Politics & Society10(4): 431–465.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Lyotard, Jean-François
    1988 Le Differend. Paris: Minuit 1983 Translated as The Differend: Phrases in Dispute. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. McCabe, J. Timothy S.
    2008 The Honour of the Crown and its Fiduciary Duties to Aboriginal Peoples. Markham, ON: LexisNexis Canada.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. McGuire, William
    1964 “Inducing Resistance to Persuasion: Some Contemporary Approaches.” InAdvances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. byLeonard Berkowitz, 192–229. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Mercier, Hugo, and Dan Sperber
    2011 “Why Do Humans Reason? Arguments for an Argumentative Theory.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences341: 57–111.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. National Energy Board
    National Energy Board 2019 Trans Mountain Pipeline ULC: Application for the Trans Mountain Expansion Project, Reconsideration of Aspects of its OH-001-2014 Report as Directed by Order in Council P.C. 2018–1177, MH-052-2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Nelson, Daniel
    1983 Pipelines and Public Politics: A Study of the Public Record of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. PhD diss., ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
  29. Nickerson, Raymond
    1998 “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Pimenova, Oxana
    2022 “Argument Continuities in Theory and Practice: Evidence from Canada.” Journal of Argumentation in Context11(2): 200–242.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 2024 “Advancing Critical Discourse Analysis of Indigenous Consultations: Argument Continuity v. Epistemic Vigilance.” Critical Policy Studies18(2): 185–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 2023 “Dominant Discourse in Indigenous Consultations: A Comparative Study of the Crown’s Reasoning.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights301: 1–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. 2025 “An Inquiry Concerning Administrative Discretion in Indigenous Consultations.” Public Administration Quarterly, online first.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. . Forthcoming. “Deliberative Context” is Not the Whole Story of Deliberative Reasoning: The Site C Case of Disagreement Management in Indigenous Consultations”. Argumentation.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Rawls, John
    1999 A Theory of Justice. Rev. ed.Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Sheingate, Adam
    2009 “Rethinking rules: Creativity and constraint in the U.S. House of Representatives.” InExplaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power, ed. ByJames Mahoney & Kathleen Thelen, 168–203. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Simpson, Leanne B.
    2017 As We Have Always Done: Indigenous Freedom Through Radical Resistance. ProQuest.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Smith, S. A., Jowell, J., and L. Woolf
    1995 Judicial Review of Administrative Action. 5th ed.Toronto: Carswell.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Sossin, Lorne
    2010 “The Duty to Consult and Accommodate: Procedural Justice as Aboriginal Rights.” Canadian Journal of Administrative Law & Practice231: 93–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Stanovich, Keith E.
    2011 Rationality and the Reflective Mind. Oxford: Oxford Scholarship Online.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Stevens, Katharina
    2019 “The Roles We Make Others Take: Thoughts on the Ethics of Arguing.” Topoi38(4): 693–709.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Sunstein, Cass
    2002 “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy10(2): 175–195.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Tindale, Christopher
    2007 Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Tindale, Christopher W.
    2021 The Anthropology of Argument: Cultural Foundations of Rhetoric and Reason. Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Valadez, Jorge
    2010 “Deliberation, Cultural Difference, and Indigenous Self-Governance.” The Good Society19(2): 60–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. van Eemeren, Frans H., & Rob Grootendorst
    1987 “Fallacies in pragma-dialectical perspective.” Argumentation1(3): 283–301.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Walton, Douglas N.
    1985 “Are Circular Arguments Necessarily Vicious?” American Philosophical Quarterly22(4): 263–274.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Walton, Douglas
    1998 The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Walton, Douglas N.
    1999 One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. Albany: State University of New York Press.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
Loading
Is the Canadian administrative state committed to engaging in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous Peoples of Canada?
Journal of Argumentation in Context 14, 179 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
/content/journals/10.1075/jaic.24015.pim
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Indigenous consultations; institutional testimonial credibility; meaningful dialogue; procedural justice; the liberal regulatory state

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error