Wet'suwet'en Supports HTG at Inter-American Human Rights Commission

Wet'suwet'en representatives feel the BC Treaty Process isn't working for them. They claim the federal government is not serious about resolving aboriginal title issues. The Wet'suwet'en also feel that Canadian courts are not an alternative. Therefore, they have applied to support the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group at the Inter-American Human Rights Commission. They hope to bring international pressure on the Canadian government to get serious about their concerns as pipelines and mines are being proposed through their territory. This story first appeared yesterday in regional news here.

Canada vs Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group: Inter-American Human Rights Commission

“Everything on this earth is connected. Everything is what sustains us. I know where in our territories to go for what we need. It is like knowing what store to go to: hardware, grocery, or pharmacy” Arbid Charlie testimony at the IACHR.

Shortly after the election of the BC Liberal government in 2001 things got worse for the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. According to the Centre for Human Rights and Humanitarian Law,

"industrial deforestation and development of land substantially increased. The resulting destruction of the land has inhibited the Hul’qumi’num peoples’ abilities to hunt, fish, gather and practice their spiritual and religious traditions on the land. Private ownership of the land has also increased the risk of trespass allegations against the Hul’qumi’num Treaty Group (HTG)." 

Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) documents allege that the BC Treaty Process and Canadian courts are not options for HTG. A Ratcliff & Co. report stated an aboriginal title case is not viable when private property is at issue and the BC Treaty Process has consumed $13 million and 15 years with no progress. As a result, the HTG allege their human rights have been violated and there is no remedy within Canada. On the face of it the IACHR agrees and is willing to hear the case.

The allegations, which if proven contravene Canada's international legal obligations, are:

1. Canada has not set boundaries, demarcated, or recorded the title deed to the ancestral lands of the HTG
2. Canada has granted licenses, permits, and concessions within HTGs ancestral lands without prior consultation; 
3. Canada has not provided restitution for the ancestral lands the HTG lost involuntarily and that were transferred by BC to private third parties; and, 
4. this has resulted in the destruction of the environment, natural resources, and of the sacred sites used by the alleged victims.

Canada and the HTG presented their cases and await the Commissions ruling. The outcome is not enforceable in Canadian courts, but will cause international pressure.

Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group and Canada Square of in Human Rights Commission

Two more stories here and here shine light on the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group's quest to protect its land interests. On Friday, the parties each presented their case.

The Treaty Group's concerns are with logging practices on lands encumbered with its aboriginal title. The group wants a say in the management of harvesting or compensation. Canada argues the Treaty Group has access to Canadian courts or the treaty process to advance its interests, therefore, the OAS court should not be hearing the case. Canada takes this position because, procedurally, the OAS court cannot hear a case until all other legal options are exhausted. The OAS court agreed to hear the case because the Treaty Group's lawyer convinced the court that due to BC Treaty Process policy, the available options are not really options at all because private lands are not subject to treaty negotiations. In addition, a condition of being in treaty negotiations means is that the Treaty Group must not go to a Canadian court - a conundrum for many First Nations.

Even if all remedies in Canada are exhausted the OAS court decisions are not binding. The decision may be available in March 2012.