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.

BC Treaty Process, Private Land and the Standards of International Justice

The Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group is the Cowichan Tribes, Lake Cowichan, Halalt, Penelakut, Lyackson and Stz'uminus. They are taking BC Treaty Process policy to a human rights court at international law. The move is unprecedented because, normally, a legal issue must rise up through the courts of country where the problem is located. However, the issue is aboriginal title, an issue Canadian courts say must be resolved through negotiations. The Treaty Group alleges the BC Treaty Process is too constrained to protect their rights and wants the court to say so.

The issue was first reported here. It turns around the 8300 km² E&N Railway Grant in 1884.  About 2700 km² of the land is also the traditional territory of the Hul'qumi'num Treaty Group. Through the BC Treaty process, private lands are not on the table during treaty negotiations. Over 80% of the Groups land is in private hands. Due to the rigid policy, they argue, there is little to negotiate. The Group will have its day in court.

It was reported here that “in agreeing to hear the complaint, the Inter-American Commission ruled that the available mechanisms to resolve this dispute in Canada, whether through negotiation or the BC treaty process, are too onerous and too constrained in their protection of human rights to live up to the standards of international justice.” However, no matter the outcome, the decision cannot be enforced - legally. So what’s the point?

If a judgement favours the Treaty Group, it will be political ammunition to budge the policy determining what’s on the negotiating table or not. The issue of private land is a major obstacle for some negotiating tables, while for some like the In-SHUCK-ch table; private land is almost a non-issue. The trial starts tomorrow.