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.

UVIC Anthropologist Predicts Dramatic Change to BC Treaty Process

TV coverage of a story posted here yesterday, puts more pressure on the private land issue facing several First Nations in BC Treaty Process. UVIC's Brian Thom predicts the outcome of the case before the OAS Human Rights commission could cause dramatic change to the BC Treaty Process.

However, the outcome of the case is not enforceable. It is predicted here that the case maybe the catalyst for change but it will take coordinated action to cause meaningful change. This is because Canada's lawyer says "Canada does not agree with these allegations...Canada takes issue to all aspects of the petition." See the rest of the story here and 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.