Letter of Chief Judy Wilson Skat'sin Te Secwepemc Neskonlith, to Premier John Hogan Government of B.C., et al. on B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy

October 9, 2019

Premier John Hogan Government of B.C.

Mr. Scott Fraser

Minister of Indigenous Relations & Reconciliation Government of B.C.

Mr. Doug Donaldson

Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development Government of B.C.

Ms. Michell Mungall

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Government of B.C.

Mr. George Heyman

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy Government of B.C.

Re: B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy, Secwépemc – BC Government to Government (Qwelmínte) Letter of Commitment (“LOC”), Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project

Dear Premier and Ministers:

I am writing on behalf of the Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith, a band within the meaning of the Indian Act we are also Indigenous Peoples with rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 and international law, which includes our lands within the outstanding 1862 Neskonlith Douglas Reserve Claim.

It is the responsibility of myself as Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith Kukpi7 (Chief) to raise issues that affect our Inherent Title and Rights, to the federal and provincial governments, or Human Rights violations to other Chiefs.

For greater certainty, the issues raised in this letter are not intended to represent any other organization, nor am I writing in my capacity as UBCIC Secretary Treasurer.

I am writing to formally register our concerns about the 2019 B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy

and the potential adverse impacts that the " Letter of Commitment" ( LOC) signed in March

2019, by your government with the Secwépemc Kukpi7’s from Stk’emlupsemc te Secwépemc Nation (SSN), Splatsin, Adams Lake Indian Band, Shuswap Indian Band, Little Shuswap Indian Band, Simpcw First Nation, in violation of Secwépemc law, constitutional law and international law, especially since the Proper Title Holders: the Secwépemc Peoples, have not been consulted, or given their consent to the LOC, particularly our community members.

We are also writing to confirm our firm opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project.

B.C. Reconciliation Policy:

This brings us to the B.C. Reconciliation Policy and the political and legal context here in B.C., which connects to our specific concerns about the recently signed LOC.

Premier Horgan, we note you stated the following to your Ministers in their respective Mandate Letters from July 18, 2017, and particularly your Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation:

As part of our commitment to true, lasting reconciliation with First Nations in British Columbia our government will be fully adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Calls to Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. As minister, you are responsible for moving forward on the calls to action and reviewing policies, programs, and legislation to determine how to bring the principles of the declaration into action in British Columbia.

In your role as Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation I expect that you will substantive progress on the following priorities:

· Work collaboratively and respectfully with First Nations to establish a clear, cross-government vision of reconciliation to guide the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and

Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision.

· In partnership with First Nations , transform the treaty process so it respects case law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. [emphasis added]

Our first point regarding the UN Declaration, is that the articles are international minimum standards for Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights. The articles are NOT mere principles as your Mandate Letter to your Ministers suggests!

2019 B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy:

Secondly, in developing the 2019 B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy, your government and the other parties in the development of the Policy, excluded the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and the UBCIC member communities, including our community, Neskonlith.

The exclusion of Indigenous Nations and communities who never agreed with the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Extinguishment Policy from the development of the “ newB.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy, was in our estimation a very poor decision on the part of your government and the other parties who developed the “ new” Policy, especially since your government purports to want to develop a “ vision of reconciliation to guide the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action, and the Tsilhqot’in Supreme Court decision”.

Even the Assembly of First Nations recognizes that:

The federal implementation of Canada's Comprehensive Claims Policy (CCP) has led to three classes of Aboriginal Title First Nations:

i. First Nations that have entered in final comprehensive claims agreements;

ii. First Nations that were or have been in comprehensive claims negotiations; and,

iii. First Nations that have never agreed to negotiate under the federal CCP. [ Source: AFN Special Chiefs’ Assembly Resolution no. 47/2015]

To be clear, the new BC Treaty Negotiations Policy only involves Aboriginal Title First Nations, from classes i and ii, and excludes class iii. Moreover, Canada and B.C. only included Aboriginal Title First Nations from classes i and ii in the selective process developing the “ new” Policy, while excluding class iii.

Consequently, we forsee the new Policy as exacerbating conflict between and among Indigenous Nations and communities, as well as, with the governments of B.C. and Canada.

As we already noted above, the Policy perpetuates the fundamental problems arising from the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, and the 1992 BCTC process, including “ overlap”,


particularly between Indigenous Nations and communities who hold Aboriginal Title vs. Modern Treaty groups, such as the Nisga’a Nation, which the 2018 Supreme Court of B.C. decision in the Gamlaxyeltxw v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests, Lands & Natural Resource Operations) case, addressed regarding moose hunting in an “ overlap” area with Gitanyow.

Since your government was a party to this case, we are sure you are aware of the “ overlap” issue and the problems it creates regarding not only wildlife management, but all matters connected to lands, territories and resources where a “ Modern Treaty” territory “ overlaps” an Aboriginal Title and Rights territory, particularly of an Indigenous community or Nation not participating in the BCTC process.

The issue of “ overlap” or shared territories between Aboriginal Title First Nations in classes i, ii, and iii, as referenced above, in our view is a problem stemming from the federal and B.C. creation of the BCTC process in 1992, which simply allowed “ statements of intent” along with maps from groups that were not required to do any research (oral & written) to back up the maps, as groups in other regions of Canada had to do through the federal Comprehensive Land Claims Policy in developing a “ statement of claim”.

We have reviewed the “ newBC Treaty Negotiations Policy and we agree with lawyers Kate Gunn and Bruce McIvor, who wrote an article dated September 18, 2019, entitled “ Recognition without Reconciliation?: The New Rights Policy for BC Treaty Negotiations”, that “ the new policy continues to implicitly rely on the doctrine of discovery as the basis for treaty negotiations in British Columbia”.

To begin with, Section 4 of the Policy falsely claims that “ Canada has adopted, without

qualification…the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)”. However, it’s a matter of record, that on May 10, 2016, regarding Canada’s adoption of UNDRIP, federal Indigenous Affairs Minister, Carolyn Bennett told the United Nation Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues that “ We intend nothing less than to adopt and implement the declaration in accordance with the Canadian Constitution.” [emphasis added]

This is a qualification!

On May 10, 2016, also at the same UN meeting, federal Minister of Indigenous Affairs, Carolyn Bennett stated:

Canada believes that our constitutional obligations serve to fulfil all of the principles of the declaration, including “ free, prior and informed consent.” We see modern treaties and self-government agreements as the ultimate expression of free, prior and informed consent among partners.” [emphasis added]

Canada’s position regarding the domestication (watering down and re-writing) of UNDRIP was further reinforced by the 10 Principles respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous peoples, issued in June 2017, by the federal Justice Minister, which refer to Canada’s constitutional framework” and “ Canada’s constitutional arrangements” as the basis of interpreting UNDRIP and the 10 Federal Principles within Canadian domestic law, where the federal principles acknowledge “ self-determination” on one hand, but then put it squarely under the umbrella of “ European assertion of sovereignty” on the other. This is in violation of international legal standards!

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed up Indigenous Affairs Minister, Carolyn Bennett’s 2016 UN statement on Canada’s position regarding UNDRIP, in a 2018 mandate letter to Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Carolyn Bennett, directing her to “[i]ncrease the number of comprehensive modern treaties and new self government agreements”.

So, in our view, while the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy contains many nice sounding words, we note that the BCTC process still has many qualifications to negotiations and is still an unequal political negotiation process controlled by the federal and B.C. governments, who retain essentially a veto in the “ co-development” of negotiation mandates over matters that may affect federal or provincial jurisdiction, within Canada’s constitutional framework.

This includes the section 35 legal principles and tests the Supreme Court of Canada has set out over the past 29 years that place the burden of proof on Indigenous communities and Nations asserting Title and Rights and as we noted above, the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy remains based upon the Doctrine of Discovery, despite the disingenuous statement in section 16 of the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy, which states “ The negotiation of treaties…in British Columbia will be guided by the following…” [emphasis added]

d. Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action, which call for repudiation of

concepts such as the doctrine of discovery.

This is clearly not an explicit “ repudiation” of the Doctrine of Discovery. The governments of Canada, British Columbia and the First Nations Summit should have relied on the first recommendation of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples’ Report, which was as follows:

The Commission recommends that:

1.16.1 To begin the process, the federal, provincial and territorial governments, on behalf of the people of Canada, and national Aboriginal organizations, on behalf of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, commit themselves to building a renewed relationship based on the principles of mutual recognition, mutual respect, sharing and mutual responsibility; these principles to form the ethical basis of relations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies in the future and to be enshrined in a new Royal Proclamation and its companion legislation (see Volume 2, Chapter 2).

1.16.2 Federal, provincial and territorial governments further the process of renewal by


(a) acknowledging that concepts such as terra nullius and the doctrine of discovery are factually, legally and morally wrong;

(b) declaring that such concepts no longer form part of law making or policy development by Canadian governments;

(c) declaring that such concepts will not be the basis of arguments presented to the courts;

(d) committing themselves to renewal of the federation through consensual means to overcome the historical legacy of these concepts, which are impediments to Aboriginal people assuming their rightful place in the Canadian federation; and

(e) including a declaration to these ends in the new Royal Proclamation and its

companion legislation.”

As far as we are concerned, Canada’s courts are in a conflict-of-interest, including the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada bases its assertion of sovereignty and territorial integrity on the racist, colonial Doctrine of Discovery, as such the “ reconciliation technique” in the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy, in violation of international legal standards, continues a process of surrender to asserted Crown Title and Sovereignty.

Moreover, in our view, the establishment of the 2019 BC Treaty Negotiations Policy with only BC First Nations Summit, while excluding the UBCIC and its member Bands is a breach of UNDRIP Article 27, which provides:

Article 27

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to

indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems, to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process. [emphasis added]

The 2019 BC Treaty Negotiations Policy also fails to include all of UNDRIP Article 28, which provides:

Article 28

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied


or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent.

2. Unless otherwise freely agreed upon by the peoples concerned, compensation shall take the form of lands, territories and resources equal in quality, size and legal status or of monetary compensation or other appropriate redress.

By Canada and B.C. developing and adopting an exclusive BC Treaty Negotiations Policy

effectively denies “ a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process” to the UBCIC member Bands, including Neskonlith, particularly since the Policy remains based upon the 1991 Task Force on Claims Report and Recommendations and the 1992 BCTC Agreement, which were developed before the 2007 adoption of UNDRIP by the UN General Assembly.

In our view, the establishment of the 2019 BC Treaty Negotiations Policy will also put more pressure on the Secwépemc Nation, including lands, territories and resources where members of the Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith assert Title and Rights, while the governments of Canada and B.C. push ahead with NStQ and Ktunaxa Final Agreements (Modern Treaties), which will likely be used by Canada and B.C. as precedents and templates on the rest of the communities within the Secwépemc Nation, including the Secwépemc members of Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith. That is why, in our view, section 59 of the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy has the requirement that “ Guidance on the implementation of treaties…will be co-developed on a tripartite basis, will include Participating Indigenous Nations that have concluded modern treaties in British Columbia”. [emphasis added]

Letter of Commitment (Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council & Government of BC):

This brings us back to the concerns we have about the Letter of Commitment ( LOC) and the

Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith position regarding the LOC.

For your information, on March 25, 2019, I wrote an Open Letter to Secwepemc Proper Title Holders-Secwepemc Peoples, setting out our concerns:

This open letter is to inform and share information regarding the G2G Letter of Commitment (LOC) recently signed by seven Secwepemc Kukpi7's, which according to sections 10.5 and…10.9 of the LOC; essentially surrenders control over land and resource management within Secwepemc Aboriginal Title and Rights Territory to the government of B.C.:

according to schedule 3 of the LOC, for $3 million initially in year one, and more funding to be determined, following the finalizing of a work-plan under the terms of the LOC.


Neskonlith did not sign this provincial LOC and we oppose its application over Secwepemc Peoples without your Free, Prior, Informed Consent, as the Title and Rights holders within the Secwepemc Nation.

For your information, we have exchanged letters with the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council”, and with recommendations by Neskonlith to discuss issues with the Secwépemc Proper Title Holders, which was not accepted by the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council”, who proposed a process to meet at their table, which I explained needs to be discussed with our Elders and People.

We hold the government of B.C. largely accountable for these issues, and the divisions it is creating within and among Indigenous communities and Nations through its policies and agreements. And that NO consultation or consent based process was set out with the Secwépemc Proper Title Holders, before the government of B.C. signed the LOC.

We recognize that for now the LOC is a “ non-treaty” agreement and that the government of

B.C. recognizes the “ Shuswap Nation Tribal Council's 9 First Nations are engaged with the Province in discussions associated with land and resource use within asserted traditional territories outside of the B.C. treaty process.” [emphasis added]

However, we are concerned that the LOC could easily become an “ incremental treaty agreement” with the concurrence of the 7 Kukpi7’s, the same way the 7 Kukpi7’s, signed onto the LOC without consulting the Secwépemc Peoples, or obtaining their consent. There are sections of the LOC such as section 6.3, which provide:

6.3. In the interest of comprehensive reconciliation between the Crown and the Secwepemc Nation, the federal government may become a Party to this LOC through an amendment to this LOC made in writing and signed by all the Parties. [emphasis added]

Section 6.3 opens the door to the federal government joining into the LOC process, particularly since section 6.2 states, in part, “ the Parties recognize that Canada has a critical role in reconciliation.”

Moreover, Stage One of the BCTC process, which involves “[f]iling a Statement of Intent to Negotiate a Treaty” has a low threshold for entry into the BCTC process, particularly since “ an aboriginal governing body” doesn’t have to document or substantiate any lines on a map, such as the map (Appendix A) attached to the LOC. This is what has led to one of the major problems of the BCTC process: “ overlap” or shared territories.

After all, section 18 of the 2019 BC Treaty Negotiations Policy makes it clear that:

18. Treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements are the preferred methods of achieving the reconciliation of Crown title and the inherent titles of


Participating Indigenous Nations, and the reconciliation of pre-existing Indigenous sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. [emphasis added]

Therefore, we want to make it clear, that as far as we are concerned, the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council” is not a band, First Nation, Nation or entity possessed of Aboriginal Title or Rights, under Sewépemc law, Canadian law or international law. It is a formulation of the seven signatory Secwépemc Kukpi7’s to the LOC and now apparently

recognized by the government of B.C., without the Free, Prior, Informed Consent of the proper Secwépemc Title & Rights Holders, the People: the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council” does not represent our community, and has never been mandated to negotiate on our behalf, or with respect to our Secwépemc Peoples Aboriginal Title and Rights in what is now asserted to be the province of British Columbia.

The collective Secwépemc Proper Title Holders have not authorized Shuswap Nation Tribal Council, or any other organizations to represent them as Title or Rights holders.

We wish to state unequivocally that our members in no way waive our respective Aboriginal rights, including title, in our traditional territory within what is now asserted to be the province of B.C.

The same applies to the NStQ and Ktunaxa who are both negotiating Final Agreements (Modern Treaties) over lands within the Secwépemc Nation Territory, where our Secwépemc Peoples who are not participating in the BCTC process, assert Title and Rights.

Since my Open Letter was sent out on March 25, 2019, we have only recently learned that on September 10, 2018, your government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Union of BC Municipalities regarding Engagement with UBCM and Local Governments on Treaty Agreements, Non-Treaty Agreements and Indigenous Initiatives.

We were not consulted before this MOU was signed and it only adds to our concerns about the

LOC.

In our view, this MOU will definitely affect the contemplated LOC process under the MOU

category of “ Non-treaty” agreements, while under the terms of the MOU, the province controls the information sharing and consultation process with the municipal governments within the Secwepemc Nation Territory, which is also our members of Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith asserted Title and Rights Territory.

Since the announcement of the new BC Treaty Negotiations Policy, as we have noted above, we are concerned the LOC can potentially evolve into an “ incremental treaty”.

You can be assured we will vigorously oppose this from happening as it appears this is the intent of the LOC agreement—to formalize its relationship with Secwépemc with regard to, Title & Rights and governance between the province with possibility of including Canada at some point.


Since the Territory where our Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith members assert Title and Rights is much of the same Territory covered by the LOC, as asserted by the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council”, we consider this is a very serious threat to the Title and Rights of our Secwépemc Peoples, especially since the LOC provides that the “ Qwelminte Secwepemc Leadership Council” operates under the laws of B.C. and Canada:

10.9. This LOC will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Province of British Columbia and Canada.

To be clear, the LOC map (Appendix A-Page 26) was not consented to, or shared with, the Secwépemc Proper Title Holders who were not informed of the negative impacts of the LOC (Appendix A-Page 26) map. The Secwépemc Proper Title Holders were also not informed how province will use this map. Title is held collectively by the Secwépemc Proper Title Holders NOT by the ethnographer James Teit’s perceived divisions.

As you can see by the “ Land Traditions of the Neskonlith-Adams Lake Shuswap” Report, which was presented to your government in 1999, our land traditions are not based on James Teit’s perceived “ divisions”. Our Secwépemc Proper Title Holders continue to be socially and culturally organized to operate in seven landscape zones across Secwépemc Territory.

Consequently, our behalf of Skat’sin te Secwépemc Neskonlith, we are formally registering our opposition to the LOC and the new B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy’s application in Secwépemc Territory, because we do not accept the provisions of the Policy, or the process used by the government of B.C. and the other parties in developing the Policy, which in our view, as we noted above, is contrary to the minimum standards in the UN Declaration, particularly article 27:

Article 27

States shall establish and implement, in conjunction with indigenous peoples concerned, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process, giving due recognition to

  indigenous peoples’ laws, traditions, customs and land tenure systems , to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used. Indigenous peoples shall have the right to participate in this process. [emphasis added]

The article 27 minimum standard in our view does not mean the governments of B.C. and Canada can unilaterally select the Indigenous Peoples’ the Crown governments want to participate in the process. How is that a “ fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process”?

Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project:

The last issue we want to provide your government notice on is our position regarding the

Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project.

In this regard, please find attached a Secwépemc Notice Re: Non-Consensual Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and a map of Secwepémc Nation Unceded, Unsurrendered Territory.

As the Secwépemc Notice affirms, Neskonlith te Secwépemc supports the position of our Secwépemc Proper Title Holders, the People, which is “ No Consent” to any activities connected to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project within Secwépemc Nation Unceded, Unsurrendered Territory.

For your information, we informed the Prime Minister in our letter addressed to him of April 16, 2017, that in accordance with our Inherent Secwépemc laws, legal orders, jurisdiction, from June 2-4, 2017, members of our Secwepemc Nation hosted a Secwepemcul'ecw Assembly. The Assembly took place on the land near Clearwater and we held ceremony right on the route where the Kinder Morgan pipeline (now TMX) is proposed to cross.

In the presence of our Chiefs, elders, women and children, the " Secwepemc Peoples Declaration on Protecting Our Land and Water against the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline" was declared.

We the Secwepemc have never provided and will never provide our collective free, prior and informed consent - the minimal international standard - to the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain Pipeline Project. We explicitly and irrevocably refuse its passage through our territory… We will continue asserting our collective Secwepemc responsibility and jurisdiction to address these most urgent issues impacting Secwepemcul'ecw.

Moreover, On December 14, 2018, the Chair of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination ( CERD) sent the federal government a letter regarding the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project and its impact on the Secwpemec Indigenous People. In the letter the CERD Chair wrote to the Trudeau government and stated:

the Committee would like to underscore that the realization of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project without free, prior and informed consent, would permanently affects the land rights of Secwepemc people and, as a result, would infringe their rights under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The CERD Chairperson also asked for the following information from the federal government by April 8, 2019:


requests the State party to provide information on the steps taken to ensure the respect of the right to consultation and free, prior and informed consent of the Secwepemc people, in relation to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Extension Project.

Even if CERD’s request is unheeded by Prime Minister Trudeau and the Trans Mountain Corporation, we will certainly keep the UN CERD informed about the federal government’s and the provincial government’s unilateral actions regarding the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project vis-à-vis our Secwepemc Title and Rights!

By way of this letter and attached Notice, you and your government have now been directly advised of our opposition to the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project.

Conclusion:

In closing, we suggest your government reset its government wide “ vision of reconciliation” by following what the UN Committee on the Elimination Racial Discrimination ( CERD) stated in its recommendations from its 2012 Report and repeated in its 2017 Report regarding Canada:

20. The Committee is concerned about reports according to which the right to consultation as provided in legislation and the right to prior, free and informed consent to projects and initiatives concerning Aboriginal peoples, are not fully applied by the State party, and may be subject to limitations. It is also concerned that Aboriginal peoples are not always consulted for projects conducted on their lands or which affect their rights and that treaties with Aboriginal peoples are not fully honoured or implemented. The Committee is further concerned that Aboriginal peoples incur heavy financial expenditures in litigation to resolve land disputes with the State party owing to rigidly adversarial positions taken by the State party in such disputes. While acknowledging that the Special Claims Tribunal constitutes a positive step, the Committee is concerned at reports that this tribunal does not resolve disputes on treaty rights for all First Nations and does not provide for all guarantees for a fair and equitable settlement (art. 5).

In light of its general recommendation No. 23 (1997) on the rights of indigenous peoples, the Committee recommends that the State party, in consultation with Aboriginal peoples:

(a) Implement in good faith the right to consultation and to free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples whenever their rights may be affected by projects carried out on their lands, as set forth in international standards and the State

party’s legislation;

(b) Continue to seek in good faith agreements with Aboriginal peoples with regard to their lands and resources claims under culturally-sensitive judicial procedures, find means and ways to establish titles over their lands, and respect their treaty rights;

(c) Take appropriate measures to guarantee that procedures before the Special Tribunal Claims are fair and equitable and give serious consideration to the establishment of a Treaty Commission with a mandate to resolve treaty rights issues . [Source: CERD/C/CAN/CO/19-20]

If there is interest, we are prepared to discuss our position regarding the 1) LOC and the new 2)

B.C. Treaty Negotiations Policy and the 3) Trans Mountain Expansion Project, at a meeting with an agenda and location jointly developed.

Please let me know if your government is interested in discussing the concerns and forgoing issues we have raised in this letter.

Sincerely,


Chief Judy Wilson Skat'sin te Secwepemc Neskonlith

cc. Neskonlith Council

Secwépemc Proper Title Holders

Secwepemc Kukpi7’s

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President, UBCIC Interior Alliance

Coast Protectors

Mr. Justin Trudeau, Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada Mr. Ian Shugart, Clerk of the Privy Council

Mr. Amir Noureddine, Chair, CERD, United Nations

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.