Research Question: Can international law be used to entrench a broader conception of environmental rights in Canada?
Background: First Nations tribes in Canada have asserted their rights to a clean environment and cultural continuity almost continuously since confederation. Recent efforts have largely been decided in the courts, with several tribes choosing to sue various governments over consultation, development issues, and treaty obligations. There have been concerted efforts to bring international public opinion to bear on this issue: in 2005, Shelia Watt-Cloutier petitioned the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights demanding redress for the environmental damage caused by greenhouse gasses emanating from the United States; more recently, the Lubicon Cree’s grievances against the tar sands were profiled by Amnesty International.
The Beaver Lake Cree nation filed suit against the Government of Canada on May 14, 2008, alleging tribal rights guaranteed under Treaty No. 6 were being violated by Tar Sand extraction and processing. Specifically, the vitiated rights include a number of game and range use guarantees the Cree were granted in exchange for giving up property rights.1 Simultaneously, the Tribe released the Kétuskéno Declaration, which notes that potentially harmful activities can only be undertaken on tribal land if extensive consultation takes place beforehand. A similar case, Tsilhqot’in First Nation v. British Columbia, returned a result favourable to the plaintiff in 2007. Essentially, “The Tsilhqot'in Nation was declared to have hunting and trapping rights, the right to capture wild horses, and the right to trade skins and pelts as required to secure a moderate livelihood; those rights were declared to have been unjustifiably infringed by the provincial forestry and land use planning regimes.”2 The case has since garnered media attention at home and abroad, and financial support from such agencies as the UK’s Co-operative Bank. The efforts of this small Native community are effectively becoming an international vehicle to challenge the oil sands project and its planned expansion through the controversial Northern Gateway Pipeline.
The Beaver Lake Cree nation filed suit against the Government of Canada on May 14, 2008, alleging their tribal rights guaranteed under Treaty No. 6 were being violated by Tar Sand extraction and processing. Specifically, the vitiated rights include a number of game and range use guarantees the Cree were granted in exchange for giving up property rights. A similar case, Tsilhqot’in First Nation v. British Columbia, returned a result favourable to the plaintiff in 2007. Essentially, “The Tsilhqot'in Nation was declared to have hunting and trapping rights, the right to capture wild horses, and the right to trade skins and pelts as required to secure a moderate livelihood; those rights were declared to have been unjustifiably infringed by the provincial forestry and land use planning regimes.”
