| |
|
Who's Online |
|
We have 16 guests online |
|
|
|
|
|

|
Upcoming Events |
Burma Uprising Anniversary- Fri, Aug 8th, 2008, @12:00am- 12:00pm
|
Better Biking Brainstorming Session- Thu, Aug 14th, 2008, @7:00pm- 9:00pm
|
Missing Women Conference Opens- Thu, Aug 14th, 2008, @3:00pm- 9:00pm
|
Weyburn Zero Waste Convention Opens- Fri, Aug 15th, 2008, @9:00am- 5:00pm
|
100 Mile Potluck- Tue, Aug 26th, 2008, @5:30am- 8:00pm
|
Briarpatch Birthday- Wed, Sep 10th, 2008, @7:30pm- 8:30pm
|
Aboriginal Music Festival - Saskatoon- Fri, Sep 19th, 2008, @6:00pm- 11:00pm
|
Naomi Klein Lecture - Regina- Tue, Sep 23rd, 2008, @7:30am- 8:30pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Pathway :: Home
|
SUPREME COURT REJECTS BC FORESTRY PROGRAM AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL |
|
|
|
|
Written by Huu-ay-aht First Nation Press Release (posted by tyler)
|
|
Friday, 13 May 2005 |
|
May 12, 2005
Huu-ay-aht First Nation Press Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
PORT ALBERNI, BRITISH COLUMBIA – In another major court victory for
First Nations, the Huu-ay-aht First Nation (HFN) have received a
decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia which holds that
the BC Ministry of Forests program designed to address aboriginal
interests on forestry matters fails to meet the Province’s
constitutional duty to First Nations.
The Province had established a program of resource and revenue
sharing based upon First Nations’ population. The program, called the
“Forest and Range Agreement Program”, did not consider a First Nation’s
claim to territory or the extent of forestry operations within that
territory.
The Court, in its decision released May 10th, 2005, rejected the "quick and easy" population based formula contained in the policy, and directed the Province to consider the invidual interests of an affected First Nation.
The decision sends the Ministry of Forests back to the drawing board. In its decision the Court states:
“To fail to consider at all the strength of the claim or degree of
infringement represents a complete failure of consultation based on the
criteria that are constitutionally required for meaningful
consultation. While a population-based approach may be a quick and easy
response to the duty to accommodate, it fails to take into account the
individual nature of the HFN claim…The government acted incorrectly and
must begin anew a proper consultation process based upon consideration
of appropriate criteria.”
The decision is the result of a challenge to provincial policy
brought by the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, whose traditional territory is
located on the western coast of Vancouver Island. The Huu-ay-aht
territory includes some of the richest veins of timber in the country,
and from 1940 until present, over 40 million cubic metres of timber has
been logged from the area. The logging has claimed a majority of the
old growth forest in the territory. The main logging company operating
in the territory is Weyerhaeuser (previously MacMillan Bloedel). The
Huu-ay-aht have been in negotiations with the Province seeking an
agreement that will assist the Huu-ay-aht to participate in the forest
economy within its own territory.
“This ruling is an important victory for our people. For decades we
have watched the timber and revenue flow out of our territory, while
our people received few benefits and our land has been decimated.” said
Chief Robert Dennis of the Huu-ay-aht First Nation, following the
Court’s seminal decision. “The Court has now told the Provincial
government that it must share resources in proportion to what we are
losing from our territory. The Province and the logging operators can
no longer pretend we don’t exist. They can no longer carry on business
as usual.”
The Court characterized the Province’s conduct towards the
Huu-ay-aht as “intransigent” and found that the government failed to
accord the Huu-ay-aht the honourable treatment that the Crown is
constitutionally obligated to provide to aboriginal people. Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 2.0! |
|
Last Updated ( Friday, 13 May 2005 )
|
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owners. Opinions expressed in articles within this site are those of their owners and may not reflect the opinion of ActUpInSask.org, its staff, or its associates.
|
|
|