issue of restoration of harvesting rights as falling outside those categories. under domestic law, along with other First Nation parties to the Williams Treaties. 7.5 The author argues that, under the current state of Canadian law, it is not possible for courts to restore extinguished aboriginal rights.8 All the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, are bound by the constitutional recognition in 1982 of “existing” aboriginal rights only. He contends that it is irrelevant that the Supreme Court in his case did not address the fiduciary breach question - even if it had, the outcome would have remained unaltered. Similarly, in terms of further action on the abrogation of the CHCAs, the courts would have been bound by the Supreme Court’s determination that no aboriginal right existed in the author’s case. Subsequent submissions of the parties 7.1 By submission of 12 July 2001, the State party responded to the author’s comments, arguing that while the author claims not to be acting as a representative of the Williams Treaties, but on his own behalf, he is in fact clearly acting on their behalf6 and requesting a collective remedy. 7.2 In terms of current Federal Court proceedings, the State party argues that it is highly relevant that the First Nations are seeking a remedy for breach of fiduciary duty arising from the surrender of their aboriginal rights, including hunting and fishing rights. While they currently seek compensation, they sought a remedy of restoration at an earlier point and of their own accord modified those pleadings to omit this aspect of remedy. The State party points out that it would be open to seek a remedy of restoration of hunting and fishing rights in the appropriate provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, the First Nations have initiated an action in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 7.6 On 15 January 2003, the State party made further submissions, disputing that the current state of its law makes restoration of extinguished rights impossible. The State party points out that in the Supreme Court decision cited to this effect, the Court did not rule on what, if any, would be the Crown’s fiduciary obligations to the First Nation in the process of surrender/extinguishment of the First Nation’s rights, whether there had been a breach of any such obligations, and, if so, what remedies might be available. However, precisely these issues are either raised in the proceedings pending in the Federal Court by the Williams Treaties First Nations, or could be raised in the action before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. 7.3 The State party points out that the Supreme Court’s decision in the author’s case was essentially limited to the factual question of whether he had an existing right to fish in the area where he was caught fishing and charged. It did not address questions of breach of fiduciary duties, and remedies available for such a breach, and accordingly these questions remain open before the courts. 7.7 The State party further states that the federal government has not refused to negotiate hunting, fishing, trapping and gathering rights with the Williams Treaties First Nations. The federal government however considers that the restoration of such rights would require the participation of the Ontario State government, as Ontario alone possesses constitutional jurisdiction over provincial Crown lands and the right to pursue harvesting thereon. The Ontario government is reviewing the First Nations’ claims and has not yet made a determination as to whether to accept the claim for negotiations. 7.4 On 5 September 2001, the author further responded, arguing that he satisfies all conditions of admissibility: in particular, he is a victim within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol, being denied the ability by highest judicial decision to practice fishing as a member of a “minority” within the meaning of article 27. Referring to previous cases decided by the Committee,7 he argues that it is of no relevance that a remedy he might obtain under the Optional Protocol might benefit others in his community. He alleges specific violations of his rights under the Covenant. Finally, he has exhausted all legal remedies open to him. He submits that it would be unjust to be deprived of his right to present an individual petition based on the Covenant to the Committee simply because his First Nation is pursuing other remedies before Canadian courts Admissibility decision 8.1 At its 77th session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. 8.2 The Committee ascertained that the same matter was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement for the purposes of article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol. 6 The State party provides documentation in the form of an application for funding identifying work on “United Nations petition” as part of a First Nations’ workplan. 7 Davidson v. Canada, Case No. 359/1989, Views adopted 31 March 1993, and Länsman v. Finland, Case No. 671/1995, Views adopted on 30 October 1996. 8 The author refers to Ontario (Attorney-General) v. Bear Island Foundation [1991] 2 SCR 570 (SCC). 129