Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Aboriginal use and management of fisheries in British Columbia Kyle, Rosanne Marie 1996

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
[if-you-see-this-DO-NOT-CLICK]
ubc_1996-0523.pdf [ 8.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0099055.json
JSON-LD: 1.0099055+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0099055.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0099055+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0099055+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0099055+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0099055 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0099055.txt
Citation
1.0099055.ris

Full Text

ABORIGINAL USE AND MANAGEMENT OF FISHERIES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA by ROSANNE MARIE KYLE L.L.B., University of Western Ontario, 1991 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF LAWS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Faculty of Law) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1996 © Rosanne Marie Kyle, 1996  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  thesis  in  partial  fulfilment  of  University  of  British  Columbia,  I agree  available for reference  copying  of  department publication  this or of  thesis by  this  for  his  or  thesis  and  her  Date ^ f ^ ^ W  DE-6 (2/88)  representatives.  for financial  L-f\ W  The University of British Vancouver, Canada  Columbia  £3^  I further  scholarly purposes  permission.  DeptrrtmOT of  study.  the  requirements that the  agree that  may  be  It  is  gain shall not  be  for  an  advanced  Library shall  permission for  granted  by the  understood  that  allowed without  head  make  it  extensive of  copying  my or  my written  11  ABSTRACT  B o t h t h e u s e of a n d jurisdiction o v e r f i s h e r i e s r e s o u r c e s is a n i s s u e for m a n y First Nations  in British C o l u m b i a .  important  Historically, fish played  an  important spiritual, s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c role in n u m e r o u s A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s . T h e s e s o c i e t i e s h a d v a r i o u s m e t h o d s of m a n a g i n g the r e s o u r c e a n d ,  although  t h e y h a d t h e t e c h n o l o g i c a l c a p a c i t y to o v e r - e x p l o i t t h e f i s h e r i e s , t h e y w e r e a b l e to m a i n t a i n s u s t a i n a b l e l e v e l s of fish. Aboriginal fishers were  initially a b l e to c o n t i n u e their t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s  fishing as well a s expand Aboriginals. fisheries  However,  grew  in  Following contact with E u r o p e a n settlers,  t h e i r u s e of t h e f i s h e r i e s t h r o u g h  with the o p e n i n g  economic  of the  importance  to  trade with  canneries on  the  non-Aboriginal  coast  fishers  of  nonthe and  m a n a g e m e n t of t h e r e s o u r c e w a s g r a d u a l l y but s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t a k e n o v e r b y t h e state, with v a r i o u s i d e o l o g i e s b e i n g u s e d to justify the t a k e - o v e r .  Aboriginal  f i s h e r s lost not only their control o v e r m a n a g e m e n t of the r e s o u r c e , but a l s o their a b i l i t y t o u s e it a s e x t e n s i v e l y a s t h e y o n c e h a d .  O v e r the y e a r s ,  Aboriginal  participation in both the f o o d a n d c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s h a s d e c l i n e d a l t h o u g h various government-sponsored  programs  have  o n l y p a r t i a l s u c c e s s , to r e m e d y t h i s p r o b l e m . of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s  been  initiated to attempt,  with  In t h e m e a n t i m e , t h e D e p a r t m e n t  h a s b e e n battling other p r o b l e m s in the c o m m e r c i a l  f i s h e r i e s , i n c l u d i n g o v e r - c a p i t a l i z a t i o n of the fleet a n d d e p l e t i o n of f i s h s t o c k s . M a n a g e m e n t o f s a l m o n i n p a r t i c u l a r , b e c a u s e it i s a n a n a d r o m o u s s p e c i e s w h i c h  IU  travels through s e v e r a l different jurisdictions, h a s b e c o m e extremely c o m p l e x .  It  i s in t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t m u c h l i t i g a t i o n o v e r A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g h a s b e e n l a u n c h e d . Only a few  of t h e  issues have  been  clarified by the judgments  which  have  r e s u l t e d a n d c e r t a i n m y t h s a n d i d e o l o g i e s h a v e s u r f a c e d r e p e a t e d l y in m a n y of the decisions. Canada  on  It i s l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s o f t h e S u p r e m e  Aboriginal  commercial  and  management  i n c r e a s e d complexity a n d political controversy. management,  rights  will  Court  of  result  in  H o w e v e r , p r o b l e m s of f i s h e r i e s  i n c l u d i n g the a c c o m m o d a t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l interests, is not u n i q u e  to British C o l u m b i a or e v e n C a n a d a .  Similar problems have been  experienced  e l s e w h e r e in t h e w o r l d a n d v a r i o u s t y p e s of c o - m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d in v a r i o u s j u r i s d i c t i o n s in a n attempt  to d e a l with s o m e  of  been these  i s s u e s a n d to r e c o g n i z e a g r e a t e r role for A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s a n d c o m m u n i t i e s in fisheries  management.  It  is  not  clear whether,  and  to  what  extent,  co-  m a n a g e m e n t will b e a d o p t e d in British C o l u m b i a , or w h a t the role of A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s might b e in s u c h a r e g i m e .  E v e n if c o - m a n a g e m e n t  i s e s t a b l i s h e d , it i s  highly p r o b a b l e that the state's u n d e r l y i n g regulatory r e g i m e will r e m a i n intact. However,  co-management  may  result in i n c r e a s e d A b o r i g i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in  both t h e u s e a n d m a n a g e m e n t of the r e s o u r c e .  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Abstract  ii  T a b l e of C o n t e n t s  iv  Acknowledgement  vi  ChapterOne  Introduction  Chapter Two  M a n a g e m e n t of the R e s o u r c e A.  1  T r a d i t i o n a l A b o r i g i n a l S y s t e m s of Management  B.  15  T h e N o n - A b o r i g i n a l M a n a g e m e n t R e g i m e in Review:  D.  11  The Non-Aboriginal Regulatory Frame-Work and Its E f f e c t o n A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r s  C.  11  H o w W e l l H a s it W o r k e d ?  I d e o l o g i e s a n d M y t h s in F i s h e r i e s R e g u l a t i o n s  33 42  Chapter Three  S c a l e s of Justice: T h e C a s e l a w  A . Pre-Constitution Act, 1982 B.  Sparrow a n d  Its W a k e  (1) T h e Sparrow D e c i s i o n  Chapter Four  60  60  A p p l i c a t i o n o f Sparrow  70  (3)  T h e S u p r e m e Court in the P o s t - S p a r r o w E r a  84  Alternative M a n a g e m e n t Systems  110  A.  S o m e P r o b l e m s with Formulating Alternatives  110  B.  Is C o - M a n a g e m e n t t h e S o l u t i o n ?  115  (1)  C o - M a n a g e m e n t in British C o l u m b i a  118  (i) T h e A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s S t r a t e g y  118  (2)  121 125  C o - M a n a g e m e n t Outside British C o l u m b i a  131  (i)  131  (iii) C.  The Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  (iii) T h e N i s g a ' a A g r e e m e n t - i n - P r i n c i p l e  (ii)  Bibliography  55  (2)  (ii)  Chapter Five  55  T h e Western Arctic State of W a s h i n g t o n New Zealand.  Some Conclusions About Co-Management  Conclusion  135 150 160  165 180  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I w o u l d like to thank C h i e f R i c h a r d K a h g e e of t h e S a u g e e n  First  Nation  for h i s p a t i e n c e in t e a c h i n g m e about A b o r i g i n a l fishing i s s u e s a n d for inspiring m e to p u r s u e further s t u d i e s in this a r e a . I would  also  like  to thank  my thesis  supervisor,  Professor  Douglas  S a n d e r s , f o r a l l of h i s a s s i s t a n c e at both t h e r e s e a r c h i n g a n d writing s t a g e s of this thesis. meeting  I greatly appreciate all of the time h e spent reviewing drafts a n d  with  m e to d i s c u s s  suggestions for improvement.  His  knowledge,  perceptions a n d c o m m e n t s contributed m u c h to the final product. T h e r e a r e numerous other people w h o a l s o have m y thanks for taking the time to d i s c u s s Aboriginal i s s u e s with m e a n d to provide m e with information a n d documentation, including m a n y of the First Nation l a w students at the Faculty of Law;  P r o f e s s o r M i c h a e l J a c k s o n , F a c u l t y of L a w ; R o b e r t  Company;  Lee  Montgomery,  Special  Freedman,  Advisor-Fisheries,  Federal  Negotiation Office; M a r k W a r r e n , M a n a g e r , C l a i m s Implementation, of  the N.W.T.;  Alison  Welch,  Librarian,  Government  Ratcliff & Treaty  Government  of the N . W . T . ;  and  P r o f e s s o r R i c h a r d Price, S c h o o l of Native Studies, University of Alberta. I a l s o a p p r e c i a t e a l l of t h e h e l p w h i c h w a s g i v e n to m e throughout t h e y e a r b y L i l l i a n O n g , G r a d u a t e S e c r e t a r y , a n d b y t h e L a w L i b r a r y staff.  A s well, I  w o u l d like to thank m y fellow students in t h e 1 9 9 5 - 1 9 9 6 M a s t e r of L a w s p r o g r a m w h o m a d e m y year not only more intellectually stimulating, but m u c h more fun a s well. Lastly,  I w a n t to thank m y h u s b a n d , G r e g , for e n c o u r a g i n g m e to o b t a i n  my M a s t e r ' s d e g r e e a n d for a l w a y s supporting a n d h a v i n g faith in m e .  He has  b e e n m y c o m p a s s d u r i n g t h e times I m a y h a v e o t h e r w i s e lost m y w a y a n d for that I will a l w a y s b e grateful.  1  CHAPTER ONE  INTRODUCTION  Aboriginal fishing h a s recently b e e n in the spotlight in British C o l u m b i a a n d h a s b e e n the subject of m u c h negotiation a n d litigation in t h e province.  To  m a n y Aboriginal p e o p l e s 1 , the fish a r e not only a potential m e a n s to a c h i e v e economic independence, critical c o m p o n e n t with  a n d continue to b e , a  of their culture, spirituality a n d identity.  non-Aboriginal  management  they historically h a v e b e e n ,  settlers,  First  Nations  ultimately  Following lost  contact  control  over  o f t h e r e s o u r c e a n d w e r e i n c r e a s i n g l y p r e v e n t e d f r o m u t i l i z i n g it,  e v e n in t h o s e a r e a s w h e r e t h e A b o r i g i n a l right to f i s h w a s o s t e n s i b l y p r o t e c t e d by treaties.  S i n c e then, the fisheries r e s o u r c e h a s b e c o m e a n important a n d  lucrative industry for m a n y n o n - Aboriginals, a n d s o m e A b o r i g i n a l s , in British Columbia.  In t h e c o n t e x t o f t h r e a t e n e d f i s h s t o c k s , t h e i s s u e s i n v o l v i n g of  the  resource,  including  increasingly contentious.  allocation  Resource  among  user  groups,  depletion h a s exacerbated  management has  become  management  *I use the terms "Aboriginal" and "First Nations" synonymously throughout this thesis. However, since the former term in particular encompasses Metis, non-status Indians (that is, those who do not fall within the legal definition set out in the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-5) and Inuit, and the focus of my thesis is on "Indian" fishing specifically, I use these terms restrictively to refer only to the latter unless otherwise stated.  2  problems a n d heightened conflict a m o n g the user groups. question t h e effectiveness of the current m a n a g e m e n t  It h a s a l s o c a l l e d i n t o  regime.  T h e p u r p o s e of this thesis is to delineate h o w s a l m o n fishing in particular has  been  managed  in British C o l u m b i a  schemes have h a d on Aboriginal p e o p l e s . 2  a n d t h e effect  these  management  T h e w a y in w h i c h A b o r i g i n a l fishing  rights h a v e b e e n defined by g o v e r n m e n t a n d the courts is a l s o reviewed.  It s h o u l d b e n o t e d a t t h e o u t s e t t h a t A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s t o f i s h i n C a n a d a a r e d e r i v e d from treaties or from A b o r i g i n a l rights. the  Natural  Resources Transfer  Saskatchewan  a n d Alberta  Agreements  support  fishing  A s well, in t h e prairie p r o v i n c e s , between  Canada  rights.3  Since  and Manitoba, 1982,  existing  A b o r i g i n a l a n d Treaty rights h a v e b e e n constitutionally protected in s. 35(1) of t h e Constitution Act, 1982 . 4  In B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g i s g e n e r a l l y  Although there are many species of fish on the Pacific coast and within the interior of British Columbia, salmon have played the most important role in Aboriginal cultures. As well, because salmon are anadromous, management of them presents problems which are probably the most complex of any fish species. It is for these reasons that the focus will be on salmon. However, many of the issues and problems raised are also present in other fisheries and in other parts of the country. For instance, similar fact situations and issues arise with respect to the Ojibway in Ontario and Manitoba and First Nations in the Yukon. See various essays in K. Abel and J. Friesen, eds., Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1991). The Agreements contain the following clause: "In order to secure to the Indians of the Province the continuance of the supply of game and fish for their support and subsistence, Canada agrees that the laws respecting game in force in the Province from time to time shall apply to Indians within the boundaries thereof, provided, however, that the said Indians shall have the right, which the Province hereby assures to them, of hunting, trapping and fishing game and fish for food at all seasons of the year on all unoccupied Crown lands and on any other lands to which the said Indians may have a right of access." See, for example, The Natural Resources Act of Manitoba, RSM 1954, c. 180. "Being Schedule B of the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. Section 35(1) provides as follows: "The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." 2  3  3  presented  as  an  Aboriginal  right,  since there  are  very few  treaties  in  the  Province.5  One  of  the  most  contentious  issues  within  fisheries  management  g e n e r a l l y a n d A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g p o l i c i e s p a r t i c u l a r l y is h o w t h e f i s h a r e to allocated a m o n g the various u s e r groups. the b a s i s for m a n a g e m e n t not a n  express  Allocation considerations are  consideration  management  in m a n a g e m e n t  policy,  management  1951, and  o n l y o n e - t h i r d of the p r o v i n c e ' s  decreased  the by  number an  interplay  a n d a l l o c a t i o n c a n b e s e e n in the d r a m a t i c d e c l i n e in  the majority of f i s h e r s w e r e A b o r i g i n a l .  1977,  decisions  The  A b o r i g i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g o v e r the last c e n t u r y . 1800s,  often  d e c i s i o n s a n d p r o g r a m s a n d e v e n w h e r e a l l o c a t i o n is  invariably affect h o w the r e s o u r c e is a l l o c a t e d a m o n g u s e r g r o u p s . between  be  It h a s b e e n e s t i m a t e d t h a t  fishers were Aboriginal.  of f i s h i n g v e s s e l s o w n e d  average  of 3 . 8  percent  per  In t h e l a t e  or operated  annum.  By  Between  by  1964  by  Aboriginals  1979,  Aboriginal  p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the s a l m o n f i s h i n g industry w a s d o w n to 8 . 8 p e r c e n t of the total salmon  fleet.  Although  increased between  Aboriginal  1 9 8 5 a n d 1991  ownership  to a b o u t  of  licensed  salmon  vessels  18 to 19 p e r c e n t of t h e total,  t o t a l n u m b e r o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s i s still m u c h l o w e r t h a n it w a s 1 0 0 y e a r s  the  ago.6  Fourteen First Nations on Vancouver Island entered into treaties between 1850 and 1854. As well, a portion of northeastern British Columbia is included in Treaty 8, which initially covered northern Alberta but was ultimately extended into part of British Columbia. In R. v. Cooper (1969), 1 D.L.R. (3d) 113 (B.C.S.C.), the Court held that the fishing provisions in the Vancouver Island treaties were subordinate to the Fisheries Act. James, Historic and Present Native Participation in Pacific Coast Commercial Fisheries (Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services, 1984) at pp. iii-iv and D. Newell, Tangled Webs of History: Indians and s  4  Given  this  trend,  Aboriginal  fishers  are  understandably  concerned  about  allocation i s s u e s a n d particular attention is p a i d to t h e m in this thesis.  H o w e v e r , t h e ability to c a t c h fish, h o w e v e r t h o s e f i s h m a y b e a l l o c a t e d , is obviously  predicated  management fish.  Which  on  the  existence  of  fish  to  catch.  decisions involve much more than merely deciding w h o c a n catch party  is permitted  to m a k e  those  management  b e c o m e a n o t h e r critical i s s u e in the fisheries debate.  decisions has  T h e right to m a n a g e t h e  resource is s e e n by m a n y Aboriginal p e o p l e s a s a fundamental l i n k e d to their d e m a n d s for r e c o g n i t i o n of s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t ; manage  Accordingly,  i s s u e which is  without t h e right to  t h e r e s o u r c e , they b e l i e v e they will h a v e n o control o v e r t h e ultimate  fate of t h e f i s h a n d , c o n s e q u e n t l y ,  their o w n futures.  M a n y Aboriginal fishers,  a m o n g o t h e r s , h a v e c o m e to q u e s t i o n t h e e f f i c a c y of t h e f e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t of Fisheries and Ocean management  to date a n d dire predictions h a v e b e e n  that w e s t c o a s t s a l m o n will s o o n b e c l o s e to extinction. concerns expressed  by s o m e  resource managers,  Conversely,  non-Aboriginal  made  o n e of the fishers and  o t h e r s i s t h a t if j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e r e s o u r c e i s d e c e n t r a l i z e d a n d A b o r i g i n a l management  powers  recognized,  effective  management  schemes  e n s u r e d a n d the a l r e a d y d e p l e t e d fish s t o c k s will b e e v e n further  cannot  be  over-fished.  C e n t r a l control o v e r the r e s o u r c e is s e e n a s a prerequisite for survival of the fish.  In a n  attempt  to  analyze  these  various  propositions,  the results  of  the Law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993) at pp. 132, 168 and 170.  5  traditional  Aboriginal  and  non-Aboriginal  management  systems  is  reviewed.  A l t e r n a t i v e a p p r o a c h e s - i n c l u d i n g s o m e w h i c h a r e b e i n g initiated to s o m e extent in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a — a r e a l s o r e v i e w e d a n d s o m e c a s e s t u d i e s f r o m o t h e r p a r t s of t h e w o r l d p r e s e n t e d .  At  this stage,  it m a y  b e helpful to note that t h e r e a r e e s s e n t i a l l y five  a l t e r n a t i v e w a y s of r e g u l a t i n g t h e f i s h e r i e s : firstly, b y l i c e n s i n g b o a t s o r f i s h e r s ; s e c o n d l y , by r e g u l a t i n g the t i m e s a n d m e t h o d s of f i s h i n g ; thirdly, by a l l o c a t i n g fishing fishers;  rights to  particular areas;  or, fifthly,  by  frameworks  reflect  management  models:  of t h e r e s o u r c e . Fisheries and  two  Oceans  combination  basic,  and  allocating quota  of the  above.  sometimes  to  These  conflicting,  increased government regulation and  individual regulatory underlying  semi-privatization  The  h a s u s e d both  licensing and  r e g u l a t i o n of t i m e s  of  and  In t h e r e v i e w o f a l t e r n a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s i n C h a p t e r  co-management  management.  by  In t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s a l m o n f i s h e r i e s , t h e D e p a r t m e n t  m e t h o d s of f i s h i n g . Four,  using a  fourthly,  is  considered  as  s a m e five alternative  these co-management  an  alternative  model  regulatory frameworks  s y s t e m s , but they differ in the w a y  of  fisheries  are used  in  in w h i c h r e g u l a t i o n s  are decided upon and enforced.  D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e a n a l y s i s , s o m e of t h e u n d e r l y i n g i d e o l o g i e s will be  identified  and  challenged.  How  these  ideologies  affect  management  6  d e c i s i o n s a n d the w a y the f i s h e r i e s r e s o u r c e is p e r c e i v e d is a d d r e s s e d , a s w e l l a s h o w t h e s e i d e o l o g i e s a p p e a r to affect the potential for c h a n g e .  It w i l l n o d o u b t b e c o m e a p p a r e n t i n t h i s t h e s i s t h a t t h e i s s u e s s u r r o u n d i n g Aboriginal fishing are extremely complex.  Not o n l y a r e t h e f a c t o r s relating to  m a n a g e m e n t of f i s h e r s a n d t h e f i s h t h e m s e l v e s difficult to u n d e r s t a n d a n d , o f t e n , m i s u n d e r s t o o d or c o m p l e t e l y u n k n o w n , the l e g a l history of " A b o r i g i n a l rights", a s t h e y a r e n o w referred to in the C a n a d i a n difficult to r a t i o n a l i z e . framework, recognized,  We  Constitution,  is c o m p l e x a n d  often  a r e in t h e m i d s t of a j u d i c i a l shift f r o m a p o s i t i v i s t  in w h i c h o n l y t h o s e matters d e c l a r e d b y l e g i s l a t i o n to b e "rights" a r e to  a  rights-based framework  in w h i c h  rights are  seen  to  exist  i n d e p e n d e n t l y of a n y l e g i s l a t i v e e n a c t m e n t a n d m u s t s o m e h o w b e d e f i n e d r e s p e c t e d in the context of m o d e r n s o c i e t y .  and  Although the courts are giving s o m e  i m p o r t a n t r u l i n g s o n A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s , it c a n n o t b e e x p e c t e d t h a t t h e y w i l l fully d e f i n e s u b s t a n t i v e rights or m a n a g e m e n t  systems.  It i s b e c a u s e l e g a l s o u r c e s d o n o t a p p e a r t o p r o v i d e c o m p l e t e a n s w e r s , a n d c e r t a i n l y not s o l u t i o n s , to t h e c o m p l e x i t y of t h e p r o b l e m s that h i s t o r i c a l a n d contemporary thesis.  s o c i a l , e c o n o m i c a n d political i s s u e s a r e a l s o a d d r e s s e d in this  T h e s e other factors d o not p r o v i d e a n s w e r s or s o l u t i o n s either, but t h e y  a s s i s t in u n d e r s t a n d i n g current l e g a l realities a n d i d e o l o g i e s a n d the for  change.  As  it h a s  been  stated,  "law  must  be  understood  prospect  not  as  an  7  i n d e p e n d e n t o r g a n i s m but a n integral part of t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m . " 7 r e a s o n that this t h e s i s is not a m e r e recitation of the formal A b o r i g i n a l fishing, but  It i s f o r t h i s  law surrounding  rather a n attempt to p l a c e that l a w in a s o c i a l ,  economic  a n d political context.  It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t F i r s t N a t i o n s ' community  a n d individual specific.  There  g o a l s with r e s p e c t to fishing a r e is no c o m p r e h e n s i v e  agreement  a m o n g or, often, within First Nations with r e s p e c t to h o w they w o u l d like the fish to b e a l l o c a t e d o r w h a t t y p e of m a n a g e m e n t community  to have.  Many  Aboriginal  p o w e r s , if a n y , t h e y w o u l d l i k e t h e i r  fishers participate  fishery in m a r i n e a r e a s a n d w o u l d o p p o s e  in the  commercial  a n y reductions in the c o m m e r c i a l  m a r i n e f l e e t if r e q u i r e d t o e n s u r e a n i n c r e a s e d A b o r i g i n a l s h a r e o f t h e f i s h i n t h e rivers; others w o u l d prefer to h a v e fishing restricted to rivers but support c o n c e p t of a c o m m e r c i a l fishery;  still o t h e r s o p p o s e  the  a n y type of c o m m e r c i a l  f i s h i n g a n d w o u l d prefer f i s h i n g to b e restricted to f o o d , s o c i a l a n d c e r e m o n i a l purposes.  There  is a natural  divergence  of interests b e t w e e n  the  offshore  commercial fishery, which includes s o m e Aboriginal fishers, a n d the river-based food fishery. of  S o m e Aboriginal commercial fishers feel threatened by the concept  an Aboriginal  rights fishery.  The  diversity  of o p i n i o n  among  p e o p l e s o n t h e s e i s s u e s a d d s to t h e c o m p l e x i t y of m a n a g e m e n t the difficulty of d e f i n i n g A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights.  Aboriginal  p r o b l e m s a n d to  S o too d o e s the fact that in t h e  context of litigation, the d i s c o u r s e is not about the g o a l s of A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s at  7  M . Shapiro, "Political Jurisprudence" (1964) 52 Ken. L. J. 294 at p. 294.  8  all, but rather a b o u t historical rights w h i c h originate in the past: w h e t h e r F i r s t N a t i o n s h a d c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s at c o n t a c t .  for instance,  T h e r e is, therefore,  discordance between the legal arguments w h i c h are m a d e w h i c h focus on  a  the  past, a n d f u t u r e - o r i e n t e d i d e a s of g o a l s .  A s I a m a n o n - A b o r i g i n a l w h o h a s no b a c k g r o u n d in the fishing industry, I acknowledge  that m y  a n a l y s i s is b i a s e d to t h e e x t e n t  l o o k i n g in at t h e s e p r o b l e m s .  that  I am  an  A s someone who has been raised and  outsider educated  w i t h i n a W e s t e r n l i b e r a l - d e m o c r a t i c t r a d i t i o n , it i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t f o r m e t o v i e w t h e issues from another perspective.  I attempt to d o s o a s b e s t I c a n .  H o w e v e r , it  m u s t a l s o b e r e c o g n i z e d that A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e a r e c u r r e n t l y r e q u i r e d to fight their legal battles within the liberal-democratic tradition a n d the existing legal system:  rightly or w r o n g l y , " s t r u g g l e s o v e r a l l o c a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s t o d a y m u s t b e  w a g e d o n n o n - i n d i g e n o u s t e r m s a n d u s i n g the d i s c o u r s e a n d l e g a l i t i e s of the more  powerful  discourse and  parties  ...."8  Thus,  it i s i m p o r t a n t  legalities of the C a n a d i a n  to  consider whether  the  s y s t e m c a n truly a c c o m m o d a t e  the  n o t i o n of a n A b o r i g i n a l right to f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y a n d to m a n a g e t h e r e s o u r c e . One  of t h e p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m s w h i c h is a d d r e s s e d is w h e t h e r A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s ,  a s a t y p e o f c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t , c a n fit w i t h i n t h e l i b e r a l t r a d i t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s .  A. Hamilton, "The Unity of Hunting-Gathering Societies: Reflections on Economic Forms and Resource Management" in N.M. Williams and E.S. Huhn, Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers (Melbourne: Globe Press, 1982) 229 at p. 242.  9  M y a p p r o a c h in t h i s t h e s i s is to attempt, firstly, to p r o v i d e in C h a p t e r a  chronological account  of  the  history  of  fisheries management  C o l u m b i a , beginning with traditional Aboriginal m a n a g e m e n t  Chapter  Three then  Aboriginal fishing issues.  The  examines  British  systems and  r e v i e w i n g the e v o l u t i o n of the n o n - A b o r i g i n a l r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k present time.  in  Two  u p to  then the  the jurisprudence d e a l i n g with  f o c u s is o n c a s e s d e c i d e d s u b s e q u e n t to  the  e n t r e n c h m e n t of A b o r i g i n a l a n d T r e a t y rights in the C o n s t i t u t i o n , but a brief a n d v e r y g e n e r a l history of the c a s e l a w prior to that time is g i v e n a s w e l l .  In b o t h  C h a p t e r s T w o a n d T h r e e a n attempt is m a d e to a n a l y z e the a p p a r e n t i d e o l o g i e s u s e d to justify the l e g i s l a t i o n a n d the judicial d e c i s i o n s .  Chapter includes  case  Four  presents  studies  of  some  alternative  management  W a s h i n g t o n State and N e w Zealand.  management  systems  in  the  regimes,  Western  T h e s e alternative systems are  a n d their a p p l i c a b i l i t y to t h e s i t u a t i o n in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a c o n s i d e r e d . t r e n d s in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a r e a l s o r e v i e w e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r ,  and  Arctic, analyzed Current  including those  reflected in the f i s h i n g p r o v i s i o n s in t h e r e c e n t N i s g a ' a A g r e e m e n t in P r i n c i p l e .  C h a p t e r F i v e c o n c l u d e s the t h e s i s with a g e n e r a l s u m m a r y of the g o a l s of First N a t i o n s a n d g o v e r n m e n t s , the p r o b l e m s inherent in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t , a n d alternative approaches.  A l s o c o n t a i n e d in the final c h a p t e r is a d i s c u s s i o n  of l i b e r a l d e m o c r a t i c t h e o r y a n d g r o u p rights in t h e c o n t e x t of r e c o g n i t i o n of  10  Aboriginal fishing rights. This issue is discussed in relation to the legislative and jurisprudential history of fishing laws in British Columbia, as well as to the alternative management systems discussed in Chapter Four.  11  CHAPTER TWO  MANAGEMENT OF THE RESOURCE  A. Traditional Aboriginal Systems of Management  O n e of the c o m m o n m y t h s a b o u t A b o r i g i n a l traditional c o m m u n i t i e s is that they h a d n o c o n c e p t i o n s of b o u n d a r i e s , territories or p o s s e s s i o n s . T h i s i d e o l o g y w a s u s e d by c o l o n i z e r s to rationalize c l a i m s by the C r o w n :  if s o m e t h i n g  c o m m o n t o a l l , it b e l o n g e d t o n o o n e a n d c o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e c l a i m e d . 9 also  commonly  equitably.  believed  that  the  use  of  lands  and  (i.e.  It w a s shared  H o w e v e r , a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s h a v e f o u n d that not all g r o u p s p r a c t i c e d  e g a l i t a r i a n s h a r i n g of f o o d a n d a c c e s s to r e s o u r c e s . great  resources was  was  resources were  predominated.  It w a s o n l y w h e n r i s k w a s  s c a r c e or conditions w e r e  stressful) that  sharing  S h a r i n g w a s a r i s k - m i n i m i z i n g b e h a v i o u r , but not a n e s s e n t i a l  a t t r i b u t e o f h u n t e r - g a t h e r e r s ; it w a s c i r c u m s t a n t i a l , n o t c u l t u r a l . 1 0  On frequently privately  the Northwest owned owned  Coast  of N o r t h A m e r i c a ,  by kinship groups or individuals. rather  than  shared  equally,  food and  resources  Resources tended  although  were to  reciprocal a c c e s s  be to  Ibidatp. 238.  9  R.A. Gould, "To Have and Have Not: The Ecology of Sharing Among Hunter-Gatherers" in Williams and Huhn, eds., ibid, 69 at pp. 71 to 88. 10  12  r e s o u r c e s d i d take p l a c e in a c c o r d a n c e with specific obligations. which were most frequently  The resources  restricted to private o w n e r s h i p w e r e t h o s e  which  w e r e predictable a n d abundant a n d geographically restricted to limited a r e a s . 1 1  Of  particular note f o r t h e p u r p o s e s of this t h e s i s is t h e fact that in a l l of  the communities studied o n the Northwest important  food  resource.  Salmon  Coast, salmon w a s the single most  fishing sites were  groups, communities or individuals.12  usually owned  by kin  Most fishing took p l a c e inland o n rivers  w h e r e fish w e r e more concentrated, a n d harpoons a n d traps w e r e the most often u s e d m e t h o d s of c a t c h i n g f i s h . 1 3  P r e s e r v e d s a l m o n w a s not only the principal  f o o d s o u r c e f o r t h o s e s o c i e t i e s l o c a t e d o n t h e c o a s t o r o n s a l m o n r i v e r s , b u t it was  also u s e d for inter-group  trade.  Trade  has been  described as  e s s e n t i a l to their e c o n o m i e s , with s a l m o n b e i n g t h e p a r a m o u n t  being  item of trade,  forming almost a type of legal t e n d e r . 1 4  A . Richardson, "The Control of Productive Resources on the Northwest Coast of North America" in Williams and Huhn, eds., ibid 93 at pp. 93-95. Richardson goes on to delineate the specific arrangements in various First Nation communities along the coast. Variations in the type of ownership resources were noted. Food shortages and seasonal variation increased as one went northward and he concluded through his research that as this occurred, the tendency to have a type of private ownership of resources decreased. See pp. 105 to 108. It should be noted that the term "private ownership" is used loosely here; the Aboriginal concept of ownership differed from the Euro-Canadian concept and involved a complex set of social duties, privileges and mutualities. For instance, among the central coast Salish, ownership of fishing sites was vested in kin groups, although weirs and traps tended to be owned by villages or larger village clusters; among the southern coast Salish, multi-kin groups held ownership rights. See ibid at pp. 97 to 99. See also Newell, supra, note 6 at pp. 40-42. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 14 and p. 28. ' ^ / W at pp. 29-31. U  12  13  13  Anthropologists including  those  in  have  what  is  also  concluded  now  British  that  hunter-gatherer  Columbia,  actively  societies,  managed  their  r e s o u r c e s t h r o u g h s t r a t e g i c e c o l o g i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c c o u r s e s of a c t i o n , s o c i a l control a n d political m a n e u v e r , or t h r o u g h the u s e of s y m b o l s a n d r i t u a l . 1 5 type  of m a n a g e m e n t  Nation  which existed depended  within North A m e r i c a .  upon  the l o c a t i o n of the  Broad generalizations cannot  these s y s t e m s given the diversity a m o n g  be  individual  Management  male  heads  of  kin  First  made  about  First Nation groups; however,  some  s i m i l a r i t i e s w e r e n o t e d b y t h e r e s e a r c h e r s . In a l l t h e g r o u p s a l o n g t h e Coast,  The  groups  managed  the  Northwest resource.16  r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t e n d e d to b e s e p a r a t e f r o m o w n e r s h i p p r i v i l e g e s  a n d for e a c h g r o u p , t r a d i t i o n a l l a w s g o v e r n e d t h e u s e a n d a p p l i c a t i o n of f i s h i n g technology.17  S y s t e m s of r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t  traditional culture a n d systems,  the  ideology.18  scarce  R e g a r d l e s s of t h e d i f f e r e n c e s in m a n a g e m e n t  anthropologists conducting the  g a t h e r e r s " f a c e d m a n y of resources  and  s t u d i e s c o n c l u d e d that  hunter-  the s a m e p r o b l e m s of o r g a n i z e d h u m a n a c c e s s  they  c o m p a r i s o n with our own,  w e r e f o u n d to b e part of t h e  achieved  both  workable  solutions  resilient a n d just."19  Aboriginal p e o p l e s on the Northwest  The  which  were,  in  methods  used  by  C o a s t w e r e s u c h that all f i s h c o u l d  b e e n prevented from reaching the s p a w n i n g grounds.  to  have  H o w e v e r , the p r e s e n c e of  N . M . Williams and E.S. Huhn, "Introduction" in Williams and Huhn, eds., supra, note 8, 1 at p. 1. Richardson, supra, note 11 at p. 101. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 42. This type of management regime was found in other First Nation communities across North America as well. For instance, among the Koyukon of Alaska, a well-developed conservation ethic and strict prohibition against over-use and waste was found. Similar situations were found among the Cree, Naskapi and Ojibway. See R.K. Nelson, "A Conservation Ethic and Environment: The Koyukon of Alaska" in Williams and Huhn, eds., supra, note 8, 211 at pp. 211-212. 15  16  17  18  14  large s t o c k s of fish noted peoples managed  by European  settlers is e v i d e n c e  that  Aboriginal  the r e s o u r c e a n d maintained their f i s h - b a s e d s o c i e t i e s a n d  economies.20  A l t h o u g h o n e of the popular i m a g e s of A b o r i g i n a l s in the fishery h a s b e e n a negative o n e w h e r e i n Aboriginal p e o p l e s a r e s e e n a s b e i n g untrustworthy to m a n a g e the r e s o u r c e a n d prone to destructive t e n d e n c i e s 2 1 , emerged  there h a s recently  a m o n g s o m e g r o u p s a "romanticized i m a g e of the hunter-gatherer  conservationist" d u e to hunter-gatherers' natural world.22  Aboriginal  traditionally strong c o n n e c t i o n to t h e  T h e r e m a y b e m u c h truth to t h e n o t i o n that A b o r i g i n a l  traditionally m a n a g e d peoples  their r e s o u r c e s effectively, were  intrinsically  as  b u t it d o e s  conservationists.  peoples  not follow  They  that  traditionally  exploited their r e s o u r c e s extensively23 a n d , thus, their regulation of the r e s o u r c e is  probably  organization,  better  explained  ideologies,  as  religion,  having  evolved  territorial  from  their  organization  demography,  and  ecological  Williams and Huhn, supra, note 15 at p. 15. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 28.  20  This negative ideological representation of Aboriginal fishers will be reviewed in further detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. Hamikon, supra, note 8 at p. 240. She suggests that this stereotype first emerged in the mid 1970s. Newell actually expressly rejects the theory that British Columbia's Aboriginal peoples were "perfect conservationists". She estimates that the amount caught traditionally by Aboriginal peoples was at least comparable to that which was caught by the pioneer commercial (or, as she prefers to call it, industrial) fishery. See supra, note 6 at p. 45. In the 1879 Annual Report of Inspector of Fisheries for B.C. it is estimated that 17.5 million salmon were taken by Aboriginal fishers, more than tentimeswhat was taken 21  22  23  in the commercial fishery at the time. See M.P. Shepherd and A.W. Argue, The Commercial Harvest of Salmon in British Columbia, 1820-1877 (Ottawa: Supply & Services Canada, 1989) at p. 2. Although the  authors suggest that this figure may have been somewhat over-estimated, there was a significant harvesting of fish by Aboriginal peoples both before and after contact with Europeans. M.D. James estimates that the value of Aboriginal food fish in 1900 was approximately three million dollars, which was roughly equivalent to the total value of the commercial catch at the time. See supra, note 6 at p. 2.  15  variables.24 limiting  A s o n e anthropologist h a s posited, the c a u s e of the e m e r g e n c e of a  ideology  in North  American  traditional Aboriginal communities:  society  is probably  the same  a s for  a n i n c r e a s e in t e c h n o l o g i c a l c a p a c i t y to  overexploit t h e r e s o u r c e , o b s e r v a t i o n of d a m a g e attributable to over-exploitation a n d i m p r o v e m e n t s in u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of e c o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s . 2 5 Aboriginal management  In o t h e r w o r d s ,  s y s t e m s probably resulted in large part from  lessons  learned from previous over-exploitation, much a s is the c a s e in non-Aboriginal management  systems.  O n e critical difference m a y b e t h e extent to w h i c h t h e  l e s s o n h a s b e e n learned in the respective societies. traditional Aboriginal m a n a g e m e n t  Whatever the reasons, the  system a p p e a r s to h a v e " a s s u r e d  a d e q u a t e s t o c k s of fish o v e r t h e long term.  everyone  T h e same cannot b e said for the  s t a t e - r e g u l a t e d i n d u s t r i a l f i s h e r y t h a t r e p l a c e d it i n t h e l a t e n i n e t e e n t h  century."26  It i s t o t h i s l a t t e r s y s t e m t h a t w e w i l l n o w t u r n .  B. The Non-Aboriginal Regulatory Framework and Its Effect on Aboriginal Fishers  Fisheries  resources  jurisdictional framework.  in  Canada  are  managed  within  a  complex  Although there a r e provincial a n d international a s p e c t s  Hamilton, supra, note 8 at p. 240. Nelson, supra, note 18 at p. 225. Similar theories are put forward by various other authors, including R.B. Rettig, F. Berkes and E . Pinkerton in "The Future of Fisheries Co-Management: A MultiDisciplinary Approach" in E. Pinkerton, ed., Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1989) 273 at p. 280. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 45. 25  26  16  to s a l m o n m a n a g e m e n t ,  the f o c u s of this t h e s i s will b e o n f e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n ,  policies a n d initiatives.  The fisheries  federal under  regulations  are  conditions  under  conducted.  government  section  91(12)  passed  for  which  has  jurisdiction over  of  the  each  c a s e s a n d for s o m e  s p e c i e s of f i s h ,  setting  sports  E a c h p r o v i n c e h a s its o w n  coast  and  Constitution Act, 1867.  province,  commercial,  sea  and  out  the  Aboriginal  separate  Separate  time,  place  and  fisheries may  regulations which,  are actually enforced  inland  in  be  some  by the  provincial  g o v e r n m e n t a l t h o u g h t h e y a r e still p a s s e d b y t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t .  In B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a , the f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a d m i n i s t e r s the r e g u l a t i o n s in r e l a t i o n to s a l t water and anadromous  s p e c i e s , with the provincial g o v e r n m e n t  fresh water s p e c i e s regulations.  W i t h r e s p e c t to s a l m o n in British C o l u m b i a ,  f e d e r a l D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s the  catch taken  Management  administering  regulates  native fisheries, while the  Habitat  B r a n c h attempts to control the d i s c h a r g e of pollutants a n d  damage  to f i s h habitat.  in c o m m e r c i a l , sport a n d  Field Services Branch  the  The  D e p a r t m e n t of Indian Affairs  has also been  f i s h e r i e s i s s u e s , t h r o u g h the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of v a r i o u s p r o g r a m s  involved  in  and loans  to  assist Aboriginal commercial fishers.  In  British C o l u m b i a ,  e s t a b l i s h e d in 1 9 0 1 .  a  separate  provincial fisheries bureaucracy  was  T h e M a r i n e R e s o u r c e s B r a n c h of the p r o v i n c i a l M i n i s t r y of  17  Environment  regulates  fish  processing  plants  and  development  of  the  mariculture industry a n d c a n grant proprietary interests s u c h a s l i c e n c e s w h e r e the p r o v i n c e o w n s river b e d s .  It a l s o r e p r e s e n t s p r o v i n c i a l i n t e r e s t s i n p r o m o t i n g  a n d regulating t h e fishing industry.  In a d d i t i o n , t h e p r o v i n c i a l F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e  Branch  fresh water  regulates  non-anadromous  fisheries.  T h e province h a s  jurisdiction o v e r t h e s a l e o f f i s h within its b o u n d a r i e s , but C a n a d a h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n over the export of fish outside British C o l u m b i a .  First Nations a l s o h a v e limited by-law m a k i n g p o w e r s in respect of fish o n t h e i r r e s e r v e , p u r s u a n t t o t h e Indian Act.  27  S e c t i o n 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) o f t h e Indian Act  p r o v i d e s that First Nation B a n d C o u n c i l s c a n p a s s b y - l a w s with r e s p e c t to t h e preservation, protection a n d management  of fish o n their reserve.  It h a s b e e n  h e l d t h a t t h e s e b y - l a w s , if v a l i d , s u p e r s e d e r e g u l a t i o n s u n d e r t h e Fisheries Act t o the extent of a n y i n c o n s i s t e n c y .  2 8  H o w e v e r , this s e c t i o n only a p p l i e s to fish in  w a t e r s w h i c h a r e actually part of t h e r e s e r v e .  Generally,  r e s e r v e s in British  C o l u m b i a d o not include the lakes, rivers or foreshores.  Salmon Canada  management  a n d the United  in C a n a d a States  also h a s a n international  established  C o m m i s s i o n in 1 9 3 7 in relation to m a n a g e m e n t  the Pacific  Salmon  dimension. Fisheries  of the F r a s e r River s o c k e y e a n d  pink s a l m o n f i s h e r i e s . T h e y a l s o e n t e r e d into t h e P a c i f i c S a l m o n T r e a t y in 1 9 8 5 ,  'R.S.C. 1985, c. 1-5. *R. v. Jimmy (1987), 15 B.C.L.R. 145 (B.C.C.A.).  18  although subsequently, the agreement c o l l a p s e d d u e to a failure to a g r e e how  the commercial  catch  w a s to b e divided  between  the two  upon  countries.  C o n s i d e r a b l e effort w a s s p e n t in 1 9 9 6 a t t e m p t i n g t o r e - n e g o t i a t e a t r e a t y . 2 9  Within this constitutional framework,  Canada's  Pacific Coast  commercial  fisheries have been described a s a m o n g the most regulated in the world.30 justification for the regulatory framework premise upon which the regulatory common  property,  has been conservation.31  scheme  not private property.  The basic  i s built i s that f i s h a r e p u b l i c o r  T h u s , a c c o r d i n g to conventional  centric w i s d o m , p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e r e s o u r c e r e q u i r e s g o v e r n m e n t o t h e r w i s e , a tragedy of t h e c o m m o n s will r e s u l t . 3 2  at least historically, w a s that A b o r i g i n a l  managing  the resource  destruction management  of  the  adequately  resource  if  left  W i t h respect to Aboriginal  peoples  a n d will  invariably  to  own  their  euro-  intervention;  fishing, the b a s i c ideology w h i c h a p p e a r s to underlie state m a n a g e m e n t fisheries,  The  are incapable  cause  devices.  of the  the  of  ultimate  Central  state  authority w a s p r e s e n t e d a s b e i n g n e c e s s a r y to p r e s e r v e t h e fish.  For a more detailed break-down of federal and provincial jurisdictions over the fisheries and related industries, as well as international aspects, see A.H.J. Dorcey, Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Rescues: Research and Reform (Vancouver: Westwater Research Centre, 1986) at pp. 47-48 and p. 63 and Newell, supra, note 6 at pp. 10-21. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 6. No authority is given by Newell on this point. lbid. The question which will be addressed later in this chapter is conservation for whom and at whose expense. Ibid. The "tragedy of the commons" concept was discussed by G. Hardin in "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968) 162 Science 1243 wherein he referred to what he believed was the inevitable consequence when individuals are allowed to make unlimited use of public lands, such as grazing cattle in an open pasture. The tragedy is that: "each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all." See p. 1244. The effect of the portrayal of the fisheries as common property is discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter. 29  30  3l  32  19  This  ideology  m a y not b e a s relevant  today,  foundation for the current regulatory system.  b u t it d o e s  appear  to b e t h e  It a r o s e a t a t i m e i n t h e l a t e 1 8 0 0 s  w h e n non-Aboriginal fishers w e r e beginning to take over t h e fishery, n o longer n e e d i n g A b o r i g i n a l a s s i s t a n c e in the industry.  T h e "demonization",  a s Newell  r e f e r s t o it, o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s b e c o m e s a n i n c i d e n t a l , r a c i s t j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r e x t e n d i n g n o n - A b o r i g i n a l c o n t r o l o f t h e f i s h e r i e s . In t h e w o r d s o f N e w e l l :  T h e state a n d its a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a g e n c i e s a n d c o u r t s , b a c k e d by  private  Pacific  industry  Coast  demonized  a n d non-Indian  Indian  fishers,  fishing traditions  characterized  a s destructive  Indian f o o d fishers a s predators.  and  T h e historical  record of fishery regulations for British C o l u m b i a reflects this thinking.33  T h e s e ideologies c a n b e s e e n in the historical evolution of the regulations a n d will b e r e v i e w e d meantime,  in more  the following  detail in the final s e c t i o n of this chapter. is a  brief  history  of s a l m o n  regulation  In t h e  in British  Columbia.  Commercial  fishing  restricted to tidal a r e a s . 3 4  in the province  began  in 1870  a n d w a s legally  T h e first s a l m o n - c a n n i n g f a c t o r y w a s o p e n e d i n 1871  a n d t h e first r e g u l a t i o n s w e n t into effect in 1 8 7 8 , initially a p p l y i n g o n l y t o s a l m o n . Beginning  in 1 8 8 8 , l i c e n c e s w e r e  required to fish  in British C o l u m b i a  and  Supra, note 6, at p. 4. The historical review of fisheries regulations in British Columbia which follows is largely taken from Newell's text, supra, note 6 as well as from The Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy, Turning the Tide: A New Policy for Canada's Pacific Fisheries (Ottawa: Supply & Services Canada, 1982) [Commissioner: P.H. Pearse]. 34  20  s u b s e q u e n t r e g u l a t i o n s g o v e r n e d the type of g e a r w h i c h c o u l d b e u s e d , t h e n the t i m e s f i s h i n g c o u l d o c c u r a n d f i n a l l y t h e l o c a t i o n s w h e r e it c o u l d t a k e p l a c e .  Initially, t h e F i s h e r i e s D e p a r t m e n t ("the D e p a r t m e n t " ) d i d n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g s i n c e A b o r i g i n a l s still o u t - n u m b e r e d n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s in t h e p r o v i n c e t h r e e - t o - o n e a n d their c o o p e r a t i o n w a s n e e d e d to e s t a b l i s h t h e fishing industry. the  salmon  N e w e l l d e s c r i b e s A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e a s the " l a b o u r b a c k b o n e of  canning  industry  during  its c h a o t i c  rise  in the  late-nineteenth  century...."35, with m a n y working s e a s o n a l l y for the c a n n e r i e s , a b a n d o n i n g  their  v i l l a g e s to d o s o .  In  addition  to  increasing participation by  Aboriginals  in the  o p e r a t i o n s , A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t i e s c o n t i n u e d to rely o n f i s h a s a n food staple, a s well a s for social a n d c e r e m o n i a l p u r p o s e s .  cannery important  As had been  the  c a s e for c e n t u r i e s , traditional f i s h i n g p r a c t i c e s c o n t i n u e d to b e c o n c e n t r a t e d in the rivers.  Aboriginal fisheries influenced both the size a n d the  location  r e s e r v e s in British C o l u m b i a ; r e s e r v e s in c o a s t a l a n d i n l a n d river a r e a s  of  tended  to b e q u i t e s m a l l b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n that t h e p e o p l e w o u l d h a v e c o n t i n u e d a c c e s s to t h e f i s h e r i e s to s u s t a i n t h e m s e l v e s . traditional Aboriginal fishing practices w e r e ground" between commercial fishing and  'Supra, note 6, at pp. 53-54. Ibid at p. 14. s  As  the c a n n e r i e s  expanded,  in a " p o l i t i c a l l y v u l n e r a b l e  the spawning g r o u n d s . 3 6  middle  S i n c e most  21  Aboriginal  fishing  took  place  in the  commercial fishers a n d Aboriginals:  rivers,  conflicts  soon  arose  between  commercial fishers d i d not want Aboriginals  to t a k e f i s h from t h e rivers b e c a u s e often b y that time there w e r e not e n o u g h f i s h left a f t e r c o m m e r c i a l h a r v e s t i n g t o e n s u r e s u f f i c i e n t e s c a p e m e n t f o r s p a w n i n g purposes.  D i s p u t e s b e t w e e n A b o r i g i n a l a n d n o n - A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s b e g a n in t h e late 1 8 8 0 s w h e n A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n s that t h e s p r e a d of c a n n e r i e s m a d e it d i f f i c u l t t o c a r r y o n t r a d i t i o n a l f i s h e r i e s .  A Commission w a s established  a n d A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s a s k e d for a n e x t e n s i o n of r e s e r v e s a n d a r e s e r v a t i o n of a number  of f i s h i n g stations a n d tracts for hunting.  T h e r e w a s little r e s p o n s e .  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g w a s a d d r e s s e d f o r t h e first t i m e in r e g u l a t i o n s i n 1 8 8 8 w h e r e i n "Indian fishing" w a s defined in terms of a s u b s i s t e n c e activity only.  S a l e of fish  by A b o r i g i n a l s w a s prohibited at that time, a prohibition w h i c h r e m a i n s to this day.37  Until that time, A b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t i e s d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n fishing  for food, social a n d c e r e m o n i a l p u r p o s e s , a n d fishing for trade p u r p o s e s . the  regulation  economic,  "separated  social  or  harvesting  cultural  resources from management  and personal  purposes  ....  [and]  consumption separated  Thus,  of fish  from  production  of  of them, officially transferring all m a n a g e m e n t  of  this c r u c i a l f o o d a n d c o m m e r c i a l r e s o u r c e from Indians to t h e s t a t e . " 3 8 A s N e w e l l  Order in Council, 26 November 1888, Canada Gazette, vol. XX3I, 956. The only exceptions to that statement are the agreements under the Pilot Sales Arrangement ("PSA") which have been reached with some First Nations under the Aboriginal Fishing Strategy ("AFS"). The PSA and AFS will be discussed in more detail later in the chapter.  37  38  Newell, supra, note 6, at p. 62.  22  g o e s o n t o s a y , t h i s p o l i c y c r e a t e d t h e still p e r v a s i v e s t e r e o t y p e o f I n d i a n s a s simple s u b s i s t e n c e people in c o m p a r i s o n to the c o m m e r c e - m i n d e d  Europeans,  a l t h o u g h in reality t h e y h a d t r a d e d e x t e n s i v e l y in f i s h p r o d u c t s b o t h b e f o r e a n d after contact with  Between  Europeans.  1889 a n d 1914,  biological-conservation theory  the Department's  of  "maximum  policies  sustained yield".  1889, the D e p a r t m e n t limited the n u m b e r of l i c e n c e s . 3 9 attracted  a  number  operators wanted cannery fishers  tradition,  mostly  to k e e p out competition.  operators. resented  of i n d e p e n d e n t ,  However,  were based on a  white,  Beginning  Phenomenal  runs had  fishers a n d the  cannery  M o s t of the l i c e n c e s went to the  political p r o b l e m s  resulted b e c a u s e the white  " a n y d e n i a l of a c c e s s to w h a t w a s , at least within  a common-access  resource."40  in  Cannery  operators  British  expanded  their  o p e r a t i o n s in a n attempt to o b t a i n m o r e l i c e n c e s a n d , t h u s , l i c e n c e limitation d i d not g u a r a n t e e  sufficient e s c a p e m e n t .  A s a result of t h e s e p r o b l e m s ,  licence  limitations w e r e r e m o v e d in 1 8 9 2 with regulations f o c u s i n g i n s t e a d o n the type of g e a r , a n d a r e a s of a n d time p e r i o d s for f i s h i n g . 4 1  It w a s a l s o d u r i n g t h i s e r a t h a t c o m p l a i n t s b e g a n a b o u t A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g weirs a n d d a m s o n the rivers. A s a result, n e w regulations w e r e p a s s e d in 1 8 9 4 w h i c h prohibited Aboriginal spearing, trapping, or p e n n i n g of fish o n s p a w n i n g  39  40  41  Order in Council, 14 March 1890, Canada Gazette, vol. XXIII, 1903. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 70. Order in Council, 3 March 1894, Canada Gazette, vol. XXVII, 1579.  23  g r o u n d s or o n a n y g r o u n d s set a s i d e for the propagation of fish; only d i p nets, w h i c h h a d never b e e n widely u s e d b y Aboriginal fishers, w e r e permitted in n o n tidal w a t e r s . 4 2  At the s a m e  time,  Aboriginal  fishers complained  about  the  c o n s t r u c t i o n of a mill w h i c h b l o c k e d their f i s h e r i e s a n d c a n o e a c c e s s to their village a n d about commercial seine fishing a n d log drives o n spawning in C o w i c h a n B a y .  grounds  T h e British C o l u m b i a C h i e f s c o m p l a i n e d to O t t a w a in 1 9 0 6 ,  stating that their p e o p l e w e r e h a v i n g difficulty o b t a i n i n g e n o u g h f i s h f o r their o w n n e e d s a n d could no longer m a k e livings from the fisheries. operators were  a s k i n g for a larger s h a r e of t h e fish.  Meanwhile,  cannery  G o v e r n m e n t officials  d e c i d e d Aboriginal fishing barricades w e r e the most important i s s u e with respect to c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e f i s h e v e n t h o u g h "fish d e v i c e s for t h o u s a n d s of y e a r s . " 4 3 fisheries guardians  ... h a d survived s u c h mass-fishing  Thus, traps a n d weirs were confiscated a n d  hired to e n f o r c e t h e regulations.  respect to the B a b i n e First Nation fishers o n the S k e e n a  A s Newell  states  with  River:  T h e S k e e n a R i v e r s a l m o n n e e d e d to b e c o n s e r v e d .  But only  a portion of the runs h a d to r e a c h the s p a w n i n g  grounds.  T h e r e w a s a s u r p l u s t o b e f i s h e d , s o w h o w o u l d g e t it—the Indians or the cannery operators?  F o r officials a n d c a n n e r s  the c h o i c e w a s clear. T h e Babine were using the fish for food a n d for exchange.  B u t t h e y f i s h e d principally at t h e e n d of  the s a l m o n ' s return j o u r n e y to t h e s p a w n i n g g r o u n d s .  The  industrial s a l m o n fishery, b e i n g restricted to tidal a r e a s , w a s first in line in t h e h a r v e s t i n g c h a i n .  F o r b e i n g last in line, t h e  Indian riverine fisheries w o u l d p a y heavily.44  0rder in Council, 3 March 1894, S.C., 1894. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 90. Ibid at p. 91. Newspaper articles at the time contained headlines such as "Indians wiping out Sockeyes". The ideology of Aboriginal fishing as destructive was widespread, with Aboriginal fishers being portrayed as chronic over-fishers who were destroying "one of the greatest sources of the people's wealth." See pp. 91-92. 42  43  44  24  Industrial  expansion  Aboriginal fishers.  in the  In 1 9 1 3 ,  problems  for  railway c o n s t r u c t i o n r e s u l t e d in b l o c k a g e s o n  the  Fraser River near Hell's Gate. f i s h i n g in the c a n y o n ensuing.  province  Spawning  a n d the waters  also  led  to  other  grounds were ruined and  a b o v e it w a s  devastated,  Aboriginal  with  famines  T h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s p o n d e d by prohibiting all f o o d f i s h i n g in the  Fraser  River.  B e g i n n i n g in 1917,  n e w regulations required Indian food fishing permits  w h i c h w e r e s u b j e c t to t h e s a m e r e s t r i c t i o n s a s c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g , s u c h a s a r e a and gear prohibitions a n d c l o s e d times.45 number  of s a l m o n c a u g h t  in the  Indian  G o v e r n m e n t officials cited the fishery and the  regulating that fishery a s justification for limiting Indians anywhere  or by a n y  means  except  waters o p e n for c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g . 4 6 f o o d f i s h , but a l s o to b u y  under  inherent from  difficulty in  taking  commercial salmon  licence and  it f r o m A b o r i g i n a l s .  Newell calls the  country.47  The  hypocrisy" g i v e n that n o n -  rhetoric  of  conservation  was  used  including to  restrictions of A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g a n d s a l e of f i s h , but the o n l y thing truly p r o t e c t e d w e r e the interests of the c a n n e r y o p e r a t o r s .  0rder in Council, 11 September 1917, S.C., 1918. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 96.  45  46  'ibid at p. 97.  41  in  government's  A b o r i g i n a l c a n n e r y o p e r a t o r s w e r e permitted to sell all of their f i s h , the  salmon  It a l s o b e c a m e a n o f f e n c e n o t o n l y t o s e l l  p r o h i b i t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l s a l e of f i s h a " f u n d a m e n t a l  outside  large  justify being  25  F r o m the 1 9 2 0 s through the inter-war years, Aboriginal fishers r e c e i v e d very f e w of t h e c o m m e r c i a l l i c e n c e s .  In 1 9 2 7 , A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s  requested  r e c o g n i t i o n of their e x c l u s i v e right to f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y in c e r t a i n d e f i n e d a r e a s . The  f e d e r a l director of f i s h e r i e s o p p o s e d  s u c h a "privilege", stating that t h e  fishery w a s public a n d h e c o u l d not, therefore, grant a n y o n e e x c l u s i v e rights.48 The  common  property  notion a p p e a r s to h a v e  been  relied upon  extensively  w h e n e v e r A b o r i g i n a l c l a i m s to the fishery w e r e put forward.  In  1931, the Native  leading Tsimshian  Brotherhood  chiefs, all of w h o m  of British C o l u m b i a were  w a s formed  by  c o m m e r c i a l fishers, to  address  A b o r i g i n a l g r i e v a n c e s with r e s p e c t to s c h o o l i n g , a s w e l l a s hunting,  fishing,  trapping a n d timber harvesting rights o n off-reserve traditional territories. organization  expanded  to include additional villages, a n d by 1 9 3 6 w a s well  e s t a b l i s h e d o n the north a n d central c o a s t s a m o n g the G i t k s a n , Heiltsuk, and Haisla. on  The  Nuxalk  Following the federal government's d e c i s i o n to i m p o s e i n c o m e tax  Aboriginal  commercial  fishers  in the  early  1940s,  c o n c e r n s c a m e to t h e forefront for t h e B r o t h e r h o o d , e x p a n d e d to include communities o n the south coast.  commercial  fishing  w h i c h b y that time h a d T h e Brotherhood  never  e x p a n d e d b e y o n d t h e c o a s t b u t , u l t i m a t e l y , it b e c a m e a n A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l fisher's union, acting a s bargaining agent for Aboriginal commercial fishers. the  1960s,  the organization  w a s the longest-lived Aboriginal  organization  By in  Despite his position, the Director did finally acknowledge that the Department had leased whole inlets to canneries and large, non-Aboriginal fishing interests, with no corresponding privileges being granted to Aboriginal fisheries. Of course, this fact made no difference to his position. See ibid at p. 114. 48  26  Canada  a n d it c o n t i n u e s t o p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o A b o r i g i n a l  commercial fishing.49  It c u r r e n t l y r e p r e s e n t s a b o u t 1 , 5 0 0 A b o r i g i n a l i n v o l v e d i n  the fishing i n d u s t r y . 5 0  The  Department's  approach  to management  in the 1950s  has been  described a s being f o c u s e d o n maximization of e c o n o m i c yield a s o p p o s e d to biological yield.  However, the underlying management  s y s t e m a p p e a r s to h a v e  r e m a i n e d t h e s a m e a s it h a d b e e n s i n c e t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y . approach  resulted  in a n i n c r e a s e in capital investment  mobility a n d c a t c h i n g p o w e r of t h e fleet.  This  a n d a n increase in  T h e Department r e s p o n d e d to the  increase in efficiency by d e c r e a s i n g fishing times. w h i c h resulted in e v e n heavier capital investment  Closures began  of  habitat  continued  inland,  with  in 1 9 5 6  b e c a u s e fishers wanted to  catch a s m a n y fish a s they could in the f e w d a y s of openings. destruction  regulatory  hydro-electric  Meanwhile,  dams,  logging  operations, s a w mills, pulp a n d p a p e r plants, other industries a n d municipalities all contributing to pollution of a n d b l o c k a g e s in t h e rivers.  T h r o u g h o u t this period, s o m e A b o r i g i n a l s c o n t i n u e d to b e involved in t h e commercial fishery.  However,  by 1 9 5 1 , only one-third of British  Columbia's  commercial fishers w e r e Aboriginal a n d almost all l i c e n c e s w e r e directly held b y  P. Tennant, Aboriginal Peoples and Politics (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1990) at pp. 116-120. S. Gilbey, "The Aboriginal Right to a Commercial Fishery" (1995) 4 Dalhousie J. of Legal Studies 231 at p. 238. 49  50  27  non-Aboriginals. the  industry.  canneries  were  L a c k o f c a p i t a l m a d e it d i f f i c u l t f o r A b o r i g i n a l s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n Some  were  able  increasingly  to procure  shutting  loans  down  in  from  canneries,  more  centralizing in t h e V a n c o u v e r a n d P r i n c e Rupert a r e a s .  remote  but the  areas  and  Between the mid-1940s  a n d the mid-1960s, the number of Aboriginal fishers dropped by 3 3 percent.51  Aboriginal fishers a l s o e x p e r i e n c e d increasing difficulties participating in their food fisheries.  In t h e 1 9 6 0 s , a b o u t o n e - h a l f o f a l l A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h w a s  caught in the Fraser River system. parts of the Fraser  In 1 9 6 7 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t c l o s e d f i s h i n g i n  River for a three-week  p e r i o d o n t h e b a s i s that  required to protect t h e early s o c k e y e r u n at Stuart  Lake.  it w a s  Twenty-four  hour  patrols, arrests a n d c o n f i s c a t i o n s of A b o r i g i n a l nets resulted, with c o n s e r v a t i o n being u s e d a s the rationale.  Meanwhile,  however,  Fraser  Aboriginals  began  estuary  continued.  commercial fishing o n the pressuring  l e g i s l a t i v e r e c o g n i t i o n o f their right t o f i s h t h e F r a s e r .  government  A similar  for  three-week  closure took p l a c e in 1 9 6 8 , although o n e 24-hour opening for food fishing w a s permitted in that p e r i o d .  Newell heralds what h a p p e n e d o n the Fraser River in  t h o s e y e a r s a s a "revival of t h e aboriginal rights i s s u e in British C o l u m b i a a n d elsewhere in Canada."52  This figure was cited by the Native Brotherhood in the 1960s when it lobbied government to provide financial assistance to Aboriginal fishers. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 142. Ibidatp. 147. 51  52  28  In t h e prime  1960  example  Sinclair Report,  the Pacific fisheries w e r e  presented as  the  the  No  of  tragedy  of  commons  problem.  mention  a of  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g w a s m a d e in the report e x c e p t indirectly t h r o u g h a s u g g e s t i o n that  everyone  should  be treated  equally  in the fisheries.  The  government  r e s p o n d e d to the report with the D a v i s P l a n , or " S a l m o n V e s s e l L i c e n c e C o n t r o l P l a n " , in 1 9 6 8 .  The  g o a l of t h e p l a n w a s to i m p r o v e t h e f i s h e r i e s ' e c o n o m i c  performance,  i n c r e a s e i n c o m e s b y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e n u m b e r s of l i c e n s e d s a l m o n  vessels,  decreasing over-capitalization  and  and  excess labour usage  in  the  industry.  W h e n the Davis P l a n licensing program w a s and early 1980s,  r e v i e w e d in the late 1 9 7 0 s  it w a s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o s t o f f i s h i n g h a d s o a r e d  without  a n y c o m p a r a b l e i n c r e a s e in returns; t h e n u m b e r of b o a t s h a d d e c r e a s e d , m o s t l y in the s m a l l v e s s e l fleet only; total c a p i t a l i n v e s t m e n t  had  but  quadrupled  b e t w e e n 1 9 6 9 a n d 1 9 8 0 y e t t h e s i z e of t h e c a t c h h a d r e m a i n e d c o n s t a n t ; a n d n o real r e s p o n s e h a d b e e n m a d e to the threats of industry a n d s p o r t f i s h i n g o n management.  The  Salmon Enhancement  P r o g r a m w a s initiated in 1977  in a n  a t t e m p t t o b o l s t e r s t o c k s , b u t it w a s g e a r e d m o r e t o d e v e l o p m e n t o f h a t c h e r i e s t h a n to habitat rehabilitation. hardest  hit  by  the  new  S t u d i e s s h o w e d that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s w e r e  licensing scheme,  with  c a p i t a l i z a t i o n p u s h i n g t h e m out of t h e industry.  increased  competition  T h e welfare rolls e x p a n d e d  t h e n u m b e r of l i c e n s e d A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s d e c r e a s e d .  the and as  29  A t t e m p t s w e r e m a d e to b o o s t A b o r i g i n a l participation in t h e c o m m e r c i a l fisheries through handful  grants,  loans and special,  of Aboriginal fishers benefitted  from  lower cost, these  licences.53  programs,  with  Only  a  t h e total  n u m b e r o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s still l e s s t h a n 5 0 p e r c e n t o f w h a t it h a d b e e n 2 0 years previously.  A s well, m u c h of the i n c r e a s e in i n c o m e s w a s e n j o y e d not b y  t h o s e living o n r e s e r v e s , but rather by t h o s e living in t h e V a n c o u v e r a r e a .  The  programs t e n d e d to help those f e w w h o h a d b e e n d o i n g well previously a n d , thus, c a u s e d greater polarization in i n c o m e s . 5 4 also  attempted  to bolster A b o r i g i n a l  In 1 9 8 6 t h e N a t i v e  participation in the fishing  creating the Native Fishing Association which provided  Brotherhood industry  by  low-interest financing  a n d training programs for Aboriginal fishers.  Indian Fishermen's Assistance Programs ("IFAP") were in place between 1968 and 1973 and between 1974 and 1978 with direct grants and government-backed loans being made available to increase the size, quality and safety of the Aboriginal fishing fleet. An emergency assistance program was also initiated between 1980 and 1982. It was administered by the Department of Indian Affairs, the Native Brotherhood and 13 bands of the Nuu-Chah-Nulth Tribal Council. The rationale behind these programs was not recognition of an Aboriginal right to fish, but rather an attempt to relieve the economic hardship of Aboriginal peoples. In 1971, special "Indian only" licences were made available at a lower annual cost. The Indian Fisheries Development Board was also established in 1971 and provided financing for Aboriginals to buy boats and gear. It did not, however, provide assistance with respect to the requisite down payments. See ibid at pp. 158 to 166. As Newell states, "Because the assistance programs had the same inherent biases as the Davis Plan itself, they ultimately worked against the interests of Indian fish-based communities and favoured the highly successful vessel owners and processing conglomerates." See ibid at p. 162. In his report, P. Pearse also critiqued these programs and concluded that they were not successful in getting large numbers of Aboriginal fishers into the industry. He also noted that the grants and loans contributed to an overcapitalization problem in the fishing fleet. See The Commission, supra, note 34 at p. 155. This report will be reviewed in greater detail below. It should be noted at this point that although increases in incomes may have been enjoyed by only a handful of Aboriginal fishers, average gross incomes of Aboriginal fishers did increase during this period from 61 percent of the average fleet income in 1967 to 109 percent in 1973, with an average of 84 percent between 1975 and 1979. See James, supra, note 6 at p. 14. 54  30  During this period, various Aboriginal c o m m u n i t i e s c o n d u c t e d "fish-ins" o n parts  of t h e F r a s e r  River,  openly  breaching  fishing  regulations  in  protest.  S e v e r a l c h a r g e s w e r e laid a n d Aboriginal resistance intensified in r e s p o n s e . 1 9 7 7 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t l a u n c h e d its " O p e r a t i o n  Roundup"  a g a i n s t illegal taking a n d selling of fish b y A b o r i g i n a l s . c h a r g e s were laid, n o convictions resulted.  In  to enforce provisions Although a number of  At a meeting in 1978, t h e President  of t h e U n i o n of B C Indian C h i e f s c a l l e d t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h e r i e s " E n e m y N o . 1".55  Illegal s a l e o f f i s h c o n t i n u e d .  fish c a m p .  In 1 9 8 6 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t r a i d e d a G i t k s a n  O n e hundred Gitksan formed a h u m a n barricade a r o u n d t h e site a n d  pelted enforcement officers with marshmallows.  M a n y c h a r g e s w e r e laid but, a s  w a s t h e c a s e with most other c h a r g e s laid throughout this period, n o n e resulted in c o n v i c t i o n s .  O n M a y 2 5 , 1 9 8 4 , R o n S p a r r o w w a s c h a r g e d with fishing with a  net that w a s l o n g e r t h a n w h a t w a s s p e c i f i e d in t h e r e g u l a t i o n s . 5 6  The Supreme  C o u r t of C a n a d a ultimately h e l d that t h e A b o r i g i n a l right to f i s h f o r f o o d ,  social  a n d ceremonial p u r p o s e s w a s protected by section 3 5 of the Constitution A c t a n d c o u l d o n l y b e o v e r r i d d e n if t h e r e w a s a v a l i d l e g i s l a t i v e o b j e c t i v e , s u c h a s conservation of the resource.  Following the  Sparrow  d e c i s i o n , t h e D e p a r t m e n t a n n o u n c e d that t h e prior  right of A b o r i g i n a l s to f i s h f o r f o o d w o u l d b e h o n o u r e d . the Department's  It s h o u l d b e n o t e d  that  s t a t e d p o l i c y f o r s o m e time h a d a c t u a l l y b e e n that r e a s o n a b l e  Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 173. R. v. Sparrow (1990), 70 D.L.R. (4th) 385 (S.C.C.). The Sparrow decision will be reviewed in greater detail in subsequent chapters. 56  31  A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h r e q u i r e m e n t s w e r e to rank s e c o n d in priority to c o n s e r v a t i o n . T h i s w a s n o t e d b y t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n its d e c i s i o n i n have  been  protected  a factor priority  in that  right.57  Court's  Sparrow  d e c i s i o n to r e c o g n i z e  T h e policy  w a s apparently  a  a n d a p p e a r s to constitutionally  first  espoused  by  Department Minister Davis in the 1970s.  In 1 9 9 1 , t h e A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s C o - o p e r a t i v e M a n a g e m e n t  Program  was  launched a n d in 1 9 9 2 ,the seven-year Aboriginal Fishing Strategy ("AFS") w a s a n n o u n c e d , w h i c h i n c l u d e d pilot projects f o r t h e s a l e o f f i s h b y A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s in s o m e c o m m u n i t i e s . 5 8 fishing  a n d to  management.  give  T h e program w a s d e s i g n e d to protect Aboriginal Aboriginal  communities  a  greater  role  food  in fisheries  Part of the program included buying back c o m m e r c i a l l i c e n c e s  from non-Aboriginal fishers o n a voluntary basis. T h e s e u s e d to increase the Aboriginal share of commercial fish.  allocations were  then  A l s o part of t h e A F S  w a s a fishery guardian training program to train Aboriginal p e o p l e s to participate in  fisheries  monitoring,  stock  management,  a s s e s s m e n t , habitat protection a n d enforcement.  fishery  enhancement  and  Under the A F S , the federal  government negotiates individual fishing a g r e e m e n t s with individual b a n d s , tribal  R. v. Sparrow (1987), 36 D.L.R. (4th) 246 (B.C.C.A.) at pp.255 and 277. Some 80 agreements, involving 57 First Nations or Tribal Councils were entered into under the AFS in 1992. Agreements under the Pilot Sale Arrangement (PSA) for the commercial sale of salmon were signed with the Lower Fraser Aboriginal Fisheries Commission representing the Sto:lo, Musqueam and Tsawwassen First Nations; the Tsu-ma-uss Fisheries on the west coast of Vancouver Island representing two Nuu-Chah-Nulth First Nations; and the Tsimshian Tribal Council, the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en Watershed Authorities, and the Nat'oot'en First Nations on the Skeena River. For a more detailed description of the program, see Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited, An Evaluation of the Pilot Sale Arrangement of Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (1994) [unpublished]. 51  58  32  councils a n d other Aboriginal groups, habitat protection, habitat e n h a n c e m e n t  t h e agreements  training, fishing regulations,  enforcement training a n d e c o n o m i c development. the b a n d a n d the Department.  cover issues such as  The AFS  regulation  Fish plans are developed by  i s d e s i g n e d to b e i n p l a c e o n l y until  1999, a t w h i c h t i m e it i s i n t e n d e d t h a t I n t e r i m M e a s u r e s A g r e e m e n t s  under the  B . C . T r e a t y C o m m i s s i o n p r o c e s s will b e in p l a c e .  In  June  1993,  the  Regulations were adopted.  new  Aboriginal  Communal  Fishing  T h e s e regulations provided for c o m m u n a l  l i c e n c e s to b e i s s u e d to b a n d s , a s o p p o s e d to individuals directly.59 c a n then administer w h o c a n fish in their f o o d fisheries. also hold  Licences  regular commercial  fishing  The bands  Aboriginal fishers c a n  s a l m o n fishing licences in marine  areas  at  a  reduced fee.  In reduce The  1996, t h e M i n i s t e r o f F i s h e r i e s  British Columbia's  and Oceans  announced  a plan  commercial salmon fishing vessels by 5 0  to  percent.  decision w a s a controversial o n e a n d many fishers, a s well a s the British  C o l u m b i a government, c a l l e d for a more effective federal strategy to d e a l with the e c o n o m i c c o n c e r n s of c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s a s w e l l a s t h e d e p l e t e d f i s h r u n s . 6 0  SOR/93-332, amended SOR/94-390. L . Pyrin and S. Simpson, "Fishers Cry Foul Over Licence Cuts" The Vancouver Sun (30 March 1996) A l , A6. Among those calling for a federal strategy to restore depleted runs was Premier Glen Clark. His comment is interesting given that the provincial government has a great deal of control over the condition of the runs through its jurisdiction over industry in the province. Since habitat destruction is one of the causes of the depleted runs, and much of the destruction is caused by industry, federal strategy alone will probably not solve the problem. Provincial action is required as well. 59  6 0  33  D e s p i t e t h e o p p o s i t i o n , t h e p l a n w e n t i n t o e f f e c t o n M a y 2 4 , 1 9 9 6 , a l t h o u g h it w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y a n n o u n c e d that t h e p l a n will b e r e v i e w e d . 6 1  T h e Department  a l s o initially p r o h i b i t e d c o m m e r c i a l s o c k e y e a n d C h i n o o k s a l m o n f i s h i n g o n t h e south c o a s t a n d V a n c o u v e r Island for the 1 9 9 6 s e a s o n b e c a u s e of the predicted low level of s t o c k s returning to s p a w n .  However,  the estimated run size  of  sockeye w a s subsequently upgraded a n d some fishing w a s permitted.62  It c a n b e s e e n t h a t s t a t e c o n t r o l o f t h e f i s h e r i e s h a s e s s e n t i a l l y b e e n a c o m b i n a t i o n of  i n c r e a s e d regulation of w h e r e a n d h o w f i s h i n g is to t a k e p l a c e  o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d a t t e m p t s t o limit e n t r y i n t o t h e i n d u s t r y t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f licensing r e g i m e s o n the other.  T h e s e two management  approaches are the  traditional m e t h o d s u s e d to attempt to s o l v e t h e "tragedy of  the  commons".63  W h a t follows is a review of h o w well t h o s e a p p r o a c h e s h a v e w o r k e d in practice.  C. The Non-Aboriginal Management Regime in Review: How Well Has It Worked?  O n e of the most recent c o m p r e h e n s i v e reviews of fishing policy in British Columbia w a s conducted by the Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy which  M . Crawley and J. Hunter, "Salmon deal gives B.C. a bigger say" The Vancouver Sun (16 July 1996) A l , A5. B . Bouw, "Fraser sockeye fishery to open as run upgraded" The Vancouver Sun (6 August 1996) B l and P. McMartin, "Fraser sockeye estimates rise again, allowing more fishing" The Vancouver Sun (13 August 1996) B l . B.J. McCay and J.M. Acheson, eds., The Question of the Commons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1987) at pp. xiii-xiv. 6 1  62  63  34  w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in 1981 to review fishing o n the P a c i f i c c o a s t a n d to recommendations Commissioner  to  Peter  improve  fisheries  management.  The  1982  make  report  of  P e a r s e w a s t h e first s u c h report to r e a l l y a d d r e s s t h e  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g i s s u e . H e c o n c l u d e d that g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c y w a s deficient d u e to  "uncertain  contradictory  objectives, programs  weak  a n d outdated  and confusion."64  legislation,  With  respect  bad  organization,  to m a n a g e m e n t  s a l m o n , h e identified difficulties with the u s e of p r e - s e a s o n m a n a g e m e n t The  was  plans.65  Department p r e p a r e s t h e s e p r e - s e a s o n p l a n s e a c h y e a r in a n attempt  meet tentative harvesting a n d s p a w n i n g objectives. a n "alarming lack of documentation  of  to  P e a r s e c o n c l u d e d that t h e r e  on how management  decisions are  m a d e ; w h a t i n f o r m a t i o n i s u s e d ; h o w it i s i n t e r p r e t e d a n d t h e r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d . " 6 6 Instead, h e c o n c l u d e d , d e c i s i o n s w e r e often b a s e d o n p e r s o n a l k n o w l e d g e a n d intuition.  P e a r s e a l s o c o n c l u d e d that t h e c e n t r a l e c o n o m i c p r o b l e m of t h e f i s h e r i e s was  overcapacity  of t h e fleet, a p r o b l e m  fisheries w e r e traditionally organized:  h e l i n k e d to t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e  b e c a u s e the fisheries w e r e o p e n to large  The Commission, supra, note 34. He goes on to recommend two policy objectives: firstly, to ensure the resource and its habitat is protected and, where advantageous, enhanced; and secondly to maximize the benefits of the resource by ensuring that the resource is allocated to those who can make the most valuable use of them. Within the goal of economic development, he identified two supplementary goals: improvement offishers'incomes and development of economic opportunities for coastal communities and Indian people. See pp. 4-5. Ibid at p. 40. These problems are: (i) lack of knowledge as to the number of fish which will enter the fishery because the number cannot be accurately assessed until the fish are in the fishery or on the spawning grounds; (ii) inability to predict when the stock will enter afishery;(iii) lack of knowledge of how many vessels will participate in the fishery; and, (iv) weak information upon which to base escapement targets so that they become essentially guesses. Ibid at p. 42. 64  6S  66  35  numbers  of fishers, harvesting w a s b a s e d o n t h e "rule of capture".  because  the fish were  compete  with others for a share.  not assigned  through  property  rights,  users  In s u c h a s c e n a r i o , t e m p o r a r y  thought to stimulate fishers to expand  h a d to  profits a r e  their fishing capacity w h i c h ,  d e c r e a s e s net returns a n d threatens the s t o c k s 6 7 ; in other words, tragedy of the c o m m o n s problem.  That is,  in turn,  the classic  H e c o n c l u d e d that reforms u s u a l l y r e q u i r e d  benefitting o n e group over another a n d , a s a result, g o v e r n m e n t t e n d e d to b e reluctant to m a k e those reforms, w h i c h resulted in a "profound inertia."68  Pearse  determined  that t h e c o m m e r c i a l s e c t o r took a p p r o x i m a t e l y  93  p e r c e n t of t h e total s a l m o n h a r v e s t e d in t h e p r o v i n c e a n d t h e A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r y took approximately  2 percent of the total.69  problems  were  caused  fisheries.  In h i s w o r d s , c o a s t a l I n d i a n s  stronger  by the decrease  motivation,  greater  H e n o t e d that s e r i o u s in Aboriginal  economic  participation  in the  have:  skill  a n d more  experience  to  support their participation in c o m m e r c i a l fishing than they d o in  most  highly  other  fields . . . . the c o m m e r c i a l fisheries afford  promising  means  of  c o n s t r u c t i v e e c o n o m i c activity.  involving  coastal  Moreover,  Indians  it i s a n a c t i v i t y i n  w h i c h m a n y of t h e m c l a i m a n h i s t o r i c right t o p a r t i c i p a t e .  Tbidatpp. 75-76. ^Ibid at p. 6. This  a in  The  6  statement may be generally true when reforms are not in the interest of the commercial fishing industry. However, given the history of regulation of fishing in the province, it is not so clear that the government has been reluctant-at least historically—to introduce reforms which benefitted commercial interests over those of other groups. Indeed, quite the opposite appears to have occurred. Perhaps, therefore, the reason for any inertia which may currentiy exist is more accurately attributed to the fact that there appear to be no alternatives available which will not negatively affect commercial interests in some way. Ibidatp. 10.  69  36  fisheries,  then,  must  be regarded  as an obvious  p o l i c i e s a i m e d at Indian s o c i a l a n d e c o n o m i c  b a s e for  development.70  P e a r s e a l s o referred to A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h i n g a n d p o i n t e d o u t that t h e distinction drawn by m a n y non-Aboriginals between commercial a n d recreational f i s h i n g w a s not a p p r o p r i a t e in t h e A b o r i g i n a l context, g i v e n that traditionally f i s h p l a y e d a n important role not only a s food, but a l s o in trade, s o c i a l a n d cultural activities.  H e c o n c l u d e d that "Indian f i s h e r i e s p o l i c y c r i e s o u t f o r r e f o r m . " 7 1  He  s u g g e s t e d that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights s h o u l d b e clarified a n d s t r e n g t h e n e d , A b o r i g i n a l s permitted to participate in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t ,  and Aboriginals  g i v e n opportunities to t a k e better e c o n o m i c a d v a n t a g e of their rights to fish.  P e a r s e w a s involved in a further study of the f i s h e r i e s a d e c a d e T h e 1 9 9 2 f i s h i n g s e a s o n w a s rife w i t h p r o b l e m s a n d c o n t r o v e r s y .  later.  A n estimated  4 8 2 , 0 0 0 fewer s o c k e y e returned to the s p a w n i n g b e d s than h a d b e e n e x p e c t e d . T h e y e a r m a r k e d t h e first t i m e in o v e r a c e n t u r y that A b o r i g i n a l s w e r e to s e l l f i s h o n t h e l o w e r F r a s e r R i v e r a s a result of t h e P i l o t S a l e s The  situation  provoked  commercialization  near  riots  of t h e river f i s h e r y . " 7 2  and  "rekindled  Pearse  permitted  Arrangement.  controversy  over  and his colleague  in the  Ibidakp. 156. Ibid at p. 181. Pearse pointed to a number of problems, including Aboriginal discontent over the prohibition of sale, feelings of being left out in management decisions, and resulting enforcement problems due to bad relations between Aboriginal groups and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 178. 10  1l  72  37  investigation, P. Larkin, r e v i e w e d t h e situation in t h e fall of 1 9 9 2 in a n attempt to determine the c a u s e of the dramatic shortfall in n u m b e r s of f i s h . 7 3  P e a r s e n o t e d that s i n c e t h e 1 9 6 0 s there h a d b e e n a h e a l t h y growth in returns of s o c k e y e in the 1 9 9 2 cycle year b e c a u s e of regulations, fishways a n d enhancement works.74  However, the numbers expected for 1 9 9 2 d i d not e n d u p  in t h e s p a w n i n g g r o u n d s .  P e a r s e a n d L a r k i n c o n c l u d e d that t h e f i s h h a d b e e n in  trouble long before they r e a c h e d the Fraser River.  B y the time they h a d reached  the J u a n d e F u c a a n d J o h n s t o n e Straits, t h e e s t i m a t e d stock s i z e w a s only half of w h a t h a d b e e n e x p e c t e d .  Part of t h e r e a s o n for this shortfall w a s c o n s i d e r e d  to b e t h e f a i l u r e of t h e P a c i f i c S a l m o n C o m m i s s i o n t o a g r e e o n a d i v i s i o n o f t h e marine commercial catch between the United States a n d C a n a d a , thus resulting in a f i s h w a r . A s w e l l , t h e y c o n c l u d e d that t h e P S A h a d c r e a t e d a n " e n t i r e l y n e w environment for t h e Indian fishery a n d t h e Department's  managers."75  Pearse  s p e n t m u c h time in h i s report r e v i e w i n g t h e P S A a n d its effect o n t h e n u m b e r s of fish w h i c h ultimately r e a c h e d their s p a w n i n g g r o u n d s in 1 9 9 2 .  He concluded  that t h e A b o r i g i n a l c a t c h h a d e x c e e d e d e s t i m a t e s , but h e p l a c e d m o s t of t h e b l a m e o n t h e Department for hastily r e a c h i n g a g r e e m e n t s with t h e various First Nations  involved in the P S A while fishing w a s essentially already  underway,  P.H. Pearse, Managing Salmon in the Fraser. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the Fraser River Salmon Investigation (Vancouver: Department of Fisheries and Oceans, 1992). Sockeye salmon are on a four-year cycle. The 1992 cycle year historically produces the smallest runs of the four cycles on the Fraser. However, in 1992 record numbers were expected because of the stock rebuilding program. See ibid at pp. 4-6. Ibidatp. 8. 74  15  38  failing  to  disseminate  adequate  information  o b j e c t i v e s , a n d failing to a d e q u a t e l y e s c a p e m e n t targets.  or  communicate  clear  policy  e n s u r e c a t c h e s w e r e c o n t r o l l e d to  meet  P e a r s e c o n c l u d e d that the pilot s a l e projects s i g n a l e d a  major shift in p o l i c y a n d " t h r e a t e n e d d e e p l y e n t r e n c h e d i n t e r e s t s .  Change  is  often tentative, upsetting a n d fraught with m i s t a k e s . " 7 6  In P e a r s e ' s o p i n i o n , w h a t h a p p e n e d i n 1 9 9 2 w a s n o t a d i s a s t e r b e c a u s e , a l t h o u g h e s c a p e m e n t targets w e r e not met, the s e c o n d h i g h e s t n u m b e r of f i s h for  that  run  circumstances  in in  several 1993  decades have  reached  been  the  reported  to  spawning have  beds.77  improved  The although  monitoring and enforcement costs were h i g h . 7 8  In 1 9 9 4 , s i m i l a r c o n t r o v e r s i e s r e s u l t e d w h e n m o r e t h a n a m i l l i o n s o c k e y e e x p e c t e d to return to s p a w n i n g a r e a s in t h e F r a s e r n e v e r a r r i v e d . R i v e r S o c k e y e P u b l i c R e v i e w B o a r d w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in r e s p o n s e .  The  Fraser  The  Board  c o n c l u d e d that o v e r - r e l i a n c e o n q u a l i t y of h i s t o r i c i n - s e a s o n e s t i m a t e s a n d optimistic  attitude  management confusion  respect  decisions being  relating  enforcement.  with  It  to  the  stressed  to  the  made  AFS the  by  expected the  continued, need  for  run  size  Department resulting better  in  in a  resulted 1994. lack  communication  of  an  in  risky  As  well,  effective  within  the  " A M at p. 30. "ft/rfatp. 29. Gardner Pinfold, supra, note 58 at p. vi. Some $3.3 million was spent with $2.8 being spent in the lower Fraser where enforcement problems were the greatest. 78  39  Department a n d between t h e Department a n d First Nations, a s well a s with t h e c o m m e r c i a l a n d sport fishing sectors. involved in the m a n a g e m e n t  It c o n c l u d e d t h a t F i r s t N a t i o n s s h o u l d b e  of f i s h a n d g i v e n a g r e a t e r opportunity f o r input into  the decision-making p r o c e s s . 7 9  T h e D a v i d S u z u k i F o u n d a t i o n r e l e a s e d a report in 1 9 9 5 w h e r e i n Dr. C a r l Walters reviewed management current m a n a g e m e n t  of t h e P a c i f i c fisheries.  H e c o n c l u d e d that t h e  s y s t e m is working to s o m e extent, with t h e largest s o c k e y e  s a l m o n catch since 1 9 1 3 being caught in 1 9 9 3 . T h e steady increase in c a t c h e s over  recent  stocks,  years  as opposed  w a s attributed  to stock  rebuilding a n d protecting  to s a l m o n i d e n h a n c e m e n t  projects.80  However,  natural he also  c o n c l u d e d that t h e current fishery w a s not s u s t a i n a b l e in e c o l o g i c a l o r e c o n o m i c terms.  H e described the management system a s producing:  an  institutional  quagmire,  with  grossly  overcapitalised  bitterly c o m p e t i t i v e f i s h i n g fleets, a n a l l o c a t i o n s y s t e m  and  among  f i s h e r m e n that is d o m i n a t e d m o r e b y threat of civil d i s o b e d i e n c e than b y r e a s o n e d a n a l y s i s of w h e r e rights a n d privileges ought to lie, a n d a p u b l i c l y c o s t l y a n d b u r d e n s o m e a p p a r a t u s f o r b o t h biological m a n a g e m e n t a n d e c o n o m i c support of f i s h e r m e n . 8 1  W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e c e n t c h a n g e s m a d e u n d e r t h e A F S , a n initial r e v i e w of t h e P i l o t S a l e s A r r a n g e m e n t w a s u n d e r t a k e n w h i c h i n d i c a t e d that  employment  Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board (Canada), Fraser River Sockeye, 1994: Problems and Discrepancies. Report of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board (Ottawa: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1995). C . Walters, Fish on the Line. The Future of Pacific Fisheries. A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation Fisheries Project, Phase I (Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation, 1995) at p. 3. / W a t p p . 4-5. 79  8 0  81  40  levels a m o n g the First Nations involved in the p r o g r a m h a v e d o u b l e d a n d the i n c r e a s e d e c o n o m i c opportunities h a v e resulted in a n i n c r e a s e in s e l f - e s t e e m in communities involved.  T h e quality of the fish caught h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t  lower  t h a n o c e a n - c a u g h t f i s h d u e to location a n d timing but A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s h a v e not e x p e r i e n c e d difficulty in s e l l i n g their c a t c h e s .  A s w e l l , it w a s f o u n d t h a t t h e P S A  h a s l e d to i m p r o v e m e n t s in f i s h e r y m a n a g e m e n t t h r o u g h g r e a t e r c o n t r o l of effort and  availability of m o r e  reliable catch data.  However,  high monitoring  and  enforcement c o s t s h a v e b e e n incurred in the p r o g r a m . 8 2  T o date,  n o c o m p r e h e n s i v e review of the c o - m a n a g e m e n t a s p e c t s of the  Aboriginal Fishing Strategy h a s b e e n completed by the Department.83  However,  the B . C . A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n p r e s e n t e d a r e v i e w of t h e A F S to t h e D e p a r t m e n t i n 1996.**  T h e C o m m i s s i o n c o n c l u d e d that t h e D e p a r t m e n t h a d not  implemented Aboriginal  priority to f i s h o v e r t h e c o m m e r c i a l a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l  f i s h e r i e s , a l t h o u g h positive s t e p s h a d b e e n t a k e n to e n h a n c e t h e i n v o l v e m e n t of A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e in f i s h e r y m a n a g e m e n t Nations  considered the A F S  activities.  years."85  In t h e f o u r  that m a n y  to "be o n e of the most effective a n d  p r o g r a m s to h a v e g u i d e d t h e f e d e r a l d e p a r t m e n t many  It f o u n d  communities  First  innovative  of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s for  in w h i c h  the P S A  was  operating,  See Gardner Pinfold, supra, note 58 at pp. 53-54. I have been advised, however, that the Department is currently in the process of drafting a report reviewing the AFS It is expected to be released some time in 1996. The B C Aboriginal Fisheries Commission, First Nations Review of the Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (1996) [unpublished]. ss 83  84  lbid3tp. 3.  41  unemployment,  which  averaged  around  eliminated during the two-month was  r e p o r t e d to h a v e  70  percent  pilot s a l e s f i s h e r i e s .  benefitted from  improved  normally,  was  A s well, the  catch data,  virtually  Department  better  and  less  e x p e n s i v e m o n i t o r i n g a n d e n f o r c e m e n t , a n d c o m m u n i t y i n v o l v e m e n t in f i s h e r i e s management.  H o w e v e r , the C o m m i s s i o n did cite various p r o b l e m s with the  program.  F o r i n s t a n c e , it f o u n d t h a t r e s o u r c e c o n s e r v a t i o n , s t o c k a s s e s s m e n t , a n d h a b i t a t and  fish  production  were  underfunded.  activities w a s a l s o f o u n d to b e insufficient. PSA  Training  in  fishery  management  It r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t t h e A F S  and  b e e x p a n d e d to a l l F i r s t N a t i o n s , w i t h a g r e e m e n t s b e i n g n e g o t i a t e d at t h e  c o m m u n i t y l e v e l s o that d i f f e r e n c e s a m o n g c o m m u n i t i e s c a n b e r e c o g n i z e d a n d i n c o r p o r a t e d into p o l i c i e s , a n d l o c a l a n d r e g i o n a l c o n c e r n s c a n b e b a l a n c e d with national ones.  Of particular i m p o r t a n c e w a s the n e e d to i n v o l v e c o m m u n i t i e s o n  the u p p e r F r a s e r R i v e r in the P S A  s o that all First N a t i o n s o n the F r a s e r  are  g i v e n e q u a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; o t h e r w i s e , it s t a t e d , t h e s e c o m m u n i t i e s w i l l " c o n t i n u e to b e at o d d s w i t h o n e a n o t h e r . " 8 6  A majority of First N a t i o n s c o n t r i b u t i n g to t h e  C o m m i s s i o n ' s report b e l i e v e d that the o n l y w a y to protect A b o r i g i n a l i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e f i s h e r y is to c r e a t e c o m m u n a l  commercial licences  i n s t e a d of  merely  attempting to integrate A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g with the c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s . Commission  identified the  key  e l e m e n t s of a n effective A b o r i g i n a l  P o l i c y a s i n c l u d i n g a c c e s s to f i s h e r i e s ; integration into f i s h e r y  Ibidatp. 7.  86  The  Fisheries  management,  42  training a n d employment  opportunities;  habitat a n d environmental  monitoring;  transparent a c c e s s to information; a n d e c o n o m i c development.  T h e r e a r e clearly problems with the current m a n a g e m e n t r o l e w h i c h A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s p l a y w i t h i n it. declining,  but the status  increasingly controversial.  of Aboriginal  system a n dthe  Not only d o stocks a p p e a r to b e  fishing  rights  remains  unclear a n d  In a n a t t e m p t t o b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d t h e s e  problems,  the u n d e r l y i n g i d e o l o g i e s of t h e current s y s t e m will b e r e v i e w e d a n d c o n s i d e r e d .  D. Ideologies and Myths in Fisheries Regulations  The  regulatory  system which has been  designed for the fisheries is,  p r e s u m a b l y , d e s i g n e d to reflect normative principles of g o v e r n a n c e . democratic ideology which  cannot  T h e liberal  h o l d s that all individuals h a v e certain i n a l i e n a b l e rights  be violated  by legislatures or courts.  A s well,  there  is a n  u n d e r l y i n g belief in fair treatment of all individuals a n d g r o u p s a n d a belief that the p r e f e r e n c e s a n d priorities of all individuals affected will h a v e e q u a l merit in governmental decisions.87 G.B. Doern describes the basic premises behind the C a n a d i a n regulatory s c h e m e a s follows:  T h e b a s i c c o n c e p t of liberalism a n d pluralism s a w C a n a d i a n political  life a s b e i n g  individual freedom 87  characterized  a n d market  Dorcey, supra, note 29 at pp. 73-74.  by a  high  activity within  degree  of  a system  of  43  democratically  elected  government.  It  also  portrayed  a  benevolent competition a m o n g interest g r o u p s , with the state a s i n d e p e n d e n t r e f e r e e r e m o v i n g t h e e x c e s s e s of t h e m a r k e t  T h e i d e o l o g y of l i b e r a l i s m a n d , in particular, that of equality, e m e r g e s in g o v e r n m e n t p o l i c i e s a n d p u b l i c r e a c t i o n t o A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g i s s u e s . H o w e v e r , it a p p e a r s that t h e u s e of this i d e o l o g y is often u s e d to m a s k reality:  governmental  d e c i s i o n s with r e s p e c t to the f i s h e r i e s h a v e often b e e n m a d e without t h e true input  of A b o r i g i n a l  preferences common deal.  groups  a n d priorities,  property  a n d that,  Governments  m e d i a t o r s , 8 9 but that  a n d without a n d with  giving  equal  an assumption  weight that  hence, there a r e no property  may  promote  the  i s rarely—if e v e r - t h e  to  Aboriginals'  the fisheries are  rights with w h i c h to  image  of  themselves  case.  A s Sally W e a v e r  as  merely  states in  relation to Aboriginal i s s u e s generally:  P o l i c y - m a k i n g is not a pragmatic e x e r c i s e d e v o i d of principles a n d b e l i e f s , but a p r o c e s s in w h i c h v a l u e s that will government policy  actions are selected a n d rationalized.  in C a n a d a  is m a d e  by individuals w h o hold  guide Indian strong  feelings about whether or not native groups s h o u l d b e treated differently from other C a n a d i a n s . 9 0  G.B. Doern, "Introduction: The Regulatory Process in Canada" in G.B. Doern, ed., The Regulatory Process in Canada (Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada, 1978) 1 at pp. 3-4. Interestingly, Doern also refers to the myth that private enterprise opposes state regulation. Instead, he states, many actively seek such regulation. See p. 5. Although this premise will not be reviewed here in the fisheries context, it appears plausible that commercial interests would be in favour of government regulation of fishing, particularly when that regulation results in the participation of other user groups in the industry being marginalized. D . Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 5. Newell's description essentially mirrors the "government as referee" image described by G.B. Doern in note 84 above. S. Weaver, "Federal Difficulties with Aboriginal Rights Demands" in M . Boldt and J.A. Long, eds., The Quest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1985) 139 at pp. 141-142. 88  89  90  44  It h a s a l s o b e e n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r t e n d t o h a v e a great d e a l of d i s c r e t i o n to d e c i d e w h i c h v a l u e s will b e m a x i m i z e d ,  how open  the p r o c e s s will b e , w h o will b e c o n t a c t e d a n d w h e n . 9 1  We  c a n s e e the u s e of liberal  government  policy.  The  Fisheries  notions  Act  of equality  and  its  regulations  c h a r a c t e r i z e d Aboriginal fishers a s a n interest group w h o s e a d d r e s s e d o n the s a m e legal b a s i s a s other users.  in legislation a n d historically  needs should be  T h e c l a i m s to traditional  rights must c o m p e t e with t h e interests of other u s e r s , but  "[a]lways,  Indians  w e r e e x p e c t e d to cooperate with the e s t a b l i s h e d industrial p r o c e s s i n g sector, usually in the n a m e of conservation."92  T h e Davis Plan w a s "predicated o n the  a s s u m p t i o n that all g r o u p s of u s e r s h a d t h e s a m e c l a i m o n t h e f i s h . " 9 3 a s d i s c u s s e d earlier in this chapter,  However,  t h e effect of t h e P l a n w a s a n y t h i n g but  equal, with e v e n larger d i s c r e p a n c i e s a m o n g a n d within user groups resulting.  When  the Department  introduced  the A F S ,  it d e s c r i b e d  it a s  being  d e s i g n e d to meet t h e c h a l l e n g e to "protect a n d c o n s e r v e f i s h r e s o u r c e s w h i l e e n s u r i n g fair a n d equitable treatment AFS  a s forming  Aboriginal  91  people  for all stakeholders."94  the basis for a "new 'social  contract'  a n d non-Native fishing groups  It d e s c r i b e d t h e  among  .... [aimed  at]  government, increasing]  Doern, supra, note 88 at pp. 19-20.  92  Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 212.  Ibidatp. 208.  93  Department of Fisheries and Oceans, News Release B-HQ-92-25, "Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. The Content" (June 1992).  94  45  economic  opportunities  in  Canadian  fisheries  for Aboriginal  people  while  a c h i e v i n g predictability, stability a n d e n h a n c e d profitability for all p a r t i c i p a n t s . " 9 5  It i s n o t o n l y  government which  uses  liberal  equality; they a r e a l s o u s e d b y interest groups. the  early  1990s,  they  notions  of f a i r n e s s a n d  W h e n the A F S a n d P S A were  introduced  in  engendered  processors.  T h e F i s h e r m e n ' s Direct A c t i o n Committee threatened to boycott fish  plants which accepted the Aboriginal catch.  wide  Non-Aboriginal  protest  from  the  commercial fishing  g r o u p s c o m p l a i n e d that t h e Department w a s favouring A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s a n d that t h e latter w e r e b e i n g g i v e n s p e c i a l a c c e s s to t h e r e s o u r c e a n d that a l l o w i n g A b o r i g i n a l s to sell f i s h c a u g h t for traditional p u r p o s e s "distorts t h e market creating unfair competition."96  Thus, non-Aboriginal groups u s e  of  opposition  equality  to  support  their  to  programs  by  liberal notions  designed  to  increase  A b o r i g i n a l participation in the fisheries despite the historical e v i d e n c e that past regulations h a v e not resulted in equality of opportunity  for Aboriginal fishers.  T h e s a m e t y p e of d i s c o u r s e is b e i n g u s e d b y t h o s e d e f e n d i n g a s w e l l a s t h o s e opposing such programs.  A s well, conservation is usually touted by the government a s the rationale for regulation of t h e fishery.  However, the actual strategies for  management  Department of Fisheries and Oceans, News Release B-HQ-92-24, "Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy. The Program" (June 1992). J . Allain and J. Frechette, The Aboriginal Fisheries and the Sparrow Decision (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1994) at p. 19. 95  96  46  involve political, social a n d e c o n o m i c d e c i s i o n s a n d "the c h o i c e s a r e often not about  per se."  conservation  97  varieties a n d s p e c i e s of fish, organizations  Over the years regions, gear,  in British C o l u m b i a ,  processing methods,  different  a n d labour  h a v e b e c o m e a s s o c i a t e d with different racial a n d ethnic  groups.  T h u s , regulations w h i c h favour o n e type of fish, or location, o r g e a r type benefit s o m e groups at the e x p e n s e of others.  The  effect of  the Department's u s e of conservation  a s the rationale  b e h i n d its f i s h i n g p o l i c i e s c a n b e s e e n i n its r e s p o n s e t o t h e P e a r s e report.  It  c l a i m e d t h a t a l t h o u g h it r e c o g n i z e d t h a t A b o r i g i n a l s h a d p r i o r i t y t o t h e f i s h o n c e c o n s e r v a t i o n w a s m e t , it c o u l d n o t e n s u r e a p p r o p r i a t e e s c a p e m e n t  levels were  m e t u n l e s s it c u r t a i l e d A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r i e s b e c a u s e t h e y w e r e a t t h e e n d o f t h e harvesting chain.  In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e D e p a r t m e n t p o r t r a y e d  Aboriginal fishing a s diametrically o p p o s e d concepts: The  conservation a n d  the two cannot  location of Aboriginal traditional fisheries h a s b e c o m e a major  to e f f e c t i v e r e c o g n i t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l rights t o f i s h .  co-exist.  impediment  It i s r e a l l y o n l y w h e n t h e f i s h  a r e in t h e rivers that their true n u m b e r s c a n b e tallied a n d t h e effect of o c e a n f i s h i n g o n s t o c k l e v e l s truly a s s e s s e d .  O f t e n , it i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e n u m b e r s  are at s u c h levels that A b o r i g i n a l fishing c a n n o t  b e permitted without  h a v i n g insufficient n u m b e r s of fish r e a c h t h e s p a w n i n g g r o u n d s .  risking  A s a result,  a l t h o u g h A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s a r e g i v e n priority in theory, in reality, t h e y a r e u s u a l l y the g r o u p w h i c h must b e a r t h e c o s t of c o n s e r v a t i o n .  97  Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 7.  T h e party w h i c h ultimately  47  e n j o y s t h e benefits of s u c h c o n s e r v a t i o n efforts a r e t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s w h o will g e t t h e first opportunity to c a p t u r e t h e f i s h .  Of c o u r s e , instead of prohibiting Aboriginal fishing, the D e p a r t m e n t c o u l d still a c h i e v e i t s c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s b y s i g n i f i c a n t l y c u r t a i l i n g m a r i n e c o m m e r c i a l fishing.  H o w e v e r , it h a s h i s t o r i c a l l y c h o s e n n o t t o . T h e r e a r e m a n y v a l i d s o c i a l ,  e c o n o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s w h y it h a s c h o s e n n o t t o , b u t it i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e that c h o i c e s a r e m a d e a n d often t h o s e c h o i c e s h a v e n o t h i n g to d o with conservation.  I n d e e d , o n e c o u l d a r g u e that c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s c o u l d  b e b e s t a c h i e v e d if a l l o c e a n f i s h i n g w a s p r o h i b i t e d a n d o n l y f i s h i n g i n t h e r i v e r s w a s permitted, w h e r e numbers c a n b e accurately counted a n d runs effectively targeted.98  Aboriginal m a n a g e m e n t w a s also historically not permitted o n the g r o u n d s of c o n s e r v a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s a n d i s o n l y b e g i n n i n g to b e a c k n o w l e d g e d to s o m e extent through the A F S c o - m a n a g e m e n t discounted  o n t h e b a s i s that  scientific expertise  plans.  the Aboriginal  of t h e D e p a r t m e n t  Often, local management communities  a n d , therefore,  c o n s e r v e t h e f i s h a n d "[i]t i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t f o r g o v e r n m e n t  d i d not have  could  not  was the  adequately  to b e l i e v e that  there  Not everyone agrees with that proposition. For instance, it is Walter's opinion that restricting fishing to rivers only would be "ecologically disastrous" because the Department is not capable of adequately administering the larger number of fisheries which would result, problems of interception of non-targets species would actually increase, and crucial information from offshore fishing required for in season adaptive regulation would be lost. See supra, note 80 at p. 43. It is beyond the scope of this thesis to attempt to analyze the benefits of marine versus in-river fishing.  98  48  may be viable management  m e t h o d s other t h a n a particular h i e r a r c h i c a l form of  standardized p r o c e d u r e s a n d u s e of expertise."99  However, a s discussed above,  P e a r s e c o n c l u d e d that m a n a g e r s within t h e D e p a r t m e n t , f o r a l l their s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, decisions.  often  end up  using  their  experience  a n d intuition  in  making  T h i s is not to s u g g e s t that s c i e n c e d o e s not h a v e a n y t h i n g to offer to  fisheries management; not a l l that is u s e d .  however,  it i s i m p o r t a n t t o a c k n o w l e d g e t h a t s c i e n c e i s  A s well, s c i e n c e is "contaminated with v a l u e  judgments"100;  scientists a r e not completely objective, n o r c a n they b e e x p e c t e d to b e . result, a s s u m p t i o n s underlying information brought challenged.101  Given  As a  into t h e p r o c e s s s h o u l d b e  that A b o r i g i n a l s f i s h e d in t h e w a t e r s for t h o u s a n d s  of  y e a r s , their e x p e r i e n c e a n d intuition is e q u a l l y , a n d p r o b a b l y m o r e v a l u a b l e , t h a n t h o s e of t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s m a n a g e r s a n d their v o i c e s s h o u l d not b e e x c l u d e d o n the b a s i s that they a l l e g e d l y lack a scientific b a s i s a n d therefore c a n n o t a c h i e v e conservation objectives.102 Aboriginal  experience  Of course,  and knowledge  it c a n n o t  be assumed  h a s not b e e n  marginalization a n d exclusion from fisheries management. not  be assumed  that  Department  employees  do  that  affected  traditional  by  years  of  H o w e v e r , it c a n a l s o  indeed  have  tremendous  E . Pinkerton, "Introduction: Attaining Better Fisheries Management Through Co-Management— Prospects, Problems, and Propositions" in Pinkerton, ed., supra, note 25, 3 at p. 17. Dorcey, supra, note 29 at p. 97. Ibid at p. 109. Although Dorcey made this suggestion in the context of bargaining, it is equally applicable to the process of management decision-making as well. In addition to their traditional knowledge, many First Nations have been attempting to increase their technical and scientific knowledge base by hiring fisheries biologists and other scientists. This trend is understandable given that it is often a "war of knowledge" infisheriesmanagement, with the Department claiming to have more scientific knowledge than others and, therefore, more credentials to manage the resource. The increased scientific knowledge of Aboriginal communities can also assist them in their management strategies. 9 9  100  m  102  49  expertise.  Many  departments.  employees  Thus,  the  are  young  experience  e x p e r t s a m o u n t s to o n l y a f e w y e a r s .  of  and  many  move of the  in all parts  of  the  to  other  fields  Department's  or  so-called  This situation may w o r s e n with the current  d o w n s i z i n g of t h e D e p a r t m e n t w h i c h is t a k i n g p l a c e . thin  on  fisheries management  It m a y b e t h a t e x p e r t i s e i s  system,  Aboriginal  and  non-  Aboriginal alike.  A s well, the Department h a s always presented the fisheries a s a resource which  requires  central  management.  As  a  result,  a  macro-economics  p e r s p e c t i v e is inherent in the regulatory a p p r o a c h w h i c h p r e j u d i c e s the Aboriginal fishery-based economies which are locally and regionally The  B C Aboriginal  many  based.103  F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n identified the n e e d to b a l a n c e  a n d r e g i o n a l n e e d s w i t h n a t i o n a l o n e s i n its r e p o r t t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t .  local  It i s n o t  c l e a r that this is currently b e i n g d o n e .  Conservation  concerns  are  also  used  by  the  interests  oppose  i n c r e a s e d A b o r i g i n a l participation in the f i s h e r i e s .  United  Fishermen  programs,  and  Allied  Workers'  Union  opposed  c l a i m i n g that the A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s w o u l d  groups  For the  which  instance,  AFS  and  not a b i d e by the  PSA quota,  w o u l d continue black market s a l e s a n d ultimately destroy the r e s o u r c e a n d industry.104  The  stereotype  Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 214.  W a t p. 178.  of  "Indian  as  destroyer  of  natural  the  the  resources"  50  surfaced yet again.  This stereotype w a s unfortunately  reinforced by the events  of t h e 1 9 9 2 f i s h i n g s e a s o n .  T h e regulatory system a n d underlying ideologies h a v e clearly h a d effects on the resource.  A s w a s discussed above,  o n e of the major  problems  with  c u r r e n t f i s h i n g s t r a t e g y i s t h a t w h e n m o s t o f t h e f i s h a r e c a u g h t i n t h e o c e a n , it i s i m p o s s i b l e t o truly a s s e s s t h e i m p a c t of f i s h i n g o n s t o c k s until t h e y r e a c h t h e r i v e r s a n d o f t e n it i s t o o l a t e a t t h a t p o i n t t o c o r r e c t f o r a n y s i g n i f i c a n t fishing.  over-  A s w e l l , it i s i m p o s s i b l e t o s e p a r a t e w e a k a n d s t r o n g s t o c k s w h e n t h e y  are in the o c e a n .  A s a result, oftentimes w e a k s t o c k s a r e o v e r f i s h e d a n d e v e n  completely depleted in the m a d rush to get a s m a n y fish a s p o s s i b l e . 1 0 5 T h e fact t h a t t h i s p r o b l e m c o u l d a r g u a b l y b e a v o i d e d if o n l y i n - r i v e r f i s h i n g w a s a l l o w e d indicates that p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e fish is clearly only o n e g o a l of t h e regulatory process.  Despite  c l a i m s of t h e D e p a r t m e n t to t h e contrary,  the policies a n d  r e g u l a t i o n s a p p e a r t o b e a i m e d m o r e at r e g u l a t i n g t h e i n d u s t r y itself, r a t h e r t h a n protecting the f i s h . 1 0 6  T h e g o v e r n m e n t a p p e a r s a l s o to p e r c e i v e itself a s h a v i n g  a n o b l i g a t i o n to i n d i v i d u a l s a n d c o m m u n i t i e s w h i c h currently live off t h e p r e s e n t commercial fishery.  A n y dramatic shifts in policy a r e p e r c e i v e d to threaten t h e  These problems are referred to in more detail by J.A. Crutchfield, "The Fishery: Maximization" in D.V. Ellis, ed., Pacific Salmon Management for People (Victoria: Victoria, 1977) at pp. 9-11. Newell, supra, note 6 at p. 210. 105  106  Economic University of  51  economic base  of s o m e  isolated coastal communities.  As  Peter  Pearse  d e s c r i b e d it:  Working  with  insufficient  knowledge  population dynamics, under heavy  of  stock  pressure from  sizes  and  competing  g r o u p s of f i s h e r m e n , a n d with i n a d e q u a t e control o v e r f i s h i n g activity, m a n a g e m e n t  h a s in m a n y r e s p e c t s b e e n r e d u c e d to  a s e r i e s of d e s p e r a t e attempts to m e e t t h e d e m a n d s of v o c a l u s e r g r o u p s , without visibly destroying the r e s o u r c e . 1 0 8  A n o t h e r ideology w h i c h is u s e d in the fisheries d e b a t e  is that f i s h a r e  c o m m o n property a n d cannot, therefore, b e a s s i g n e d to o n e group.  H o w e v e r , it  i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r t h a t it i s a c c u r a t e t o c o n c e i v e o f f i s h a s c o m m o n p r o p e r t y . Patricia Marchak  argues,  t h e result of d e s i g n a t i n g f i s h a s c o m m o n  a p p e a r s to h a v e  b e e n to bury  property  i s s u e s rather than to illuminate t h e m . 1 0 9  s u g g e s t s that f i s h a r e better c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s state o r C r o w n  property  there a r e n o true rights of n o n - e x c l u s i o n a s is t h e c a s e with c o m m o n  As  She since  property.110  This reaction occurred in relation to the recent "Mifflin Plan". See, for instance, Pynn and Simpson, supra, note 60. The Commission, supra, note 34 at p. 37. "Uncommon Property," in P. Marchak, N. Guppy and J. McMullan, eds., Uncommon Property. The 107  108 109  Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British Columbia (Toronto: Methuen, 1987) 3 at p. 3.  It is not clear that complete rights of non-exclusion are a true requirement of common property. In their article, J.C. Juergensmeyer and J.B. Wadley review the historical evolution of the concept of common property and point out that common lands were not necessarily shared equally. In its earliest usage, the concept did mean that certain land was set aside for communal rather than private individual ownership and everyone was equally entitled to use and enjoy it. However, rights of common were distinct and consisted of privileges of use granted by the use and enjoyment of undivided common land under the customs of the neighbourhood or from use and enjoyment granted by lords to tenants. The rights of common idea was ultimately incorporated into the notion of common lands and resulted in the possibility that some members of a given village could be legitimately excluded from the use and enjoyment of the lands. In other words, just because it was common lands did not mean that everyone enjoyed complete rights of common to use that land. See "The Common Lands Concept: A 'Commons' Solution to A Common Environmental Problem" (1974) 14 Nat'l Res. J. 361. In any event, it could be argued that the lack of rights of non-exclusion in thefisherieshas resulted from government regulation of thefisheriesin an attempt to avoid a tragedy of the commons. In other words, the lack of rights of nonexclusion could be seen as a result of the common property nature of the resource, rather than as evidence 110  52 The  state restricts a n d  a l l o c a t e s a c c e s s rights to f i s h a n d  m a n a g e m e n t authority w h i c h affects u s e r s in d i v e r s e w a y s . the tragedy  is not of  the c o m m o n s ,  but rather of m i s m a n a g e d  not d u e to t h e " a s s u m e d e v i l s of c o m m o n  the  ideology  accept  of  state  extensive  Under her analysis,  s i n c e s h e v i e w s o v e r f i s h i n g a s the result of h o w m a n a g e m e n t  Nonetheless,  retains  state  property  is c a r r i e d out,  and  property."111  common  property  management  to  can  avoid  a  play  a  role  motivating  f i s h e r s to  tragedy  of  commons.  H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e f i s h e r s p r o f e s s to b e l i e v e in t h i s i d e o l o g y ,  in the  "when  the state abruptly a s s u m e s rights of o w n e r s h i p , a s in attempting to r e a l l o c a t e the resource, fishers mount opposition. so  frequently,  implications."112  it  takes  on  Because  a the  life  S i n c e the ideology h a s b e e n publicly stated of  its  resource  own has  and been  begins  to  presented  have as  legal  common  p r o p e r t y , f i s h e r s w h o a r e l i c e n s e d i n t h e s y s t e m c l a i m a r i g h t t o u s e it t o t h e i r own advantage,  a n d they g u a r d that p e r c e i v e d right j e a l o u s l y .  T h i s is i n d e e d  w h a t a p p e a r s to b e h a p p e n i n g in r e s p o n s e to i n c r e a s e d r e c o g n i t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l rights to f i s h a n d w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t in r e s p o n s e to t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of t h e AFS  and PSA.113  It c a n a l s o b e s e e n i n t h e r e c e n t r e s p o n s e t o t h e  attempt to r e d u c e fleet s i z e t h r o u g h a l i c e n c e b u y - b a c k p r o g r a m .  Department's It i s l i k e l y t h a t  that it is not common property. No definitive conclusions will be made in this thesis with respect to this issue. However, it should be noted that it is certainly not clear that they are indeed common property. Marchak, supra, note 109 at p. 10. »i«/atp. 29. This response has also been seen more recently in response to the fisheries provisions in the Nisga'a Agreement in Principle, which will be reviewed in Chapter Four. ul  1,2 n3  53  the resistance stems not as a consequence of the portrayal of fish as common property, but rather from the fact that these regulatory changes threaten vested interests in the industry. However, those who feel threatened often use common property ideology to oppose the changes. Thus, the notion of fish as common property becomes, along with the ideology of equality, a way to justify opposition to an Aboriginal fishery.  It has also been argued that the assumptions underlying notions of common property result in an under-estimation of the ability of people to cooperate and a failure to recognize the social nature of property institutions and that property rights are embedded in historically specific social contexts. It also reduces environmental problems to property rights instead of linking them to socio-economic systems and tends to polarize local communities and governments.  114  Polarization is certainly evident not only between First Nations  and non-Aboriginal commercial and recreational fishers, but among and within First Nations as well, particularly along the Fraser River where some First Nations are involved in the PSA and others are not. However, it is not clear that it is the conceptualization of the fish as common property which is the cause of this polarization. The conflicts are probably better characterized as being over wealth, rather than about defending a common property concept of the fish.  These points are taken from McCay and Acheson, "Human Ecology of the Commons" in McCay and Acheson, eds., supra, note 63, 1 at pp. 7-11. 1I4  54  Common  property  i d e o l o g y is u s e d to attempt to protect that w e a l t h in c e r t a i n  c i r c u m s t a n c e s , but d o e s not a p p e a r to b e t h e c a u s e of t h e conflict.  W h a t s h o u l d a l s o b e r e c a l l e d is that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s d i d not a p p e a r to have open a c c e s s problems before contact b e c a u s e custom delineated a c c e s s rights, a l l o c a t i o n a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n of b e n e f i t s ; i n s t e a d of b e i n g a c o m m o n s ,  the  fisheries were  regulated  the  fisheries were  not t r e a t e d a s c o m m o n  a p p e a r s to h a v e r e s u l t e d . fisheries a s Pinkerton around  by  "territorial u s e  M.  Weinstein found  the world, the tragedy  universal truth.116  property,  no tragedy  Since  of t h e  commons  It i s , t h e r e f o r e , c l e a r l y i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o c o n c e i v e o f t h e  being characterized only  and  rights in f i s h e r i e s " . 1 1 5  in terms  of c o m m o n  in their r e v i e w  of the c o m m o n s  property.  As  of s e v e r a l f i s h e r i e s  model  does  not  E.  from  represent  V i e w i n g t h e r e s o u r c e in o n l y that light a l s o p r e c l u d e s  a the  r e c o g n i t i o n a n d u t i l i z a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s b e y o n d i n c r e a s e d government will  be  regulation or privatization.  reviewed  and  analyzed  in  S o m e of t h e s e alternative  Chapter  Four.  However,  approaches  before  these  a p p r o a c h e s a r e c o n s i d e r e d , the j u r i s p r u d e n c e relating to A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g will be summarized and discussed.  Rettig, et. al., supra, note 25 at p. 276. E . Pinkerton and M . Weinstein, Fisheries That Work. Sustainability Through Community-Based Management. A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver: The David Suzuki Foundation, 1995) at p. 177. ,15  1 1 6  55  CHAPTER THREE  SCALES OF JUSTICE: THE CASE LAW  Both the law a n d the d i s c o u r s e dealing with Aboriginal fishing rights h a v e b e e n p r o f o u n d l y a f f e c t e d b y t h e e n t r e n c h m e n t of A b o r i g i n a l a n d T r e a t y r i g h t s in t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a n d t h e 1 9 9 0 d e c i s i o n o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a i n R. v.  Sparrow.  117  I n d e e d , it h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  a m e n d m e n t s , "the p r e - 1 9 8 2 f r a m e w o r k for hunting a n d f i s h i n g rights is g o n e . " 1 1 8 A s a r e s u l t , o n l y a b r i e f s u m m a r y o f a f e w pre-Constitution Act,  1982 d e c i s i o n s  w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d , w i t h t h e f o c u s o f t h i s c h a p t e r b e i n g o n t h e Sparrow d e c i s i o n and subsequent caselaw.  A. Pre-Constitution Act. 1982  T h e r e a r e a m y r i a d of c a s e s in C a n a d a  dealing with both  h u n t i n g a n d f i s h i n g i s s u e s , d a t i n g b a c k to C o n f e d e r a t i o n .  Aboriginal  A s w a s n o t e d in the  introductory c h a p t e r , A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights in C a n a d a h a v e h i s t o r i c a l l y b e e n  Supra, note 56. D . Sanders, "Pre-Existing Rights: The Aboriginal Peoples of Canada" in G.A. Beaudoin and E . Mendes, eds., The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 1996), 17-1 at p. 17-27. U 1  118  56  interpreted a s stemming from various sources, including treaties a n d Aboriginal rights.  In s o m e p a r t s o f C a n a d a , t h e R o y a l P r o c l a m a t i o n o f 1 7 6 3 h a s a l s o b e e n  f o u n d to affect A b o r i g i n a l hunting a n d fishing r i g h t s . 1 1 9 the Natural R e s o u r c e s A g r e e m e n t s  In t h e p r a i r i e p r o v i n c e s ,  provided f o r f o o d fishing rights.  Thus,  different r e g i m e s relating to A b o r i g i n a l fishing a n d hunting rights in C a n a d a recognized b y the judiciary:  four were  a r e a s covered b y the R o y a l Proclamation of 1 7 6 3 ,  the provinces subject to the Natural R e s o u r c e s A g r e e m e n t s , treaties, a n d non-treaty areas.  regions covered by  M a n y of the c a s e s involved treaty rights a n d , a s  a result, t h e d e c i s i o n s often dealt with i s s u e s w h i c h w e r e largely irrelevant in most of British C o l u m b i a . in t h e s e  cases which,  entrenchment  However, s o m e important p r e m i s e s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d although  currently  of limited application d u e to t h e  of A b o r i g i n a l rights i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , h e l p s h e d s o m e light o n  the historical evolution of Aboriginal fishing rights jurisprudence.  T h e starting point for a great d e a l of C a n a d i a n Aboriginal law during m u c h o f t h i s c e n t u r y w a s t h e c a s e o f St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co. v . The Queen.  120  In t h a t c a s e , t h e P r i v y C o u n c i l d e a l t w i t h A b o r i g i n a l title.  peoples were  found  to h a v e  some  rights  in their  Aboriginal  lands a s a result of t h e  provisions of the R o y a l Proclamation of 1 7 6 3 ; t h e P r o c l a m a t i o n w a s  interpreted  There is some uncertainty as to whether the Royal Proclamation of 1763 applies to British Columbia. In Colder x. British Columbia (A.G.) (1973), 34 D.L.R. (3d) 145 (S.C.C.), the court was split 3-3 on this issue. However, as we shall see below, given the findings in the Calder case, this issue is essentially moot. (1889), 14 A.C. 46 (J.C.P.C.). 119  120  57  a s a grant,  u n d e r w h i c h t h e state g a v e rights to I n d i a n s . 1 2 1  rights w e r e  described  a s "personal  goodwill of the Sovereign".  a n d usufructuary,  However,  dependent  these  upon  the  T h e y w e r e not s e e n a s constituting full f e e s i m p l e  title.  A b o r i g i n a l hunting a n d fishing rights w e r e c o n s i d e r e d b y the Privy C o u n c i l i n 1 9 0 3 i n Ontario considered  the  Mining  Robinson  Co. v . Seybold.™ Treaty  which  In t h a t c a s e , t h e P r i v y  2  contained  provisions  A b o r i g i n a l s t h e right to c o n t i n u e to hunt a n d f i s h t h r o u g h o u t territory.  Council  guaranteeing  their  surrendered  T h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e P r o v i n c e o f O n t a r i o h e l d title t o l a n d s u b j e c t t o  t h e b u r d e n of t h e A b o r i g i n a l u s u f r u c t u a r y title.  U p o n e x t i n g u i s h m e n t of that title,  the p r o v i n c e a c q u i r e d full b e n e f i c i a l interest s u b j e c t o n l y to s u c h p r i v i l e g e s of hunting a n d f i s h i n g a s w e r e r e s e r v e d in t h e treaty.  Although hunting a n d fishing  rights w e r e not directly at i s s u e in t h e c a s e , this ruling s u g g e s t e d that and  fishing rights w e r e  territorial however,  incident later  severable  interests c a p a b l e of surviving  of a n o t h e r w i s e  determined  that  extinguished  these  rights  aboriginal were  as a "non-  title."123  enforceable  hunting  It w a s , in  limited  c i r c u m s t a n c e s only.  Sanders, supra, note 118 at pp. 17-3 to 17-4. Sanders describes this characterization of Aboriginal rights as an example of legal positivism. [1903] A.C. 73 (J.C.P.C.). P . G. McHugh, "Maori Fishing Rights and the North American Indian" (1985) 6 Otago L. Rev. 62 at p. 68. 1 2 1  122  123  58  In a l i n e o f c a s e s b e g i n n i n g w i t h t h e r i d i c u l e d R. v . Sikyea  , the Supreme  C o u r t of C a n a d a r u l e d that w h e r e there w a s a conflict b e t w e e n g e n e r a l f e d e r a l legislation  a n d treaty  rights to fish,  hunt  or trap,  the legislation  prevailed  r e g a r d l e s s of w h e t h e r there w a s a treaty or w h e t h e r the activity took p l a c e o n a reserve.125  T h e c o u r t s s u b s e q u e n t l y s p e c i f i c a l l y h e l d t h a t t h e f e d e r a l Fisheries  Act a p p l i e d t o A b o r i g i n a l s a n d o v e r r o d e t r e a t y f i s h i n g p r o v i s i o n s . 1 2 6  In 1 9 7 3 , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a d e c i d e d a n i m p o r t a n t c a s e i n relation to t h e nature of A b o r i g i n a l rights g e n e r a l l y . adjudicated upon the Nisga'a land claim. extinguishment  In C a / c f e r 1 2 7 , t h e C o u r t  T h e C o u r t split e v e n l y o n t h e i s s u e of  o f N i s g a ' a A b o r i g i n a l title.  However,  Judson  J.  recognized  [1964] S.C.R. 642. This case dealt with the question of whether the Migratory Birds Convention Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. M-12, a federal statute, had taken away the treaty protected hunting rights of an Aboriginal in the Northwest Territories. Although the Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the decision of the court below that the Act was inconsistent with the Aboriginal right to hunt for migratory birds and, as a result, the right had been abrogated, it spent most of its time considering whether the duck in question was a wild duck or a tame one. D. Sanders points out that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in this case was the object of the satire Regina v. Ojibway which dealt with the question of whether a horse covered with feathers was a small bird. See D. Sanders, "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights" (1972-73) 38 Sask. L. Rev. 45 at pp. 45-46. See also R. v. George, [1966] S.C.R. 267 and Daniels v. White, [1968] S.C.R. 517, both of which also dealt with the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It should be noted that provincial game laws can be superseded by a treaty by virtue of s. 88 of the Indian Act which provides that "Subject to the terms of any treaty ... all laws of general application from time to time in force in any province are applicable to and in respect of Indians in the province See/?, v. White and Bob (1964), 52 W.W.R. 193 (B.C.C.A.), afFd [1965] S.C.R. vi. It has been held that s.88 applies only to provincial legislation, and not federal. Thus, federal legislation of general application could affect treaty rights. See R. v. George. Fisheries are within federal jurisdiction, but the Department has delegated some its powers to provincial ministries. In British Columbia, for instance, administration of the regulatory regime for freshwater fish species has been delegated to the province. However, the regulations are still enacted on the authority of a federal statute and are, therefore, federally-derived legislation. See R. v. Derricksan (1976), 71 D.L.R. (3d) 159 (S.C.C.). Thus, s. 88 has little bearing on Aboriginal fishing. As well, the provision has little effect in British Columbia in any event given that there are few treaties in the province and s. 88 refers only to treaty rights, not Aboriginal rights. Because s! 88 refers only to treaty rights, Aboriginals in non-treaty areas historically had less protection from provincial legislation than those with treaties. R. v. Derricksan, supra, note 125, R. v. Francis (1970), 10 D.L.R. (3d) 189 (N.B.C.A.) and R. v. Cooper, supra, note 5. Supra, note 119. 124  125  l26  121  59  Aboriginal  title a s s o m e t h i n g  Proclamation  a n d which  occupation.  which  could  exist  w a s grounded  H e d i d not, however,  rule  independently  in Aboriginal that  this  of the Royal  organization  and  historic organization a n d  o c c u p a t i o n m e a n t that A b o r i g i n a l s h a d legal rights t o their l a n d s .  Nonetheless,  the judgment  signaled the beginning of a movement away  from viewing Aboriginal rights from a positivist framework, are  only  seen  framework  to exist w h e r e  in which  declaration.  s o declared  w h e r e i n s u c h rights  by legislation, to a  rights a r e s e e n to exist  independent  of a n y legislative  U n d e r t h e r i g h t s - b a s e d a n a l y s i s , it i s i r r e l e v a n t w h e t h e r t h e  Proclamation of 1 7 6 3 applies to British C o l u m b i a exist without b e i n g explicitly p r o c l a i m e d b y the state. Guerin v . The Queen  126  f o u n d that A b o r i g i n a l  A s D. S a n d e r s  states,  Royal  s i n c e Aboriginal rights c a n Subsequently ,the Court in  title t o t r a d i t i o n a l l a n d s w a s  on pre-existing occupation a n d control, thus continuing t h e trend positivism.  rights-based  away  based from  t h e Calder c a s e s i g n i f i c a n t l y a l t e r e d t h e  f r a m e w o r k for a r g u i n g a b o r i g i n a l rights in C a n a d a . 1 2 9  A s w a s n o t e d e a r l i e r , s . 3 5 o f t h e Constitution Act, 1982 h a s a l s o c h a n g e d t h a t f r a m e w o r k d r a m a t i c a l l y a n d it i s t o c a s e s d e c i d e d u n d e r t h a t s e c t i o n t h a t w e will n o w turn.  [1984] 2 S C R . 335. 'Sanders, supra, note 118.  60  B. Sparrow and Its Wake  (1) The Sparrow Decision  It w a s i n t h e m i d s t  o f t h e shift t o a  rights-based  framework  that t h e  Constitution Act, 1982 w a s e n a c t e d . T h e A c t c o n t a i n s t h r e e s e c t i o n s w h i c h d e a l w i t h Aboriginal  peoples, the most  p r o v i d e s that:  significant of w h i c h is section 3 5 .  Section  35(1)  " T h e e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l a n d treaty r i g h t s o f t h e a b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s o f  C a n a d a are hereby recognized a n d affirmed."130  The Supreme happened Sparrow.  131  C o u r t o f C a n a d a ' s first i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 3 5 ( 1 ) , w h i c h  to b e in the context  of Aboriginal fishing rights,  i n R.  v.  In t h a t c a s e , t h e C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d o n l y t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h f o r  food, social a n d ceremonial purposes.132 appropriate  occurred  H o w e v e r , s i n c e the c a s e dealt with the  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o b e g i v e n t o s . 3 5 i n t h e c o n t e x t o f f i s h i n g r i g h t s , it  o b v i o u s l y s h e d s c o n s i d e r a b l e light o n t h e a p p r o a c h w h i c h s h o u l d b e t a k e n b y t h e  Schedule B of The Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. The other two provisions are s. 25, which protects Aboriginalrightsfrom the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and s. 37, which calls for four First Ministers' Conferences on Aboriginal constitutional issues. Supra, note 56. Although requested by appellant counsel' to deal with the commercial aspect of the right, the Court declined. See Sparrow, ibid at pp. 402 to 403. In his article, " The Sparrow Doctrine: Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning?" (1990) 15 Queen's L.J. 217 at pp. 243 to 244, W.I.C. Binnie refers to the fact that the only reason charges were laid against Mr. Sparrow was because fisheries officers had learned that the First Nation had been selling fish. Charges had actually been laid in relation to the sale offish, but they were dismissed because the seizure of the fish was found to be unlawful. Thus, although the Supreme Court of Canada did not address the issue of commercialfishing,it appears that the First Nation's commercial activity was actually one of the central motivating factors for laying the charges in the case. 130  ul  1 3 2  61  courts in determining whether other Aboriginal fishing rights-including commercial a n d m a n a g e m e n t r i g h t s - a r e constitutionally protected.  Mr. S p a r r o w w a s a m e m b e r of the M u s q u e a m Indian B a n d .  In 1 9 8 4 , h e w a s  c h a r g e d u n d e r t h e Fisheries Act w i t h t h e o f f e n c e o f f i s h i n g w i t h a n e t l o n g e r t h a n that w h i c h w a s p e r m i t t e d b y t h e t e r m s o f h i s B a n d ' s f o o d f i s h i n g l i c e n c e .  He  admitted the f a c t s a l l e g e d t o constitute the o f f e n c e , but d e f e n d e d the c h a r g e s o n the g r o u n d s that h e h a d b e e n e x e r c i s i n g a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h a n d t h a t t h e n e t restriction c o n t a i n e d in the B a n d l i c e n c e w a s contrary to s . 35(1).  T h e Provincial Court J u d g e convicted M r . S p a r r o w of the offence.  H e held  that h e w a s b o u n d b y t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n i n Calder that a p e r s o n c o u l d n o t c l a i m a n A b o r i g i n a l right u n l e s s it w a s s u p p o r t e d b y a t r e a t y , proclamation, contract o r other document.  This reliance o n the Court of A p p e a l  j u d g m e n t h a d b e e n a r g u e d b y the p r o v i n c i a l g o v e r n m e n t in the y e a r s s i n c e the split S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a d e c i s i o n i n Calder. A n a p p e a l t o t h e C o u n t y C o u r t w a s d i s m i s s e d o n similar grounds.  T h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l f o u n d that t h e  c o u r t s b e l o w h a d e r r e d i n l a w in d e c i d i n g t h e y w e r e b o u n d b y t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n i n Calder s i n c e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a h a d r e n d e r e d a d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n o n that p o i n t i n its d e c i s i o n i n t h e Calder c a s e . found  that  T h e Court of A p p e a l also  a n A b o r i g i n a l right w a s n o t e x t i n g u i s h e d t h r o u g h  mere  regulation,  although government d i d have the power to regulate Aboriginal fishing under s . 35(1), provided s u c h regulation w a s r e a s o n a b l e for the proper m a n a g e m e n t a n d  62  c o n s e r v a t i o n of t h e r e s o u r c e .  T h e C o u r t d e f i n e d t h e right i n q u e s t i o n a s a right t o  f i s h f o r f o o d a n d a s s o c i a t e d t r a d i t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n priority t o t h e i n t e r e s t s o f o t h e r user groups.  T h e C o u r t f o u n d that t h e trial j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t w e r e i n s u f f i c i e n t  to l e a d t o c o n v i c t i o n .  Both Mr. Sparrow a n d the C r o w n  appealed the Court  of  Appeal's decision.133  The  Supreme  Court  of C a n a d a  c o n v o l u t e d , d e c i s i o n in t h e c a s e .  delivered a unanimous,  and  somewhat  It u l t i m a t e l y f o u n d that t h e r e w e r e i n s u f f i c i e n t  factual findings to support a conviction of Mr. S p a r r o w a n d sent the c a s e b a c k for a retrial s o that t h e i s s u e s it i d e n t i f i e d i n its d e c i s i o n c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d .  Chief  Justice D i c k s o n a n d Justice L a Forest, w h o delivered the d e c i s i o n for the Court, spent m u c h time in the d e c i s i o n delineating the m e a n i n g of s . 35(1). T h e y e x p r e s s l y rejected a "frozen  rights" a p p r o a c h to t h e interpretation of A b o r i g i n a l rights a n d  s t a t e d that t h e r i g h t s w e r e n o t t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o h o w t h e y h a d b e e n r e g u l a t e d in t h e p a s t . T h e C o u r t h e l d that t h e p h r a s e " e x i s t i n g a b o r i g i n a l rights" w a s to b e i n t e r p r e t e d f l e x i b l y t o p e r m i t t h e e v o l u t i o n o f r i g h t s o v e r t i m e .  T h e Court also  Mr. Sparrow appealed on the ground that the Court erred in holding that s. 35(1) only protected Aboriginal food fishing and permitted restrictive regulation of the right whenever reasonably justified for proper management and conservation of the resource, and in failing to find the net length restriction inconsistent with s. 35(1). The Crown cross-appealed on the ground that the Court erred in holding that the Aboriginal right had not been extinguished prior to April 17, 1982 and, in the alternative, that it erred in concluding that the right included the right to take fish for ceremonial purposes and societal needs and that the band had priority over all other users of the resource. It also argued that Mr. Sparrow had failed to establish a prima facie case that the restriction on net length unreasonably interfered with his right. There were a number of intervenors in the appeal to the Supreme Court: the National Indian Brotherhood Assembly of First Nations intervened in support of Mr. Sparrow, and the Attorney-Generals of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland, the British Columbia Wildlife Federation, the Fishery Council of British Columbia, and the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union supported the Crown.  63  h e l d that a right i s n o t e x t i n g u i s h e d m e r e l y b e c a u s e it h a s b e e n c o n t r o l l e d i n g r e a t detail b y regulation. clear a n d plain.  T h e s t a t e ' s i n t e n t i o n t o e x t i n g u i s h a n A b o r i g i n a l right m u s t b e  T h e C o u r t f o u n d n o t h i n g i n t h e Fisheries Act o r t h e r e g u l a t i o n s t o  d e m o n s t r a t e a c l e a r a n d p l a i n i n t e n t i o n t o e x t i n g u i s h t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h f o r food.134  However,  although the Court  found  that  regulations d o not n e c e s s a r i l y  e x t i n g u i s h a n A b o r i g i n a l right, it h e l d that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e n o t a b s o l u t e a n d t h e federal government peoples.  c o n t i n u e s to h a v e p o w e r to legislate in relation to A b o r i g i n a l  In s u p p o r t o f that f i n d i n g , t h e C o u r t s t a t e d that " t h e r e w a s f r o m t h e o u t s e t  n e v e r a n y d o u b t that s o v e r e i g n t y a n d l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r , a n d i n d e e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g title, t o . . . [the] l a n d s v e s t e d i n t h e C r o w n . " 1 3 5  Thus,  federal p o w e r to legislate  c o n t i n u e s , a l t h o u g h it i s t e m p e r e d b y t h e r e q u i r e m e n t that g o v e r n m e n t justify a n y r e g u l a t i o n that i n f r i n g e s u p o n o r d e n i e s a n A b o r i g i n a l right.  In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e  federal power, a n d possibly provincial powers, must b e reconciled with the fiduciary duty to r e c o g n i z e a n d affirm A b o r i g i n a l a n d treaty r i g h t s . 1 3 6  The  Court  then  s e t out t h e test  reconciliation h a s taken place.  for  determining  whether  a  proper  T h e first q u e s t i o n t o b e a s k e d u n d e r t h e Sparrow  Supra, note 56 at pp. 396-397 and pp. 400-401.  UA  Ibid at p. 404. Ibid at pp. 408-410. In the words of the Court: "While ... [s. 35] does not promise immunity from  135 U6  government regulation in a society that, in the twentieth century, is increasingly more complex, interdependent and sophisticated, and where exhaustible resources need protection and management, it does hold the Crown to a substantive promise." See p. 410.  64  t e s t is w h e t h e r  the  l e g i s l a t i o n i n t e r f e r e s w i t h a n e x i s t i n g A b o r i g i n a l right.  To  d e t e r m i n e if, a n d w h a t t y p e of, A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s e x i s t , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e r i g h t s a r e to b e c o n s i d e r e d .  T h e C o u r t p o i n t e d o u t that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s a r e n o t  t r a d i t i o n a l p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , b u t r a t h e r c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s in k e e p i n g w i t h t h e c u l t u r e a n d e x i s t e n c e of t h e g r o u p .  It c a u t i o n e d that c o u r t s m u s t b e s e n s i t i v e t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l  p e r s p e c t i v e o n t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e right. T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a n i n f r i n g e m e n t h a s o c c u r r e d , the Court set out three q u e s t i o n s :  firstly, i s t h e l i m i t a t i o n u n r e a s o n a b l e ;  s e c o n d l y , d o e s it i m p o s e u n d u e h a r d s h i p ; a n d , l a s t l y , d o e s it d e n y t o t h e h o l d e r s of t h e right t h e i r p r e f e r r e d m e a n s of e x e r c i s i n g t h e r i g h t . 1 3 7  If a n i n f r i n g e m e n t h a s o c c u r r e d , t h e o n u s t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e C r o w n to p r o v e that  it w a s j u s t i f i e d .  The  j u s t i f i c a t i o n s t a n d a r d r e q u i r e s that t h e r e  be  a  valid  legislative objective w h i c h must b e m o r e meaningful a n d l e s s v a g u e t h a n "the p u b l i c interest".  Conservation  and  resource  management  were  considered  valid  objectives.  The  n e x t r e q u i r e m e n t in j u s t i f y i n g t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t i s that t h e r e b e a link  b e t w e e n t h e o b j e c t i v e a n d t h e e x t e n t o f i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l right. fisheries context,  the  Court  r e c o g n i z e d that t h e  recognition a n d  In t h e  affirmation  of  A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s m a y g i v e r i s e to c o n f l i c t w i t h o t h e r u s e r s , b u t r e q u i r e d that t h e r e b e a link b e t w e e n t h e m a n a g e m e n t fishery.  137  o b j e c t i v e a n d t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s in t h e  T h e C o u r t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d that t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l n a t u r e o f t h e M u s q u e a m  7Wrfarp.411.  65 f o o d f i s h i n g r i g h t s m e a n s t h a t A b o r i g i n a l s m u s t b e g i v e n priority in a n y a l l o c a t i o n of f i s h i n g r i g h t s a f t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s a r e m e t , e v e n if t h e r e s u l t i s t h a t o n l y A b o r i g i n a l s a r e a l l o w e d to f i s h . 1 3 8  The  Court  a l s o identified further  questions  to  be  addressed  within  the  justification a n a l y s i s , d e p e n d i n g o n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s of the c a s e , i n c l u d i n g w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a s little i n f r i n g e m e n t a s p o s s i b l e , w h e t h e r f a i r c o m p e n s a t i o n w a s and  whether  the  Aboriginal  people  in  question  were  consulted  about  paid, the  139  regulations.  T h e d e c i s i o n in Sparrow c a n c e r t a i n l y b e d e s c r i b e d a s a m i l e s t o n e in t h e A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s battle.  W i t h its r e q u i r e m e n t f o r s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l  p e r s p e c t i v e a n d e x p r e s s r e j e c t i o n of a f r o z e n r i g h t s a p p r o a c h , f r a m e w o r k for a m u c h b r o a d e r recognition of A b o r i g i n a l rights.  it e s t a b l i s h e s t h e  Indeed, the decision  w a s t h e i m p e t u s f o r a c h a n g e in t h e p o l i c y o f t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h e r i e s O c e a n ("the D e p a r t m e n t " ) a n d its e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l ("AFS").  and  Fisheries Strategy  H o w e v e r , at t i m e s t h e C o u r t a p p e a r s t o h a v e h a d s o m e difficulty f o l l o w i n g  its o w n d i r e c t i o n s t o c o n s i d e r t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e a n d t o r e f r a i n f r o m v i e w i n g the rights a s constitutionalized in their regulated form.  A s w e l l , s o m e of the f i n d i n g s  in t h e d e c i s i o n c o n t i n u e t o r e f l e c t m a n y o f t h e s a m e b a s i c p r e m i s e s a n d i d e o l o g i c a l representations w h i c h h a v e b e e n the b a s i s for the f i s h e r i e s regulatory r e g i m e .  W a t pp. 413^14. W a t pp. 416-417.  66  For  i n s t a n c e , b y s e p a r a t i n g t h e f i s h i n g right into t w o d i s t i n c t p a r t s - f o o d ,  social a n d ceremonial o n the o n e hand, a n d commercial o n the other-the  Court  w a s v i e w i n g t h e right a s it w a s d e f i n e d b y r e g u l a t i o n a n d n o t a s it w a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y e x e r c i s e d b y A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s prior to regulation.  T h e Court's e x c u s e for viewing  t h e right i n t h i s w a y w a s that t h e c o m m e r c i a l i s s u e w a s n o t d e a l t w i t h i n t h e c o u r t below. the  H o w e v e r , it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e that t h e C o u r t s p e n t s o m e t i m e d i s c u s s i n g  conflict b e t w e e n  mentioning interests.  the  Aboriginal  presence  of  the  and  non-Aboriginal  interveners  commercial  representing  fishers,  commercial  even fishing  It i s q u i t e p l a u s i b l e that t h e r e a l r e a s o n t h e C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o d e a l w i t h t h e  c o m m e r c i a l i s s u e w a s t o a v o i d that c o n f l i c t a s m u c h a s p o s s i b l e . A l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t n o t e d that g o v e r n m e n t r e g u l a t i o n i n a n d o f itself c o u l d n o t d e l i n e a t e t h e right a s o n e involving food fishing only, a n d p e r h a p s thereby attempted to p a v e the w a y for a f u t u r e d e c i s i o n f a v o u r i n g c o m m e r c i a l r i g h t s , it still c o n f i n e d its r e a s o n s t o f o o d f i s h i n g . T h u s , it e f f e c t i v e l y i g n o r e d its o w n p r i n c i p l e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .  Its d e c i s i o n i n  t h i s r e g a r d c a n b e s e e n a s a n e x a m p l e o f t h e difficulty c o u r t s o f t e n h a v e i n truly considering the Aboriginal perspective, particularly w h e n  so doing means non-  Aboriginal c o m m e r c i a l interests c o u l d b e seriously threatened.  W h e n there a r e too  m a n y o v e r l a p p i n g a n d c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s , t h e c o u r t s will o f t e n b e r e l u c t a n t t o d e f i n e rights t o o b r o a d l y . 1 4 0  W.I.C. Binnie makes this observation in "The Sparrow Doctrine: Beginning of the End or End of the Beginning?" supra, note 132 at p. 225. 140  67  T h i s difficulty c a n b e s e e n a s a n e x a m p l e o f t h e t e n d e n c y o f c o u r t s to p r o t e c t what M e n n o Boldt calls  "the n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t " . 1 4 1  T h a t i s , w h e n e v e r r e c o g n i t i o n of  a n A b o r i g i n a l right is p e r c e i v e d a s t h r e a t e n i n g t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e r e s t o f  Canada,  c o u r t s w i l l r e f u s e t o r e c o g n i z e it. B o l d t s t a t e s : "It w o u l d s e e m t h e C a n a d i a n p e o p l e , their g o v e r n m e n t s ,  a n d t h e j u d i c i a r y h a v e r e a c h e d a n i d e o l o g i c a l c o n c o r d to  deny  t h e h i s t o r i c a l r i g h t s a n d c l a i m s o f I n d i a n s b e c a u s e it w o u l d c o s t t o o m u c h t o h o n o u r them."142  Although the S u p r e m e  Court d i d not explicitly d e n y that the A b o r i g i n a l  right to f i s h i n c l u d e d a c o m m e r c i a l e l e m e n t , it c e r t a i n l y d i d n o t a p p e a r t o w a n t t o c o m e t o that c o n c l u s i o n .  Undoubtedly, the cost, a s well a s the controversy,  of  r e c o g n i z i n g a b r o a d e r A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g right w a s a f a c t o r in its d e c i s i o n t o a v o i d t h e i s s u e entirely. A s well, the Court m a y h a v e h a d s o m e c o n c e r n s a b o u t  management  of t h e h i g h l y r e g u l a t e d a n d c o m p e t i t i v e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r y t h a t t h e y s e n s e d d i d n o t exist for the f o o d fishery.  A n o t h e r r e a s o n f o r t h e C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l to d e a l w i t h t h e c o m m e r c i a l i s s u e i s p e r h a p s t h a t it h a d a v i e w of A b o r i g i n a l s a s t r a d i t i o n a l o r p o o r o r b o t h , but n o t a s m o d e r n p l a y e r s w h o c o u l d g e t into c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g in a b i g w a y .  A s well, the fact  that this w a s C h i e f J u s t i c e D i c k s o n ' s last A b o r i g i n a l rights c a s e might h a v e led h i m to i g n o r e t h e f a c t s of i l l e g a l s a l e w h i c h h a d b e e n s e t o u t in t h e c o u r t s b e l o w , thereby  the  commercial  aspects  of  the  case,  and  focus  exclusively  on  and the  s u b s i s t e n c e i s s u e to e n s u r e unanimity of the Court.  Surviving as Indians. The Challenge ofSelf-Government (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1993). W a t p. 17.  68  O n t h e i d e o l o g i c a l front, t h e C o u r t d o e s a p p e a r t o h a v e r e c o g n i z e d s o m e o f the prevailing myths in fisheries m a n a g e m e n t  a n d A b o r i g i n a l rights d i s c o u r s e .  By  h o l d i n g that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n s . 3 5 ( 1 ) a r e t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d f l e x i b l y t o p e r m i t t h e i r evolution over time, t h e Court expressly rejected t h e ideological representation of A b o r i g i n a l culture a s static.  T h i s i d e o l o g y , w h i c h h o l d s that A b o r i g i n a l s a r e n o  l o n g e r " r e a l I n d i a n s " if t h e y a d o p t  practices of the dominant  society, h a s b e e n  explicitly a n d implicitly u s e d b y other courts to find a g a i n s t t h e e x i s t e n c e of a n Aboriginal right.143  The Supreme  Court's  e x p r e s s r e j e c t i o n o f that  ideology is  definitely a step forward.  A s w e l l , a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t d i d n o t q u e s t i o n that g o v e r n m e n t party to d e t e r m i n e  appropriate  conservation  goals,  it p o i n t e d  is the proper  out the n e e d to  c o n s i d e r w h o t h o s e c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s a r e d e s i g n e d to protect.  T h e Court  f o u n d that a l t h o u g h c o n s e r v a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s i s a v a l i d l e g i s l a t i v e o b j e c t i v e , t h e r e m u s t b e a link b e t w e e n t h e q u e s t i o n o f j u s t i f i c a t i o n a n d t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f p r i o r i t i e s i n t h e f i s h e r y , w i t h A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s b e i n g g i v e n priority o n c e c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s a r e m e t . C o n s e r v a t i o n c o n c e r n s i n a n d o f t h e m s e l v e s will n o t justify a n i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h .  However, not surprisingly, the Court d i d not completely step outside the prevalent ideological framework.  A l t h o u g h it r e c o g n i z e d t h e n e e d t o c o n s i d e r i n  See M . Kline, "The Colour of Law: Ideological Representations of First Nations in Legal Discourse" (1994) 3 Social and Legal Studies 453 at pp. 463-465. 143  69  whose  benefit c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s a r e a i m e d ,  it d i d n o t q u e s t i o n t h a t it i s o n l y  government which c a n delineate a n d achieve those goals.  O f c o u r s e , t h e i s s u e of  A b o r i g i n a l m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e r e s o u r c e w a s n o t d i r e c t l y b e f o r e t h e C o u r t a n d it w a s probably not e v e n a r g u e d in t h e c a s e .  H o w e v e r , in r e c o g n i z i n g the government's  c o n t i n u i n g right t o l e g i s l a t e i n r e l a t i o n t o A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g t h e C o u r t a p p e a r t o h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y that, f r o m t h e A b o r i g i n a l  d o e s not  perspective,  m a n a g e m e n t of t h e fish is a r g u a b l y a s integral to their culture a s b e i n g permitted to catch fish.  It c o u l d b e a r g u e d that t o t h e e x t e n t that r e g u l a t i o n s d o n o t r e c o g n i z e  a n d r e s p e c t A b o r i g i n a l m a n a g e m e n t , t h e y a r e a n i n f r i n g e m e n t o f a n A b o r i g i n a l right. T h e C o u r t d o e s n o t a p p e a r e v e n t o h a v e t u r n e d its c o l l e c t i v e m i n d t o t h i s i s s u e , e x c e p t p e r h a p s to c a s u a l l y note that  "there w a s from t h e outset n e v e r a n y d o u b t  that s o v e r e i g n t y a n d l e g i s l a t i v e p o w e r , a n d i n d e e d t h e u n d e r l y i n g title, t o s u c h l a n d s vested  in the C r o w n . " 1 4 4  This  blind a c c e p t a n c e of C a n a d i a n  sovereignty  over  A b o r i g i n a l s is certainly not s u r p r i s i n g - a f t e r all, the Court is part of t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d o n e o f its implicit j o b s i s t o p r o t e c t that s o v e r e i g n t y .  A s well, this d e c i s i o n w a s  r e l e a s e d a f t e r t h e O k a i n c i d e n t , w i t h its f o c u s o n s o v e r e i g n t y .  H o w e v e r , it d o e s  i n d i c a t e t h e difficulty c o u r t s will h a v e i n truly t a k i n g o n a n A b o r i g i n a l  perspective,  p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e n that p e r s p e c t i v e i s a n t i t h e t i c a l t o that o f t h e d o m i n a n t s o c i e t y . 1 4 5 has also been  s u g g e s t e d that t h i s b l i n d a c c e p t a n c e o f  indicates that t h e Court  is not yet taking  a completely  Canadian inherent  It  sovereignty rights-based  Supra, note 56 at p. 404. As C. Tennant points out, it may not be possible forjudges to truly ever understand Aboriginal culture in anything other than the dominant society's terms. He suggests that even assuming that knowing difference is possible is a tool of cultural hegemony. See "Justification and Cultural Authority in s. 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982: Regina v. Sparrow" (1991) 14 Dalhousie L. J. 372 at p. 384. U4  1 4 5  70  a p p r o a c h t o A b o r i g i n a l rights. contingent  I n s t e a d , it i s still u s i n g a t l e a s t a p a r t i a l p o s i t i v i s t o r  rights-based framework  b e c a u s e in order to a c c e p t without  question  C a n a d i a n s o v e r e i g n t y o v e r A b o r i g i n a l s , o n e m u s t b e l i e v e that if C a n a d a d e c i d e d n o t to r e s p e c t A b o r i g i n a l s o v e r e i g n t y , it d o e s n o t e x i s t . 1 4 6  D e s p i t e t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f s o m e o f t h e f i n d i n g s i n Sparrow, it i s c l e a r l y a n i m p o r t a n t c a s e a n d o n e t o w h i c h l o w e r c o u r t s s h o u l d p a y strict h e e d i n a d j u d i c a t i n g u p o n A b o r i g i n a l rights i s s u e s .  W e will n o w review h o w s o m e o f t h e s e lower courts,  a n d t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n p a r t i c u l a r , h a v e a p p l i e d Sparrow i n t h e A b o r i g i n a l fishing context.  (2) Application  Lower  courts  of Sparrow  have  been  just  a s reluctant  to threaten  non-Aboriginal  c o m m e r c i a l interests in the fisheries industry a s the S u p r e m e Court apparently w a s in Sparrow. A s w e l l , d e s p i t e t h e r u l i n g i n Sparrow, t h e r e h a v e b e e n v e r y f e w c a s e s  See M . Asch and P. Macklem, "Aboriginal Rights and Canadian Sovereignty: An Essay on R. v. Sparrow" (1991) 29 Alta L. Rev. 498. Their points are critiqued by T. Isaac in "Discarding the RoseColoured Glasses: A Commentary on Asch and Macklem" (1992) Alta L. Rev. 708. Isaac concludes that their article "lacks a sense of the political and legal reality of Canada. Paramount to this reality is Canadian sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty in the forms of an inherent aboriginal right of selfgovernment or aboriginal sovereignty is politically unfeasible and legally unsupported." See p. 712. Although it is not clear to this writer that recognition of Aboriginal sovereignty is legally unsupported, it certainly does not appear to be politically feasible to expect courts to deny the validity of Canadian sovereignty and, hence, their own authority. 146  71  in w h i c h a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d .  W h e r e the  c o u r t s h a v e r e c o g n i z e d s u c h a right, t h e right h a s b e e n d e f i n e d i n e x t r e m e l y n a r r o w , a n d often n o n s e n s i c a l , terms.  F o r i n s t a n c e , i n t h e R. v . Jones d e c i s i o n 1 4 8 , t h e C o u r t  f o u n d that t h e S a u g e e n O j i b w a y h a d a c o m m e r c i a l right t o f i s h .  H o w e v e r , it m u s t b e  n o t e d that t h e C r o w n c o n c e d e d that t h e r e w a s " a n a b o r i g i n a l right o f s o m e s o r t t o fish commercially".149  In a d d i t i o n , i n d e s c r i b i n g t h e right, F a i r g r i e v e J . r e f e r r e d t o it  a s a c o m m e r c i a l activity d i r e c t e d a t " s u s t e n a n c e " . 1 5 0  In s u p p o r t o f s u c h a d e f i n i t i o n ,  h e r e f e r r e d t o t h e d i s s e n t i n g o p i n i o n o f W i l s o n J . i n R. v . Horseman™  wherein s h e  d i s t i n g u i s h e d b e t w e e n u s e o f a r e s o u r c e f o r s u s t e n a n c e a n d p u r e c o m m e r c i a l profit. A similar distinction w a s m a d e more recently b y s o m e m e m b e r s of t h e S u p r e m e  C o u r t i n R. v . Van der Peet , 152  The Queen , 154  R. v . Gladstone  a s will b e d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t  153  a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd. v .  (3) b e l o w .  Thus,  even  when  a  c o m m e r c i a l right h a s b e e n f o u n d b y e i t h e r t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o r a l o w e r c o u r t , t h e t e r m " c o m m e r c i a l " h a s b e e n d e f i n e d m u c h d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n it i s f o r n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s . T h e rationale behind this distinction m a y very well b e the courts' reluctance to m a k e  There has, however, been some caselaw giving a broader interpretation to treaty fishing rights. For instance, in Saanichton Marina Ltd. v. Claxton (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 79, the British Columbia Court of Appeal was dealing with the fishing provisions in one of the treaties on Vancouver Island. The Court found that although the right to fish granted by the Treaty did not amount to a proprietary interest in the seabed or a contractual right to the fishing grounds, the Treaty did protect their right to fish. The Court found that the right to fish encompassed other rights which are incidental to the Treaty right. The construction of a marina was found to interfere with that right. As a result, the Treaty fishers were successful in blocking the construction of the marina. Although this was not a case about commercial rights to fish or jurisdiction over the fisheries, it could nonetheless have important implications in the fisheries context to the extent that it recognizes incidental rights. (1993), 14 O.R.(3d) 421 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.)). Ibid, atpp. 43(M31. W,atp.437. [1990] 1 SCR. 695 at p. 919. [1996] S.C.J. No. 77 (QL). [1996] S.C.J. No. 79 (QL). [1996] S.C.J. No. 78 (QL). 147  ,48  l49  15<  151 152 153 ,54  72  f i n d i n g s w h i c h will n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t o t h e r i n t e r e s t s t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t . is a n o t h e r  example  of courts'  inability t o p e r c e i v e  Aboriginals  A s w e l l , it  in anything but  s t e r e o t y p i c a l t r a d i t i o n a l t e r m s ; t h a t i s , that t h e y w e r e c o n c e r n e d o n l y w i t h s u r v i v a l a n d not involved in commercially-profitable enterprises.  It h a s b e e n  argued  that t h e S u p r e m e  Court of C a n a d a  h a s effectively  f o r e c l o s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f l o w e r c o u r t s r e c o g n i z i n g a n A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l right t o f i s h b y d e f i n i n g f i s h i n g r i g h t s i n t e r m s o f p r i o r i t i e s . 1 5 5 If c o u r t s a r e truly by a c o n c e r n t o protect t h e "national interest" (i.e. n o n - A b o r i g i n a l  motivated  capitalists), a s  Boldt s u g g e s t s , t h e requirement that A b o r i g i n a l rights t o the f i s h e r i e s a r e t o b e g i v e n priority m a y v e r y w e l l r e s u l t i n c o u r t s r e f u s i n g t o f i n d t h a t s u c h a right  exists.  A l t h o u g h f o o d f i s h i n g i s s o m e w h a t self-limiting i n that there a r e only s o m a n y fish a community c a n c o n s u m e , commercial fishing h a s n o s u c h self-limitations apart from the built-in limitations of t h e potential c o m m e r c i a l market.  Thus, the consequences  to n o n - A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s i s s o p o t e n t i a l l y d e v a s t a t i n g t h a t c o u r t s m a y p r e d i c t a b l y f i n d a g a i n s t t h e right.  At least in t h e c a s e of the British C o l u m b i a Court of A p p e a l , this i s i n d e e d what appears to have occurred.  T h e Court found against the existence of a n  A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l right t o f i s h i n R. v . Van derPeei , 156  See Binnie, supra, note 132 at p. 236. (1993), 80 B.C.L.R.(2d) 75, affd [1996] S.C.J. No. 77 (QL). (1993), 80B.C.L.R.(2d) 133, rev'd [1996] S.C.J. No. 79 (QL).  !  R. v . Gladstone  157  a n d R.  73  v. N.T.C.  Smokehouse  158  A s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i n P a r t (3) b e l o w , t h e S u p r e m e  C o u r t o f C a n a d a a f f i r m e d t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n s i n b o t h Van der Peet a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse, u s i n g s o m e o f t h e s a m e r a t i o n a l e s a n d a p p a r e n t  underlying  concerns.  In t h e s e c a s e s , it a p p e a r s that o n e o f t h e m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r s f o r t h e j u d g e s ' r e f u s a l t o r e c o g n i z e a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y m i g h t h a v e b e e n t h e e f f e c t s u c h a right w o u l d h a v e o n n o n - A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s , o r w h a t B o l d t w o u l d call the "national interest".  F o r i n s t a n c e , i n Van der Peet, J u s t i c e M a c f a r l a n e  stated:  t h i s c a s e i s not a b o u t t h e c a s u a l d i s p o s a l o f s u r p l u s f o o d f i s h . In e s s e n c e , it i s a b o u t a n a s s e r t e d I n d i a n right t o s e l l f i s h a l l o c a t e d for food p u r p o s e s o n a c o m m e r c i a l b a s i s . T h e result w o u l d b e to g i v e I n d i a n f i s h e r s a p r e f e r e n c e o r priority o v e r o t h e r C a n a d i a n s w h o s e e k a livelihood from commercial f i s h i n g . 1 5 9  We  c a n also s e e m u c h of t h e o l d ideology c o m i n g to t h e fore in these  decisions.  F o r i n s t a n c e , In Van der Peet, M a c f a r l a n e J . A . , s p e a k i n g f o r t h e m a j o r i t y ,  s t a t e d that n o t all A b o r i g i n a l p r a c t i c e s i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e time s o v e r e i g n t y w a s a s s e r t e d b y E u r o p e a n s a r e A b o r i g i n a l rights. First Nation's distinctive culture.  T h e practices must b e integral to the  H e w e n t o n t o state that a m o d e r n i z e d f o r m o f the  p r a c t i c e c a n still b e a n A b o r i g i n a l right, b u t s o m e t h i n g w h i c h b e c a m e m e r e l y b e c a u s e o f E u r o p e a n c o n t a c t i s n o t a n A b o r i g i n a l right.  (1993), 80B.C.L.R.(2d) 158, affd [1996] S.C.J. No. 78 (QL).  158  Van der Peet, supra, note 156 atp. 85.  X59  prevalent  In a d d i t i o n , h e h e l d  74  that p r a c t i c e s w h i c h a r e not u n i q u e t o A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s , b u t a r e c o m m o n t o b o t h A b o r i g i n a l a n d E u r o p e a n s o c i e t i e s , a r e n o t to b e g i v e n t h e s t a t u s of A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . S i n c e t h e S t o : l o t r a d e d m o s t e x t e n s i v e l y in f i s h a s a r e s u l t o f t h e o p e n i n g o f a H u d s o n ' s B a y p o s t , M a c f a r l a n e J . A . f o u n d that t h e s a l e o r b a r t e r o f f i s h c o u l d n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d integral to the S t o : l o ' s distinctive culture a n d , therefore, there w a s Aboriginal  right t o s e l l f i s h . 1 6 0  These  comments  reflect the  no  i d e o l o g y of static  " I n d i a n n e s s " , w h i c h h o l d s that A b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e c a n n o t c h a n g e o r a d a p t a n d still b e A b o r i g i n a l in n a t u r e .  T h e majority u s e s t h e s a m e i d e o l o g y of s t a t i c c u l t u r e t o d e n y a c o m m e r c i a l right t o s e l l h e r r i n g s p a w n o n k e l p in Gladstone. A l t h o u g h t h e r e w a s e v i d e n c e that t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e H e i l t s u k F i r s t N a t i o n h a d t r a d e d i n literally t o n s o f h e r r i n g s p a w n o n k e l p p r e - c o n t a c t , t h e majority f o u n d that t h e h i s t o r i c a l q u a l i t y a n d c h a r a c t e r o f t h a t a c t i v i t y w a s d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e s a l e o f t h e s p a w n to J a p a n e s e b u y e r s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h e r e w a s n o A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y . 1 6 1  In a d d i t i o n , t h e i d e o l o g y o f e q u a l i t y w a s u s e d b y t h e C o u r t t o d e n y  the  A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l right a n d t o a t t e m p t t o k e e p A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a s t r a d i t i o n a l . F o r i n s t a n c e , in Van der Peet, a f t e r h o l d i n g that M r s . V a n d e r P e e t d i d n o t h a v e a n A b o r i g i n a l right to s e l l h e r f i s h , M a c f a r l a n e J . A .  Wat  pp. 84-86.  ' Gladstone, supra, note 157 at p. 145  stated,  75  that i s not t o s a y  p e r s o n s of a b o r i g i n a l a n c e s t r y  are  p r e c l u d e d f r o m t a k i n g part, w i t h o t h e r C a n a d i a n s , in t h e c o m m e r c i a l fishery. But they must b e subject to the s a m e rules a s other C a n a d i a n s w h o s e e k a livelihood from that 162  resource.  W a l l a c e J . A . m a d e s i m i l a r s t a t e m e n t s in Van der Peet. H e s t a t e d a s f o l l o w s :  If s . 35 h a d , a s its p u r p o s e , t h e r e c a s t i n g o f t h e  nature  a n d s c o p e of a b o r i g i n a l rights to reflect the a b o r i g i n a l c o m m u n i t y ' s o b j e c t i v e o f s a t i s f y i n g its e c o n o m i c n e e d s , o n e r e s u l t w o u l d b e t h e c r e a t i o n o f a n a b o r i g i n a l priority in t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r y a l o n g t h e c o a s t s a n d r i v e r s o f British The  Columbia  (subject  to  conservation  objectives).  e f f e c t o f t h i s priority w o u l d b e that o t h e r  interest  g r o u p s w i s h i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e f i s h h a r v e s t f o r a n y p u r p o s e - b e it f o o d , s p o r t s o r c o m m e r c i a l - c o u l d d o s o o n l y after t h e a b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l c a t c h ( a s d e t e r m i n e d by their e c o n o m i c n e e d s ) w a s satisfied.  Of course, the  n a t u r e o f a c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r y , w i t h its i n h e r e n t o b j e c t i v e of  satisfying  a  practically  inexhaustible  demand  for  s a l m o n , w o u l d m a k e t h e a b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l priority limitless.163  We commercial  a l s o s e e in t h a t s t a t e m e n t right b e c a u s e  of the  the r e l u c t a n c e of W a l l a c e J.A.  c o n s e q u e n c e s to  other  interests,  to find  a  particularly  b e c a u s e of t h e f a r - r e a c h i n g e f f e c t of t h e priority c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e right w h i c h w a s m a d e b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a in Sparrow. H e , t o o , w e n t o n to r e f e r to e q u a l i t y a r g u m e n t s a n d s t a t e d that:  Van der Peet, supra, note 156 at p. 89. '/A/rfatp. 95  76  e v e r y resident of British C o l u m b i a , native a n d non-native, h a s t h e right t o f i s h i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a n w a t e r s a n d d i s p o s e o f t h e i r c a t c h c o m m e r c i a l l y . T h i s right,  however,  is l i m i t e d a n d c o n t r o l l e d b y a v a r i e t y o f r e g u l a t i o n s . . . . 1 6 4  A n o t h e r underlying ideology w h i c h is reflected in the a b o v e - n o t e d is t h e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y n o t i o n .  comment  A l t h o u g h it i s n o t t r u e that e v e r y r e s i d e n t o f B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a d o e s i n d e e d h a v e t h e right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y , g i v e n t h e l e g a l , f i n a n c i a l a n d other h u r d l e s to entering t h e industry165, W a l l a c e J . A . n o n e t h e l e s s fell b a c k o n c o m m o n property notions to d e n y a n y s p e c i a l rights for A b o r i g i n a l s .  T h e majority o f t h e C o u r t i n t h e s e c a s e s w a s n o t p r e p a r e d t o f i n d that t h e right  even  existed,  thus  negating  the necessity  of  determining  whether  an  i n f r i n g e m e n t o f t h e right w a s j u s t i f i e d . E v e n w h e r e t h e right w a s f o u n d t o e x i s t , t h e justification i s s u e w a s dealt with summarily, with c o n s e r v a t i o n automatically justifying any a n d all infringements. conservation  N o i n q u i r y w a s u n d e r t a k e n into t h e i s s u e o f w h o t h e  objectives were  d e s i g n e d to serve.  In Gladstone, f o r i n s t a n c e ,  H u t c h e o n J . A . f o u n d that t h e r e g u l a t i o n s i n f r i n g e d a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o s e l l h e r r i n g spawn  o n kelp  management convincing  b u t that  concerns.166 evidence  these  regulations w e r e justified b y c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d  H o w e v e r , a s Lambert J.A. pointed out in h i s dissent,  w a s presented  a t trial  to s u g g e s t  that  there  were  no  Ibid at p. 98. By stating that everyone has a right to fish, Wallace J.A. is effectively elevating the "national interest" to the same level as the aboriginal right. By doing so, he "dismisses the purpose of section 35 in recognizing the uniqueness of aboriginal rights...." See A Bowker, "Sparrow's Promise: Aboriginal Rights in the B.C. Court of Appeal" (1995) U.T. Fac. L. Rev 1 at p. 24. Section 4 of the British Columbia Fishery (General Regulations) prohibits fishing unless a licence is obtained. SOR/84-248 Gladstone, supra, note 157 at p. 141. 164  165  166  77  conservation c o n c e r n s with respect to herring s p a w n o n kelp b e c a u s e t h e adult herring a r e not killed in t h e harvesting p r o c e s s . 1 6 7  Conservation objectives were  c o n s i d e r e d t o l e g i t i m i z e r e g u l a t i o n in N.T.C. Smokehouse a s w e l l . 1 6 8  N o t o n l y d i d t h e C o u r t fall b a c k o n v a r i o u s i d e o l o g i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n s f o r i t s d e c i s i o n s i n t h e s e c a s e s , it a l s o d i d n o t f o l l o w t h e S u p r e m e  Court's direction in  Sparrow t o c o n s i d e r t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e i n d e f i n i n g t h e A b o r i g i n a l right i n question.  It i s a r g u a b l e that if i n , f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e Van der Peet c a s e t h e C o u r t h a d  truly b e e n s e n s i t i v e t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , it w o u l d h a v e t a k e n a d i f f e r e n t v i e w o f t h e trial j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g that t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e F i r s t N a t i o n h a d t r a d e d in f i s h in a n o p p o r t u n i s t i c w a y p r i o r to c o n t a c t . therefore  have  a  right  to trade  fish  G i v e n that f a c t , it i s a r g u a b l e that t h e S t o : l o "opportunistically".  O n e of the biggest  opportunities to c o m e to the Sto:lo p e o p l e w a s obviously the arrival of E u r o p e a n s w h o w a n t e d t h e i r f i s h a n d it w o u l d s e e m t o f o l l o w f r o m t h e Sparrow a p p r o a c h that trade w o u l d therefore b e protected a s a n Aboriginal right.169  A s w e l l , t h e Sparrow a n a l y s i s e x p l i c i t l y p e r m i t s a right t o b e e x e r c i s e d i n a contemporary form. form of trade.  T h e s a l e of fish could clearly b e characterized a s a m o d e r n  H o w e v e r , t h e majority o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l  interpret t h e S u p r e m e  C o u r t a s s a y i n g that t h e m e t h o d  c h o s e instead to  b y w h i c h t h e right w a s  e x e r c i s e d c o u l d b e m o d e r n , s u c h a s the u s e o f m o d e r n i z e d e q u i p m e n t , a n d not t h e  Ibid at pp. 153-154 ^See Hutcheon J. A.'s oomments in N. T. C. Smokehouse, supra, note 158 at pp 183-184. Bowker, supra, note 164 at p. 22.  167  1  169  78  a c t u a l f o r m of t h e r i g h t . 1 7 0  T h e r e i s n o t h i n g in t h e Sparrow d e c i s i o n itself w h i c h  s u g g e s t s t h a t t h i s l i m i t e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s to b e t a k e n .  T h e C o u r t a l s o s e e m e d t o start w i t h t h e p r e m i s e that s e l l i n g f i s h i s i l l e g a l a n d that t h e A b o r i g i n a l s m u s t e s t a b l i s h t h e r e is a n e x c e p t i o n to t h e r e g u l a t i o n .  However,  "Sparrow r e q u i r e s a c o u r t to s t r i p a w a y t h e l a y e r s of n o n - A b o r i g i n a l r e g u l a t i o n s a n d v i e w t h e right in its o r i g i n a l f o r m . " 1 7 1  T h i s relates a g a i n to the n e e d to b e s e n s i t i v e to  the  Aboriginal  Aboriginal  perspective.  The  perspective,  and  the  rights-based  a p p r o a c h toward w h i c h courts h a v e b e e n moving recently, require the Court  to  r e c o g n i z e that t h e s o u r c e o f A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i s A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e a n d t h e i r c u l t u r e , not t h e s t a t e . 1 7 2 R e g u l a t i o n s u n d e r t h i s p e r s p e c t i v e a r e , t h e r e f o r e , i r r e l e v a n t .  M a c f a r l a n e J.A.,  f o r i n s t a n c e , r e f e r r e d in Van der Peet t o t h e i s s u e a s b e i n g  w h e t h e r t h e S t o : l o h a v e t h e right to d i s p o s e of e x c e s s f i s h a l l o c a t e d f o r ceremonial and social purposes.  food,  B y s o characterizing the i s s u e , h e is starting with  t h e right a s d e f i n e d b y t h e r e g u l a t i o n a n d n o t t h e right a s it m a y i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x i s t . It i s o n l y in t h e r e g u l a t i o n t h a t t h e S t o : l o u s e o f f i s h f o r f o o d , c e r e m o n i a l a n d s o c i a l p u r p o s e s is s e p a r a t e d f r o m o t h e r u s e s o f t h e f i s h .  T h e a c t u a l right m a y b e m u c h  b r o a d e r t h a n w h a t the regulation attempts to regulate.  It i s t h i s t y p e o f " f r o z e n  r i g h t s " a p p r o a c h w h i c h t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of C a n a d a e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t e d i n Sparrow.  See for example Wallace J.A.'s comments in Van der Peet, supra, note 156 at pp. 99-100 'Bowker, supra, note 164 at p. 20 /&/'rfatp.40. 2  79  Similar ideological a p p r o a c h e s a r o s e in the British C o l u m b i a Court of A p p e a l c a s e s dealing with Aboriginal fisheries m a n a g e m e n t issues. t h e s e i s s u e s i n N.T.C. Smokehouse , 173  T h e Court dealt with  a s w e l l a s i n R. v . Lewis  174  a n d R. v . Nikal . 175  In a l l t h r e e c a s e s , t h e majority h e l d that t h e F i r s t N a t i o n s h a d n o right t o p a s s b y l a w s i n relation to extra-territorial f i s h e r i e s in w h i c h their m e m b e r s h a d rights to f i s h for f o o d , s o c i a l a n d c e r e m o n i a l p u r p o s e s .  T h eSupreme Court upheld the decision  in r e l a t i o n t o t h e b y - l a w i s s u e i n b o t h Lewis a n d Nikal, b u t o v e r t u r n e d t h e d e c i s i o n i n Nikal for o t h e r r e a s o n s w h i c h will b e d i s c u s s e d i n S e c t i o n (3) b e l o w .  T h e C o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o r e c o g n i z e a right t o g o v e r n t h e r e s o u r c e m a y s t e m partly f r o m  the Court's  inability t o r e c o g n i z e t h e legitimacy o f A b o r i g i n a l  self-  g o v e r n m e n t a n d p o s s i b l y e v e n t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o v i e w t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h a s a truly c o l l e c t i v e right a s o p p o s e d t o a n i n d i v i d u a l right, a l t h o u g h t h e s e i s s u e s a r e n e v e r r a i s e d explicitly b y t h e Court. explicitly  rejected a n y notion  regulatory power.  It i s o f n o t e that t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l i n Sparrow  of co-management,  confirming  exclusive  federal  H o w e v e r , if t h e right i s truly a right o f F i r s t N a t i o n s a s o p p o s e d t o  a right o f i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s o f a p a r t i c u l a r F i r s t N a t i o n , it w o u l d s e e m that t h e ability t o r e g u l a t e t h e u s e o f t h e r e s o u r c e f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h e g r o u p a s a w h o l e m u s t b e integral t o t h e right t o u s e t h e r e s o u r c e . 1 7 6 O t h e r w i s e , i n d i v i d u a l m e m b e r s of t h e g r o u p c o u l d e x e r c i s e t h e i r right i n w a y s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e right o f o t h e r s ,  ™Supra, note 158. (1993), 80 B.C.L.R(2d) 224, affd [1996] S.C.J. No. 46 (QL). (1993), 80 B.C.L.R(2d) 245, affd in part, rev'd in part [1996] S.C.J. No. 47 (QL). This argument is made by R Kapashesit and M. Klippenstein, "Aboriginal Group Rights and Environmental Protection" (1991) 36 McGuT L.J. 925 at pp. 955-960 and by Bowker, supra, note 164 at p. 19. 174  175  176  80 including t h e group a s a whole.  If f i s h i n g i s s e e n t o b e i n t e g r a l t o t h e g r o u p ' s  d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e , t h e right t o g o v e r n h o w , w h e n , w h e r e a n d b y w h o m f i s h i n g i s t o b e e x e r c i s e d w o u l d a l s o s e e m to b e integral.  That approach would b e consistent  w i t h v i e w i n g t h e right a s a c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t . 1 7 7  H o w e v e r , it is n o t c l e a r that t h i s l i n e o f a r g u m e n t w a s u s e d b y t h e a p p e l l a n t s in Lewis i n p a r t i c u l a r .  It a p p e a r s that  n o argument  w a s led suggesting  m a n a g e m e n t o f f i s h i s part o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o fish.  that  Instead, arguments w e r e  l i m i t e d t o t h e c o r r e c t s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s . 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) o f t h e Indian Act a n d t h e proper delineation of reserve boundaries.  Nonetheless,  some  of the s a m e  concerns about  t h e practical effect of  r e c o g n i z i n g a n A b o r i g i n a l right a s w e r e f o u n d i n t h e c o m m e r c i a l c a s e s w e r e r a i s e d by the Court in these c a s e s .  F o r i n s t a n c e , i n Lewis, W a l l a c e J . A . s e e m e d t o b e  i n f l u e n c e d b y h i s c o n c e r n that if t h e r i v e r i s c o n s i d e r e d part o f t h e r e s e r v e , t h e F i r s t N a t i o n ' s right t o f i s h w o u l d b e c o m e a n e x c l u s i v e right a n d , t h e r e f o r e , c o n t r a r y t o t h e interests of n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s . 1 7 8  A g a i n , this line o f r e a s o n i n g a p p e a r s t o relate t o a  c o n c e r n o v e r p r e s e r v i n g other interests in the industry.  In Nikal, we a l s o s e e t h e e q u a l i t y a r g u m e n t s b e i n g u s e d a g a i n . J.A.  Macfarlane  e m p h a s i z e d that a l l r i p a r i a n o w n e r s a n d o c c u p i e r s h a v e t h e s a m e r i g h t s w i t h  The issue of collective versus individual rights in the context of liberal theory will be dealt with in greater detail in the concluding chapter of this thesis. ™Supra, note 174 at p. 239 177  81  r e s p e c t t o f i s h i n g i n n o n - t i d a l , n o n - n a v i g a b l e r i v e r s a n d that, t h e r e f o r e , n o s p e c i a l r i g h t s o f g o v e r n a n c e s h o u l d a t t a c h t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o  fish.179  O n c e again,  equality s e e m s to b e perceived a s n e c e s s a r y to e n s u r e a l l competitors  in the  c o m m e r c i a l market a r e o n a level playing field, e v e n though historically Aboriginal f i s h e r s w e r e n o t g i v e n that luxury.  M o r e r e c e n t l y , t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l a g a i n h a d t o c o n s i d e r t h e Sparrow t e s t i n the context o f A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h i n g rights.  In R. v . Jack  180  R. v . Sampson™  and  R. v . Little™ , t h e C o u r t w a s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e i s s u e o f w h e t h e r c e r t a i n c o n s e r v a t i o n 2  m e a s u r e s instituted b y the D e p a r t m e n t interfered with A b o r i g i n a l a n d T r e a t y rights t o food fish.  F o l l o w i n g t h e t e s t i n Sparrow, t h e C o u r t s t a t e d that A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h i n g  m u s t b e g i v e n priority a f t e r c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s a r e m e t .  T h e Court  spent  c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e o n t h e c o n s u l t a t i o n i s s u e i n t h e s e c a s e s , c o n c l u d i n g that t h e consultations w h i c h took place between the B a n d s a n d the Department did not meet t h e Sparrow c r i t e r i a s i n c e t h e y d i d n o t c o v e r a l l o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s w h i c h w e r e implemented a n d w h i c h affected the availability of f o o d fish.  In Jack, t h e C o u r t  s t a t e d that: t h e r e w a s a d u t y o n t h e D F O t o e n s u r e that t h e I n d i a n B a n d w a s p r o v i d e d w i t h full i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s a n d their effect o n t h e Indians a n d other u s e r g r o u p s . a  d u t y t o fully  aboriginal  inform  group  itself o f t h e f i s h i n g p r a c t i c e s o f t h e  a n d their  views  measures.183  Supra, note 175 at p. 263 [1995] B.C.J. No. 2632 (QL), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 201. [1995] B.C.J. No. 2634 (QL), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 226. [1995] B.C.J. No. 2633 (QL), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 253. Supra, note 180 at pp. 53-54 (cited to QL).  ll9  180  1 8 1  182  li3  TheD F Ohad  of  the  conservation  82  H o w e v e r , t h e C o u r t f o u n d that it w a s not n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o reach agreement  with the B a n d s  o n all c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s ,  a s that  would  effectively give First Nations a veto p o w e r o v e r a n y c o n s e r v a t i o n m e a s u r e s  the  D e p a r t m e n t w i s h e d t o initiate. A g a i n , n o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , t h e C o u r t w a s n o t p r e p a r e d t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e f i s h e r i e s is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h i s a l s o p a r t of t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h .  H o w e v e r , b y r e q u i r i n g that t h e r e b e c o m p l e t e d i s c l o s u r e of  c o n s e r v a t i o n p l a n s to F i r s t N a t i o n s b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t , t h e d e c i s i o n s r e c o g n i z e that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s h a v e a v o i c e in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t ,  a l t h o u g h that v o i c e d o e s  not n e c e s s a r i l y h a v e t o b e h e e d e d .  T h e C o u r t w a s a l s o p r e p a r e d to g o b e y o n d m e r e l y a c c e p t i n g at f a c e v a l u e that c o n s e r v a t i o n w a s a v a l i d o b j e c t i v e .  I n s t e a d , it s t a t e d that Sparrow r e q u i r e d that  t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e o b j e c t i v e w a s to b e a t t a i n e d m u s t a l s o b e a n a l y z e d . words,  who  the  conservation  measures  benefitted,  p r i o r i t i e s , is a n i m p o r t a n t i s s u e t o b e c o n s i d e r e d .  through  Top  the  In o t h e r  allocation  of  priority m u s t b e g i v e n t o  Aboriginal food fishing.184  A s w e l l , the C o u r t a l s o attempted to c o n s i d e r the A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e to s o m e e x t e n t b y r e f u s i n g t o m e r e l y c o n s i d e r t h e n a t u r e o f a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h in t h e c o n t e x t of i n d i v i d u a l s .  It s t a t e d that t h e c o l l e c t i v e right o f t h e F i r s t N a t i o n  must  b e c o n s i d e r e d w h e n determining whether u n d u e hardship w a s suffered a s a result  'See, for instance, Little, supra, note 182 at pp. 54-69 (cited to QL).  83  of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s in q u e s t i o n . 1 8 5  W h e t h e r the C o u r t ' s a c c e p t a n c e of the c o l l e c t i v e  n a t u r e of t h e right w o u l d g o s o f a r a s to a c c e p t t h e right o f F i r s t N a t i o n s t o h a v e a r o l e in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t  i s n o t c l e a r s i n c e it w a s not a r g u e d i n t h e s e c a s e s .  H o w e v e r , t h e C o u r t h a d n o difficulty v i e w i n g t h e f i s h i n g right a s a c o l l e c t i v e o n e .  T h e s e c a s e s certainly reflect m u c h m o r e judicial sensitivity to the A b o r i g i n a l perspective than the c o m m e r c i a l fishing c a s e s .  T h e C o u r t a p p e a r s to b e p r e p a r e d  to t a k e t h e Sparrow t e s t s e r i o u s l y a n d t o r e q u i r e strict a d h e r e n c e t o it. H o w e v e r , t h e c a s e s a r e l i m i t e d in t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n :  they d o not r e c o g n i z e a n y t h i n g other t h a n a  f o o d f i s h i n g right a n d d o not e v e n c o n s i d e r A b o r i g i n a l m a n a g e m e n t  rights.  The  C o u r t m a y v e r y w e l l h a v e m a d e t h e d e c i s i o n s it d i d p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e it w a s d e a l i n g only with food fishing a n d , s o m e w h a t limited.  hence,  t h e r a m i f i c a t i o n s o f its d e c i s i o n s w o u l d  be  H o w e v e r , t h e c a s e s m a k e it c l e a r that c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s  c a n n o t b e a c c e p t e d b l i n d l y a n d that m e a n i n g f u l c o n s u l t a t i o n m u s t t a k e p l a c e w i t h First Nations.  It m a y w e l l b e that t h e s e f i n d i n g s will u l t i m a t e l y b e t h e b a s i s f o r a n  i n c r e a s e d role for First N a t i o n s  in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t ,  commercial fishing.  See Sampson, supra, note 181 at pp. 40-45 (cited to QL).  and perhaps even  in  84  (3) The Supreme Court in the Post-Sparrow Era  The decision  Supreme  Court  in t h e context  management.  h a s n o w h a d a n opportunity  of both  Aboriginal  t o r e v i s i t t h e Sparrow  commercial  fishing  a n d fisheries  Its d e c i s i o n s i n Van der Peet, Gladstone, N.T.C. Smokehouse, Lewis  a n d Nikal r e v e a l that, a s h a s b e e n t h e c a s e w i t h m a n y l o w e r c o u r t s , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a p p e a r s t o b e r e l u c t a n t t o a p p l y t h e Sparrow p r i n c i p l e s i n s u c h a w a y a s t o fully r e c o g n i z e c o m m e r c i a l a n d self-regulatory e l e m e n t s t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g right.  I n d e e d , a t t i m e s it c o m p l e t e l y d e p a r t s f r o m t h e spirit o f Sparrow t o a v o i d s u c h  recognition.  In Van der Peet , L a m e r C . J . , f o r t h e majority, c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e i s s u e i n t h e 166  c a s e a s w h e t h e r s . 3 5 ( 1 ) r e c o g n i z e s a n d a f f i r m s t h e right o f t h e S t o : l o t o s e l l f i s h . In a n s w e r i n g that q u e s t i o n , h e s t a t e d that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s m u s t b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n a w a y w h i c h reflects the p u r p o s e s underlying s . 35(1) a n d the interests t h e provision is i n t e n d e d t o protect.  Lamer  C.J. made  reference  in h i s d e c i s i o n to t h e limitations  of t h e  p h i l o s o p h i c a l p r e c e p t s o f " l i b e r a l e n l i g h t e n m e n t ' , w h i c h h o l d that r i g h t s a r e g e n e r a l a n d u n i v e r s a l , w h e n a p p l i e d t o A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . H e s t a t e d that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e different from other C h a r t e r rights b e c a u s e they a r e rights w h i c h o n l y A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s h o l d d u e t o t h e f a c t that t h e y a r e A b o r i g i n a l .  Supra, note 152.  ls6  H e d i d not suggest  that  85  A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s d o n o t fit w i t h i n a l i b e r a l f r a m e w o r k  b e c a u s e they are collective  rights; r a t h e r ,  h e pointed to t h e distinction b e t w e e n  A b o r i g i n a l rights a n d other  C h a r t e r rights in a n attempt to define A b o r i g i n a l rights.  H o w e v e r , it a p p e a r s t h a t h e  was  concerned  about  granting  special  rights  to o n e group  in society a n d ,  a c c o r d i n g l y , attempted to n a r r o w t h e definition of A b o r i g i n a l rights. the  Court  cannot  "ignore the n e c e s s a r y  H e s t a t e d that  specificity w h i c h c o m e s from  granting  s p e c i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n t o o n e part o f C a n a d i a n s o c i e t y . " 1 8 7 T h u s , u n l i k e t h e Supreme  C o u r t i n Sparrow w h i c h d e m a n d e d  that s . 3 5 ( 1 ) b e g i v e n a " g e n e r o u s ,  l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " 1 8 8 , L a m e r C . J . a p p e a r s t o limit its a p p l i c a t i o n .  It m a y b e that  t h i s s t e m s f r o m h i s difficulty i n fitting A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s w i t h i n t h e l i b e r a l  framework,  w i t h its f o c u s o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d e q u a l i t y , o r it m a y r e l a t e t o o t h e r r e a s o n s s u c h a s c o n c e r n o v e r t h e effects of interpreting A b o r i g i n a l rights broadly. r e a s o n , in h i s view,  if s p e c i a l r i g h t s a r e t o b e g r a n t e d ,  Whatever the  it will o n l y b e i n s p e c i f i c  circumstances.  L a m e r C . J . h e l d that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s s h o u l d b e d e f i n e d t h r o u g h a p u r p o s i v e a p p r o a c h t o s . 3 5 ( 1 ) t o e n s u r e that "that w h i c h i s f o u n d t o f a l l w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n i s related to t h e provision's i n t e n d e d f o c u s : relation to C a n a d i a n society a s a w h o l e . " 1 8 9  aboriginal p e o p l e a n d their rights in H e f o u n d that t h e r e a s o n A b o r i g i n a l  rights a r e r e c o g n i z e d a n d affirmed in s . 35(1) is to r e c o n c i l e t h e p r e - e x i s t e n c e of  "76/<*atpp. 58-59. Supra, note 56 at p. 407. Lamer C.J. later points to this requirement although he apparently does not pay any real attention to it. See supra, note 152 at p. 61. Supra, note 152 at p. 60. 188  lS9  86  Aboriginal societies with C r o w n sovereignty.  A b o r i g i n a l rights, therefore, must b e  d e f i n e d s o that t h i s r e c o n c i l i a t i o n i s a c h i e v e d .  It a p p e a r s that, a s w a s t h e c a s e w i t h  t h e majority i n t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a C o u r t o f A p p e a l ,  Lamer C . J . w a s concerned  a b o u t t h e e f f e c t o n o t h e r i n t e r e s t s i n C a n a d a if A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e r e c o g n i z e d a n d , a s a r e s u l t , h e a t t e m p t e d t o t e m p e r t h o s e r i g h t s s o m e w h a t b y r e q u i r i n g that t h e y b e defined with other interests of C a n a d i a n society in mind.  It i s a l s o c l e a r , a n d n o t  s u r p r i s i n g , that h e d i d n o t q u e s t i o n t h e u n d e r l y i n g b a s i s f o r C a n a d i a n s o v e r e i g n t y .  A s w e l l , it a p p e a r s that h e m i s a p p l i e d Sparrow t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h e r e q u i r e d t h e i s s u e o f r e c o n c i l i a t i o n t o b e t a k e n into a c c o u n t a t t h e s t a g e w h e n rights a r e b e i n g d e f i n e d , rather t h a n at t h e justification s t a g e .  Aboriginal  In Sparrow, t h e C o u r t  s p o k e only of reconciliation in t h e context of justifying regulations w h i c h infringe Aboriginal rights.190  L a m e r C . J . a l s o r e i n t e r p r e t e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t i n Sparrow t h a t  t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e b e t a k e n into a c c o u n t i n a s s e s s i n g a c l a i m f o r A b o r i g i n a l rights.  H e s t a t e d that, " C o u r t s a d j u d i c a t i n g a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s c l a i m s m u s t . . . b e  s e n s i t i v e t o t h e a b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e , b u t t h e y m u s t a l s o b e a w a r e that a b o r i g i n a l rights exist within t h e g e n e r a l legal s y s t e m o f C a n a d a . " 1 9 1  H e r e q u i r e d that e q u a l  weight b e given to the Aboriginal perspective a n d the perspective of the c o m m o n law.  It i s t r u e that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , a s t h e y a r e c u r r e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d , d o e x i s t w i t h i n  the broader C a n a d i a n legal system.  H o w e v e r , it i s n o t c l e a r w h y that f a c t m u s t b e  t a k e n into a c c o u n t w h e n A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a r e b e i n g d e f i n e d , r a t h e r t h a n a t t h e  %va,note56atp. 409. Supra, note 152 at p. 88.  190  m  87  justification stage, as was done in Sparrow. Again, it appears that Lamer C.J. departed from the spirit of Sparrow and was more concerned about effects on Canadian society than attempting to adopt the Aboriginal perspective.  Lamer C.J. formulated a test in Van der Peet for identifying Aboriginal rights which are protected by s. 35(1). He stated that since one of the purposes of s. 35(1) is to recognize pre-existing Aboriginal societies, Aboriginal rights must be linked to the practices, traditions and customs central to Aboriginal societies prior to contact with Europeans. In support of this requirement, Lamer C.J. referred to the Supreme Court's reference in Sparrow to the fact that the salmon fishery was "an integral part of [the Musqueam's] distinctive culture".  192  The Supreme Court never stated that to  be an Aboriginal right, the activity must be an integral part of the First Nation's distinctive culture; it merely used those words in the context of describing the importance of fishing to the Musqueam in that case. However, Lamer C.J. found that the Court in Sparrow suggested that it is the test for defining Aboriginal rights and he therefore used it as such.  The first stage in Lanier's test is to properly characterize what is being claimed. He stated that the nature of the claim must be delineated in terms of the particular practice, tradition or custom under which it is claimed. The court must also consider other factors, including the nature of the action which the applicant is  W a t p. 84.  88  claiming  was  done  pursuant  to  an  Aboriginal  right,  and  the  nature  of  the  governmental action being c h a l l e n g e d . 1 9 3  T h e n e x t s t e p is to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r w h a t i s b e i n g c l a i m e d a s a n A b o r i g i n a l right w a s a n i n t e g r a l part o f t h e F i r s t N a t i o n ' s d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e . T h e c l a i m a n t at t h i s s t a g e must d e m o n s t r a t e that the practice, tradition o r c u s t o m b e i n g relied u p o n w a s a " c e n t r a l a n d s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of t h e s o c i e t y ' s d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e . " 1 9 4  Only  those  a s p e c t s o f t h e c u l t u r e w h i c h m a d e it d i s t i n c t i v e will t r a n s l a t e to A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s s i n c e , in L a m a r ' s w o r d s , " T o r e c o n c i l e a b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s w i t h C r o w n s o v e r e i g n t y it is n e c e s s a r y t o identify t h e d i s t i n c t i v e f e a t u r e s o f t h o s e s o c i e t i e s ; it i s p r e c i s e l y t h o s e distinctive features  which  need  s o v e r e i g n t y of the C r o w n . " 1 9 5 is  whether  without  the  fundamentally altered.  to  be  acknowledged  and  reconciled with  the  H e s t a t e d that t h e q u e s t i o n w h i c h m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d  practice,  tradition  or  custom,  the  culture  would  If not, w h a t i s b e i n g c l a i m e d i s n o t a n A b o r i g i n a l right.  be The  practice, c u s t o m or tradition c a n n o t exist a s a n incident to a n o t h e r p r a c t i c e , c u s t o m o r t r a d i t i o n ; i n c i d e n t a l p r a c t i c e s will not q u a l i f y a s A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s .  The  relevant  timeframe  for determining whether  a  particular practice is  integral to a particular First Nation u n d e r L a n i e r ' s test is the p e r i o d prior to c o n t a c t b e t w e e n A b o r i g i n a l a n d n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s . L a m e r C . J . s t a t e d that this is the r e l e v a n t t i m e p e r i o d b e c a u s e t h e b a s i s f o r e n t r e n c h i n g A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s in t h e  /6/rfatpp. 90-91. /6;rfatpp. 92. /A/rfatp. 94.  !93  ,94  195  89  C o n s t i t u t i o n w a s t h e f a c t that d i s t i n c t i v e A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s l i v e d o n t h e l a n d p r i o r t o t h e a r r i v a l o f E u r o p e a n s a n d , t h e r e f o r e , it i s t o t h e p r e - c o n t a c t p e r i o d that t h e c o u r t s must look in defining A b o r i g i n a l rights. impossible  to produce  H e a c k n o w l e d g e d that it w i l l o f t e n b e n e x t t o  conclusive evidence  from  pre-contact  practices, c u s t o m s a n d traditions of the society i n question.  times  about the  A s a result, h e stated  that a l l that i s r e q u i r e d i s t o d e m o n s t r a t e that t h e a c t i v i t y h a d its o r i g i n s p r e - c o n t a c t ; in o t h e r w o r d s , that t h e r e i s c o n t i n u i t y b e t w e e n p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e s , w h i c h a r e i n t e g r a l to t h e F i r s t N a t i o n ' s d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e , a n d t h o s e w h i c h e x i s t e d b e f o r e c o n t a c t . 1 9 6  L a m e r C . J . f o u n d that t h e p r a c t i c e o f e x c h a n g i n g f i s h f o r m o n e y o r o t h e r g o o d s w a s not a n integral part o f t h e distinctive culture o f t h e S t o : l o prior t o c o n t a c t with t h e E u r o p e a n s .  T r a d e i n s a l m o n w a s f o u n d t o h a v e t a k e n p l a c e , b u t it w a s  d e s c r i b e d a s b e i n g either for c e r e m o n i a l p u r p o s e s o r opportunistic e x c h a n g e s .  Asa  r e s u l t , M r s . V a n d e r P e e t h a d n o A b o r i g i n a l right t o s e l l h e r f i s h a n d t h e a p p e a l w a s dismissed.  Lamer  C . J . a p p l i e d t h e test  Smokehouse  197  h e formulated  i n Van der Peet i n N.T.C.  a n d f o u n d that t h e trial j u d g e ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t d i d n o t s u p p o r t a  c l a i m that, p r i o r t o c o n t a c t , t h e e x c h a n g e o f f i s h f o r m o n e y o r o t h e r g o o d s w a s a n integral part o f the distinctive cultures of the S h e s h a h t o r the O p e t c h e s a h t .  Although  fish w e r e traded o r e x c h a n g e d o n s o m e o c c a s i o n s , including at potlatches a n d other  W a t pp. 96-98. Supra, note 154. 1  90  ceremonial events,  L a m e r C . J . f o u n d that t h e y w e r e i n c i d e n t a l e v e n t s o n l y a n d  l a c k e d t h e i n d e p e n d e n t s i g n i f i c a n c e t o c o n s t i t u t e a n A b o r i g i n a l right.  T h e appeal  w a s therefore d i s m i s s e d .  The  test for proving A b o r i g i n a l rights w h i c h is p r e s e n t e d b y L a m e r  establishes a very high threshold for Aboriginal claimants to meet.  C.J.  It w i l l o f t e n b e  difficult t o p r o v e that a n activity h a d its o r i g i n s i n p r e - c o n t a c t A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t y , e v e n t h o u g h L a m e r s u g g e s t e d that t h e r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e s h o u l d b e r e l a x e d s o m e w h a t t o t a k e into a c c o u n t t h i s p r o b l e m . 1 9 8 of a c u l t u r e . which  It i s a l s o artificial t o a t t e m p t t o s e p a r a t e o u t p a r t s  C u l t u r a l e l e m e n t s a r e i n t e r - r e l a t e d a n d it will b e difficult t o d e t e r m i n e  elements  a r e incidental only  underlying culture.  and c a n be removed  without  altering the  It i s a l s o n o t c l e a r w h y it i s o n l y t h e d i s t i n c t i v e a s p e c t s o f  Aboriginal culture w h i c h a r e to b e protected by s . 35(1).  If s . 3 5 ( 1 ) i s truly d e s i g n e d  to r e c o g n i z e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s p r i o r t o c o n t a c t , it i s a r g u a b l e that all a s p e c t s o f A b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e , i n c l u d i n g i n c i d e n t a l p r a c t i c e s , s h o u l d b e p r o t e c t e d w i t h t h e Sparrow t e s t b e i n g u s e d t o justify a n y n e c e s s a r y i n f r i n g e m e n t s .  L a m e r C . J . a l s o failed to adopt e v e n a partial A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e in h i s analysis.  In r e q u i r i n g that t h e a p p e l l a n t s p r o v e that t h e s a l e o f f i s h , a s o p p o s e d t o  the extensive  u s e of f i s h g e n e r a l l y , w a s a n integral part of t h e First  Nation's  Supra, note 152 at p. 102. It is noteworthy, however, that Lamer C.J. nonetheless unquestioningly accepts the trial judge's findings of fact in his judgments in both Van der Peet and N.T.C. Smokehouse without any apparent consideration of whether the evidentiary standards being applied by the trial judge were too high in the circumstances. See ibid at pp. 112-116 and N.T.C. Smokehouse, supra, note 154 at pp. 35-37. l98  91  distinctive culture, h e d i d what t h e S u p r e m e should not b e done.  Court  i n Sparrow e x p r e s s l y  stated  T h a t is, h e v i e w e d fishing rights i n their r e g u l a t e d form.  s e p a r a t e d f i s h i n g into f o o d f i s h i n g a n d f i s h i n g f o r t r a d e o r s a l e . r e s u l t e d f r o m g o v e r n m e n t r e g u l a t i o n , not A b o r i g i n a l t r a d i t i o n .  This  He  separation  A s w a s noted in the  context of the Court of A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n s , First Nations u s e d fish opportunistically a n d a s a w a y in w h i c h t o s u s t a i n t h e m s e l v e s . were u s e d accordingly.  If t r a d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r o s e , t h e f i s h  If a truly A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e w a s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d a t a l l ,  t h e artificial s e p a r a t i o n o f f i s h i n g into f o o d f i s h i n g a n d f i s h i n g f o r t r a d e o r s a l e w o u l d not b e u s e d .  A s w e l l , it a p p e a r s that L a m e r C . J . c o n f u s e d t h e h i s t o r i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e recognition a n d affirmation of A b o r i g i n a l rights i n s . 3 5 ( 1 ) with t h e content a n d definition o f t h o s e rights.  A b o r i g i n a l rights m a y b e protected b e c a u s e A b o r i g i n a l  societies existed in North A m e r i c a prior to the arrival of E u r o p e a n s .  H o w e v e r , that  d o e s n o t m e a n that A b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e w a s f r o z e n a t t h e m o m e n t  of contact a n d  c a n n o t l e g i t i m a t e l y c h a n g e w i t h o u t l o s i n g its d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . C u l t u r e i s d y n a m i c , n o t static.  T h e C o u r t i n Sparrow e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d that f a c t a n d r e j e c t e d a " f r o z e n  rights" a p p r o a c h .  L a m e r C . J . a p p e a r s t o i g n o r e that r e j e c t i o n c o m p l e t e l y , a t l e a s t i n  relation to formulating a test f o r defining A b o r i g i n a l rights.  Lamer C . J . suggested  that h e w a s a c t u a l l y a v o i d i n g a f r o z e n r i g h t s a n a l y s i s t h r o u g h t h e u s e o f t h e c o n c e p t of c o n t i n u i t y .  H e s t a t e d that p r a c t i c e s , c u s t o m s a n d t r a d i t i o n s c a n e v o l v e  into  m o d e r n forms, provided there is continuity with pre-contact practices, c u s t o m s a n d  92  traditions.199  H o w e v e r , like t h e Court of A p p e a l , h e n o n e t h e l e s s u s e d at least a  partial f r o z e n rights a n a l y s i s .  A n activity w h i c h a r o s e a s a result of c o n t a c t with  E u r o p e a n s will n o t p a s s L a n i e r ' s test, a s h e e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d . 2 0 0 n e w life into t h e i d e o l o g i c a l n o t i o n o f " s t a t i c I n d i a n n e s s " :  Thus, h e breathes  Under Lanier's analysis,  A b o r i g i n a l s a r e n o l o n g e r t r u e A b o r i g i n a l s if t h e y a d o p t p r a c t i c e s o f t h e d o m i n a n t society.  In t h e i r d i s s e n t s , b o t h different  approach  L'Heureux-Dube a n d McLachlin  to t h e i s s u e of Aboriginal  fishing  J.J. e a c h take  rights.  a  L'Heureux-Dube  e x p r e s s l y r e c o g n i z e d i n h e r d i s s e n t i n Van der Peet a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse that A b o r i g i n a l rights derive from t h e historic o c c u p a t i o n a n d u s e of a n c e s t r a l l a n d s a n d do  not d e p e n d  inherent practices,  o n a n y legislative enactment.  rights a p p r o a c h traditions  to Aboriginal  a n d customs  rights.  S h e thereby  S h e also noted  have changed  including after t h e arrival of E u r o p e a n s .  acknowledged the  a n d evolved  that over  Aboriginal the years,  S h e e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d that t h e notion of  A b o r i g i n a l rights must b e o p e n to fluctuation, c h a n g e a n d evolution o v e r t i m e . 2 0 1  A s w e l l , s h e r e f e r r e d t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s i n Sparrow t h a t s . 3 5 ( 1 ) b e g i v e n a g e n e r o u s , l a r g e a n d l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , that u n c e r t a i n t i e s b e r e s o l v e d i n f a v o u r o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s , a n d that t h e c o u r t b e s e n s i t i v e t o t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e o n t h e m e a n i n g of t h e rights at stake.  Van der Peet, supra, note 152 at pp. 98-99. /&irfatp. 107. Ibidatvp. 135-136.  199  200  2m  S h e h e l d that A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s s h o u l d b e  93  d e f i n e d in relation to the significance of various activities to First Nations, rather than to t h e activities t h e m s e l v e s .  T h e rights w h i c h a r e t o b e protected relate t o t h e  activities w h i c h a r e "sufficiently significant a n d f u n d a m e n t a l t o t h e culture a n d s o c i a l organization of a particular group of aboriginal p e o p l e . " 2 0 2 rights a p p r o a c h  a n d h e l d that a " d y n a m i c  S h e rejected the frozen  rights" a p p r o a c h  should  instead b e  f o l l o w e d s o that A b o r i g i n a l p r a c t i c e s , traditions a n d c u s t o m s c a n c h a n g e a n d e v o l v e w i t h i n t h e b r o a d e r s o c i e t y . A l l that i s r e q u i r e d i s that t h e p r a c t i c e b e a n i n t e g r a l part of t h e d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n f o r a s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t i n u o u s p e r i o d of t i m e . 2 0 3  In b o t h  Van der Peet a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse,  s h e found  sufficient  e v i d e n c e o f trade in s a l m o n for livelihood, support a n d s u s t e n a n c e p u r p o s e s for a substantial period of time, rooted in t h e First Nation's distinctive culture.  McLachlin majority.  J . also expressly  rejected t h e frozen  rights a p p r o a c h  of the  S h e c h a r a c t e r i z e d t h e right a t i s s u e a s t h e right t o c o n t i n u e t o u s e t h e  r e s o u r c e in t h e traditional w a y t o provide f o r traditional n e e d s in their m o d e r n form. S h e perceived trade a s being o n e m o d e b y which t h e more fundamental drawing sustenance from the resource is exercised.  right o f  H o w e v e r , s h e l i m i t e d t h e right  to that w h i c h i s r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e i n q u e s t i o n w i t h r e a s o n a b l e substitutes for w h a t they traditionally o b t a i n e d from t h e r e s o u r c e ; i n m o s t c a s e s , that would amount to what is n e c e s s a r y to provide b a s i c housing, transportation, clothing and amenities.204  Ibidntp. 165.  202  Ibid at p p . 174-176. Ibid at pp. 260-262.  203  204  S h e f o u n d i n b o t h Van der Peet a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse  that  94  t h e r e w a s a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o s e l l f i s h i n t h e m a n n e r i n w h i c h it w a s s o l d , that t h e right h a d n o t b e e n e x t i n g u i s h e d , that it h a d b e e n i n f r i n g e d , a n d t h a t t h e C r o w n h a d not p r o v e n that t h e i n f r i n g e m e n t w a s j u s t i f i e d .  Although both L'Heureux-Dube's a n d M c L a c h l i n ' s judgments a p p e a r to b e m o r e i n l i n e w i t h t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s a n a l y s i s o f A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Sparrow, e v e n t h e y h a d difficulty c o n c e i v i n g o f a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o e n g a g e i n m o d e r n c o m m e r c i a l fisheries.  L ' H e u r e u x - D u b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d , a s d i d t h e majority o f t h e C o u r t i n t h e s e  c a s e s a s w e l l a s t h e c o u r t s i n R. v . Jones a n d R. v . Horseman , 205  between the sale,  trade o r barter of fish for livelihood, support a n d s u s t e n a n c e p u r p o s e s o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d t h e s a l e , trade a n d barter of fish for purely c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s o n t h e other h a n d .  In Van der  Peet, s h e s t a t e d that a n A b o r i g i n a l a c t i v i t y c a n f o r m a n  integral part of t h e distinctive culture of a First N a t i o n  if it i s d o n e f o r c e r t a i n  p u r p o s e s , s u c h a s t o g a i n a l i v e l i h o o d , b u t n o t if it i s d o n e f o r o t h e r p u r p o s e s , s u c h a s p u r e l y c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s . 2 0 6 S h e s t a t e d that:  commercial  u s e of the fish would  seem  to b e intrinsically  incompatible with t h e pre-contact o r pre-sovereignty culture o f t h e S t o : l o w h i c h c o m m a n d e d that t h e u t i l i z a t i o n o f t h e s a l m o n , including its s a l e , trade a n d barter, b e restricted t o p r o v i d i n g livelihood, support a n d s u s t e n a n c e , a n d d i d not entail obtaining purely commercial profit.207  'Supra, notes 148 and 151 respectively. These cases were discussed in Part (2) above. 'Supra, note 152 at pp. 181-191.  'Ibid at p. 217.  95  A s a result, s h e effectively d r e w a distinction for A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s that d o e s not e x i s t f o r n o n - A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s .  Commercial non-Aboriginal fishers catch and  sell f i s h to e a r n a livelihood for t h e m s e l v e s a n d their f a m i l i e s , yet t h e y a r e  not  d e s c r i b e d a s b e i n g i n v o l v e d in a s u s t e n a n c e a c t i v i t y o n l y ; t h e y a r e d e s c r i b e d a s b e i n g i n v o l v e d in a c o m m e r c i a l u n d e r t a k i n g .  It is i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e t e r m  " s u s t e n a n c e " is d e f i n e d a s t h e m e a n s of p r o v i d i n g t h e n e c e s s i t i e s o f life. using this characterization "commercial" fishers are  of the  right,  L'Heureux-Dube found  that  T h u s , by Aboriginal  e n t i t l e d to o b t a i n n o m o r e t h a n t h e n e c e s s i t i e s o f life  through their fishing e n d e a v o u r s .  N o s u c h limitation exists for n o n - A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s  i n v o l v e d in t h e c o m m e r c i a l i n d u s t r y .  A l t h o u g h M c L a c h l i n J. d i s a g r e e d with m a k i n g a distinction b e t w e e n fishing for s u s t e n a n c e p u r p o s e s a n d c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g , s h e too s t a t e d that a large o p e r a t i o n g e a r e d t o p r o d u c i n g profits in e x c e s s of w h a t t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e h a d h i s t o r i c a l l y t a k e n might not b e constitutionally protected.  Instead, s h e interpreted the Aboriginal  right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y a s i n c o r p o r a t i n g o n l y t h a t w h i c h w a s r e q u i r e d t o e m u l a t e t r a d i t i o n a l A b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t y . 2 0 8 In h e r w o r d s :  t h e a b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h f o r c o m m e r c e i s l i m i t e d t o s u p p l y i n g w h a t the aboriginal p e o p l e traditionally took from the fishery. S i n c e t h e s e w e r e not g e n e r a l l y s o c i e t i e s w h i c h v a l u e d e x c e s s o r a c c u m u l a t e d w e a l t h , t h e m e a s u r e will s e l d o m , o n t h e f a c t s , b e f o u n d to e x c e e d  the  b a s i c s of f o o d ,  supplemented by a few amenities.  Wat  pp. 229-230.  W a t p. 287.  209  clothing a n d  housing,  96  L ' H e u r e u x - D u b e ' s a n d M c L a c h l i n ' s r e l u c t a n c e t o p e r c e i v e t h e A b o r i g i n a l right a s i n c l u d i n g the ability to run a c o m m e r c i a l profit-making e n t e r p r i s e m a y s t e m from a n u n d e r l y i n g c o n c e p t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l s a s b e i n g t r a d i t i o n a l l y i n v o l v e d in s u s t e n a n c e e c o n o m i e s only; fisheries. viewed  This,  they  a r e not perceived a s m o d e m  players in the commercial  a g a i n , reflects a "static Indian" i d e o l o g y with A b o r i g i n a l s  in traditional terms  only.  It i s a l s o a w a y t o r a t i o n a l i z e  being  Aboriginal  " c o m m e r c i a l " f i s h i n g r i g h t s w i t h o t h e r C a n a d i a n i n t e r e s t s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f Sparrow's priority r e q u i r e m e n t b y i n t e r p r e t i n g t h o s e r i g h t s in t h e l e a s t t h r e a t e n i n g w a y v i s - a - v i s o t h e r f i s h i n g i n t e r e s t s . A s a r e s u l t , t h e i r f i n d i n g s a r e n o t that s u r p r i s i n g .  D e s p i t e t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n h e r e n t i n e s t a b l i s h i n g that a n A b o r i g i n a l right e x i s t s u n d e r t h e t e s t f o r m u l a t e d b y t h e majority i n Van der Peet, t h e C o u r t d i d f i n d a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o s e l l f i s h u s i n g that t e s t i n Gladstone.  In that c a s e , t h e C o u r t  f o u n d that t h e t r a d e o f h e r r i n g s p a w n o n k e l p f o r m o n e y  o r other g o o d s w a s a  210  central, significant a n d defining feature of the pre-contact culture of the p e o p l e a n d that it w a s o n a s c a l e b e s t c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s c o m m e r c i a l .  Heiltsuk  Following the  Sparrow r e q u i r e m e n t o f e v i d e n c e o f a c l e a r a n d p l a i n i n t e n t i o n t o e x t i n g u i s h a n A b o r i g i n a l right, t h e C o u r t f o u n d that t h e right o f t h e H e i l t s u k , a l t h o u g h r e g u l a t e d , had never been extinguished.  The  C o u r t t h e n w e n t o n t o c o n s i d e r t h e o t h e r p a r t s o f t h e Sparrow t e s t  d e a l i n g with infringement a n d justification.  Supra, note 153.  210  T h e C o u r t f o u n d that s i n c e p r i o r t o t h e  97  arrival of E u r o p e a n s the Heiltsuk c o u l d harvest herring s p a w n o n kelp to a n y extent t h e y d e s i r e d , t h e r e g u l a t i o n s i n f r i n g e d t h e A b o r i g i n a l right b y l i m i t i n g t h e a m o u n t that c o u l d b e legally h a r v e s t e d for c o m m e r c i a l p u r p o s e s .  W h e n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e , t h e C o u r t n o t e d that t h e r e w a s a f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e f a c t s o f t h e c a s e a n d t h o s e i n Sparrow. Sparrow, t h e C o u r t w a s d e a l i n g w i t h i n t e r n a l l y l i m i t e d f o o d f i s h i n g r i g h t s .  In  However,  in Gladstone, t h e c o m m e r c i a l s a l e o f h e r r i n g s p a w n o n k e l p h a d n o s u c h i n t e r n a l limitation; t h e o n l y r e s t r a i n t s w e r e t h e e x t e r n a l d e m a n d s availability of the fish.  of t h e market a n d the  T h e C o u r t r e m a r k e d that t h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n  m e a n t that t h e priority r e q u i r e m e n t in Sparrow i s u n s u i t e d t o a c o m m e r c i a l s i t u a t i o n :  in t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e w h e r e t h e a b o r i g i n a l right h a s n o i n t e r n a l l i m i t a t i o n , t h e n o t i o n o f priority, a s a r t i c u l a t e d i n S p a r r o w ,  would  m e a n that w h e r e a n a b o r i g i n a l right i s r e c o g n i z e d a n d a f f i r m e d that right w o u l d b e c o m e a n e x c l u s i v e o n e .  B e c a u s e t h e right t o  sell herring s p a w n o n kelp to the commercial market c a n never b e s a i d t o b e s a t i s f i e d w h i l e t h e r e s o u r c e is still a v a i l a b l e a n d t h e m a r k e t i s n o t s a t e d , t o g i v e priority t o that right i n t h e m a n n e r suggested  in Sparrow  would  b e to give  t h e right-holder  e x c l u s i v i t y o v e r a n y p e r s o n n o t h a v i n g a n a b o r i g i n a l right t o participate in the herring s p a w n o n kelp f i s h e r y . . . . s u c h a result w a s not the intention of S p a r r o w . 2 1 1  T h u s , i n s t e a d o f b e i n g r e q u i r e d t o g r a n t a priority t o A b o r i g i n a l c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s , a l l that g o v e r n m e n t n e e d d o i s d e m o n s t r a t e that i n a l l o c a t i n g t h e r e s o u r c e it t o o k into a c c o u n t a n d r e s p e c t e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s ; b o t h t h e p r o c e s s  211  Ibid at pp. 82-83.  98  of a l l o c a t i o n a n d t h e a c t u a l a l l o c a t i o n m u s t r e f l e c t t h e p r i o r i n t e r e s t o f A b o r i g i n a l right h o l d e r s .  H o w this requirement is to b e carried out b y g o v e r n m e n t in practice is  not c l e a r i n t h e d e c i s i o n a n d , a s t h e C o u r t n o t e d , will b e c a s e - s p e c i f i c . T h e C o u r t did, however, whether  set out a number  there  w a s sufficient  of factors w h i c h must b e c o n s i d e r e d , including  consultation  and compensation-as  required  by  Sparrow-and w h e t h e r t h e g o v e r n m e n t a c c o m m o d a t e d A b o r i g i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e industry, t h e extent of A b o r i g i n a l participation in t h e industry, a n d t h e criteria u s e d by government to allocate commercial licences a m o n g u s e r s . 2 1 2  In  r e j e c t i n g a priority  characterization  o f t h e right t h a t w o u l d  result in  e x c l u s i v i t y , t h e C o u r t fell b a c k o n o n e o f t h e c o m m o n i d e o l o g i c a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s w h i c h h a s b e e n u s e d in other c a s e s :  t h e notion that fish a r e c o m m o n  property.  A l t h o u g h it i s n o t c l e a r that f i s h a r e i n d e e d c o m m o n p r o p e r t y , t h e C o u r t n o n e t h e l e s s u s e d t h i s i d e o l o g y a s a r a t i o n a l e t o limit t h e s c o p e o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l right, s t a t i n g t h a t "the r e c o g n i t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s s h o u l d n o t b e i n t e r p r e t e d a s e x t i n g u i s h i n g t h e right o f p u b l i c a c c e s s t o t h e f i s h e r y . " 2 1 3  T h e r e a s s e s s m e n t a n d r e j e c t i o n o f t h e priority r e q u i r e m e n t i n Sparrow i n t h e commercial  context  consequences commercially.  of recognizing  Ibidatp. 93.  2U  a complete  priority  w a s predictable right  given the  of Aboriginals  to fish  T o t a l r e c o g n i t i o n o f a priority right w o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y d i s p l a c e a l l o t h e r  Ibid at pp. 85-90.  2l2  is not surprising a n d , indeed,  99  c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g i n t e r e s t s a n d it i s , t h e r e f o r e , e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a n y c o u r t w o u l d m a k e that f i n d i n g . C o u r t s c o n t i n u e t o b e r e l u c t a n t t o c o m p l e t e l y t h r e a t e n n o n Aboriginal commercial fishers.  N o n e t h e l e s s , b y m o d i f y i n g t h e priority r e q u i r e m e n t  t h e C o u r t w a s at l e a s t a b l e to r e c o g n i z e a c o m m e r c i a l right, h o w e v e r u n c l e a r its p a r a m e t e r s might be.  If it h a d b e e n u n a b l e t o m a k e t h o s e m o d i f i c a t i o n s , it i s l i k e l y  that it w o u l d n o t h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h e right at a l l .  T h e C o u r t ' s c o n c e r n o v e r t h e i n t e r e s t s o f b r o a d e r s o c i e t y i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d in its d i s c u s s i o n o f w h a t will c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d g o v e r n m e n t o b j e c t i v e . T h e C o u r t m a d e it c l e a r that o b j e c t i v e s r e l a t i n g to n o n - A b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t s i n t h e f i s h e r i e s m a y b e v a l i d . It s t a t e d that:  B e c a u s e ... distinctive aboriginal s o c i e t i e s exist within, a n d a r e a p a r t of, a b r o a d e r s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l a n d e c o n o m i c c o m m u n i t y ,  over  w h i c h t h e C r o w n i s s o v e r e i g n , t h e r e a r e c i r c u m s t a n c e s in w h i c h , in o r d e r to p u r s u e  o b j e c t i v e s of c o m p e l l i n g a n d  substantial  i m p o r t a n c e to that c o m m u n i t y a s a w h o l e ( t a k i n g into a c c o u n t t h e f a c t that a b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s a r e p a r t o f that some  l i m i t a t i o n o f t h o s e r i g h t s will b e j u s t i f i a b l e .  community), Aboriginal  r i g h t s a r e a n e c e s s a r y p a r t of t h e r e c o n c i l i a t i o n o f a b o r i g i n a l s o c i e t i e s w i t h t h e b r o a d e r p o l i t i c a l c o m m u n i t y of w h i c h t h e y a r e a part; limits p l a c e d o n t h o s e r i g h t s a r e , w h e r e t h e o b j e c t i v e s furthered  by those  limits a r e o f s u f f i c i e n t i m p o r t a n c e to  the  b r o a d e r c o m m u n i t y a s a w h o l e , e q u a l l y a n e c e s s a r y p a r t o f that reconciliation.214  T h e C o u r t w e n t o n to s t a t e , a l t h o u g h a s obiter dicta s i n c e it d e c i d e d t o s e n d t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n i s s u e b a c k f o r a n e w trial, that o b j e c t i v e s s u c h a s t h e p u r s u i t o f  Ibid at pp. 98-99.  100  e c o n o m i c a n d regional fairness a n d the recognition of the historical reliance u p o n a n d participation in t h e fishery b y n o n - A b o r i g i n a l g r o u p s c o u l d satisfy t h e requisite standard  for a valid objective  Canadians.215  since these  matters  a r e in t h e interest  T h i s is a n explicit e x a m p l e of t h e Court  being concerned  of all about  protecting n o n - A b o r i g i n a l interests in t h e industry.  L a F o r e s t ' s d i s s e n t i n t h e Gladstone c a s e l a r g e l y r e f l e c t s a f r o z e n r i g h t s approach.  H e f o u n d that b a r t e r i n g a n d t r a d i n g i n f i s h w a s i n t e g r a l t o t h e H e i l t s u k  F i r s t N a t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t i n w h i c h it o c c u r r e d a n d , w i t h o u t t h a t c o n t e x t , it i s n o l o n g e r p a r t o f t h e i r d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e .  In o t h e r w o r d s , b e c a u s e t h e  Heiltsuk n o l o n g e r live a s they d i d pre-contact, a n y bartering o r trading of f i s h that n o w t a k e s p l a c e c a n n o l o n g e r b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s part of their culture. H e n o t e d :  w h e n the Heiltsuk trade herring s p a w n o n kelp in large quantities to J a p a n e s e satisfying  clients, they d o s o for t h e u n i q u e . . . p u r p o s e of  their  o w n financial  interests  a n d clearly  not in  p u r s u a n c e of t h e v a l u e s rooted in their cultural d i s t i n c t i v e n e s s . . . . w e a r e light y e a r s a w a y f r o m t h e a n c i e n t p r a c t i c e o f s h a r i n g r e s o u r c e s with fellow b a n d s in furtherance of spiritual i d e a l s . 2 1 6  T h e s e c o m m e n t s s e e m to reflect t h e stereotypical v i e w that A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e w e r e h i s t o r i c a l l y u n c o n c e r n e d a b o u t i m p r o v i n g t h e i r s i t u a t i o n i n life. A s w a s n o t e d i n C h a p t e r T w o , this w a s not t h e c a s e , with d i s c r e p a n c i e s in wealth a n d status b e i n g the rule rather than t h e exception a m o n g  Ibidatp. 100.  215  21<  W a t p p . 118-119.  individual m e m b e r s  of a First  Nation.  101  T h u s , o n e of the v a l u e s w h i c h m a y h a v e b e e n rooted in their cultural distinctiveness, w h i c h L a F o r e s t f a i l e d t o r e c o g n i z e , w a s c o n c e r n o v e r e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , j u s t a s it i s today.  It i s n o t y e t c l e a r w h a t t h e e f f e c t o f t h e s e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e c i s i o n s will b e i n the c o m m e r c i a l fishing industry in British C o l u m b i a .  T h e r e a r e s o m e , particularly  t h o s e in the F i s h e r i e s Survival Coalition, w h o v i e w the d e c i s i o n s a s support for abolition of t h e A F S a n d t h e c o m p l e t e abolition of a n y " s p e c i a l rights" for A b o r i g i n a l commercial fishers.217  It i s n o t c l e a r that t h e d e c i s i o n s d o i n d e e d r e q u i r e t h e  D e p a r t m e n t to a b a n d o n  the A F S  since the Court  d i d not state  that  allotting  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s a s h a r e o f t h e f i s h i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . A s w e l l , t h e A F S i s b a s e d at l e a s t p a r t l y o n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t i n Sparrow that A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s b e g i v e n priority w i t h r e s p e c t t o f i s h i n g f o r f o o d , s o c i a l a n d c e r e m o n i a l p u r p o s e s . T h e recent c a s e s d o not alter this requirement a n d t h e A F S , with t h e e x c e p t i o n of the f e w First N a t i o n s w h i c h h a v e b e e n permitted to sell f i s h u n d e r t h e Pilot S a l e s A r r a n g e m e n t ("PSA"), is d e s i g n e d m o r e to d e a l with the m a n a g e m e n t of f o o d fishing than  commercial fishing.  Although  it m a y b e a r g u a b l e  n o w that  there  is n o  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t that a l l F i r s t N a t i o n s b e g i v e n t h e right t o s e l l f i s h u n d e r t h e P S A , t h o s e F i r s t N a t i o n s w h i c h c a n e s t a b l i s h that t h e t r a d e o r b a r t e r o f f i s h w a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t o f t h e i r c u l t u r e s b e f o r e c o n t a c t will h a v e a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d right t o s e l l t h e i r f i s h , s u b j e c t t o j u s t i f i e d i n f r i n g e m e n t .  T h i s w i l l b e a difficult i s s u e f o r  See, for instance, M . Crawley, "Court limits aboriginal fishing rights" The Vancouver Sun (22 August 1996) A l and A2.  2 1 7  102  t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o d e t e r m i n e f o r e a c h F i r s t N a t i o n a n d , a s a r e s u l t , it m a y d e c i d e , f o r e a s e of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , to m e r e l y c o n t i n u e a f o r m of t h e P S A , e v e n m o r e First Nations. AFS  perhaps  T h e D e p a r t m e n t h a s c o n t e n d e d that its  involving  position o n the  a n d P S A h a s a l w a y s b e e n b a s e d o n a policy d e c i s i o n , rather t h a n a v i e w that  A b o r i g i n a l s h a v e a right t o f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y . 2 1 8  A s a r e s u l t , it m a y w e l l d e c i d e to  c o n t i n u e t o f o l l o w that p o l i c y a l t h o u g h it will n o d o u b t b e m o r e difficult p o l i t i c a l l y to d o s o in t h e c o n t e x t of t h e c u r r e n t c a s e l a w .  It i s a l s o not c l e a r w h a t t h e effect of t h e d e c i s i o n s w i l l b e o n t h e t r e a t y process.  S o m e h a v e p r e d i c t e d that t h e r e will n o w b e m o r e r e l u c t a n c e t o  c o m m e r c i a l rights to A b o r i g i n a l s  in t h e t r e a t i e s . 2 1 9  The  province w a s  grant  reluctant  e n o u g h in n e g o t i a t i n g t h e N i s g a ' a A g r e e m e n t in P r i n c i p l e t o a g r e e t o c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g p r o v i s i o n s , a n i s s u e w h i c h will b e d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r F o u r . the political environment  which has been  d e c i s i o n s will r e s u l t in t h e p r o v i n c e  engendered  being even  by the  m o r e hesitant.  It i s l i k e l y t h a t  Supreme  Court's  However,  First  N a t i o n s will a l s o p r o b a b l y c o n t i n u e to b e i n s i s t e n t that c o m m e r c i a l r i g h t s b e i n c l u d e d in t h e t r e a t i e s .  Uncertainty  h a s r e s u l t e d f r o m the d e c i s i o n s to the extent that  c o m m e r c i a l rights must b e d e t e r m i n e d o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s , with the particular h i s t o r i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s of e a c h F i r s t N a t i o n b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d i n d e t a i l . T h u s , in t h e a b s e n c e of a c o u r t f i n d i n g , it will b e difficult to d e l i n e a t e in s o m e c a s e s w h a t r i g h t s a p a r t i c u l a r F i r s t N a t i o n h a s . A s a r e s u l t , if c o m m e r c i a l r i g h t s a r e n o t a d d r e s s e d in t h e  "Vfcrfatp. A2. See, for example, the comments of J. Borrows in ibid at p. A2. 219  103  t r e a t i e s , it c a n b e p r e d i c t e d that t h e n e g o t i a t i o n p r o c e s s w i l l m o s t o f t e n f a i l , w i t h litigation t h e u l t i m a t e r e s u l t .  T h u s , w h a t b e c o m e s apparent from the S u p r e m e Court's d e c i s i o n s in the commercial  fishing  cases  is that  the  Department  will  have  administering A b o r i g i n a l fishing in t h e c o m m e r c i a l context.  a  difficult  time  Although the Court  p r e d i c t a b l y r e j e c t e d a n y n o t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l e x c l u s i v i t y i n t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s , it d i d n o t reject o u t r i g h t t h e c o m m e r c i a l a s p e c t o f t h e A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g right.  Instead,  it e s t a b l i s h e d a f r a m e w o r k f o r d e f i n i n g A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s o n a c a s e - b y - c a s e b a s i s . T h u s , t h e D e p a r t m e n t will e i t h e r h a v e t o f o l l o w s o m e t y p e o f b l a n k e t p o l i c y o r attempt to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r a First N a t i o n c a n e s t a b l i s h that t h e trade o r barter of f i s h w a s a n i n t e g r a l part o f its d i s t i n c t i v e c u l t u r e p r e - c o n t a c t .  G i v e n the n u m b e r of  F i r s t N a t i o n s i n t h e p r o v i n c e , t h e latter a p p r o a c h s e e m s u n l i k e l y . yet  clear what  complexities  will  constitute  a n d uncertainties  a  valid  which  infringement have  resulted  litigation i n t h i s a r e a c a n d e f i n i t e l y b e a n t i c i p a t e d .  of that from  A s w e l l , it i s n o t  right.  Given  the decisions,  the more  In a d d i t i o n , b e c a u s e t h e C o u r t  e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d t h a t it w a s f o r m u l a t i n g t h e t e s t f o r d e f i n i n g a l l A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s , t h e c a s e s will b e u s e d n o t just i n t h e f i s h i n g c o n t e x t b u t i n a l l A b o r i g i n a l , a n d p r o b a b l y Treaty, rights c a s e s . 2 2 0  The Supreme Court has indeed already applied the test in Van der Peet to a non-fishing context. In R. v. Pamajewon [1996] S.C.J. No. 20 (QL), the Court used the test to determine whether the First Nations in question had Aboriginal rights to participate in and regulate gambling activities on reserve lands. It found that the First Nations did not have such rights because the evidence did not demonstrate that gambling, or the regulation of gambling, was an integral part of the distinctive cultures of the First Nations at the time of contact. 220  104  It i s a l s o i n t e r e s t i n g t o c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s i n Lewis  221  a n d Nikal.  222  In t h o s e c a s e s ,  by-laws h a d been p a s s e d by the B a n d  C o u n c i l s u n d e r s . 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) o f t h e Indian Act w h i c h p e r m i t s a C o u n c i l t o m a k e b y - l a w s for t h e "preservation, protection a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f . . . . fish . . . o n t h e r e s e r v e . " T h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l f o u n d i n b o t h c a s e s that t h e f i s h e r i e s i n q u e s t i o n w e r e n o t p a r t o f t h e r e s e r v e s a n d that, t h e r e f o r e , s . 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) d i d n o t a p p l y a n d t h e b y - l a w s w e r e i n e f f e c t i v e a n d c o u l d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a d e f e n c e u n d e r t h e Fisheries Act.  223  In Nikal,  t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l a l s o f o u n d that r e q u i r i n g A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s t o o b t a i n a l i c e n c e w a s not contrary to s . 35(1).  T h e S u p r e m e Court of C a n a d a upheld the Court of  A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n i n Lewis, b u t o v e r t u r n e d its d e c i s i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e l i c e n c e i s s u e i n Nikal.  A s w a s n o t e d i n P a r t (2) a b o v e , a r g u m e n t i n Lewis w a s r e s t r i c t e d t o i s s u e s relating to w h e t h e r t h e fisheries and/or river in q u e s t i o n w e r e part of t h e r e s e r v e s o that s . 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) o f t h e Indian Act w o u l d a p p l y .  T h e appellant apparently d i d not  a r g u e that t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h i n c l u d e s t h e i n c i d e n t a l right t o m a n a g e t h e f i s h t h r o u g h b y - l a w s a n d that, t h e r e f o r e , t h e b y - l a w s w e r e v a l i d .  Thus, the issues were  n a r r o w e d c o n s i d e r a b l y a n d d i d not a d d r e s s inherent serf-government rights o r e v e n Aboriginal rights generally.  Instead, the f o c u s w a s o n statutory interpretation of t h e  Indian Act a n d a n a l y s i s o f h i s t o r i c a l d o c u m e n t a t i o n i n r e s p e c t o f t h e l o c a t i o n o f  [1996] S.C.J. No. 46 (QL), 1 S.C.R 921. [1996] S.C.J. No. 47 (QL), 1 S.C.R. 1013. A s was discussed in Chapter Two, if valid by-laws are passed in relation to fisheries on the reserve, they take precedence over any inconsistent Fisheries Act provisions. 2 2 1  222  223  105  reserve boundaries and whether reserve.  the fisheries were  i n t e n d e d to b e p a r t o f  the  T h e C o u r t w a s a p p a r e n t l y not a s k e d to s t e p o u t s i d e a positivist f r a m e w o r k  o n this i s s u e a n d c o n s i d e r inherent rights. A s a result, the f i n d i n g s of both the C o u r t o f A p p e a l a n d t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o n that i s s u e a r e n o t that a s t o n i s h i n g .  In Nikal, h o w e v e r , a n a r g u m e n t w a s a l s o m a d e that t h e l i c e n s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s i n f r i n g e d a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n . T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t a g r e e d w i t h t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l ' s d e c i s i o n that, a s in Lewis, t h e f i s h e r y w a s n o t p a r t of t h e r e s e r v e a n d that t h e r e f o r e s . 8 1 ( 1 ) ( o ) o f t h e Indian Act d i d n o t a p p l y a n d t h e b y - l a w w a s of n o f o r c e o r effect.  H o w e v e r , it o v e r t u r n e d t h e l o w e r C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g that t h e l i c e n s i n g  r e g u l a t i o n s d i d n o t i n f r i n g e t h e A b o r i g i n a l right in t h i s c a s e .  T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d that l i c e n s i n g A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s w a s not, in a n d o f itself, a n i n f r i n g e m e n t of A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . Court,  H o w e v e r , C o r y J . , for t h e majority of the  h e l d that in t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h e c a s e t h e c o n d i t i o n s a t t a c h e d t o t h e  l i c e n c e in q u e s t i o n d i d i n f r i n g e A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s a n d s i n c e t h e C r o w n h a d a d d u c e d no  e v i d e n c e justifying t h o s e  conditions,  the  licence was  invalidated  and  the  D e f e n d a n t w a s acquitted of the c h a r g e s .  In h o l d i n g that t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a f i s h i n g l i c e n c e i s n o t in a n d o f itself unconstitutional, C o r y J. stated:  106  It h a s f r e q u e n t l y b e e n s a i d that r i g h t s d o not e x i s t i n a v a c u u m , a n d that t h e r i g h t s o f o n e i n d i v i d u a l o r g r o u p a r e n e c e s s a r i l y limited b y the rights of another.  T h e ability t o e x e r c i s e p e r s o n a l  or g r o u p s rights a r e n e c e s s a r i l y limited b y the rights of others. T h e g o v e r n m e n t must ultimately b e a b l e to d e t e r m i n e a n d direct t h e w a y in w h i c h t h e s e r i g h t s s h o u l d i n t e r a c t . 2 2 4  B y f r a m i n g t h e i s s u e in t h i s w a y , C o r y J . a p p e a r s t o a s s u m e that o t h e r s h a v e r i g h t s in t h e f i s h e r i e s , in a d d i t i o n t o A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s .  This may well be  e x a m p l e o f t h e a c c e p t a n c e of t h e i d e o l o g y o f f i s h a s c o m m o n p r o p e r t y .  However, as  h a s a l r e a d y b e e n p o i n t e d out, it is not a t a l l c l e a r that f i s h a r e i n d e e d property.  another  common  T h e f a c t that it is not c o m p l e t e l y o p e n f o r a n y o n e t o e n g a g e in c o m m e r c i a l  f i s h i n g s u g g e s t s that f i s h a r e n o t c o m m o n p r o p e r t y .  It i s c e r t a i n l y n o t c l e a r that  e v e r y o n e h a s a right to f i s h .  Predictably,  the Court  also u s e d the conservation  i s s u e to v a l i d a t e  l i c e n s i n g r e g u l a t i o n s , s t a t i n g that t h e A b o r i g i n a l right t o f i s h m u s t b e against  the  need  to  conserve  the  fishery  stock.  The  Court  the  balanced  concluded  that  c o n s e r v a t i o n c o n c e r n s r e q u i r e that t h e g o v e r n m e n t b e p e r m i t t e d t o e n a c t a l i c e n s i n g scheme.  Cory  J.  stated  that  "The  very  right to f i s h w o u l d  in time  become  m e a n i n g l e s s if t h e g o v e r n m e n t c o u l d n o t e n a c t a l i c e n s i n g s c h e m e w h i c h c o u l d f o r m the e s s e n t i a l f o u n d a t i o n of a c o n s e r v a t i o n p r o g r a m . " 2 2 5 a s s u m e d that w i t h o u t a g o v e r n m e n t doomed.  It a p p e a r s that t h e C o u r t h a s  conservation program, all the fish w o u l d  be  W h a t t h i s a s s u m p t i o n f a i l s to a c k n o w l e d g e i s that c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s  Wikal, supra, note 222 at p. 88 (cited to QL).  'Ibid at p. 90.  107  could  b e m e t in other  ways,  including  through  a  co-management  G o v e r n m e n t l i c e n s i n g i s c e r t a i n l y not t h e o n l y w a y t o m a n a g e f i s h . Supreme  Court  does  not appear  to b e e v e n  Aboriginal management or co-management. statement:  However, the  c o n s c i o u s of t h e alternative of  C o r y J . m a d e t h i s c l e a r in t h e f o l l o w i n g  "If t h e s a l m o n f i s h e r y i s t o s u r v i v e , t h e r e m u s t b e s o m e c o n t r o l e x e r c i s e d  by a central authority.  It i s t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t w h i c h will b e r e q u i r e d t o m a n a g e  the fishery a n d s e e to t h e improvement fishery."226  system.  a n d t h e i n c r e a s e of t h e s t o c k o f that  T h i s w a s essentially the s a m e holding a s the British C o l u m b i a Court of  A p p e a l i n Sparrow, a l t h o u g h it w a s n o t e x p r e s s l y s t a t e d b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i n t h a t c a s e . A s a r e s u l t , t h i s r u l i n g b y t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t in t h e Nikal a n d Lewis c a s e s m a k e s e x p r e s s s o m e t h i n g w h i c h w a s i m p l i e d in its d e c i s i o n in Sparrow a n d i s a n o n e x p r e s s rejection of c o - m a n a g e m e n t .  C o r y J . w e n t o n to state that l i c e n s i n g is a l s o r e q u i r e d a s a t y p e o f "passport" t o identify i n d i v i d u a l s a s A b o r i g i n a l s a n d , h e n c e , a s h a v i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y p r o t e c t e d f i s h i n g r i g h t s . T h e d i f f e r e n c e , o f c o u r s e , b e t w e e n a p a s s p o r t a n d a f i s h i n g l i c e n c e is that t h e f o r m e r d o e s n o t h a v e c o n d i t i o n s o f c i t i z e n s h i p a t t a c h e d t o it, w h e r e a s a fishing  licence  does  contain  terms  a n d conditions.  T h e Court  implicitly  a c k n o w l e d g e d that d i s t i n c t i o n b y f i n d i n g t h a t c o n d i t i o n s o n a f i s h i n g l i c e n c e c o u l d constitute infringements of s. 35(1).  76/rfatp. 94.  108  T h e C o u r t f o u n d that t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f a l i c e n c e i n n o t u n r e a s o n a b l e , d o e s not i m p o s e u n d u e h a r d s h i p a n d d o e s n o t affect A b o r i g i n a l s ' p r e f e r r e d m e a n s o f e x e r c i s i n g their f i s h i n g rights.  H o w e v e r , it f o u n d that s e v e r a l m a n d a t o r y c o n d i t i o n s  printed o n t h e f a c e of t h e licence w e r e c l e a r infringements of Aboriginal fishing rights, i n c l u d i n g the restriction of f i s h i n g for f o o d o n l y ( a s o p p o s e d t o f o o d , s o c i a l a n d c e r e m o n i a l purposes) a n d of fishing for the fisher a n d his family only.  It a l s o  f o u n d that o t h e r t e r m s o f t h e l i c e n c e c o u l d c o n s t i t u t e a n i n f r i n g e m e n t d e p e n d i n g o n the c i r c u m s t a n c e s , including prescribing in w h i c h waters fishing c o u l d take p l a c e , t h e t y p e o f g e a r that c o u l d b e u s e d a n d t h e t i m e a n d d a y s f i s h i n g c o u l d t a k e p l a c e . S i n c e t h e C r o w n d i d n o t a d d u c e a n y e v i d e n c e t o m e e t its o n u s o f p r o v i n g t h e s e conditions w e r e justified, a n d the conditions w e r e found to b e i n s e v e r a b l e from the l i c e n c e itself, t h e l i c e n c e w a s f o u n d t o b e i n v a l i d .  It i s t h i s latter f i n d i n g o f t h e C o u r t w h i c h m a y u l t i m a t e l y h a v e o n e o f t h e greatest effects o n Aboriginal fishers.  Whenever  a licence contains a n y of the  c o n d i t i o n s n o t e d b y C o r y J . , it i s a prima facie i n f r i n g e m e n t o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights a n d the l i c e n c e is, therefore, invalid u n l e s s the c o n d i t i o n s a r e justified.  This  will c e r t a i n l y p r o v i d e a d e f e n c e t o a n y A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r w h o d e c i d e s t o f i s h w i t h o u t a licence.  O f c o u r s e , in s u b s e q u e n t c a s e s t h e C r o w n m a y a d d u c e s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e  to m e e t i t s o n u s u n d e r t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n test.  T h e Crown  m a y a l s o d e c i d e that  attaching certain conditions c a n n o t e a s i l y b e justified a n d merely refrain from a d d i n g them to the licence.  It m a y b e that u l t i m a t e l y w h a t will o c c u r i s that t h e l i c e n s i n g o f  109  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s will s e r v e o n l y a s a m e t h o d of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h o s e w h o e x e r c i s i n g A b o r i g i n a l rights a n d nothing more.  are  Of course, other stipulations relating  to h o w f i s h i n g r i g h t s a r e e x e r c i s e d w i l l , n o d o u b t , b e c o n t a i n e d i n o t h e r r e g u l a t o r y provisions.  H o w e v e r , it is a l s o p o s s i b l e that at s o m e p o i n t t h e g o v e r n m e n t  formulate s o m e other type of m a n a g e m e n t  s c h e m e , s u c h a s permitting s o m e  t h o s e stipulations to b e p r o m u l g a t e d a n d e n f o r c e d b y First N a t i o n s .  will of  S o m e of t h e s e  p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s will b e a d d r e s s e d in t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r , a s will t h e l i k e l i h o o d that t h e y will b e a d o p t e d in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  110  CHAPTER FOUR  ALTERNATIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS  A. Some Problems with Formulating  Alternatives  All food-collecting societies throughout the world have b e e n affected t h e e x p a n s i o n of c o l o n i a l i s m . societies  completely,  profoundly  or  by  C o l o n i a l i s m either c h a n g e d the f o r m s of their  affected  their  altered their r e s o u r c e b a s e .  economic States  systems  have  which  transformed  in  turn  both  the  p a t t e r n of r e s o u r c e u s e a s w e l l a s t h e political a n d s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of A b o r i g i n a l peoples  and  institutions.227  taken  the  management  of  resources  away  from  indigenous  T h i s c e r t a i n l y a p p e a r s to b e t h e c a s e w i t h r e s p e c t to f i s h i n g in  British C o l u m b i a .  However,  managing  the  fisheries,  particularly  when  it  involves  a n a d r o m o u s fish like s a l m o n , is c o m p l e x from a b i o l o g i c a l , e c o n o m i c ,  political  and social perspective.  coastal  resources  have  been  The  major c h a l l e n g e s involved  identified  as  follows:  resources have diversified and expanded  'Hamilton, supra, note 8 at pp. 237-242.  and,  demands  in m a n a g i n g for  use  of  coastal  a s a result, conflicts  between  Ill  different  interests h a v e i n c r e a s e d in f r e q u e n c y  a n d severity;  evolving  socio-  e c o n o m i c a n d institutional s y s t e m s with respect to c o a s t a l r e s o u r c e s e c t o r s h a v e added  to the complexity  of t h e b i o p h y s i c a l s y s t e m s  which  makes  resolving  c o n f l i c t s m o r e difficult; a n d b o o m a n d b u s t c y c l e s a n d a p o o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  what drives the b i o p h y s i c a l a n d s o c i o - e c o n o m i c structures h a v e l e a d to great uncertainties.228  J.H. Mundie h a s characterized the problems more succinctly:  "The p r o b l e m of P a c i f i c s a l m o n m a n a g e m e n t  is twofold:  the m a i n t e n a n c e of a  n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e , a n d its a l l o c a t i o n to p e o p l e with d i v e r s e c l a i m s . the  contemporary  world  of u r b a n  a n d industrial growth,  T h e setting is  unemployment  and  inflation."229  Not only are there  conflicts within sectors (such  a s Aboriginal  commercial versus sports fishers), there are also conflicts a m o n g instance,  resource  development  versus  fishing).  These  versus  s e c t o r s (for  conflicts stem  from  cognitive differences in u n d e r s t a n d i n g s of the p r o b l e m , a n d from differences in i d e a s a b o u t t h e e n d s to b e a c h i e v e d a n d a b o u t w h o s h o u l d p a y a n d w h o s h o u l d benefit,  a s well  parties.230 although  as  differences  in personalities  A d d e d to t h e complexity the federal  government  and  circumstances  of  the  is the inter-jurisdictional a s p e c t of fishing:  h a s jurisdiction over  the salmon  fisheries,  Dorcey, supra, note 29 at p. 3. The existence of uncertainty as one of the most limiting factors in fish management has been identified by many other writers as well, including C.J. Walters in "Management under Uncertainty" in Ellis, supra, note 105, 261 and R. Hilborn and R.M. Petrman, "Changing Management Objectives" in Ellis, ibid ,68. "Concluding Remarks: The Problem In Its Setting" in Ellis, supra, note 105, 299 at p. 299. Marchak, supra, note 109 at pp. 39-40. 228  229  230  112  p r o v i n c i a l d e c i s i o n s i n a r e a s o f its j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t e n a f f e c t f i s h a n d f i s h h a b i t a t . T h e fish a r e a l s o affected by what o c c u r s in the United S t a t e s a n d the price of fish is d e p e n d e n t o n the world market.  T h e r e are a l s o divergent interests within  First N a t i o n c o m m u n i t i e s , b e t w e e n tribal units, b e t w e e n A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s a n d shoreworkers, a n d between coastal communities a n d up-river communities, a n d different ideological c o m m i t m e n t s to c h a n g e within t h e s e g r o u p s . 2 3 1 important  factors  Resolution  to k e e p  in mind  when  of t h e i n c r e a s i n g c o m p l e x i t y  alternatives has been  are being  These are considered.  described a s the  biggest  c h a l l e n g e to t h o s e i n v o l v e d in g o v e r n a n c e of c o a s t a l r e s o u r c e s . 2 3 2  G i v e n the difficulties inherent in attempting to m a n a g e a m a r i n e fishery, P e a r s e s u g g e s t e d in h i s C o m m i s s i o n report that a terminal f i s h e r y a p p e a r e d to hold  much  promise;  not  only  discriminate, but the e c o n o m y  would  management  be  easier  of fishing c o u l d b e i m p r o v e d  and  by removing  more the  n e e d for a large fleet, a n d production c o u l d b e i n c r e a s e d b y c o n f i n i n g t h e c a t c h to m a t u r e f i s h .  H o w e v e r , h e p o i n t e d to p r o b l e m s with deterioration of t h e f i s h a s  they  the spawning  approach  product value.233  Given  that  grounds,  which would  result in a d e c r e a s e in  it i s t h e m a r k e t w h i c h d r i v e s t h e e n t i r e f i s h i n g  E . Pinkerton, "Indians in the Fishing Industry" in E. Pinkerton, ed., supra, note 25, 249 at p. 250. Marchak, supra, note 109 at p. 39. The Commission, supra, note 34 at p. 44. This is probably no small concern given that what drives the entire system is arguably the market. If Canadian fish are not up to world standards, Canadian fishers might be unable to maintain their market share and economic and social costs will be incurred. In 1994, the economic value of British Columbia's commercial salmon fishery was estimated at one billion dollars annually. See Allain and Frechette, supra, note 96 at p. 1.  2 3 1  232  233  113  p r o c e s s , t h i s is a f a c t o r w h i c h in a n d of itself c o u l d f o r e c l o s e t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of a n in-river fishery only.  A n o t h e r factor w h i c h must be a d d r e s s e d w h e n c o n s i d e r i n g this alternative is t h a t o n c e a inevitably  program  protest  or system  its r e m o v a l .  regulatory regimes:  is in p l a c e , t h o s e with  G.B.  Doern  identifies a  common  attitude  of s e r v i c e a n d  uncertainty a s p o s s i b l e . 2 3 4  thus  protect  A s w e l l , t h e r e is a t e n d e n c y to regulated  firms from  b e utilized in a riverine fishery.  In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e a r e l a r g e c o r p o r a t e  predicted that f i s h e r s w o u l d strongly o p p o s e a n y c h a n g e from a n  investment.  a  river-based  much  m o s t of w h i c h w o u l d  with v e s t e d interests in the f i s h e r i e s a s t h e y a r e currently r e g u l a t e d .  to  as  In t h e P a c i f i c f i s h e r i e s , m a r i n e f i s h e r s h a v e i n v e s t e d  l a r g e s u m s of m o n e y in v e s s e l s a n d f i s h i n g e q u i p m e n t ,  fishery  in  r e g u l a t o r s t e n d to b e c o m e o b s e s s e d with s u n k c o s t s a n d  abhor a b a n d o n i n g a n existing capital investment. stress continuity  i n t e r e s t s i n it w i l l  one  without  significant c o m p e n s a t i o n  not  entities  It c a n  be  ocean-based for  their  lost  S i n c e c o r p o r a t i o n s h a v e a g r e a t d e a l o f i n f l u e n c e o n g o v e r n m e n t , it  is u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e r e g u l a t o r y s c h e m e w o u l d b e a l t e r e d t o s u c h a n e x t e n t t h a t corporate interests are threatened  greatly.  A s w e l l , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e t y p e of r e f o r m to t h e m a n a g e m e n t  structure,  there might b e s o m e s o c i a l d i s p l a c e m e n t with f i s h e r s b e i n g f o r c e d to m o v e f r o m c o a s t a l a r e a s to i n l a n d f i s h i n g a r e a s , thus c r e a t i n g potentially l a r g e s o c i a l  234  Doern, supra, note 88 at p. 10.  and  114  economic costs in some regions.  These political, social and economic  repercussions make a radical change in fisheries policy unlikely, even if such a change is required to save the resource.  235  The reforms which are more likely to  take place are in relation to some restricted management activities, with only minimal changes being made to the ways in which fish are caught and by whom they are both caught and managed.  In particular, it is extremely unlikely that the recognition of increased Aboriginal participation in the catching, sale and management of salmon will result in a significant abdication of fisheries management by the state. Given the complexity of the salmon fisheries, its inter-jurisdictional character and the divergence of interests among the various groups, including within Aboriginal communities, it is unlikely that any one group would be permitted to have exclusive jurisdiction over the resource.  Perhaps, however, a role for First  Nations in some management activities will be recognized, and a comanagement regime developed.  236  It is this alternative which will be the focus of  the remainder of the chapter.  A s C.J. Walters states, "Vested interest and personal commitment do not provide a very good seed bed for rational thinking and decision making." See supra, note 228 at p. 264. Co-management may not be the best alternative with respect to non-anadromous fish. It is possible that some type of separate management regime could be put in place for some isolated species of fish. However, since all fish swim, it is likely that inter-jurisdictional issues will arise when attempting to manage them and, as a result, co-management may virtually always be the only practical alternative. 235  236  115 B. Is Co4Manaaement the Solution?  Co-management a c t o r s in the fishery:  h a s b e e n accredited with altering relationships  among  "by instituting s h a r e d d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g a m o n g t h e s e actors,  c o - m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s set u p a g a m e in w h i c h the p a y - o f f s a r e g r e a t e r for c o o p e r a t i o n than for o p p o s i t i o n and/or competition parties have benefit.  to w o r k together  ...,"237  In o t h e r w o r d s ,  if t h e r e s o u r c e i s t o b e s a v e d f o r  The new relationships which are created c a n generate  a n d trust.  everyone's  communication  F o r i n s t a n c e , if f i s h e r s b e c o m e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s t o c k r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ,  they s h o u l d no longer b e p e r c e i v e d by government short-term  the  gains only.238  The  a s p r e d a t o r s i n t e r e s t e d in  l o g i s t i c s of h a r v e s t i n g  may  not h a v e  g o v e r n m e n t c o n c e r n a s long a s overall c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s a r e met.  E.  to b e  a  Pinkerton  states:  Co-management the  needs  of  c a n a l l o w a b a l a n c e to b e struck local  groups  for  self-determination  between and  the  n e e d s of g o v e r n m e n t to h a v e s o m e a s s u r a n c e the r e s o u r c e is b e i n g w e l l m a n a g e d , a n d t h a t it c a n s t e p i n s h o u l d t h e r e s t r o n g e v i d e n c e of o v e r - e x p l o i t a t i o n .  be  239  T h e r e is a r g u a b l y a n e v e n g r e a t e r incentive for A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s to b e effective r e g u l a t o r s s i n c e i n c r e a s e d control o v e r the f i s h e r y m a y b e a m e a n s to r e i n f o r c e  E. Pinkerton, "Introduction: Attaining Better Fisheries Management Through Co-Management-Prospects, Problems and Propositions" in Pinkerton, ed., supra, note 25, 3 at pp. 4-5. 237  Ibid at pp. 8-9. Ibid at p. 14.  23S 239  116  t r a d i t i o n a l c o n c e p t s a n d p r a c t i c e s a n d "[i]f b e i n g v e r y c o m p e t e n t s e l f - r e g u l a t o r s is a w a y of a l s o s a v i n g o n e ' s culture, t h e f i s h e r y will benefit a s w e l l . " 2 4 0  Despite the potential benefits, the prospects for a c o - m a n a g e m e n t are  anything  tendency  but clear.  to perpetuate  It h a s b e e n themselves  indefinitely  Department of Fisheries a n d O c e a n s d e v o l u t i o n o f m u c h of its a u t h o r i t y . 2 4 1 Department  has  responsibilities.  already  begun  observed  that  bureaucracies  a n d it i s d o u b t f u l  regime have  that  a  the  ("the D e p a r t m e n t " ) will e a s i l y a l l o w t h e H o w e v e r , it i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o n o t e t h a t t h e  to  move  toward  some  sharing  of  its  F o r i n s t a n c e , it r e c e n t l y a n n o u n c e d a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a i n w h i c h it w a s a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t t h e p r o v i n c e c o u l d p o s s i b l y a s s u m e a n e n h a n c e d role in fisheries management. management  A r e v i e w of f e d e r a l a n d provincial  responsibilities is to b e completed b y F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 7 . 2 4 2  T h u s , it  m a y w e l l b e that a t r e n d t o w a r d c o - m a n a g e m e n t h a s i n d e e d a l r e a d y b e g u n .  Nonetheless, management groups.  o n e of  scheme  Although  the  biggest  challenges  in formulating  is with respect to allocating the r e s o u r c e a m o n g  it h a s b e e n  suggested  that  co-management  a  couser  c a n allow  a l l o c a t i o n d e c i s i o n s t o b e m a d e b y t h e u s e r s t h e m s e l v e s , i n t h e c u r r e n t c l i m a t e it s e e m s highly unlikely that t h e g r o u p s will b e a b l e to w o r k together to d e v i s e a n  Ibid at p. 17. See also Rettig et al, supra, note 25 at p. 281 and McCay and Acheson, supra, note 114 at p. 24. Pinkerton, supra, note 237 at p. 24. See Crawley and Hunter, supra, note 61. 241  242  117  e f f e c t i v e a n d a c c e p t a b l e d i v i s i o n o f t h e r e s o u r c e . 2 4 3 It i s n o t e v e n c l e a r t h a t t h e parties  c a n establish  working  relationships  to  co-manage  even  the  less  c o n t r o v e r s i a l a s p e c t s o f f i s h i n g , a s "[t]he s t a k e h o l d e r s w h o a r e t o b e c o m e c o managers  approach  perspectives  the  struck  backgrounds."244  central  from  questions  radically  of  fisheries  different  cultural  management and  with  educational  A s well, a s w a s d i s c u s s e d in earlier c h a p t e r s , the i d e o l o g i e s of  equality, c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d c o m m o n property h a v e a l l l e d to t h e d e v e l o p m e n t  of  certain t y p e s of p e r c e p t i o n s a n d r e l a t i o n s h i p s a m o n g t h e parties w h i c h will not be easily broken down.  T h e D e p a r t m e n t will u n d o u b t e d l y  have  to r e m a i n  critical p l a y e r u n l e s s the g r o u p s c a n d e v e l o p a relationship w h i c h will them to work together,  a  permit  particularly o n the more political a n d socially divisive  issues.  Having  s a i d a l l that,  variations of A b o r i g i n a l  co-management  h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d in s o m e jurisdictions a r o u n d the world.  regimes  A s well, there are  currently s o m e trends  in British C o l u m b i a ,  albeit only minor o n e s ,  toward  s h a r i n g of m a n a g e m e n t  responsibilities with First N a t i o n s o v e r f i s h e r i e s .  a  It i s t o  t h e s e t r e n d s a n d e x t r a j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m o d e l s that w e n o w turn.  Pinkerton acknowledges that difficulty, citing the non-Aboriginal fishers' particularly individualistic ideology as a further barrier to such a co-management structure. Supra, note 237 at p. 20. N . Dale, "Getting to Co-Management: Social Learning in the Redesign of Fisheries Management" in Pinkerton, ed., supra, note 25, 49 at p. 49. This is not to suggest that it is impossible, however, as Dale goes on to point out in the Washington State context. He reviews how a frame-shift occurred in organizational attitudes in Washington following the controversial "Boldt decisions" when the parties began to meet and attempt to work together in a co-management regime. The Washington model is an interesting one which will be discussed later in this chapter. 243  2 4 4  118  (1) Co-Manaaement in British Columbia  To  date,  the o n l y type of c o - m a n a g e m e n t  b e i n g offered to A b o r i g i n a l  f i s h e r s in British C o l u m b i a is really that of g r e a t e r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a n d integration into e x i s t i n g state s y s t e m s .  G i v e n the problems d i s c u s s e d above,  this is n o  g r e a t s u r p r i s e a n d it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t a n y o t h e r t y p e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n , s u c h a s a l l o w i n g t h e m to e s t a b l i s h their o w n m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s s e p a r a t e a n d apart from the Department's  regulatory s c h e m e , will b e permitted.  However,  it i s  i m p o r t a n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h a t m o s t , if n o t a l l , o f t h e c o - m a n a g e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h a r e t a k i n g p l a c e c o n t i n u e to b e m o d e l e d a r o u n d liberal i d e o l o g y .  (i) The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy ("AFS")  The  AFS,  a s d e s c r i b e d in C h a p t e r T w o ,  is a n  example  of h o w  the  d o m i n a n t s y s t e m of f i s h e r i e s g o v e r n a n c e c o n t i n u e s to b e u s e d e v e n in a c o management governance  system. of  Although the A F S  resource management  to  is d e s i g n e d to attempt to s h a r e the some  extent  with  First  Nations,  it  effectively d o e s s o b y further i n c o r p o r a t i n g A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s into t h e d o m i n a n t s y s t e m of f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t . AFS  F o r i n s t a n c e , o n e of t h e p r o g r a m s u n d e r t h e  is to t r a i n A b o r i g i n a l s a s f i s h g u a r d i a n s o r e n f o r c e m e n t o f f i c e r s .  Through  this training p r o g r a m , the Department is indigenizing front-line s e r v i c e delivery  119  workers  but the s a m e  management  structure  is in p l a c e .  In o t h e r  words,  traditional A b o r i g i n a l enforcement t e c h n i q u e s a r e not b e i n g relied u p o n ; instead, A b o r i g i n a l s a r e b e i n g t r a i n e d to e n f o r c e t h e l a w s t h e w a y t h e d o m i n a n t enforces them. been  society  T h i s type of a p p r o a c h is a n e x a m p l e of t h e c r e a t i o n of w h a t h a s  described a s "hybrids  of the i m p o s e d  system  of social  control  which  a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i g e n o u s p e r s o n n e l tp e n h a n c e l e g i t i m a c y . " 2 4 5  Not only d o e s the A F S management management very  model,  not result in m u c h r e c o g n i t i o n of a n alternative  it c u r r e n t l y  does  into t h e e x i s t i n g s y s t e m .  limited m a n a g e m e n t  not  even  fully  integrate  Aboriginal  First N a t i o n s a r e permitted to e x e r c i s e  functions only.  One  of the criticisms of the  AFS  p r o g r a m b y t h e B . C . A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n w a s t h a t it d i d n o t p r o v i d e a  substantial enough  role for First  Nations  in m a n a g e m e n t  T h u s , although the p r o g r a m h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d a s a type of arrangement246,  it i s s u c h o n l y t o a l i m i t e d e x t e n t .  of the fisheries. co-management  S t a t e i d e o l o g i e s c o n t i n u e to  d o m i n a t e a n d if A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s w i s h t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n m a n a g e m e n t ,  they  must  e s s e n t i a l l y p l a y b y t h e r u l e s of t h o s e i d e o l o g i e s .  Merely  permitting Aboriginal  people  to enforce  the state's  laws or to  p e r h a p s h a v e s o m e type of advisory c a p a c i t y with r e s p e c t to t h o s e l a w s is not true  co-management.  If t h e y  a r e to b e true  participants  in  management,  P. Havemann, "The Indigenization of Social Control in Canada" in B.W. Morse and G.R. Woodman, eds., Indigenous Law and the State (Providence, R.I.: Fofis Publications, 1988) 71 at p. 91. See, for example, the description of the program in Gardner Pinfold, supra, note 58 at p. 48.  245  246  120  Aboriginal  fishers  have  to  be  permitted  to  incorporate  traditional  fishing  p r a c t i c e s , w h e r e t h e y still e x i s t , i n t o r e g u l a t i o n s .  This d o e s not a p p e a r to b e  h a p p e n i n g to a n y great extent  However,  under the A F S .  permitted, there is a risk that m a n y translated  accurately  into  state  even  if t h i s  were  of t h e traditional p r a c t i c e s w o u l d not b e  regulations:  it h a s b e e n  suggested  that  w h e n e v e r c u s t o m a r y l a w i s i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o s t a t e l a w , it i n v a r i a b l y e n t a i l s t h e distortion of impossible,  the customary law.247 to  devise  a  Thus,  workable  it m a y b e e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t , if n o t  co-management  system  which  truly  a c k n o w l e d g e s a c o m p l e t e l y different legal s y s t e m a n d ideology.  D e s p i t e its limitations, t h e A F S i s a m o v e m e n t t o w a r d s o m e t y p e of c o management  with Aboriginal fishers, although a s w a s d i s c u s s e d  in Chapter  T h r e e , it m a y b e t h a t a s a r e s u l t o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a ' s d e c i s i o n i n  Van der Peet t h e A F S w i l l b e a b a n d o n e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t . however,  a  management  more  specific  example  of a n attempt  to incorporate traditional  p r a c t i c e s into t h e r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k  Gitksan a n d Wet'suwet'en.  In a n y e v e n t ,  c a n b e found with the  A s will b e s e e n in t h e next  section,  they  have  s u c c e e d e d in d o i n g s o to s o m e extent within t h e f r a m e w o r k of t h e A F S .  See B.W. Morse and G.R. Woodman, "Introductory Essay: Woodman, supra, note 245, 5 at p. 15. 247  The State's Options" in Morse and  121  (Hi The Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en  Fishing among the Gitksan a n d Wet'suwet'en  o n the S k e e n a  River has  c o n t i n u e d to b e r e g u l a t e d to s o m e extent b y l a w s a n d c u s t o m s w h i c h a r e d e e p l y i m b e d d e d in their cultural traditions.248 social endeavour  Fishing a n d p r o c e s s i n g is a co-operative  in their cultures a n d the fishing g r o u n d s  property of k i n s h i p g r o u p s . 2 4 9  are treated a s the  Although the H o u s e Chiefs h a v e traditionally h a d  essentially the s a m e powers a s state fishery managers, the rules a r e b a s e d o n a s h a r e d p h i l o s o p h y a n d t h e v a l u e s of a n entire s o c i e t y a n d , a s a result, t h e y a r e self-enforcing a n d involve minimal conflict.  M o s t of the conflicts w h i c h d o exist  a r e t h o s e w h i c h c e n t r e a r o u n d q u e s t i o n s of state v e r s u s traditional authority for m a n a g e m e n t a n d c o m m e r c i a l s a l e of f i s h . 2 5 0  T h e G i t k s a n a n d W e t ' s u w e t ' e n Tribal C o u n c i l p r o p o s e d that t h e traditional system  be used  a s a basis for local  economic  development,  with  rights to  harvest a n d obligations to s h a r e benefits to b e structured a l o n g traditional lines. Negotiations  to r e a c h a m a n a g e m e n t  the Tribal C o u n c i l b e g a n  in 1979.  agreement Although  between the Department a n d  a f e w interim a g r e e m e n t s  were  M . Morrell, "The Struggle to Integrate Traditional Indian Systems and State Management in the Salmon Fisheries of the Skeena River, British Columbia" in Pinkerton, ed., supra, note 25, 231 at p. 232. See also E. Pinkerton, "Indians in the Fishing Industry" in P. Marchak, et. al., supra, note 109, 249 at pp. 253-254. Among the Gitksan, the Houses own the fishing grounds with the House Chief having ultimate authority and responsibility for those grounds. Among the Wet'suwet'en, ownership of fishing grounds vest with the Clan (a group of several Houses) but final authority remains with one individual. See Morrell, supra, note 248 at p. 233. Ibidatpp. 234-235. 2 4 8  249  250  122  reached,  negotiations  ultimately  broke  down  because  of the  refusal to r e c o g n i z e the m a n a g e m e n t authority of the C h i e f s .  The  Department's Department's  g o a l in t h e p r o c e s s a p p e a r e d to b e m e r e l y to o b t a i n A b o r i g i n a l a g r e e m e n t to t h e a n n u a l f i s h i n g p l a n s to r e d u c e t e n s i o n .  T h e T r i b a l C o u n c i l ' s p o s i t i o n w a s that  the D e p a r t m e n t w a n t e d to r e d u c e the A b o r i g i n a l role in m a n a g e m e n t consultation only.251  T h e type of c o - m a n a g e m e n t  to o n e of  being contemplated  respective parties diverged dramatically a n d , a s a result, ultimate  by the  agreement  s e e m e d unlikely.  However, Department.  some  conciliation h a s more  In t h e 1 9 8 0 s ,  the First  Nations  studies of their fisheries a n d c o n d u c t e d management  recently b e e n conducted  r e a c h e d with the  extensive  biological  training in t h e s c i e n c e of f i s h e r i e s  a n d in t h e o p e r a t i o n of their traditional s y s t e m s .  W h e n the A F S  w a s i n t r o d u c e d in 1 9 8 2 , t h e G i t k s a n a n d W e t ' s u w e t ' e n e n t e r e d into a g r e e m e n t s with the Department a n d w e r e Arrangement  ("PSA").  permitted  to sell fish u n d e r  In t h e c a s e o f t h e G i t k s a n ,  there  the Pilot  were  10  Sales Houses  conducting commercial fisheries by 1994.  The  Gitksan  and Wet'suwet'en  Watershed  Authorities  ("GWWA")  was  f o r m e d in 1991 b y t h e H o u s e C h i e f s to c o - o r d i n a t e f i s h i n g activities a n d to c a r r y out their obligations u n d e r the A F S a g r e e m e n t s . between the Chiefs a n d the Department.  251  /6/datpp. 246-247.  T h e G W W A is the interface  Weekly meetings are held in-season  123  b e t w e e n representatives of the G W W A data.  This  committee  a n d the D e p a r t m e n t to review  also decides when  harvest  closures are necessary.  Some  m e m b e r s of the G W W A h a v e a l s o b e e n trained a s fishery g u a r d i a n s u n d e r the AFS.  In 1 9 9 4 , G W W A m a n a g e m e n t  data collection;  activities i n c l u d e d joint s t o c k a s s e s s m e n t ;  m o n i t o r i n g of habitat c o n d i t i o n s ; joint e n f o r c e m e n t  of  harvest  regulations; a n d resource u s e co-ordination. Thus, the G W W A formalizes s o m e of t h e t r a d i t i o n a l C h i e f l y  harvest  management  activities.  s u g g e s t e d that a s a result of t h e initiatives u n d e r t h e A F S ,  It h a s a l s o  Department officials  are n o w " s e e n a s c o l l e a g u e s w h o are helping get a job d o n e . " 2 5 2  A l t h o u g h it i s  u n c l e a r w h e t h e r t h e D e p a r t m e n t will a g r e e to p r o v i s i o n s in t h e A F S permitting  traditional  management  and  harvesting  been  agreements  practices which  do  not  c o n f o r m to its m a n a g e m e n t p h i l o s o p h y , t h e m o d e l a p p e a r s to b e o n e of t h e m o s t s u c c e s s f u l c o - m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s in British C o l u m b i a to date.  In a d d i t i o n , a s p e c t s o f c o - m a n a g e m e n t  in the S k e e n a  e x p a n d i n g to e n c o m p a s s all u s e r s of t h e r e s o u r c e .  watershed  are  In 1 9 9 1 t h e G i t k s a n j o i n e d  with the T s i m s h i a n a n d interior B a b i n e L a k e Nat'oot'en First N a t i o n s to form the Skeena  Fisheries  Commission  ("SFC")  D e p a r t m e n t in relation to t h e A F S . agreements among  its m e m b e r s .  to  The  coordinate SFC  agreements  c o n t i n u e s to c o o r d i n a t e  In 1 9 9 2 , t h e S k e e n a W a t e r s h e d  ( " S W C " ) w a s f o r m e d , of w h i c h the G i t k s a n is a l s o a m e m b e r . also includes commercial a n d sports fishers a s members.  252  Pinkerton and Weinstein, supra, note 116 at p. 67.  with  the AFS  Committee  This organization  The S W C  performs  124  several  informal  management  provincial governments  functions,  including advising  the federal  and  o n stock assessment research programs; working  with  g o v e r n m e n t s in joint h a r v e s t p l a n n i n g ; formulating h a r v e s t m o n i t o r i n g  programs;  co-ordinating r e s e a r c h ; a n d s p o n s o r i n g a n d co-ordinating a n y initiatives in the watershed  related to f i s h . 2 5 3  H o w e v e r , a c h i e v i n g c o n s e n s u s in the S W C h a s  b e e n problematic, with the United F i s h e r m e n a n d Allied W o r k e r s ' U n i o n pulling out of t h e p r o c e s s in 1 9 9 5 , protesting that c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s w e r e not b e i n g allocated enough sockeye.254  T h u s , it a p p e a r s t h a t a f o r m o f c o - m a n a g e m e n t i s w o r k i n g t o s o m e d e g r e e in t h e S k e e n a w a t e r s h e d , w i t h n o t o n l y A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s , b u t o t h e r u s e r s o f t h e r e s o u r c e a l s o participating in m a n a g e m e n t functions.  However, a s is the c a s e  with  system,  other  AFS  programs,  the  state  management  u n d e r l y i n g p r e m i s e s a n d i d e o l o g i e s , i s still p r e d o m i n a n t . u s e r s clearly h a v e a greater v o i c e in m a n a g e m e n t  along  Although  with  its  Aboriginal  decisions n o w than they did  under previous systems, a n d s o m e traditional m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n i q u e s a r e being utilized,  the ultimate  decision maker  i s still  the state  conformity to t h e state regulatory s y s t e m is r e q u i r e d .  a n d at  least  some  That this is the c a s e is not  surprising, g i v e n w h a t h a s b e e n d i s c u s s e d in earlier portions of this chapter.  As  w a s n o t e d , it i s e x t r e m e l y u n l i k e l y t h a t a m o r e r a d i c a l s h i f t i n m a n a g e m e n t  will  take place.  'For a more comprehensive review of the SWC, see Pinkerton and Weinstein, ibid at pp. 55-62. 'E. Alden, "Howfisheriesflourish"The Vancouver Sun (27 July 1996) A19.  125  (iii) The Nisaa'a Aareement-in-PrinciDle  A n e v e n more recent e x a m p l e of a n attempt to m o v e toward s o m e type of co-management  arrangement  can be  found  in the  Nisga'a  Agreement  P r i n c i p l e , w h i c h w a s e n t e r e d into o n F e b r u a r y 1 5 ,  1996.  fishing  the negotiators,  provisions w a s not easily r e a c h e d  among  Agreement  in  on the with  the  p r o v i n c e b e i n g reluctant to a g r e e to a constitutionally e n t r e n c h e d f i s h i n g q u o t a b e c a u s e it w a s p e r c e i v e d t o b e u n s a l e a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c i n t h a t it w a s r a c e based.  The  fishing  issue  stalled  negotiations  and  almost  prevented  an  agreement from being r e a c h e d . 2 5 5 W h e n a n agreement w a s finally r e a c h e d a n d its d e t a i l s r e l e a s e d , n e w s a r t i c l e s a t t h e t i m e i n d i c a t e d t h a t it w a s t h e f i s h i n g provisions w h i c h s p a r k e d the most controversy a n d d e b a t e a m o n g m e m b e r s of the  public  generally,  provisions were  a n d within  the fishing  community  criticized a s b e i n g a sell-out to First  creating a n unfair r a c e - b a s e d fishery.  specifically.  Nations  The  peoples  Litigation w a s initiated in April  and 1996  opposing a n y special Aboriginal fishery.  It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e A g r e e m e n t treaty.  T h e British C o l u m b i a  Agreement  Treaty  in Principle d o e s not constitute a  Commission  process provides  in P r i n c i p l e will c o n t a i n t h e major p o i n t s of a g r e e m e n t  that  among  an the  News stories at the beginning of 1996 indicated that along with the fishing issue, two other problems remained in the negotiations: the Nisga'a opposed any wording "extinguishing" Nisga'a Aboriginal title and rights and British Columbia sought an end to Nisga'a tax exemptions. See D. Sanders, "The Nisga'a Agreement" (13 April 1996) [unpublished] at p. 2.  255  126  parties o n l y a n d is not a final a g r e e m e n t .  T h e next s t e p is to n e g o t i a t e the F i n a l  A g r e e m e n t o r Treaty, w h i c h is to e m b o d y the p r i n c i p l e s a n d a g r e e m e n t s r e a c h e d in t h e A g r e e m e n t in P r i n c i p l e .  T h u s , a l t h o u g h the n e g o t i a t i o n of t h e  Nisga'a  A g r e e m e n t in P r i n c i p l e i s i n d e e d a n i m p o r t a n t m i l e s t o n e , t h e t r e a t y i t s e l f m a y still be many years away.  U n d e r the A g r e e m e n t in P r i n c i p l e , the N i s g a ' a will b e entitled to a treaty a l l o c a t i o n of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 18 p e r c e n t of t h e h a r v e s t of f i s h e n t e r i n g t h e R i v e r s y s t e m for d o m e s t i c a n d c o m m e r c i a l u s e . 2 5 6  In a d d i t i o n , t h e  Nass  agreement  p r o v i d e s that t h e y will r e c e i v e a n a l l o c a t i o n of s o c k e y e a n d p i n k s a l m o n  for  c o m m e r c i a l u s e u n d e r a h a r v e s t i n g a g r e e m e n t e n t e r e d into o u t s i d e the t r e a t y . 2 5 7 A l l e n t i t l e m e n t s a r e to b e h e l d c o m m u n a l l y .  In t o t a l , t h e N i s g a ' a w i l l b e a b l e t o  h a r v e s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y 2 6 p e r c e n t of the total a l l o w a b l e c a t c h o n t h e N a s s w h e n runs permit. escapement  The  D e p a r t m e n t will r e t a i n t h e right to d e t e r m i n e  levels and where  runs are less than  or e q u a l to the  River,  minimum minimum  e s c a p e m e n t l e v e l , n o h a r v e s t s of the f i s h will b e permitted.  A l t h o u g h t h e N i s g a ' a will b e p e r m i t t e d to s e l l their f i s h , t h e y will b e s u b j e c t to  measures  n e c e s s a r y for c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d  to  legislation enacted  for  the  S e e C a n a d a , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , N i s g a ' a T r i b a l C o u n c i l , Nisga 'a Treaty Negotiations Agreement in Principle ( 1 5 F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 6 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] a n d C a n a d a , B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a n d N i s g a ' a T r i b a l C o u n c i l , Nisga 'a Treaty Negotiations Agreement in Principle in Brief ( 1 5 F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 6 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] . 2 5 6  2 S 7  T h e A g r e e m e n t i n P r i n c i p l e e x p r e s s l y states t h a t t h e h a r v e s t i n g a g r e e m e n t w i l l n o t c r e a t e t r e a t y r i g h t s  w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f s. 3 5 o f t h e  Constitution Act, 1982.  It a l s o p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e h a r v e s t a l l o c a t i o n i s t o  be g i v e n the same p r i o r i t y as c o m m e r c i a l a n d recreational a l l o c a t i o n s i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s m a n a g e m e n t decisions. See p p . 36-37 o f the A g r e e m e n t .  fisheries  127  p u r p o s e s of p u b l i c h e a l t h a n d harvest  allocations, as  safety.  opposed  to  As  treaty  well, fish caught allocations, are  p u r s u a n t to t h e t e r m s of the h a r v e s t a g r e e m e n t s .  p u r s u a n t to to  be  sold  the only  N o s a l e s will b e permitted of  a n y f i s h , h o w e v e r a l l o c a t e d , w h e r e t h e r e a r e n o d i r e c t e d h a r v e s t s in C a n a d i a n c o m m e r c i a l o r r e c r e a t i o n a l f i s h e r i e s of N a s s A r e a s t o c k s of that s p e c i e s .  Generally,  the  treaty  is not  to  alter l a w s of g e n e r a l  r e s p e c t to p r o p r i e t a r y i n t e r e s t s in f i s h o r m a r i n e p l a n t s .  application with  The  D e p a r t m e n t will  retain overall responsibility for c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t  of the  fisheries a n d fish habitat,  harvest.  with the N i s g a ' a  managing  its o w n  salmon The  N i s g a ' a will b e p e r m i t t e d to r e g u l a t e h o w t h e h a r v e s t is to b e a l l o c a t e d a m o n g Nisga'a  citizens  and  non-Nisga'a  citizens fishing  in their w a t e r s ;  licensing  r e q u i r e m e n t s ; d e s i g n a t i o n a n d d o c u m e n t a t i o n of N i s g a ' a h a r v e s t e r s ; d i s p o s i t i o n of h a r v e s t e d f i s h ; a n d d e s i g n a t i o n of v e s s e l s u s e d for c o n d u c t i n g h a r v e s t s .  A joint m a n a g e m e n t plans,  arrange  escapement  for  c o m m i t t e e will b e f o r m e d to s h a r e information  collection  goals and  make  and  exchange  of  recommendations  to  data, the  provide  advice  Department  and  N i s g a ' a g o v e r n m e n t with r e s p e c t to c o n s e r v a t i o n n e e d s a n d o t h e r i s s u e s . c o m m i t t e e will b e c o m p o s e d of two m e m b e r s a p p o i n t e d by e a c h of the Central Government, C a n a d a a n d British C o l u m b i a .  and on the The  Nisga'a  128  The harvested method  Nisga'a  must  prepare  an annual fishing plan a n d ensure fish  in c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e  of h a r v e s t  fishery enforcement  and  plan.  It m u s t  location,  timing,  applicable gear restrictions; fishery monitoring  plans;  plans; stock assessment and enhancement  t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s for the s a l e of fish. management  include the  T h e p l a n m u s t b e f o r w a r d e d to the joint  n e c e s s a r y to i n t e g r a t e t h e N i s g a ' a f i s h e r i e s w i t h o t h e r r e s o u r c e  conservation  plans.  The  will  the  adjustments  harvesting  which  plans; and  make  and  committee  are  have  committee  M i n i s t e r of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s  who  the  will then  power  to  recommend  the  p l a n to  h a s the ultimate authority to a c c e p t  the or  vary the plan.  T h e N i s g a ' a will a l s o r e c e i v e $ 1 1 . 5  million for the p u r c h a s e of v e s s e l s a n d  l i c e n c e s for participation in the c o a s t a l c o m m e r c i a l fishing industry.  In a d d i t i o n ,  a trust will b e e s t a b l i s h e d to p r o m o t e c o n s e r v a t i o n a n d p r o t e c t i o n of N a s s f i s h species.  Canada  Government  will a l s o b e  in r e l a t i o n to  r e q u i r e d to c o n s u l t with t h e  international  negotiations  which  Nisga'a may  Central  significantly  affect f i s h e r i e s r e s o u r c e s r e f e r r e d to in t h e F i n a l A g r e e m e n t .  The  f i s h e r i e s p r o v i s i o n s i n t h e N i s g a ' a A g r e e m e n t i n P r i n c i p l e , if t h e y  ultimately b e c o m e part of a treaty, will u n d o u b t e d l y i n c r e a s e the N i s g a ' a s h a r e of Nass  salmon.  The  p r o v i s i o n s will a l s o permit the N i s g a ' a to h a v e a  control over h o w their fish are m a n a g e d .  greater  However, the agreement clearly d o e s  129  not e n v i s a g e a c o m p r e h e n s i v e c o - m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e .  Instead, the N i s g a ' a are  permitted to d e c i d e h o w the f i s h a r e to b e d i v i d e d a m o n g t h e m s e l v e s a n d ensure  the  fisheries are  management  plan.  managed  Although  they  according  to  the  Department's  to  overall  a r e a l s o permitted to e s t a b l i s h their  own  h a r v e s t i n g p l a n s a n d to d e t e r m i n e e n f o r c e m e n t m e c h a n i s m s , t h e s e p l a n s m u s t ultimately b e a p p r o v e d by the Department.  It m a y b e t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t  permit traditional harvesting a n d m a n a g e m e n t the plans.  will  p r a c t i c e s to b e i n c o r p o r a t e d into  H o w e v e r , it s e e m s u n l i k e l y u n d e r t h i s t y p e o f f r a m e w o r k t h a t m u c h  deviation from the non-Aboriginal management  s c h e m e will b e permitted.  It i s  m o r e likely that w h a t will result is a N i s g a ' a r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k w h i c h mirrors the Department's regulatory s c h e m e s .  A l t h o u g h the p r o v i s i o n s of the A g r e e m e n t  i n P r i n c i p l e a r e l i m i t e d , it i s a  s t e p t o w a r d c o - m a n a g e m e n t of the f i s h e r i e s . T o a limited extent the N i s g a ' a will b e r e c o g n i z e d a s "owners" of a particular portion of N a s s R i v e r f i s h . 2 5 8  Thus,  there a p p e a r s to b e a slight shift from the traditional f o c u s o n f i s h a s a c o m m o n property  resource.  However,  management  system,  with  the  management  decision-making  it  is  important  Department power,  is  not  to  recognize  retaining  that  the  essentially all  significantly altered  by  basic of  the  these  provisions.  G. Holman argues that the Agreement in Principle does indeed privatize a portion of the Nass salmon runs. See "Fishing industry has a chance to swim rather than sink" The Globe and Mail (27 February 1996) A13.  130  As  well,  engendered  the  degree  i n d i c a t e s that  of c o n t r o v e r s y  which the Agreement  there  to  appears  be  an  unwillingness  C o l u m b i a to m o v e t o w a r d a c o - m a n a g e m e n t f i s h e r i e s r e g i m e . certainly  those  within  the  fisheries  industry  who  in P r i n c i p l e in  British  The  public, and  criticized the  agreement,  c o n t i n u a l l y point to t h e c o m m o n p r o p e r t y n a t u r e of t h e r e s o u r c e a s s u p p o r t for t h e n o t i o n that priority c a n n o t b e g i v e n to a n y p a r t i c u l a r g r o u p to h a r v e s t  it,  r e g a r d l e s s of a n y h i s t o r i c a l or c o n s t i t u t i o n a l right t h e g r o u p might h a v e .  A s well,  t h e r e h a s b e e n m u c h c r i t i c i s m of t h e p r o v i s i o n s a s b e i n g r a c i a l l y b a s e d .  Equality  a r g u m e n t s a r e u s e d t o s u g g e s t t h a t it i s c o n t r a r y t o n a t u r a l j u s t i c e , a n d p e r h a p s even  the  Constitution,  harvesting allocation.  to  permit  one  group  in  society  to  have  a  special  It i s i n t e r e s t i n g t h a t t h e r e i s s o m u c h f o c u s o n t h e r a c e  i s s u e in the d i s c o u r s e , g i v e n that the f i s h e r i e s in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a h a v e  been  "racially b a s e d " for o v e r 1 0 0 y e a r s , to the extent that the A b o r i g i n a l f o o d f i s h e r y h a s b e e n r e c o g n i z e d in the r e g u l a t i o n s s i n c e 1 8 8 8  a n d w a s confirmed by  the  S u p r e m e C o u r t of C a n a d a .  The debate,  c o n c e r n s of c o n s e r v a t i o n a l s o c o n t i n u e to d o m i n a t e  a n d attempts  have  been made  in the a g r e e m e n t  the fisheries  to e n s u r e that  the  s t a t e ' s c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s a r e met a n d that N i s g a ' a h a r v e s t i n g p l a n s  are  c o n s i s t e n t with h a r v e s t s in the rest of the p r o v i n c e . have  permeated  the  Aboriginal  fishing  The basic ideologies which  i s s u e s i n c e the  turn  c o n t i n u e to d o m i n a t e current d e b a t e s a n d t r e n d s in the industry.  of  the  century  131  2. Co-Manaaement Outside British Columbia  There workable  have  been  some  co-management  examples  of  Washington  such  attempts  scheme  attempts  state a n d N e w  in o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s t o f o r m u l a t e  incorporating Aboriginal  can  be  Zealand.  found The  in  a  fisheries.  Three  western  Arctic,  Canada's  following is a brief s u m m a r y  and  a n a l y s i s o f t h e s y s t e m s in p l a c e i n t h e s e t h r e e j u r i s d i c t i o n s . A l t h o u g h t h e s c o p e of t h i s t h e s i s is not s u c h s o a s to p e r m i t a c o m p l e t e a n a l y s i s of t h e s e management following  three  s y s t e m s a n d their potential a p p l i c a t i o n in British C o l u m b i a ,  hopefully  at  v a r i a t i o n s in the type  least  provides  sufficient  of c o - m a n a g e m e n t  information  regimes  to  illustrate  possible, as well as  the the their  strengths a n d limitations.  (i) The Western Arctic  In J u n e 1 9 8 4 , t h e G o v e r n m e n t o f C a n a d a a n d t h e I n u v i a l u i t e n t e r e d the Inuvialuit F i n a l A g r e e m e n t  ("the IFA")  in the w e s t e r n A r c t i c .  The  into  agreement  c o v e r s a l a r g e a r e a in the w e s t e r n A r c t i c , i n c l u d i n g the n o r t h e r n m o s t r e a c h e s of the Y u k o n Territory a n d the n o r t h w e s t e r n c o r n e r of the N o r t h w e s t The  IFA  Territories.  p r o v i d e d that the Inuvialuit w o u l d r e l i n q u i s h their l a n d c l a i m s in return  f o r s p e c i f i c r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g title t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y  9 1 , 0 0 0 s q u a r e k i l o m e t r e s of  132 l a n d , $ 4 5 million, a n d rights to participate in r e s o u r c e d e v e l o p m e n t , resource  harvesting,  resources.  and  management  of  renewable  and  renewable  non-renewable  T h e Inuvialuit a n d C a n a d a n o w s h a r e in r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t ,  five joint m a n a g e m e n t g r o u p s h a v i n g b e e n c r e a t e d u n d e r t h e IFA.  Several local  c o m m i t t e e s , with s o l e l y Inuvialuit m e m b e r s h i p , w e r e a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d . o r g a n i z a t i o n s a d v i s e , inform a n d m a k e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s to t h e joint  with  These  management  c o u n c i l s a n d attempt to p r o m o t e Inuvialuit i n v o l v e m e n t in r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t .  O n e of the joint m a n a g e m e n t  groups is the Fisheries Joint  Management  C o m m i t t e e ("the F J M C " ) w h i c h w a s e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1 9 8 6 t o g i v e a d v i c e t o t h e Inuvialuit  and the Department  Settlement  Region.  r e c o g n i t i o n of  o n fishery  management  within  the  Inuvialuit  T h e establishment of the F J M C w a s intended to e n s u r e  Inuvialuit k n o w l e d g e a n d e x p e r i e n c e a s e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s in  resource management.  T h e r e a r e five m e m b e r s o n the F J M C , two of w h o m a r e  a p p o i n t e d b y t h e Inuvialuit G a m e C o u n c i l , w h i c h w a s e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r t h e I F A a s a w h o l l y Inuvialuit m a n a g e m e n t structure, two b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t of C a n a d a a n d t h e fifth b y t h e o t h e r f o u r m e m b e r s . Canada  a n d t h e Inuvialuit  The FJMC  is responsible for assisting  in a d m i n i s t e r i n g rights a n d o b l i g a t i o n s r e l a t e d to  f i s h e r i e s u n d e r t h e IFA; to a s s i s t t h e D e p a r t m e n t in m a n a g i n g t h e f i s h e r i e s a n d m a r i n e m a m m a l s in t h e ISR; a n d to a d v i s e t h e M i n i s t e r of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s o n a l l matters relating to t h e Inuvialuit a n d I S R f i s h e r i e s . responsibilities  is the determination  of current  harvest  Included in t h e s e  levels,  regulation  of  133  a c c e s s to fisheries a n d allocation of s u b s i s t e n c e quotas a m o n g c o m m u n i t i e s . also makes  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s to the Department with respect to  quotas a n d regulatory a m e n d m e n t s . 2 5 9  It  appropriate  T h e F J M C has been described a s having  "substantial p o w e r s with r e s p e c t to formulation of l e g i s l a t i o n a n d r e g u l a t i o n s . " 2 6 0  T h e I F A g i v e s t h e Inuvialuit priority in t h e h a r v e s t of m a r i n e m a m m a l s a n d fish for s u b s i s t e n c e p u r p o s e s in the Settlement R e g i o n .  "Subsistence purposes"  is d e f i n e d t o i n c l u d e t r a d e , b a r t e r a n d s a l e t o o t h e r I n u v i a l u i t .  A s w e l l , Inuvialuit  f i s h e r s c a n b e i s s u e d n o n - t r a n s f e r a b l e c o m m e r c i a l l i c e n c e s to h a r v e s t a total w e i g h t of f i s h e q u a l to t h e largest a n n u a l c o m m e r c i a l h a r v e s t of that s p e c i e s taken  by  Inuvialuit  over  the preceding three  years.  Additional  commercial  l i c e n c e s a r e to b e i s s u e d to Inuvialuit o n t h e s a m e b a s i s a s t h e y a r e to n o n Inuvialuit f i s h e r s . 2 6 1  S i n c e the Final A g r e e m e n t recognizes preferential or exclusive harvesting rights of Inuvialuit in s o m e a r e a s , a s w e l l a s control of a c c e s s to t h e r e s o u r c e , participation in m a n a g e m e n t , scientific  approaches  r e l e v a n c e of traditional k n o w l e d g e ,  to conservation,  it h a s b e e n  said  and modern  to contain  "all the  For a review of the FJMC's most recent initiatives, see Fisheries Joint Management Committee, Annual Report 1992/1993, 1993/1994 and 1994/1995 [unpublished]. It is noteworthy that amendments to fisheries regulations have been undertaken to coordinate the regulatory scheme with the provisions in the IFA. N . C . Doubleday, "Co-Management Provisions of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement" in Pinkerton, supra, note 25, 209 at p. 216. Canada, The Western Arctic Claim. A Guide To The Inuvialuit Final Agreement (Ottawa: Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, 1984) at p. 8. 259  260  2 6 1  134  required ingredients for a c o - m a n a g e m e n t  regime."262  result in a c o m p l e t e d e v o l u t i o n of authority A b o r i g i n a l fishing rights.  It d o e s  not,  however,  by the D e p a r t m e n t in r e s p e c t  Although the Final A g r e e m e n t  of  d o e s provide for wholly  Inuvialuit c o m m i t t e e s , their r o l e is l i m i t e d to e n f o r c i n g r e g u l a t i o n s a n d p r o v i d i n g necessary data. committee, Doubleday  with  Management final  powers  d e c i s i o n s still  a r e g i v e n o n l y to t h e being  made  the  Minister.  e x p l a i n s , the "weight within the joint m a n a g e m e n t  the s i d e of r e g u l a t i o n a c c e p t a b l e to g o v e r n m e n t , Native  by  harvesting  rights."263  However,  she  also  FJMC,  a joint As  N.  b o d i e s will b e  on  rather than deregulation  of  suggests  that  regulations  r e c o m m e n d e d b y t h e F J M C c a n b e e x p e c t e d to b e g e n e r a l l y m o r e f a v o u r a b l e to I n u v i a l u i t f i s h e r s t h a n r e g u l a t i o n s p a s s e d w i t h o u t its i n p u t .  A s well, as discussed  e a r l i e r in this t h e s i s , g i v e n the current i d e o l o g i e s a n d t r e n d s in t h e  Canadian  f i s h e r i e s i n d u s t r y a n d r e g u l a t o r y r e g i m e , it i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t will d e v o l v e all p o w e r in f a v o u r of a n A b o r i g i n a l m a n a g e m e n t  system.  although the c o - m a n a g e m e n t s c h e m e e n c o m p a s s e d within the Final may  still b e  b i a s e d in f a v o u r  Thus,  Agreement  of s t a t e i d e o l o g y a n d c o n t r o l , w i t h o n l y  some  i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l c u s t o m a r y l a w , it n o n e t h e l e s s m a y b e t h e b e s t m o d e l of  co-management  system.  262  Ibid at p. 221. hbid at p. 221.  currently  available  in C a n a d a  given  the  r e a l i t i e s of  our  135  Having  s a i d that,  it m u s t  be acknowledged  that  there  are  obviously  significant differences between the political, social, e c o n o m i c a n d g e o g r a p h i c situations in the w e s t e r n Arctic a n d m u c h of British C o l u m b i a , A b o r i g i n a l s y s t e m s of m a n a g e m e n t  a n d traditional  m a y well b e m u c h m o r e intact in t h e former  than in m a n y a r e a s of the latter.264 T h e s e differences m a y greatly affect the type o f c o - m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m w h i c h i s m o s t l i k e l y t o s u c c e e d i n e a c h a r e a a n d it i s p r e m a t u r e to r e c o m m e n d t h e a d o p t i o n of t h e Inuvialuit m o d e l in o t h e r parts of C a n a d a without further c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e context H o w e v e r , it i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h e c o - m a n a g e m e n t appears  to b e g i v i n g  Aboriginal  fishers a  i n w h i c h it h a s a r i s e n . 2 6 5  s y s t e m in the w e s t e r n A r c t i c  much  greater  voice  in f i s h e r i e s  m a n a g e m e n t than in m a n y other a r e a s of the country.  (ii) State of Washington  T h e history of A b o r i g i n a l rights to f i s h c o m m e r c i a l l y in W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e is replete with conflict.  A s is the c a s e in British C o l u m b i a , t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e of  w h a t is n o w W a s h i n g t o n state historically d e p e n d e d o n f i s h for f o o d . p l a y e d a central role in their religion, myths a n d r i t u a l s . 2 6 6  Fish also  T h e importance of the  It is interesting to note, however, that some studies have shown that much of the traditional culture of the Inuit people has been lost, particularly in the western Arctic and Labrador. See, for example, J. Chartrand, "Survival and Adaptation of the Inuit Ethnic Identity: The Importance of Inuktitut" in B. A. Cox, ed., Native People, Native Lands. Canadian Indians, Inuit and Metis (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1987)241 at p. 251. Unfortunately, the scope of this thesis is not such to permit such an interesting analysis to take place. M.R. Anderson, "Law and the Protection of Cultural Communities: The Case of Native American Fishing Rights" (1987) 9 Law & Poly 125 at p. 126. 264  265  266  136  fishery to t h e s e p e o p l e w a s r e c o g n i z e d b y G o v e r n o r S t e v e n s w h e n h e negotiated treaties with them in the 1860s.  T h e treaties specifically provide for protection of the  A b o r i g i n a l right t o c o n t i n u e f i s h i n g . 2 6 7  T h e r e a r e m a n y parallels in the history of fisheries regulations in British Columbia and Washington.  T h e W a s h i n g t o n State Department of F i s h e r i e s w a s  f o r m e d t o p r e v e n t o v e r - f i s h i n g after s a l m o n b e g a n g a i n i n g v a l u e a s a  commodity  a n d i n c r e a s i n g n u m b e r s of n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s b e g a n participating in t h e industry.  The  D e p a r t m e n t t e n d e d to prefer m a r i n e fishing o v e r river fishing a s t h e former w a s e a s i e r to control a n d m o r e p e o p l e f i s h e d in marine a r e a s .  A s w a s the c a s e north of  the border, this effectively resulted in t h e favouring of o n e culturally-defined m o d e of fishing over another, a s t h e Aboriginal fishermen t e n d e d to fish in rivers while n o n Aboriginal fishermen tended effectively  became  to fish in m a r i n e a r e a s .  restrictions o n Aboriginal  treaty  f i s h e r m e n ' s c a p a c i t y to fish d e c l i n e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y . 2 6 8  O v e r time, rights  a n d the  Aboriginal  A s well, the development  timber a n d mining industries a n d the construction of hydro-electric d a m s affected the fish s t o c k s . 2 6 9  regulations  of  adversely  T h e result of all t h e s e factors h a s b e e n scarcity of the  resource.  The Stevens Treaties provided a guarantee that the aboriginal peoples' "right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all citizens of the Territory." 267  See ibid, at p. 126. *Ibidatp. 127.  26  P.CMonson,"United States v. Washington (Phase U): The Indian Fishing Conflict Moves Upstream" (198182) 12 Environ. L. 469 at p. 471. R. Bruun argues that the Department of Fisheries chose to enact conservation regulations to decrease competition for the resource instead of going after industry, which was the true cause of habitat degradation and the consequent depletion of the resource. Since treatyfishermenwere less numerous and less politically influential than non-treatyfishermen,she argues, it was easier to cut the former out of the competition through regulation than the latter. The State often rationalized these regulations on the basis that  269  137  A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s b e g a n a s s e r t i n g t h e i r right i n t h e f i s h e r i e s b y p a r t i c i p a t i n g in " f i s h - i n s " ( f i s h i n g i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n s ) b e g i n n i n g i n t h e 1 9 5 0 s .  In  the 1 9 6 0 s , t h e s e "fish-ins" resulted in arrests of s e v e r a l A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s a n d confiscations of g e a r . 2 7 0  T h i s activity r e s u l t e d f r o m t h e g e n e r a l r e l u c t a n c e o n t h e  part o f b o t h t h e s t a t e F i s h e r i e s a n d G a m e D e p a r t m e n t s a n d t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t t o r e c o g n i z e t h e t r e a t y right t o f i s h .  Sport a n d non-Aboriginal  commercial fishing  interests w e r e a l s o o p p o s e d to recognition of s u c h r i g h t s . 2 7 1  It i s i n t h e s e  c i r c u m s t a n c e s that t h e U n i t e d  States  federal  government  c o m m e n c e d a n action o n behalf of several t r i b e s . 2 7 2 T h e action w h i c h resulted w a s d i v i d e d into t w o p a r t s , w h i c h t o g e t h e r c a m e t o b e k n o w n a s t h e " B o l d t d e c i s i o n s " . 2 7 3 The  tribes w e r e  e s s e n t i a l l y a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e i r t r e a t i e s g a v e t h e m a right t o a  specific allocation of the fisheries resource.  T h e resulting j u d g m e n t of District J u d g e  B o l d t i n " P h a s e I" h a s b e e n d e s c r i b e d a s ' t h e m o s t c o n t r o v e r s i a l c o u r t d e c i s i o n i n Washington State history."274  the treatyfishermenwere guilty of mismanagement of thefisheries.However, she points out that during the pretrials in the Boldt cases, the state was unable to provide even one example of conduct of the treaty fishermen which was detrimental to the fish. See R. Bruun, "The Boldt Decision. Legal Victory, Political Defeat" (1982) 4 Law & Policy Q. 271 at pp. 282-283. For a description of these activities, see S. Bentley, "Indians' Right to Fish: The Background, Impact, and Legacy of United States v. Washington" (1992) 17 Amer. Ind. L. Rev. 1 at pp. 2-3. Bruun, supra, note 269 at pp. 271-273. This was a somewhat unusual situation. The federal government brought the action in exercise of its trust or guardianship role toward the tribes. However, it appears that it only brought the action after years of tribal requests and only when violence over the fishing issue became imminent. See F.G. Cohen, 270  271  272  Treaties on Trial. The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986) at p. 182.  United States v. Washington, 384 F.Supp. 312 (W. D. Wash 1974), affirmed 520 F.2d 676 (9th Or. 1975), cert, denied 423 U.S. 1086 (1976) and United States v. Washington, 506 F.Supp. 187 (W. D. Wash 1980), affirmed in part 759 F.2d 1352 (9th Or. 1982), cert denied 106 S. Ct. 407 (1985), hereinafterreferredto as the "Boldt decisions" or "Phase I" and "Phase II" respectively. Bruun, supra, note 269 at p. 271. 274  138  In h i s d e c i s i o n , J u d g e B o l d t r e f e r r e d t o t h e e v i d e n c e w h i c h h i g h l i g h t e d t h e i m p o r t a n c e of fish to the treaty f i s h e r m e n historically a n d f o u n d in t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s that t h e term " i n c o m m o n with" in t h e treaties m e a n s s h a r i n g e q u a l l y t h e opportunity to t a k e fish.  In o t h e r w o r d s , b o t h t r e a t y a n d n o n - t r e a t y f i s h e r m e n w e r e t o h a v e t h e  o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a k e u p t o 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e h a r v e s t a b l e n u m b e r o f f i s h t a k e n at t h e usual a n d accustomed fishing grounds a n d stations.275  W i t h r e s p e c t to t h e state's p o w e r to regulate, J u d g e Boldt h e l d that o n l y those regulations w h i c h w e r e r e a s o n a b l e a n d n e c e s s a r y to prevent  demonstrable  h a r m to t h e a c t u a l c o n s e r v a t i o n of f i s h c o u l d affect treaty rights to f i s h . 2 7 6  H e stated  that if a l t e r n a t i v e m e a n s o f a c h i e v i n g t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s w e r e a v a i l a b l e , t h e s t a t e c o u l d n o t r e s t r i c t t r e a t y right f i s h i n g , e v e n if t h e o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e w a s r e s t r i c t i o n . of f i s h i n g b y non-treaty f i s h e r m e n . 2 7 7  In a d d i t i o n , t o b e v a l i d , a n y s t a t e r e g u l a t i o n  a f f e c t i n g t r e a t y r i g h t s t o f i s h c o u l d n o t d i s c r i m i n a t e a g a i n s t t h e t r e a t y t r i b e ' s right t o fish a n d must  meet  appropriate  standards  of substantive  a n d procedural d u e  278 process.  J u d g e B o l d t a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h e right o f t h e t r i b e s t o r e g u l a t e o f f - r e s e r v a t i o n fishing b y their m e m b e r s .  H o w e v e r , h e l i m i t e d t h e right t o c i r c u m s t a n c e s w h e r e t h e  UnitedStates v. Washington (1974), supra, note 273 at p. 343. lbid at p. 342. Judge Boldt went on to define "reasonable" as a specifically identified conservation measure appropriate to its purpose, and "necessary" as essential to conservation. 21i  216  hbid at p. 342.  2T  Ibid at p. 402. He also stated that to meet the appropriate standards, theregulationsmust receive full, fair and public consideration and determination. 218  139  t r i b e h a d e s t a b l i s h e d that t h e y m e t c e r t a i n q u a l i f i c a t i o n s a n d c o n d i t i o n s t o t h e satisfaction of either the Departments of F i s h e r i e s a n d G a m e or the c o u r t . 2 7 9 r e c o g n i z e d the possibility of co-jurisdiction in off-reservation tribes a n d the state in certain c i r c u m s t a n c e s . 2 8 0  He  fishing by both the  H e a l s o s t a t e d that t h e d i v i s i o n of  f i s h i n g r i g h t s a s b e t w e e n t r i b e s w a s t o b e left t o t h e t r i b e s t h e m s e l v e s t o d e t e r m i n e .  J u d g e Boldt granted a n injunction requiring t h e state to implement  interim  r e g u l a t i o n s w h i c h r e c o g n i z e d t h e t r e a t y f i s h e r m e n ' s right t o t a k e f i s h a s g u a r a n t e e d in t h e t r e a t i e s a n d w h i c h e n s u r e d a n e q u i t a b l e a p p o r t i o n m e n t h a r v e s t b e t w e e n treaty a n d n o n - t r e a t y f i s h e r m e n .  of the state's fish  T h e Court retained jurisdiction  over t h e c a s e a n d hired experts to assist in establishing appropriate a l l o c a t i o n s . 2 8 1  T h e s e c o n d p h a s e o f t h e d e c i s i o n d e a l t w i t h t h e i s s u e s of, firstly, hatchery-bred  whether  fish w e r e to b e i n c l u d e d in t h e treaty f i s h e r m e n ' s a l l o c a t i o n a n d ,  s e c o n d l y , w h e t h e r t h e t r i b e s h a d t h e right t o h a v e t h e f i s h e r y r e s o u r c e a n d h a b i t a t protected from adverse environmental  activity.282  District J u d g e Orrick, w h o t o o k  o v e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e c a s e f r o m J u d g e B o l d t u p o n t h e tatter's r e t i r e m e n t , h e l d t h a t  Ibid at p. 340. These qualifications were that the tribe have competent and responsible leadership; well organized tribal government reasonably competent to apply tribal off reservation fishing regulations; Indian personnel trained to enforce the fishing regulations; well qualified experts infisheryscience and management; an officially approved tribal membership roll; and provision for tribal membership certification. In addition, the tribe had to provide for full and complete tribal fishing regulations; permit monitoring of off reservation aboriginal fishing by the Fisheries and Game Departments; and provide fish catch reports of both on and off reservationfishingto Fisheries and Game. See pp. 340-341. Ibid at p. 403. Judge Boldt stated that the jurisdiction of each party to regulate was unimpaired by the exercise of another's regulatory jurisdiction. 219  2S0  ™Ibid& p. 408 and p. 413. 2 8 2  United States v. Washington (1980), supra, note 273.  140  h a t c h e r y f i s h w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e t r e a t y a l l o c a t i o n a n d t h a t t h e t r e a t y right i n c l u d e d a n i m p l i e d e n v i r o n m e n t a l right. was  affirmed  by the Court  H i s d e c i s i o n with respect to the hatchery fish i s s u e  of A p p e a l s ,  Ninth Circuit,  but h i s d e c i s i o n o n the  environmental protection i s s u e w a s r e v e r s e d . 2 8 3  P r o b l e m s b e g a n a l m o s t immediately after t h e P h a s e I d e c i s i o n w a s r e l e a s e d . W h e n t h e W a s h i n g t o n State D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h e r i e s p r o p o s e d r e g u l a t i o n s in a n effort t o c o m p l y w i t h J u d g e B o l d t ' s r u l i n g , a n u m b e r o f p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s c h a l l e n g e d t h e p r o p o s e d regulations in the State S u p r e m e C o u r t . 2 8 4 that t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t regulations  with  c o u l d not order  respect  to  conservation of the resource.  anything  a state other  The Supreme  T h e State S u p r e m e Court held Fisheries  than Court  that  Department to  which  was  pass  related  also rejected J u d g e  to  Boldt's  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e t r e a t i e s , a n d h e l d that r e c o g n i z i n g s p e c i a l r i g h t s f o r A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s v i o l a t e d t h e E q u a l Protection C l a u s e of t h e F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t . 2 8 5 Supreme implement  The  Court enjoined the Fisheries Department from enforcing regulations to J u d g e Boldt's d e c i s i o n . T h e result w a s a conflict b e t w e e n  state a n d  ^United States v. Washington (1982), supra, note 273. This was actually the second decision of the Ninth Circuit in this case. A judgment had earlier been rendered by a panel of three judges of the Ninth Circuit (694 F.2d 1374), but the decision was subsequently vacated (704 F.2d 1141) and the case was reconsidered by the court en banc. This latter decision was the final, and binding, decision of the court. P.F. James, "United States v. Washington: Implied Treaty Rights to Continue Fishing" (1982) 18 Williamette L. Rev. 659 at p. 661. Some of the cases which resulted include Washington State Commercial Passenger 284  Fishing Vessel Association v. Tollefson, 89 Wash. 2d 276 (1977); Purse Seine Vessel Owners Association Moos, 88 Wash. 2d 799 (1977); Puget Sound Gillnetters Association v. Moos, 88 Wash. 2d 677 (1977). The position of the State Supreme Court is summarized in Washington v Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 61L Ed. 2d 823 (1979) at p. 837. R Bruun noted that groups opposed to the recognition of treaty rights to fish have attempted to use "the rhetoric of rights" (i.e. equal rights) in support of their arguments. She suggests that the fact that "rights" arguments can be used by both sides in the dispute is a serious limitation on therightsmodel. She is of the opinion that the issue is one of resources, not rights. Supra, note 269 at pp. 280 and 285. As was noted in Chapter Three, these "equal rights" arguments are also made in Canadian courts. 285  141  federal court judgments.  In a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l n o n - t r e a t y  commercial fishermen  c o n t i n u e d to fish in d e f i a n c e of the Boldt d e c i s i o n a n d the p r o p o s e d regulations. Confrontation  a n d violence between  treaty  a n d non-treaty  fishermen  resulted,  including threats a n d shootings, a n d there w e r e petitions to r e m o v e J u d g e from office.286  Boldt  J u d g e Boldt ultimately took over m a n a g e m e n t of t h e f i s h e r i e s a n d  e s t a b l i s h e d the F i s h e r i e s A d v i s o r y B o a r d to e n s u r e enforcement of h i s judgment. T h e b o a r d w a s m a d e u p of o n e tribal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a n d o n e state representative.  A s a result of t h e s e conflicts, the United States S u p r e m e Court a g r e e d to h e a r the Boldt c a s e a l o n g with two other c a s e s , the  Washington State Commercial  Passenger Fishing Vessel Association a n d Puget Sound Gillnetters Association cases.287  In its d e c i s i o n , t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d that t h e t r i b e s h a d r e s e r v e d t h e  right t o t a k e a s h a r e o f e a c h r u n that p a s s e s t h r o u g h t h e t r i b a l f i s h i n g a r e a s .  The  C o u r t s t a t e d that s i n c e b o t h A b o r i g i n a l s a n d n o n - A b o r i g i n a l s a r e e n t i t l e d t o t a k e a f a i r s h a r e o f t h e a v a i l a b l e fish, t h e 5 0 p e r c e n t a l l o c a t i o n t o t h e t r e a t y  fishermen  was  to b e interpreted a s a m a x i m u m allocation, not a m i n i m u m a l l o c a t i o n a s J u d g e Boldt h a d s u g g e s t e d . T h e actual allocation w a s to b e b a s e d o n what w a s required to give the treaty f i s h e r m e n a " m o d e r a t e  l i v i n g " ; t h e a l l o c a t i o n c o u l d b e d e c r e a s e d if  moderate livings c o u l d b e obtained through a l e s s e r a l l o c a t i o n . 2 8 8  The campaign to impeach Judge Boldt was commenced by a group known as "Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities". See Bruun, ibid at pp. 285-287. 286  281  Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, supra, note 285.  Ibid at pp. 841 and 845. The Court also reversed Judge Boldt'sfindingthatfishcaught on reserve or for food and ceremonial purposes were not to be included in the calculation of the treatyfishermen'sallocation. See pp. 846-847. 2SS  142  The  Court  also held  that t h e  District  Court  had  jurisdiction to  directly  s u p e r v i s e t h e f i s h e r i e s if s t a t e l a w c o n t i n u e d t o b a r t h e e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e d e c i s i o n . The  Court  d i s m i s s e d the  argument  that t h e  Equality Protection  Clause  of  the  F o u r t e e n t h A m e n d m e n t w a s b r e a c h e d b y h o l d i n g that t r e a t y f i s h e r m e n h a d t h e right to a 5 0 p e r c e n t a l l o c a t i o n , s t a t i n g that t h e a l l o c a t i o n w a s b a s e d n o t o n r a c e , but o n m e m b e r s h i p in a t r e a t y n a t i o n .  A s a r e s u l t o f t h e B o l d t d e c i s i o n s , b y 1 9 9 2 , W a s h i n g t o n A b o r i g i n a l s ' s h a r e of t h e f i s h h a d i n c r e a s e d f r o m l e s s t h a n t w o p e r c e n t to a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 0 p e r c e n t o f t h e total h a r v e s t . 2 9 0 communities employment  A n i n c r e a s e in m a t e r i a l w e l l - b e i n g a n d s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e in r e s e r v e  has  been  shown.  New  tribal-owned  opportunities o n reserves increased.  A  businesses new  emerged  and  i m a g e of self a n d  of  c o m m u n i t y h a s e m e r g e d in m a n y of t h e t r i b e s . 2 9 1  Of  particular note  for o u r  purposes  is the fact that A b o r i g i n a l  peoples  o b t a i n e d a v o i c e in r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t a s a r e s u l t of t h e d e c i s i o n s . 2 9 2 A f t e r t h e B o l d t d e c i s i o n s , t h e t r i b e s t o o k s t e p s t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r c a p a c i t y to m a n a g e f i s h e r i e s t h r o u g h the hiring of biologists a n d e n f o r c e m e n t officers. also formed  the  Northwest Indian  Fisheries Commission  ("the  their  Nineteen tribes Commission")  to  a s s i s t in d e v e l o p i n g p r o g r a m s t o p r o t e c t a n d c o - o r d i n a t e t r e a t y f i s h i n g r i g h t s ; t o  Ibidat pp. 841-842 and 852. Bentley, supra, note 270 at p. 19. Anderson, supra, note 266 at pp. 135-136. Cohen, supra, note 272 at pp. xxiv-xxvi.  2S9  290  2 9 1  292  143  p r o v i d e t e c h n i c a l a d v i c e a n d c o - o r d i n a t i o n ; a n d to d e v e l o p g o o d will t h r o u g h p u b l i c information a n d education.  T h e C o m m i s s i o n represents the tribes in m e e t i n g s with  management  agencies,  including  Commission.  It a l s o s e r v e s a s a l i a i s o n b e t w e e n t h e t r i b e s , C o n g r e s s a n d  federal executive branch.  The  the  International  federal government  Pacific  Salmon  Fisheries  transferred $ 7 0 0 , 0 0 0  to  the the  U n i t e d S t a t e s F i s h a n d W i l d l i f e S e r v i c e to w o r k with the C o m m i s s i o n to i m p l e m e n t the Boldt decisions.  As  well,  the  federal  government,  and  Oregon  and  Washington  n e g o t i a t e d a c o m p r e h e n s i v e f i v e - y e a r m a n a g e m e n t p l a n in 1 9 7 7 .  states  T h e major g o a l s  of t h e p l a n w e r e to p r e s e r v e a n d e n h a n c e t h e f i s h e r i e s , a l l o c a t e t h e r e s o u r c e f a i r l y and  allow  Aboriginal  Committee  involvement  in  management.  Technical  ("TAC") w a s a l s o f o r m e d to d e v e l o p a n d a n a l y z e  r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r f i s h e r i e s p o l i c y . A l s o in 1 9 7 7 , body  The  to c o - o r d i n a t e f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t  m a k e r s with technical information.  Advisory  d a t a a n d to  make  the tribes f o r m e d a n inter-tribal  policies and  provide tribal d e c i s i o n -  D e s p i t e t h e s e c o - o p e r a t i v e efforts, f i s h s t o c k s  c o n t i n u e d to d e c l i n e , a p p a r e n t l y d u e to d r o u g h t s i n 1 9 7 5 a n d 1 9 7 6 a n d t h e b u i l d i n g of a d a m .  C o n c e r n s w e r e a l s o r a i s e d that A b o r i g i n a l s d i d n o t h a v e e n o u g h s a y in  decision-making, initiatives.293 due  to t h e  with  their  input  being  limited to  responses  to  other  parties'  B y 1 9 8 2 , m a n y of t h e t r i b e s h a d d e c l a r e d t h e f i v e - y e a r p l a n a f a i l u r e continuing  W a t pp. 122-126.  d e c l i n e in s t o c k s ,  f a i l u r e to  devise  appropriate  ocean  144  r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d c o n t i n u i n g litigation. T w o t r i b e s f o r m a l l y w i t h d r e w f r o m t h e p l a n a n d t h e r e w a s still n o c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n f o r C o l u m b i a R i v e r s a l m o n a n d s t e e l h e a d . 2 9 4  H o w e v e r , b y 1 9 8 3 , t h e t r i b e s w e r e c a t c h i n g m o r e fish a n d p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of r e g i o n a l m a n a g e m e n t p l a n s . which  could be  used  to  finance  the  S o m e tribes b e g a n levying a fish tax  purchase  of  fishing  boats,  management  p r o g r a m s a n d o t h e r i n i t i a t i v e s . T h e r e w a s a l s o a r e s u r g e n c e in t r i b a l g o v e r n m e n t . All tribes affected by the Boldt d e c i s i o n s n o w h a v e their o w n m a n a g e m e n t o r p a r t i c i p a t e in c o - o p e r a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t . management  on  restoration  a u g m e n t a t i o n of n a t u r a l r u n s .  of  weak  programs,  T h e r e h a s b e e n a n e m p h a s i s in t r i b a l  runs  through  habitat  rehabilitation  A s w e l l , s o m e inter-tribal c o - o p e r a t i v e s h a v e  and been  f o r m e d w h i c h o p e r a t e joint v e n t u r e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o d a t a c o l l e c t i o n , f i s h e r i e s p a t r o l s and environmental monitoring.295  T h e r e i s s o m e e v i d e n c e to s u g g e s t that a s a r e s u l t o f B o l d t I's r e q u i r e m e n t o f a n e q u a l d i v i s i o n of t h e h a r v e s t a b l e fish, t h e r e h a s b e e n a n i m p r o v e m e n t collection a n d m a n a g e m e n t of the r e s o u r c e . 2 9 6  Tribal management  in d a t a  systems  have  p l a y e d a n important role in providing detailed information o n local conditions, w h i c h w o u l d o t h e r w i s e b e difficult f o r m o r e c e n t r a l i z e d a g e n c i e s t o o b t a i n . T h e r e h a s b e e n a n i n c r e a s e in c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t r i b e s a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h e r i e s  W a t p. 135. W a t pp. 155-165. Bruun, supra, note 269 at pp. 291-292. 5  145  a s well.  In 1 9 8 6 t h e t r i b e s a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h e r i e s e n g a g e d  c o m p r e h e n s i v e w a t e r s h e d planning p r o c e s s for the state.  Tribal  h a v e a l s o b e e n involved in the P a c i f i c F i s h e r i e s M a n a g e m e n t c o m m i s s i o n involved with the regulation of O r e g o n , coastal waters.298  in a  representatives  Council, a federal  California a n d  Washington  B y t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s , a t r e n d o f joint p r o b l e m s o l v i n g h a d e v o l v e d i n  Washington.299  T h e r e a r e s o m e w h o criticize the Boldt d e c i s i o n s a s merely shifting conflict f r o m t r i b e v e r s u s s t a t e t o intra a n d i n t e r - t r i b a l . T h e n a t u r e o f t r i b a l f i s h i n g c h a n g e d radically after t h e Boldt d e c i s i o n s . T h e s i z e of t h e treaty f i s h i n g fleet i n c r e a s e d f r o m 8 0 0 in 1 9 7 5 to 2 , 1 6 3 in 1 9 8 2 , a n d t h e n u m b e r of m a r i n e f i s h e r m e n i n c r e a s e d from 2 0 to 3 0 pre-Boldt to 1,106 by 1 9 8 2 . 3 0 0 did  not protect  traditional fishing  It h a s b e e n a r g u e d t h a t t h e B o l d t d e c i s i o n  practices,  but i n s t e a d  opportunity for a n e n l a r g e d Aboriginal marine fishery.  merely  an  It h a s e v e n b e e n s u g g e s t e d  that t h e d e c i s i o n effectively f o r c e d A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r m e n to a d o p t m e t h o d s o f f i s h i n g in o r d e r t o c o m p e t e . 3 0 1  provided  non-traditional  T h e s e trends h a v e apparently resulted in  Cohen, supra, note 272 at p. 170. F . G . Cohen, "Treaty Indian Tribes and Washington State: The Evolution of Tribal Involvement in Fisheries Management in the U.S. Pacific Northwest" in Pinkerton, supra, note 25, 37 at pp.44-45. Dale, supra, note 244 at p. 62. Anderson, supra, note 266 at p. 136. Before Boldt I, there were fewer than 30 Aboriginal-owned power-reel marine gillnets; by 1982 there were 448. Pre-1974 there was one Aboriginal-owned purse-seiner, by 1982, there were 38. Bentley, supra, note 270 at p. 24. She argues that the court failed to recognize that traditionally, Aboriginal peoples fished for anadromousfishonly atfixedfishingsites onrivers;only non-anadromousfishwerefishedin marine areas. Thefixedfishingsites were essentially owned by various families within a tribe, and income was redistributed throughout the tribe. The families' proprietary interests in the fishing sites resulted in them being "careful stewards". The court's interpretation of the right to fish as being an opportunity to fish eliminated the notion of private ownership of thefishingsites. She argues that, as a result, treatyfishermenare now forced to compete within the dominant "common property" system because if they dont, there is no guarantee that there will be sufficient fish stocks at their traditionalfishingsites. Even the exercise of their regulatory power is 298  299  300  301  146  s o m e t e n s i o n s within tribes b e t w e e n traditional f i s h e r m e n a n d m a r i n e f i s h e r m e n , in part f r o m j e a l o u s i e s a n d r e s e n t m e n t  stemming  from  the huge  d i s c r e p a n c i e s in  i n c o m e s b e t w e e n t h e t w o . 3 0 2 T h e r e i s a l s o a p e r c e p t i o n t h a t it i s t h e w e a l t h y f i s h e r m e n w h o control tribal g o v e r n m e n t a n d , h e n c e ,  tribal fishing  marine  regulations.  C o n c e r n s h a v e a l s o b e e n v o i c e d b y v a r i o u s tribes in s o m e a r e a s that t h e y a r e barred from harvesting salmon which p a s s through  fishing sites of other  tribes  b e c a u s e t h e latter, w h i c h t e n d t o h a v e s u p e r i o r h a r v e s t i n g c a p a b i l i t i e s , t a k e t h e entire Aboriginal a l l o c a t i o n . 3 0 3  S o m e tribes h a v e actually c o m m e n c e d  litigation  and/or mediation in relation to this i s s u e . 3 0 4  H o w e v e r , it i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e c a l l o n e o f t h e m y t h s w h i c h w a s d e b u n k e d i n C h a p t e r T w o ; that i s , that A b o r i g i n a l s o n t h e N o r t h w e s t c o a s t s h a r e d l a n d s a n d r e s o u r c e s equitably.  Contrary to popular myth, Aboriginal g r o u p s o n the c o a s t w e r e  not egalitarian in t h e w a y in w h i c h f o o d a n d r e s o u r c e s w e r e s h a r e d . concepts  with  respect to ownership  rights  of specific fishing  d e v e l o p e d in w e s t e r n W a s h i n g t o n Aboriginal c u l t u r e s . 3 0 5  Property  sites were  well  Traditionally there  were  dependent upon them being able to fit within the dominant systems of management. Thus, the Court is seen as "simply recreating the relationships of the dominant society." She argues that the better approach would have been to eliminate all marinefishingof anadromous fish since marine areas can only be "commons" and not private property, and give legal force to the traditional aboriginal property-based approach to the anadromous fisheries resource. See pp. 20-29. Similar arguments are made by Bruun, supra, note 269 at pp.291-294. Similar issues were discussed in earlier portions of this thesis. Anderson, supra, note 266 at p. 137. Anderson suggests that the average income for a riverfishermanwas about $5,000, while the average income for a marinefishermanwas over $200,000. Bentley, supra, note 270 at p. 13. For example, the Lurnrnifleethas grown significantly since pre-Boldt: from 43 vessels to over 330 vessels in 1985 (see p. 15). For example, the Tulalip, Skokomish, Port Gamble Klallam, Lower Elwa Klallam and Jamestown Klallam Tribes have all commenced either litigation or mediation. Ibid at pp. 14-15. Cohen, supra, note 272 at p. 22. 302  303  304  305  147  large  discrepancies  in  prosperity  among  individuals  and  among  families.  A r i s t o c r a c i e s b a s e d o n w e a l t h w e r e f o u n d in m a n y t r a d i t i o n a l c o m m u n i t i e s o n t h e Northwest coast. commoners  The  p o p u l a t i o n w a s o f t e n d i v i d e d into t h r e e c l a s s e s :  nobles,  a n d s l a v e s , w i t h t h e r i g h t s to a l l e c o n o m i c a n d c e r e m o n i a l  property  b e i n g h e l d by the n o b l e s . 3 0 6 T h e o n l y distinction b e t w e e n the traditional d i v i s i o n s of w e a l t h a n d t h a t of t o d a y m a y b e that w e a l t h i s n o w m e a s u r e d i n d o l l a r s ;  however,  t h a t d o e s n o t m e a n that w e a l t h o r s t a t u s t o d a y i s n e c e s s a r i l y n o n - t r a d i t i o n a l .  It i s f a r  t o o s i m p l i s t i c t o m e r e l y a s s u m e t h a t t h e i n c r e a s e d p r o s p e r i t y o f i n d i v i d u a l s in F i r s t Nations  communities  is assimilative a n d culture-destroying.  As  well,  it i s a l s o  i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o v i e w A b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e a s b e i n g s t a t i c a n d f o s s i l i z e d in o n e p e r i o d of time.  C u l t u r e is e v e r - e v o l v i n g a n d c a n a d a p t t o at l e a s t s o m e d e g r e e o f c h a n g e  without b e i n g destroyed.  T h u s , although Aboriginal participation in the c o m m e r c i a l  marine fishery may be somewhat  a s s i m i l a t i v e , it i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t i v e o f a  c o m p l e t e d e s t r u c t i o n of the culture.  A s c a n b e s e e n from the Boldt d e c i s i o n s a n d their c o n s e q u e n c e s , resolving A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s i s s u e s in W a s h i n g t o n h a s b e e n n o e a s y t a s k . may  very well prove  to b e  i m p o s s i b l e to e v e r  completely  Indeed,  resolve the  it  issues,  particularly g i v e n the traditional cultural i m p o r t a n c e of the r e s o u r c e to A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s , t h e e c o n o m i c v a l u e of t h e r e s o u r c e t o a l l u s e r s , a n d t h e i n c r e a s i n g s c a r c i t y  See J.H. Steward, "Determinism in Primitive Society?" in B. Cox, ed., Cultural Ecology: Readings on the Canadian Indians and Eskimos (Toronto: The MacMillan Company of Canada Limited, 1970) 205. For descriptions of social hierarchies in particular tribes, see R. Ruddell, "Chiefs and Commoners: Nature's Balance and the Good Life Among the Nootka" in Cox, ibid, 254 and D. Weinberg, "Models of Southern Kwakiutl Social Organization" in Cox, ibid, 227. 306  148  of t h e r e s o u r c e .  It i s of n o t e that d e s p i t e t h e a d v a n c e s m a d e , m a n y n o n - A b o r i g i n a l  c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s in W a s h i n g t o n d o not s u p p o r t  co-management.307  A s w e l l , there h a s b e e n n o radical r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the patterns of f i s h e r i e s management  in W a s h i n g t o n , w i t h t h e f o c u s c o n t i n u i n g t o b e o n o c e a n a s o p p o s e d  to riverine f i s h i n g a n d the tribes b e i n g r e q u i r e d to c o n f o r m to the s t a n d a r d s of the non-Aboriginal regulatory regime.  Treaty fishers must operate within the  c o m m o n property r e g i m e i n s t e a d of their traditional private rights s y s t e m .  dominant T h e y are  o n l y p e r m i t t e d t o p a s s t h e i r o w n r e g u l a t i o n s if t h e r e g u l a t i o n s c o m p l y w i t h s t a n d a r d s set by the Departments  of F i s h e r i e s a n d G a m e .  Thus,  a l t h o u g h t h e i r right t o  m a n a g e t h e i r o w n f i s h e r i e s m a y a p p e a r t o b e q u i t e e x t e n s i v e , it i s s u b j e c t t o t h e i r ability to a d o p t d o m i n a n t s o c i e t y ' s f o r m s a n d structures a n d liberal v a l u e s .  A s well,  t h e r o l e o f A b o r i g i n a l s i n m a n a g e m e n t c o n t i n u e s t o b e l i m i t e d t o s o m e e x t e n t i n that t h e i r r o l e i s o n l y a d v i s o r y in m a n y a r e a s .  H o w e v e r , t h e B o l d t d e c i s i o n s d i d r e s u l t in s o m e r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e r o l e w h i c h the  Aboriginal  communities  can  play  in m a n a g i n g  the  resource.  Despite  w e a k n e s s e s , a f o r m of c o - m a n a g e m e n t a p p e a r s t o b e w o r k i n g i n W a s h i n g t o n .  its  A s in  the c a s e of British C o l u m b i a , a radical r e o r g a n i z a t i o n of the existing pattern  of  m a n a g e m e n t will p r o b a b l y n e v e r b e s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d . A s a r e s u l t , t h e o n l y r e a l a l t e r n a t i v e b e c o m e s s o m e h o w i n c r e a s i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s in the existing system.  307  The  Dale, supra, note 244 at p. 66.  B o l d t d e c i s i o n s a p p e a r s t o h a v e d o n e that.  Certainly,  149  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s h a v e a m u c h g r e a t e r r o l e in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t i n W a s h i n g t o n t h a n t h e y d o in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a .  W h e t h e r the W a s h i n g t o n m o d e l c a n b e a d o p t e d in C a n a d a is a n issue  to  consider.  circumstances:  The  Boldt  cases were  decided  in v e r y  important  specific  factual  t h e A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s in W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e h a d t r e a t i e s w h i c h  e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d t o t h e m t h e right to f i s h in c o m m o n .  T h e r e are very few treaties  in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a a n d t h o s e w h i c h d o e x i s t a r e d i s t i n c t f r o m t h e W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e treaties.  T h u s , t h e b a s i s f o r f i n d i n g a n A b o r i g i n a l right t o a n e q u a l s h a r e in t h e  f i s h e r i e s r e s o u r c e in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a h a s to b e b a s e d o n a n e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t argument.  G i v e n t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f C a n a d a ' s r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s it h a s b e c o m e  a p p a r e n t that t h e r e will n o t b e a j u d i c i a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h e o n e in t h e B o l d t decisions.  A s w e l l , a n o t h e r important a s p e c t of the Boldt d e c i s i o n s w a s t h e extent  of  i n v o l v e m e n t a n d jurisdiction of the District C o u r t J u d g e s ; t h e j u d g e s a s s u m e d farr e a c h i n g p o w e r s with r e s p e c t to a d m i n i s t e r i n g their d e c i s i o n s . Indeed, J u d g e Boldt w e n t s o f a r a s to a c t u a l l y a d m i n i s t e r t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f F i s h e r i e s f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e . A l t h o u g h t h i s t y p e of j u r i s d i c t i o n a l c o n t r o l b y j u d g e s i s n o t c o m m o n i n t h e S t a t e s , t h e r e i s p r e c e d e n t f o r it in t h e s c h o o l d e s e g r e g a t i o n c a s e s .  United  H o w e v e r , to t h i s  writer's k n o w l e d g e , n o C a n a d i a n court h a s e v e r attempted to a s s u m e s u c h authority. A l t h o u g h it i s q u e s t i o n a b l e w h e t h e r j u d g e s a r e t h e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e p a r t i e s t o b e  150  a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e i r d e c i s i o n s in c o m p l e x c a s e s s u c h a s t h e s e , w i t h o u t t h e j u d g e s ' e x t e n s i v e i n v o l v e m e n t in t h e B o l d t c a s e s it i s u n c l e a r t o w h a t e x t e n t t h e i r d e c i s i o n s would have been implemented.  T h u s , a l t h o u g h e l e m e n t s of t h e W a s h i n g t o n m o d e l  m a y v e r y w e l l b e o n e s w h i c h s h o u l d b e e m u l a t e d in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , h o w t h a t c a n b e a c c o m p l i s h e d is a n y t h i n g but c l e a r .  (iii) New Zealand  T h e history of A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g in N e w Z e a l a n d h a s a l s o b e e n rife with controversy. culminated  T h e m o s t r e c e n t attempt to r e s o l v e the c o n t r o v e r s y in that c o u n t r y in  Settlement Act  the  passage  1992.  of  The  Treaty  of  Waitangi  (Fisheries  Claims)  T h i s legislation e m b o d i e s the s o - c a l l e d " S e a l o r d deal"  between Maori fishers a n d the state, a deal w h i c h h a s b e e n hailed a s a historic settlement.308  H i s t o r i c a l l y , a s in t h e c a s e of m a n y First N a t i o n s in N o r t h A m e r i c a , f i s h w e r e u s e d by the M a o r i for both s u b s i s t e n c e a n d a s a n important part of their economy.  T h e tribes a l s o e x e r c i s e d control o v e r their f i s h e r i e s in the  inshore  s e a s e x t e n d i n g f r o m their t e r r i t o r i e s . 3 0 9 R e c o g n i t i o n of M a o r i f i s h i n g rights s t e m s  308  See J. Munro, "The Treaty of Waitangi and the Sealord Deal" (1994) 24 Vic. U. of Well. L. Rev. 389  and R.T. Price, Assessing Modern Treaty Settlements: New Zealand's 1992 Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement and Its Aftermath (1996) [publishing pending]. Munro, supra, note 308 at p. 392.  309  151  from the Treaty of Waitangi  of 1 8 4 0 which guarantees  Maori exclusive a n d  undisturbed p o s s e s s i o n of their f i s h e r i e s . 3 1 0 T h e Treaty h a s b e e n interpreted to p r o v i d e that traditional structures f o r tribal control a r e to b e m a i n t a i n e d , a n d that the Maori a r e to b e given adequate resources.  Article 1 of t h e Treaty h a s also  b e e n interpreted t o m e a n that a l t h o u g h t h e C r o w n h a s t h e right t o g o v e r n a n d administer laws, conservation, obligations.  i n c l u d i n g t h e right t o m a k e  its right to g o v e r n  laws of general application for  in t h e p u b l i c interest i s limited b y its T r e a t y  T h u s , t h e s t a t e ' s right t o r e g u l a t e a r e s o u r c e d o e s  n o t in itself  p e r m i t it t o r e g u l a t e M a o r i i n t h e s a m e w a y a s o t h e r r e s o u r c e u s e r s s i n c e t h e Maori  have  Treaty  rights  to certain  resources  while  non-Maori  have  only  privileges.  Despite the Treaty provisions, Maori fishing rights h a v e b e e n consistently ignored in N e w Zealand's fishing regulations a n d fishing c l a i m s have b e e n continually b y the M a o r i for the last 1 5 0 y e a r s . 3 1 1 since 1866. T h e various regulations have participate in fisheries management right t o f i s h .  made  T h e state h a s regulated fishing  n o t r e c o g n i z e d t h e M a o r i right t o  a n d have  not adequately  protected  their  In a d d i t i o n , n o a t t e m p t s w e r e m a d e t o i n c o r p o r a t e M a o r i i n t o t h e  c o m m e r c i a l fishing industry, with n o n e of t h e l o a n s o r incentives b e i n g offered by t h e state g o i n g to t h e tribes.  A s a result of t h e s e factors a s well a s others,  A . M . Waetford, "Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992" [1993] Auckland U. L. Rev. 402 at p. 402. P . G . McHugh, "Sealords and sharks: The Maori Fisheries Agreement (1992)" [1992] N.Z.L.R. 354 at p. 354. 3 1 0  3!1  152  i n c l u d i n g l o s s of a c c e s s to traditional fishing g r o u n d s  a n d depletion of stocks  d u e to overfishing a n d pollution, t h e M a o r i w e r e u n a b l e to s u s t a i n their u s e a n d control of the fisheries a n d a n y M a o r i c o m m e r c i a l fishing industries w h i c h  were  e s t a b l i s h e d ultimately w e n t into d e c l i n e . T h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g w h i c h d i d t a k e place by Maori tended to b e small s c a l e operations w h i c h w e r e vulnerable industry  As  to  changes.312  a result,  Maori  fishing  rights w e r e  the subject  of m u c h  litigation.  A l t h o u g h s e c t i o n 7 7 ( 2 ) o f t h e Fisheries Act 1 9 8 0 p r o v i d e d t h a t n o t h i n g i n t h e A c t c o u l d affect M a o r i fishing rights, t h e courts h a d ruled in early d e c i s i o n s that t h e p h r a s e referred only to rights conferred b y statute, a n d not t h e Treaty.  However,  in Te Weehi v . Regional Fisheries Officer , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e D e f e n d a n t 313  could  not b e convicted  under  t h e Fisheries  Act f o r t a k i n g  undersized  fish  b e c a u s e h e w a s e x e r c i s i n g a c u s t o m a r y M a o r i f i s h i n g right u n d e r t h e e x c e p t i o n in t h e A c t .  This  decision has been  d e s c r i b e d a s "turning  t h e tide"  toward  recognition of M a o r i fishing rights in N e w Z e a l a n d . 3 1 4  T h e W a i t a n g i Tribunal, w h i c h w a s e s t a b l i s h e d a s a n independent b o d y in 1 9 7 5 to assist in the resolution of disputes under the Treaty through the m a k i n g of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s disputes.  It r u l e d t h a t t r i b e s h a v e a n e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o t h e f i s h e r i e s  Munro, supra, note 308 at pp. 398-400. [1986] 1 N.Z.L.R. 680 (H.C.). Waetford, supra, note 310 at p. 403.  312  3,3  to g o v e r n m e n t , h a s a l s o b e e n involved in t h e M a o r i f i s h i n g  314  surrounding  153  their territories to a d i s t a n c e of 12 m i l e s .  It a l s o f o u n d t h a t t h e M a o r i h a v e a r i g h t  t o a r e a s o n a b l e s h a r e o f t h e f i s h e r i e s off t h e i r t e r r i t o r i e s b e y o n d t h e 1 2 m i l e limit. T h e state w a s a l s o required to respect a s far a s p o s s i b l e the traditional role of the M a o r i in regulating the f i s h e r i e s . 3 1 5  It w a s i n t h i s c o n t e x t t h a t i n t h e m i d - 1 9 8 0 s , t h e N e w Z e a l a n d g o v e r n m e n t attempted  to implement  a n e w fisheries management  regime  in r e s p o n s e  c o n c e r n s o v e r t h e d e p l e t i o n of t h e f i s h s t o c k s a n d o v e r - c a p i t a l i z a t i o n fishing fleet.  T h e government  introduced  private  ownership  of  in the  commercial  fisheries quotas during this period in a n attempt to s o l v e the problems. the Q u o t a M a n a g e m e n t  System,  t h e M i n i s t e r of F i s h e r i e s s e t s total  c a t c h e s for a s p e c i e s in the quota m a n a g e m e n t  to  Under  allowable  a r e a a n d from that subtracts a n  a l l o w a n c e for M a o r i traditional, recreational a n d other n o n - c o m m e r c i a l u s e s of the  fisheries to determine  allowable  catch  is then  t h e total divided  allowable  into  commercial  individual  catch.  transferable  The  quotas  total which  c o n s t i t u t e s a p e r m a n e n t p r o p e r t y right to c a t c h a n d s e l l a f i x e d n u m b e r of f i s h . 3 1 6  The  n e w regulatory  scheme  resulted in a 5 0 percent  reduction in the  n u m b e r s of f i s h e r s , a l t h o u g h t h e c a t c h w a s r e d u c e d b y a b o u t o n l y 5 percent. had  315  31  a particularly devastating  effect o n s m a l l c o m m e r c i a l fishing  Munro, supra, note 308 at pp. 392-393. ^or a more extensive description of the regulatory process, see ibid at p. 400.  It  operations,  154  including many run by M a o r i . 3 1 7  Several Maori tribes b e c a m e c o n c e r n e d  the effect of t h e n e w regulations o n their T r e a t y rights to fish.  about  T h e regulations  w e r e in conflict with the T r e a t y p r o v i s i o n s in that they g a v e full, e x c l u s i v e a n d undisturbed  p o s s e s s i o n of t h e f i s h e r i e s to n o n - M a o r i  a n d not to M a o r i ,  t h o u g h t h e latter's right to s u c h p o s s e s s i o n w a s g u a r a n t e e d well,  the regulations  management.318  recognized  only  a minimal  A s a result, t h e M a o r i sought  even  in the Treaty.  role for Maori  redress through  As  in fisheries the Waitangi  Tribunal a n d the courts.  T h e T r i b u n a l c o n c l u d e d in its final report that t h e n e w r e g u l a t o r y was  regime  in b r e a c h of Treaty principles a n d c a l l e d for the M a o r i a n d t h e state to  negotiate. T h e courts subsequently m a d e a similar finding. brought  by the Muriwhenua  u n d e r t h e Fisheries Act.  A n action h a d been  a n d Ngai T a h u tribes to clarify their fishing rights  T h e Court h e l d that there w a s a n a r g u a b l e c a s e that  the M a o r i h a d c o m m e r c i a l fishing treaty rights.  S i n c e t h e Fisheries Act e x p r e s s l y  stated that nothing in t h e A c t c o u l d affect M a o r i fishing rights, t h e Court that t h e q u o t a m a n a g e m e n t M a o r i fishing rights.  found  s y s t e m w a s c o n t r a r y t o t h e A c t i n t h a t it a f f e c t e d  T h e C o u r t d e c l a r e d that t h e M i n i s t e r w a s not to t a k e a n y  further action with respect to t h e quota m a n a g e m e n t  system.319  It is estimated that nearly 300 fishers, most of them believed to be Maori, lost their licences in Northland alone between 1984 and 1985. See ibid at p. 400. /Z>;</atp.401. Price, supra, note 308 at pp. 31-32 and Munro, supra, note 308 at pp. 402-403. 318  319  155 As  a  result  of  these  negotiate a n d by late 1987 underway.  decisions,  the  government  compelled  N e g o t i a t i o n s s t a l l e d for a p e r i o d of t i m e , w i t h n o a g r e e m e n t  reached  government.  in  1989,  The  to  negotiations between the Maori a n d the state w e r e  b e e n r e a c h e d b y t h e d e a d l i n e of J u n e 1 9 8 8 . was  was  although  agreement  it  had  H o w e v e r , a n interim  essentially  p r o v i d e d that 10  been  having  agreement  imposed  by  p e r c e n t of t h e q u o t a for  the each  s p e c i e s w o u l d b e g i v e n to the M a o r i o v e r four y e a r s a n d that $ 1 0 million w o u l d b e p r o v i d e d to a s s i s t t h e M a o r i in t h e f i s h i n g industry.  The  Maori  Fisheries  C o m m i s s i o n w a s e s t a b l i s h e d to d e a l w i t h t h e s e a s s e t s a n d to f a c i l i t a t e t h e entry of M a o r i into t h e f i s h i n g industry.  The  interim a g r e e m e n t  i n d i c a t e d that  the  g o v e r n m e n t w a s willing to r e c o g n i z e that the M a o r i h a d a T r e a t y entitlement to a p o r t i o n of t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s .  N e g o t i a t i o n s to r e a c h a final a g r e e m e n t c o n t i n u e d . among  the  Maori  with  respect  to  the  approach  of  S o m e conflict a r o s e the  Maori  Fisheries  C o m m i s s i o n a n d its m e t h o d o f a l l o c a t i n g t h e c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g q u o t a . these  problems,  agreement Zealand's  a  provided biggest  tentative  agreement  that the fishing  Maori  company,  was  would  reached get  Sealord,  o b t a i n i n g half of S e a l o r d ' s 2 6 p e r c e n t q u o t a .  a  50  which  in A u g u s t percent would  Despite  1992.  The  stake  in  New  result  in  their  W i t h the 10 percent quota w h i c h  h a d b e e n obtained under the interim agreement,  the M a o r i w e r e to r e c e i v e a  total of 2 3 p e r c e n t of t h e c o u n t r y ' s total c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g q u o t a . T h e  Waitangi  156  F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n w a s a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d u n d e r the a g r e e m e n t to r e p l a c e the Maori  Fisheries  Commission.  It  holds  the  Maori  fishing  assets  and  is  r e s p o n s i b l e for allocating the quota a m o n g the tribes.  T h e d e a l a l s o r e c o g n i z e s a s o m e w h a t e x p a n d e d role for M a o r i in f i s h e r i e s management,  with a requirement that M a o r i b e r e p r e s e n t e d o n v a r i o u s f i s h e r i e s  statutory a d v i s o r y b o d i e s , s u c h a s Management  Committee.  consulted by the C r o w n  The  the F i s h i n g Industry B o a r d a n d the F i s h e r i e s  Waitangi  whenever  Fisheries Commission  must  also  it i s s t a t u t o r i l y r e q u i r e d t o c o n s u l t w i t h  be the  F i s h i n g Industry B o a r d , s u c h a s w h e n the total a l l o w a b l e c o m m e r c i a l c a t c h is b e i n g d e t e r m i n e d or a c l o s u r e is b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . 3 2 0 T h u s , the a g r e e m e n t establish  a  type  of  co-management  arrangement  in the  commercial  industry in that M a o r i m u s t n o w b e c o n s u l t e d a n d c a n h a v e s o m e management  decisions.  does  fishing  input  into  T h e M i n i s t e r of F i s h e r i e s m u s t a l s o c o n s u l t with M a o r i  a n d d e v e l o p p o l i c i e s to h e l p r e c o g n i z e the u s e a n d m a n a g e m e n t  p r a c t i c e s of t h e  M a o r i with r e s p e c t to n o n - c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g .  Traditional fishing rights a r e a l s o a d d r e s s e d in the legislation.  Firstly,  g e n e r a l r e g u l a t i o n s a r e to b e p a s s e d to r e c o g n i z e t h e right of t r i b e s to r e g u l a t e m e m b e r s fishing for defined customary, n o n - c o m m e r c i a l u s e s in their territories. Regulations  must  also  be  promulgated  to  enable  tribes  to  pass  by-laws  r e g u l a t i n g c u s t o m a r y f i s h i n g in s p e c i f i c s i t e s w h i c h a r e of s p e c i a l s i g n i f i c a n c e for  320  Munro, supra, note 308 at p. 412.  157  fishing or for cultural o r spiritual reasons.  T h e s e by-laws c a n regulate fishing in  certain sites, but must b e consistent with overall sustainability requirements of the state's regulatory r e g i m e a n d a p p l y to a l l individuals equally. must  also  be approved  contemplate Maori  a much  being  by the Minister  more  permitted  to  comprehensive actually  of  Fisheries.321  co-management  regulate  the  T h e by-laws  These  provisions  arrangement  resource  within  with  certain  parameters, but in limited customary fishing a r e a s only.  The  deal engendered  much  controversy.  T h e agreement  involves all  M a o r i t r i b e s a n d is to b e a full a n d final s e t t l e m e n t of a l l M a o r i  commercial  fisheries c l a i m s under the Treaty of W a i t a n g i a n d completely d i s c h a r g e s the C r o w n ' s obligation to t h e M a o r i in r e s p e c t of c o m m e r c i a l fishing.  Neither the  courts nor the Waitangi h a v e jurisdiction to consider Maori c o m m e r c i a l fishing rights.  S o m e M a o r i q u e s t i o n e d t h e m a n d a t e of s o m e of its r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s to  sign the agreement  o n their behalf a n d v i e w e d t h e a g r e e m e n t  contrary to t h e terms of t h e T r e a t y . 3 2 2  T h e y c h a l l e n g e d the a g r e e m e n t in court,  the W a i t a n g i T r i b u n a l a n d later t h e United Nations but w e r e u n s u c c e s s f u l .  a s a sell-out  Human Rights  Committee,  Later, there w a s a dispute with respect to the selection  of c a n d i d a t e s t o b e a p p o i n t e d  to the C o m m i s s i o n .  Despite  these  disputes,  legislation in relation to t h e a g r e e m e n t w a s ultimately i n t r o d u c e d in D e c e m b e r  7Watpp. 412-414. Somewhere between nine and 13 tribal groupings out of a total of 40 opposed the deal. See Price, supra, note 308 at p. 50. Also, see Waetford, supra, note 310 at p. 406. 32  322  158  1992.  H o w e v e r , n o n e of t h e M a o r i m e m b e r s of t h e H o u s e of R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  s u p p o r t e d its e n a c t m e n t . 3 2 3  Although the legislation h a s b e e n p a s s e d , the controversies a r e not yet over.  D i s p u t e s h a v e a r i s e n over the appropriate w a y for the C o m m i s s i o n to  allocate  the quota  allocation  based  among on  the tribes.  population,  while  Heavily less  populated  populated  coastlines favour o n e based o n a coastline formula. by s o m e tribes o n this issue.  areas  areas  favour  with  an  longer  Litigation w a s c o m m e n c e d  G i v e n t h e i m m e n s e v a l u e o f t h e q u o t a , it i s n o t  s u r p r i s i n g that t h e s e d i s p u t e s h a v e a r i s e n . A t t e m p t s a r e b e i n g m a d e to r e a c h a c o m p r o m i s e o n t h i s i s s u e , a n d it a p p e a r s t h a t a w o r k a b l e s o l u t i o n w i l l b e f o u n d , with the o p p o s i n g g r o u p s h a v i n g b e g u n to r e a c h a c o n s e n s u s b y  mid-1995.324  H o w e v e r , o n e o f t h e i s s u e s still o u t s t a n d i n g i s h o w a s s e t s w i l l b e s h a r e d w i t h urban Maori.  E v e n if a n a g r e e m e n t c a n b e r e a c h e d , t h e M i n i s t e r w i l l u l t i m a t e l y  be required to a p p r o v e a n y r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s m a d e by t h e C o m m i s s i o n o n the allocation issue.  A l t h o u g h the S e a l o r d d e a l d o e s r e c o g n i z e a role for M a o r i in r e s p e c t of fisheries management,  it i s n o t a n e x t e n s i v e o n e .  Under the deal, the Quota  M a n a g e m e n t S y s t e m will a p p l y e q u a l l y to M a o r i a n d n o n - M a o r i , d e s p i t e t h e fact that t h e former's f i s h i n g rights a r e to h a v e s p e c i a l status p u r s u a n t to t h e Treaty.  Waetford, supra, note 310 at p. 402. It may be that there is a party split explaining this; the Maori members were probably all Labour Party. See Price's analysis at supra, note 308 at pp. 56-59 and pp. 66-67. 324  159  A s well, t h o s e m a n a g e m e n t rights w h i c h the M a o r i h a v e a r e limited; for the most part,  they  are  management  advisory  only.  Although  they  are  to  be  given  additional  p o w e r s with r e s p e c t to their c u s t o m a r y f i s h i n g p r a c t i c e s , they  are  limited to a f e w s p e c i f i c s i t e s , r e l a t e for t h e m o s t part to n o n - c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g only, a n d a r e subject to the state's a p p r o v a l . a p p l y to e v e r y o n e  A s well, any by-laws p a s s e d must  equally, e v e n though M a o r i h a v e b e e n g i v e n greater rights  t h a n o t h e r s in the f i s h e r i e s by the T r e a t y .  S i n c e the d e a l is p r e m i s e d o n the a c c e p t a n c e of the Q u o t a  Management  S y s t e m , the f i s h e r i e s c o n t i n u e to b e r e g u l a t e d f r o m t h e p e r s p e c t i v e of the state, w i t h little r e a l i n p u t f r o m o r s u b s t a n t i v e r o l e f o r M a o r i . I n d e e d , t h e "effectively  opens  the  way  for  progressively d e v e l o p the Q M S  government  and  the  fishing  agreement industry  to  without the c o n t i n u a l threat of M a o r i c o m m e r c i a l  f i s h i n g c l a i m s . " 3 2 5 In t h e w o r d s o f J . M u n r o , t h e s y s t e m i s :  solely  the  Crown's  management commitment  vision  and to  of  an  conservation  finding  a  Sealord  deal  demonstrates,  a c c e p t pluralism, or treating o n e differently from  another.  there  bicultural a p p r o a c h .  Sealord deal, Maori have bought The  appropriate needs;  The  solution  to  was  no  Under  the  into t h e C r o w n ' s v i s i o n . . . . therefore,  an  s e c t i o n of the  Crown  has  inability  to  community  perpetuated  the  s i m p l i s t i c n o t i o n of " o n e n a t i o n u n d e r o n e law".  Thus, management  !6  the only.  Sealord  deal  It d o e s  not  Waetford, supra, note 310 at p. 407. Munro, supra, note 308 at pp. 422-423.  in  New  Zealand  really c h a n g e  is the  a  limited  underlying  form  of  co-  management  160  s t r u c t u r e of f i s h e r i e s r e g u l a t i o n , but r a t h e r i n c o r p o r a t e s M a o r i f i s h e r s into t h e existing system.  Even more  so than  is the c a s e in W a s h i n g t o n ,  it r e q u i r e s  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s to c o n f o r m to t h e d o m i n a n t s o c i e t y ' s m o d e l a l m o s t c o m p l e t e l y . M a o r i p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the f i s h i n g industry will c o n t i n u e to b e d i c t a t e d b y state.327  the  S i n c e it i s a r e l a t i v e l y n e w a r r a n g e m e n t w i t h m a n y o f t h e d e t a i l s y e t t o  b e w o r k e d o u t , it r e m a i n s t o b e s e e n h o w w e l l it w o r k s i n p r a c t i c e a n d t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h M a o r i p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e f i s h i n g i n d u s t r y w i l l i n c r e a s e a s a r e s u l t o f its provisions.  C. Some Conclusions about Co-Manaaement  It i s a p p a r e n t t h a t n o n e o f t h e c o - m a n a g e m e n t  r e g i m e s p r e s e n t e d in this  chapter are radical departures from the states' dominant regulatory s c h e m e s . b e s t , t h e y a r e a c c o m m o d a t i o n s of A b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t s into e x i s t i n g  frameworks  with the d e g r e e of a c c o m m o d a t i o n v a r y i n g a m o n g the v a r i o u s s y s t e m s . management knowledge  s y s t e m in the W e s t e r n A r c t i c , for i n s t a n c e , r e c o g n i z e s and  experience  e x c l u s i v e Inuvialuit  in  harvesting  fisheries  management,  and  rights, c o n t r o l of a c c e s s to t h e  At  The  co-  Inuvialuit  permits resource  some and  participation in m a n a g e m e n t .  C o n v e r s e l y , the N e w Z e a l a n d s c e n a r i o is a m u c h  more limited c o - m a n a g e m e n t  arrangement with a n y remotely substantial M a o r i  r e g u l a t o r y p o w e r s b e i n g r e s t r i c t e d to t r a d i t i o n a l f o o d f i s h e r i e s .  327  Waetford, supra, note 310 at p. 406.  In t h e l a t t e r c a s e ,  161  t h e m a i n p u r p o s e of t h e n e w s y s t e m is to d e a l M a o r i into t h e e x i s t i n g c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r i e s r e g i m e , not to r e c o g n i z e M a o r i s e l f - r e g u l a t i o n rights.  E v e n in t h o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n s w h e r e a g r e a t e r r o l e for A b o r i g i n a l s is b e i n g sought,  the dominant  s o c i e t y ' s u n d e r l y i n g s y s t e m r e m a i n s e s s e n t i a l l y intact.  W a s h i n g t o n state h a s o n e of the m o s t c o m p r e h e n s i v e f o r m s of r e g i m e s w h i c h w a s r e v i e w e d in this c h a p t e r .  co-management  H o w e v e r , e v e n t h e r e , t h e r e is n o  r e c o g n i t i o n of a n alternative A b o r i g i n a l p e r s p e c t i v e o n f i s h e r i e s  management.  Although the tribes c a n p a s s fishing regulations, the regulations must meet the standards fisheries, Inuvialuit  of  non-Aboriginal  as opposed management  society.  As  well,  to riverine f i s h e r i e s . is  merely  the focus  i s still  on  marine  S i m i l a r l y in the w e s t e r n  incorporated  to  some  extent  Arctic,  into  the  D e p a r t m e n t ' s r e g u l a t o r y r e g i m e w i t h f i n a l d e c i s i o n s still b e i n g m a d e b y t h e s t a t e ; t h e r e is, a g a i n , n o a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t of a n i n d e p e n d e n t s e l f - r e g u l a t o r y right.  T h a t this is t h e c a s e is not s u r p r i s i n g in light of w h a t h a s b e e n d i s c u s s e d in t h i s t h e s i s . R e c o g n i z i n g m o r e t h a n o n e i n d e p e n d e n t r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m w o u l d a d d yet a n o t h e r l a y e r of c o m p l e x i t y to t h e a l r e a d y c o m p l i c a t e d t a s k of m a n a g i n g the f i s h e r i e s . A s w e l l , the diversity of interests in the f i s h e r i e s m a k e f o r m u l a t i n g a w o r k a b l e c o - m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e difficult.  S o m e c o o r d i n a t i o n of  management  s y s t e m s m u s t b e u n d e r t a k e n a n d it i s n o t r e m a r k a b l e t h a t t h e s t a t e ' s f r a m e w o r k is t h e d o m i n a n t o n e .  T h e r e a r e a l s o too m a n y v e s t e d interests in t h e industry in  162  all of t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n s s t u d i e d to m a k e c o m p l e t e d e v o l u t i o n of a u t h o r i t y b y  the  state likely.  It s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t a n y o f t h e m o d e l s p r e s e n t e d c o u l d b e a d o p t e d i n their entirety in British C o l u m b i a . insights  into  how  a  T h e Inuvialuit e x p e r i e n c e c a n p r o v i d e v a l u a b l e  co-management  system  can  work  successfully,  but  d i f f e r e n c e s in political, s o c i a l , d e m o g r a p h i c a n d g e o g r a p h i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s m u s t b e c o n s i d e r e d . It i s p o s s i b l e t h a t t h e I n u v i a l u i t m o d e l w o r k s i n t h e w e s t e r n A r c t i c at l e a s t partly b e c a u s e t h e Inuvialuit c o m p r i s e t h e majority p o p u l a t i o n in that area.  As  systems  well, have  it m a y  well be  survived  there  that traditional k n o w l e d g e better  than  in  many  and  management  communities  in  British  Columbia.  Similarly, the situation in W a s h i n g t o n is distinct. management  In W a s h i n g t o n , t h e c o -  regime w a s founded o n a court d e c i s i o n w h i c h a c k n o w l e d g e d  an  A b o r i g i n a l treaty right to 5 0 p e r c e n t of the c o m m e r c i a l c a t c h , o r at t h e v e r y l e a s t e n o u g h f i s h to e a r n a m o d e r a t e  livelihood.  Canadian courts have  not  made  s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s , w i t h t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t i n Van der Peet e x p r e s s l y r e j e c t i n g t h e " m o d e r a t e l i v e l i h o o d " a p p r o a c h w h i c h h a d b e e n e s p o u s e d b y L a m b e r t J . in h i s d i s s e n t at t h e C o u r t of A p p e a l . Aboriginals  in  Washington  T h e e x p l i c i t a l l o c a t i o n of a p o r t i o n of t h e f i s h to  provides  a  much  stronger  basis  p a r t i c i p a t i o n of First N a t i o n s in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t in t h e s t a t e .  for  increased  W i t h o u t that  163  basis  i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a it i s n o t c l e a r h o w  management  of the A b o r i g i n a l  f i s h e r i e s will b e h a n d l e d .  Although  the  New  Zealand  situation is not a g o o d  example  of a  co-  m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e , g i v e n the limited role the M a o r i h a v e in m a n a g e m e n t ,  the  quota management system which w a s undertaken there may be a model which c o u l d a s s i s t in m a k i n g fairer a l l o c a t i o n s in British C o l u m b i a f i s h e r i e s .  If s p e c i f i c  q u o t a s for s a l m o n w e r e s e t in t h e p r o v i n c e , a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e of t h e c o u l d b e a l l o c a t e d to A b o r i g i n a l f i s h e r s .  However, management  quota  of s a l m o n is  c o m p l e x a n d involves both p r e - s e a s o n a n d i n - s e a s o n predictions.  The  system  r e q u i r e s flexibility to r e s p o n d to c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s , o f t e n at t h e e l e v e n t h hour.  It s e e m s u n l i k e l y t h a t q u o t a s c o u l d b e e s t a b l i s h e d a h e a d o f t i m e t o e n s u r e  adequate escapement.  T h u s , the u s e of a q u o t a m a n a g e m e n t  s y s t e m in the  salmon fisheries s e e m s impractical.  T h u s , it i s u n l i k e l y t h a t a n y o f t h e m o d e l s p r e s e n t e d w i l l b e c o m p l e t e l y a d o p t e d i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , e v e n if c o - m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d . E v e n t h o s e c o - m a n a g e m e n t f r a m e w o r k s w h i c h h a v e started to b e a d o p t e d British  Columbia,  such  as  the  Gitksan  and  Wet'suwet'en  n e c e s s a r i l y b e a d o p t e d in other parts of the p r o v i n c e .  example,  cannot  O n the F r a s e r River, for  e x a m p l e , there are substantially more First Nations a n d fishers with interests in the f i s h e r i e s t h a n o n the S k e e n a R i v e r .  in  varying  Formulating a workable co-  164  m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e for the F r a s e r , therefore, will b e a m u c h m o r e c o m p l e x a n d challenging endeavour.  It i s n o t c l e a r t h a t c o - m a n a g e m e n t w i l l i n d e e d b e t h e w a y o f t h e f u t u r e f o r fisheries management  in British C o l u m b i a .  However, there are currently s o m e  t r e n d s w h i c h s u g g e s t that the a d o p t i o n of s o m e f o r m of c o - m a n a g e m e n t least possible.  The  recent movement  is at  in s o m e a r e a s of t h e p r o v i n c e to c o -  o p e r a t i v e m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s , the current d o w n s i z i n g of the D e p a r t m e n t , the complexity a n d uncertainty which h a s resulted from the S u p r e m e  and  Court's  r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s a l l point to t h e l i k e l i h o o d that s o m e c h a n g e s will b e m a d e to t h e current  regulatory  determined.  framework.  What  those  changes  will  be  remains  to  be  165  CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION  It  is  anadromous  clear fish,  that  fisheries  is extremely  management,  complex.  particularly  Fisheries  political  issues  are  involved  by fisheries  to  to be  managers  O f t e n , d e c i s i o n s h a v e to b e r e c o n s i d e r e d  a n d r e m a d e in r e s p o n s e to c h a n g i n g c i r c u m s t a n c e s . and  relation  science appears  a n y t h i n g but p r e c i s e , with d e c i s i o n s often b e i n g m a d e b a s e d o n e x p e r i e n c e a n d intuition.  in  in f i s h e r i e s  A s well, social,  management  economic  decisions,  and  g o v e r n m e n t is often reluctant to p u r s u e a l t e r n a t i v e s w h i c h will s e r i o u s l y t h r e a t e n vested interests.  T h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e v e r y little c o m m o n  ground among  v a r i o u s u s e r g r o u p s , w i t h d i v e r g e n c e of o p i n i o n o n v a r i o u s i s s u e s b e i n g both a m o n g a n d within the groups.  the  found  A d d e d to t h e c o m p l e x i t y is t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l  d i m e n s i o n to the f i s h e r i e s a n d the i n f l u e n c e of the w o r l d market.  W e h a v e s e e n that the current regulatory s y s t e m in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a h a s evolved  slowly over the  cannery was  opened,  Aboriginal fishers.  last century.  Until the early  the fisheries were  1870's, when  e s s e n t i a l l y left i n t h e  T h e s e t t l e r s at t h e t i m e w e r e c o n t e n t w i t h t h e  t h e first  hands  of  the  arrangement  b e c a u s e A b o r i g i n a l s h a d s u p e r i o r m e t h o d s of p r e s e r v i n g f i s h a n d c o u l d p r o v i d e the settlers with fish.  First Nations d e p e n d e d o n the fish for both f o o d a n d trade,  166  both before a n d after contact. with traditional laws governing  Fisheries management  w a s part of their culture,  t h e u s e of f i s h i n g t e c h n o l o g y .  Although  t e c h n o l o g y w a s s u c h that they c o u l d h a v e c o m p l e t e l y d e s t r o y e d w h o l e runs, their traditional l a w s p r e v e n t e d t h e m f r o m d o i n g that.  their  salmon  They were  effective  m a n a g e r s of the r e s o u r c e .  H o w e v e r , w h e n t h e first c a n n e r y w a s o p e n e d in 1871, change.  all that b e g a n  T h e s e t t l e r s n o l o n g e r h a d to d e p e n d o n t h e A b o r i g i n a l s for f i s h .  A b o r i g i n a l s b e g a n to enter the c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r y in g r e a t e r n u m b e r s d i s c o v e r e d that there w a s  limited agricultural l a n d a v a i l a b l e in the  This occurred during a time w h e n from  the  epidemics,  so  little  the Aboriginal communities w e r e  resistance could  be  mounted.  For  to  Non-  a s they province. suffering a  period  A b o r i g i n a l s w e r e n e e d e d to staff t h e c a n n e r i e s , but o v e r t i m e t h e c a n n e r i e s s h u t down,  leaving whole  workers  in their w a k e .  v i l l a g e s of u n e m p l o y e d At the s a m e time,  slowly being taken over by the state. include  food  prohibited.  fishing  only  Throughout  and this  Aboriginal fishers and  management  cannery  of the f i s h e r i e s  was  A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g w a s s u d d e n l y d e f i n e d to  commercial  sale  period,  ideologies  the  of  fish  by of  Aboriginals  was  conservation  and  A b o r i g i n a l s a s d e s t r o y e r o f f i s h w e r e u s e d to justify t h e s t a t e ' s a c t i o n s .  T h r o u g h o u t the 20th century, A b o r i g i n a l participation in the fisheries declined.  F o o d fishing also decreased.  commercial  Aboriginal fishers were  never  167  completely restricted from the fisheries s i n c e this m e a s u r e w a s not s e e n a s n e c e s s a r y a n d , i n d e e d , w o u l d h a v e b e e n c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e i n t h a t it w o u l d h a v e e x p a n d e d t h e A b o r i g i n a l welfare rolls. initiated  in  drastically.  1968,  the  number  of  After the Davis licensing program w a s  Aboriginal  fishers  declined  even  more  T h e loan programs which were developed stemmed the decline  s o m e w h a t , but o n l y in limited c i r c u m s t a n c e s . M e a n w h i l e , t h e r e g u l a t o r y s y s t e m was  failing.  The  licensing  capitalization in t h e fleet.  regime  resulted  in  over-capacity  and  over-  Salmon stocks were being depleted a n d the fisheries  w e r e not sustainable.  It w a s i n t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t A b o r i g i n a l s b e g a n t o o p p o s e t h e r e g u l a t o r y system in large numbers.  Various demonstrations a n d protests were staged a n d  fish w e r e s o l d contrary to regulation. M a n y c h a r g e s w e r e laid against A b o r i g i n a l fishers  for various  Constitution  was  infractions.  amended  Around  the  a n d Aboriginal  constitutional protection in s. 3 5 .  same  period,  a n d Treaty  the  rights  Canadian  were  given  T h e first t i m e t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of C a n a d a  h a d to d e a l with s . 3 5 w a s in the context of A b o r i g i n a l fishing.  Its d e c i s i o n i n  Sparrow s e t t h e g r o u n d w o r k f o r g r e a t e r r e c o g n i t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s a n d the Department w a s forced to d e v e l o p the A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s ("AFS") in r e s p o n s e .  Strategy  A s well, a r o u n d this s a m e time, the Minister of F i s h e r i e s  a n d O c e a n s , J o h n C r o s b i e , a n n o u n c e d that f i s h i n g rights w o u l d b e part of T r e a t y settlements in British C o l u m b i a .  Indeed, the agreements reached under the A F S  168  have  been  considered  by  some  to  be  interim  agreements  pending  final  resolution of fishing i s s u e s in the treaty p r o c e s s .  Courts expand  o n the principles which were  Supreme  Nikal.  i n c a s e s s i n c e t h e Sparrow  Court  of C a n a d a  decision have  been  e s t a b l i s h e d in that c a s e ,  reluctant  to  including the  i n Van der Peet, N.T.C. Smokehouse,  However, given the uncertainty which h a s b e e n e n g e n d e r e d  Lewis a n d by those  decisions, the jurisprudence m a y nonetheless be the impetus for the Department t o c o n t i n u e t o c h a n g e its p o l i c i e s i n r e l a t i o n t o A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g a n d , p e r h a p s ultimately, to formulate a n e w regulatory s y s t e m w h i c h better  accommodates  First Nations.  In  a l l of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s  a n d jurisprudence  underlying ideologies a r e often u s e d repeatedly.  to date,  the same  basic  Liberal notions of equality a r e  u s e d to justify d e n i a l of a n y " s p e c i a l rights" for A b o r i g i n a l s in t h e f i s h e r i e s .  The  c o n c e p t of f i s h a s c o m m o n property is a l s o u s e d at t i m e s to d e f e n d t h e current regulatory r e g i m e a n d to prevent A b o r i g i n a l s f r o m getting a n y kind of priority in the f i s h e r i e s , at least with r e s p e c t to c o m m e r c i a l f i s h i n g . C o n s e r v a t i o n c o n c e r n s are  presented  a s requiring exclusive government  regulation.  Although  the  courts a r e b e g i n n i n g to q u e s t i o n for w h o s e benefit t h e c o n s e r v a t i o n g o a l s a r e d e s i g n e d , they a r e not questioning b y w h o m those g o a l s a r e best  achieved.  B o t h g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e courts a s s u m e that c o n s e r v a t i o n o b j e c t i v e s c a n o n l y  169  be  established  and achieved  by  the  Department.  There  has been  little  a c k n o w l e d g e m e n t that First N a t i o n s c a n h a v e a direct role to p l a y with r e s p e c t to conservation.  T h e r e a l s o a p p e a r s to b e a r e a l r e l u c t a n c e b y g o v e r n m e n t  and  the c o u r t s to a d v e r s e l y affect t h o s e w h o a r e a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d in t h e industry. T h u s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e h a s b e e n s o m e r e c o g n i t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s , it i s not yet, a n d m a y i n d e e d n e v e r b e , full  It i s s o m e t i m e s  suggested  acknowledgement.  that  legislatures a n d courts  have  difficulty  a c k n o w l e d g i n g Aboriginal rights b e c a u s e recognition of collective rights a n d cultural u n i q u e n e s s is contradictory to liberal d e m o c r a t i c principles 3 2 8  Liberal democratic  i d e o l o g y is very m u c h f o c u s e d o n t h e individual, a n d liberal d e m o c r a c i e s purport to place  a  great  deal  of  value  on  equality,  individualism  a n d freedom  from  discrimination. A s h a s already b e e n stated, the ideology of equality h a s b e e n u s e d , a n d c o n t i n u e s t o b e u s e d , i n t h e B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a f i s h e r i e s c o n t e x t t o justify b o t h t h e regulatory regime a n d the jurisprudence.  H o w e v e r , there h a s not b e e n a n overt  d e n i a l o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s o n t h e b a s i s that t h e y a r e c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s a n d therefore  unrecognizable  in a liberal state.  Indeed,  the courts have  identified t h e rights a s c o l l e c t i v e w h i l e at t h e s a m e time affirming t h e m . for i n s t a n c e , t h e British C o l u m b i a C o u r t of A p p e a l  n o t e d that w h e n  explicitly  In Sampson, determining  w h e t h e r a n A b o r i g i n a l right h a s b e e n i n f r i n g e d , t h e c o u r t m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t o n t h e c o l l e c t i v e right o f t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a s a w h o l e a n d n o t j u s t o n t h e i n d i v i d u a l  W . Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995) at p. 34 and Kapashesit and Klippenstein, supra, note 176 at pp. 937-939 and S. Weaver, "Federal Difficulties with Aboriginal Rights Demands" in Boldt and Long, supra, note 90 at pp 141-142. 328  170  defendants  3 2 9  T h e S u p r e m e Court of C a n a d a a l s o a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e collective  n a t u r e o f A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i n Sparrow.  330  In t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g  r i g h t s h a v e b e e n d e n i e d , s u c h a s i n Van der Peet a n d N.T.C, Smokehouse, t h e collective nature of A b o r i g i n a l rights h a s not b e e n u s e d a s a rationale for t h e d e n i a l .  O f c o u r s e , it c a n n o t b e c o n c l u d e d that b e c a u s e t h e c o l l e c t i v e n a t u r e  of  A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i s n o t b e i n g c i t e d e x p r e s s l y b y g o v e r n m e n t s a n d c o u r t s t o justify d e n y i n g t h o s e r i g h t s , it i s n o t n o n e t h e l e s s o n e o f t h e f u n d a m e n t a l complete recognition.  barriers to  It m a y w e l l b e that t h e l i b e r a l d e m o c r a t i c f o c u s o n t h e  individual p r e c l u d e s the dominant society from being completely sensitive to the collective nature of A b o r i g i n a l rights.  H o w e v e r , it h a s a l s o b e e n a r g u e d t h a t it i s a  f a l l a c y t o s u g g e s t that c o l l e c t i v e r i g h t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h principles.  democratic  F o r i n s t a n c e , W i l l K y m l i c k a a r g u e s that c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s a r e a c t u a l l y  accommodated rights.331  liberal  in liberal d e m o c r a c i e s through  protection of civil a n d individual  H e t a k e s i s s u e with t h e terminology "collective rights" in t h e context of  g r o u p - d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c i t i z e n s h i p , a n d s u g g e s t s that it i s m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e t o s p e a k i n t e r m s o f t h e right t o i n t e r n a l r e s t r i c t i o n s a n d e x t e r n a l p r o t e c t i o n s . 3 3 2 external  protection  rights  are  completely  consistent  with  H e a r g u e s that  liberal  democratic  Supra, note 181 at pp. 40-45. Supra, note 56 at p. 411. Kymlicka, supra, note 328 at p. 26. That is, the ability to protect the group from internal dissent and the right to protect the group from external decisions. Ibid at pp. 34-35. It should be noted that Kymlicka distinguishes between self-government rights and polyethnic rights. He characterizes Aboriginal groups as "national minorities'' and therefore having selfgovernment rights. In contrast, he argues that individuals who immigrate to Canada are not entitled to selfgovernmentrights,but merely the right to have the freedom to exercise aspects of their cultures within the larger framework of Canadian society. 329  33C)  3 3 1  332  171  principles.  A l t h o u g h internal restrictions c a n b e contrary to liberal principles w h e n  t h e g r o u p limits t h e r i g h t s o f i n d i v i d u a l s t o q u e s t i o n a u t h o r i t y , h e s u g g e s t s t h a t e v e n in t h o s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , liberals d o not n e e d to f o r c e their p r i n c i p l e s o n t h e g r o u p s through  coercion.  Instead,  attempts  should  b e m a d e through  negotiation  and  rights is consistent  with  l o b b y i n g efforts t o i n f l u e n c e t h e g r o u p t o c h a n g e its i n t e r n a l r u l e s . 3 3 3  K y m l i c k a a r g u e s that t h e r e c o g n i t i o n o f m i n o r i t y  liberal principles b e c a u s e individual f r e e d o m is tied to m e m b e r s h i p in o n e ' s national g r o u p a n d g r o u p - s p e c i f i c rights c a n p r o m o t e equality b e t w e e n t h e majority a n d t h e minority.  H e s u g g e s t s that f r e e d o m  is intimately linked with, a n d d e p e n d e n t  on,  c u l t u r e a n d a t t e m p t i n g t o s u p p r e s s c u l t u r a l identity a n d s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t c l a i m s m a y "simply a g g r a v a t e t h e level of alienation a n d d i v i s i o n . " 3 3 4 liberalism  H e p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t that  r e q u i r e s that individuals h a v e t h e ability t o c h o o s e  among  c o n c e p t i o n s o f " t h e g o o d " a n d h e a r g u e s that g r o u p d i f f e r e n t i a t e d protect  minority  cultures  support  recognition of self-government internal restriction a n d external  that  principle.  Thus,  protection)  rights  he concludes  rights (i.e. t h e p o w e r to g o v e r n is consistent with  differing which  that t h e  with respect to  liberal  democratic  principles.335  Ibid at p. 37 and pp. 167-168. Of course, by influencing the group to change its internal rules, an attempt is still being made to liberalize the group. The point is, however, that there is no requirement that the group be liberalized for its self-government rights to be recognized. / W a t p p . 73 to 75. /b/rfatpp. 69, 84 and 106.  333  334  335  172  Similarly, theory  does  Randy  not provide  collective rights.  Kapashesit  a n d Murray  Klippenstein  argue  that  a n y rationale for the refusal to r e c o g n i z e  liberal  Aboriginal  T h e y p o i n t o u t that s e c t i o n 3 5 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n A c t r e f e r s t o  " p e o p l e s " a n d s i n c e the term is not u s e d e l s e w h e r e in t h e Constitution,  it m u s t  d e n o t e a s p e c i a l m e a n i n g ; that i s , a g r o u p right.336  T h u s , it i s at l e a s t a r g u a b l e t h a t l i b e r a l t h e o r y c a n c o m p l e t e l y collective rights.  accommodate  If A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s a r e n o t b e i n g f u l l y r e c o g n i z e d , it m a y b e  for r e a s o n s other t h a n their collective nature.  O n e of t h o s e r e a s o n s m a y b e the  d e s i r e to protect w h a t M e n n o Boldt d e s c r i b e d a s t h e "national interest", w h i c h w a s d i s c u s s e d i n C h a p t e r T h r e e . 3 3 7 B o l d t ' s p o s i t i o n i s t h a t it i s t h e " n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t " a n d not  liberal d e m o c r a t i c c o n c e p t s w h i c h influences h o w d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s  A b o r i g i n a l rights.  interpret  O f c o u r s e , it c o u l d b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e " n a t i o n a l i n t e r e s t " i s m e r e l y  a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f c a p i t a l i s t i d e o l o g y a n d that, t h e r e f o r e , it i s still u n d e r l y i n g i d e o l o g y which is influencing governments however,  a n d courts.  T h e point w h i c h is brought  home,  is that g o v e r n m e n t s a n d courts a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f u s i n g to r e c o g n i z e  collective rights b e c a u s e t h e individual rights m o d e l inhibits recognition of collective rights.  Instead, t h e motivation a p p e a r s to b e their d e s i r e to e n s u r e that t h e d o m i n a n t  g r o u p c o n t i n u e s to r e a p t h e benefits of c a p i t a l i s m .  T h e i s s u e is o n e relating to  protection of wealth.  Supra, note 176 at p. 952. Boldt, supra, note 141 at p. 12. Boldt notes that the "national interest" paradigm creates the illusion that it constitutes a national homogeneity of interests, but it is actually derived at behind closed doors by politicians, bureaucrats and corporations, without anyreferenceto the "national good" as defined by the Canadian people (see p. 67). 336  337  173  Kymlicka's theory  that A b o r i g i n a l g r o u p  rights a r e c o n s i s t e n t with  liberal  ideology m a y b e c o m p l e t e l y valid. H o w e v e r , u n d e r Boldt's "national interest" theory, t h e p o i n t b e c o m e s m o o t s i n c e t h o s e r i g h t s will o n l y b e p e r m i t t e d t o t h e e x t e n t that they d o not conflict with the larger society's interests. T h e potential for this conflict is a r g u a b l y p e r c e i v e d m o s t s t r o n g l y in t h e c o n t e x t o f r e s o u r c e s w h e r e t h e i n t e r e s t s o f w e a l t h a r e m o s t stark.  C a n a d i a n courts h a v e identified this conflict through their  e x p l i c i t c o n c e r n a b o u t t h e e f f e c t of f a r - r e a c h i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights o n n o n - A b o r i g i n a l fishing i n t e r e s t s . 3 3 8  T h a t i s n o t to s a y that l i b e r a l i d e o l o g y d o e s not p l a y a r o l e . as  we  have  principles,  seen,  most  governments,  often  notions  courts a n d  of equality,  interest g r o u p s  as a  O n the contrary, often  use  rationale to a v o i d  liberal  recognizing  A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . A n d , a s w e s a w in C h a p t e r F o u r , t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s h a v e a l s o b e e n u s e d in o t h e r l i b e r a l d e m o c r a t i c s t a t e s , s u c h a s W a s h i n g t o n , t o o p p o s e r e c o g n i t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s .  T h e s e liberal notions m a y p r o v i d e a c o n v e n i e n t e x c u s e  to a v o i d a d v e r s e l y affecting n o n - A b o r i g i n a l  i n t e r e s t s in t h e f i s h e r i e s .  As  Boldt  states:  Canada  commits  its  injustice u n d e r  the  guise  venerated democratic principle-'one person, one ' r u l e b y majority'.  of  a  vote',  T h i s ' p r i n c i p l e ' m a k e s it p o s s i b l e f o r t h e  C a n a d i a n g o v e r n m e n t to d i s r e g a r d t h e r i g h t s a n d w i l l o f a c o l o n i z e d p e o p l e (Indians) for s e l f - d e t e r m i n a t i o n . 3 3 9  See, for instance, both the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada decisions in Van der Peet, supra, notes 156 and 152. Supra, note 141 at p. 9. 338  339  174  W e h a v e s e e n that t o d a t e , g o v e r n m e n t s a n d c o u r t s i n C a n a d a h a v e reluctant to g i v e b r o a d interpretations to A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights. progress may  Although  b e g a i n e d t h r o u g h d e c i s i o n s like t h o s e of t h e S u p r e m e  Sparrow, Gladstone  and  Nikal,  the principles which h a v e  been some  Court  in  been established are  l i m i t e d in t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n a n d c o n t i n u e t o r e f l e c t a c o n c e r n o v e r p r o t e c t i n g  the  interests of d o m i n a n t society. A s w e l l , the S u p r e m e C o u r t a p p e a r s to b e d e v e l o p i n g a m u c h b r o a d e r r a n g e o f o b j e c t i v e s w h i c h will m e e t t h e j u s t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i n such a s economic and regional fairness. on  non-Aboriginal  Sparrow,  W h e n o n e c o n s i d e r s the potential effect  c o m m e r c i a l f i s h e r s if t h e A b o r i g i n a l  right t o f i s h i s  broadly  c o n s t r u e d , t h e s e interpretations a r e not surprising.  Given  the history of legislative a n d judicial treatment  o f t h e i s s u e s , it i s  difficult t o b e o v e r l y o p t i m i s t i c that F i r s t N a t i o n s w i l l b e p e r m i t t e d t o u s e t h e f i s h e r i e s a s t h e y s e e fit, i n c l u d i n g c o m m e r c i a l l y , a n d t o g o v e r n t h e r e s o u r c e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r own management  systems.  i n t e r e s t " will a l w a y s p r e v a i l .  It a p p e a r s that in t h e f i s h e r i e s c o n t e x t  the "national  A l t h o u g h s o m e j u d g e s c o u c h their f i n d i n g s in t e r m s of  e q u a l i t y a n d i n d i v i d u a l r i g h t s , t h e r e is a s t r o n g a r g u m e n t t o b e m a d e that t h e i r t r u e m o t i v a t i o n is t o a v o i d n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t i n g t h e w e a l t h o f t h o s e w h o a r e e s t a b l i s h e d in the  industry,  many  of w h o m  are  large  corporate  interests.  Boldt's  following  c o m m e n t s m a y i n d e e d b e apt in the fisheries context:  Anyone  who  imagines  that  Canadian  politicians a n d  courts  will  l e g i t i m a t e t h e I n d i a n s ' v e r s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s i s g u i l t y o f ' v u l g a r optimism'. A l l of the l a w s e v e r p a s s e d b y P a r l i a m e n t w e r e d e s i g n e d to  175  s e r v e C a n a d i a n interests, not Indian interests. T h i s a c c u m u l a t e d l e g a l structure s e r v e s a s a n  edifice of judicial  bias contrary  to  Indian  interests, a n d s t a n d s a s a b a s t i o n to protect C a n a d i a n interests, not Indian interests.  W h e n all the l a w s a r e set u p to a d v a n c e  i n t e r e s t s , t h e n t h e d e c i s i o n s of j u d g e s , w h o  Canadian  unquestioningly  follow  t h e s e l a w s , will b e b i a s e d a g a i n s t I n d i a n i n t e r e s t s w h e n e v e r  these  c o m e into c o n f l i c t w i t h C a n a d i a n i n t e r e s t s , e v e n w h e n j u d g e s a r e n o t racially p r e j u d i c e d . . . . T h e p r o s p e c t s are better for finding the H o l y G r a i l i n o n e ' s l u n c h p a i l t h a n that t h e I n d i a n s w i l l o b t a i n . . . a j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n f r o m t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of C a n a d a [ d i s c r e d i t i n g l e g a l s t r u c t u r e s a n d p r e c e d e n t s a n d l e g i t i m i z i n g t h e I n d i a n v e r s i o n of a b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s ] . " 3 4 0  B o l d t s u g g e s t s that t h e o n l y w a y A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s w i l l b e a b l e t o s u r v i v e a s A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s is if t h e r e is a " p a r a d i g m a t i c shift in C a n a d i a n p o l i c y m a k i n g f r o m the  imperatives  interests."341  of  the  'national  interest'  to  a  coequal  emphasis  on  Indian  H e a c k n o w l e d g e s that t h i s c a n o n l y h a p p e n if m o r e t h a n a c e n t u r y of  political, legal a n d constitutional p r e c e d e n t s a r e set a s i d e , a s w e l l a s the g r e e d of larger society.  G i v e n t h e m a g n i t u d e o f t h e t a s k , it s e e m s u n l i k e l y that t h i s w i l l e v e r  o c c u r o r , i n d e e d , that g o v e r n m e n t s a n d c o u r t s will a c t u a l l y w a n t it t o o c c u r .  H o w e v e r , w h a t m u s t b e a c k n o w l e d g e d i s that t h e c o u r t s d o a p p e a r to  be  attempting to m a n a g e conflict resulting from a s e n s e of injustice. A s a result, w e s e e the S u p r e m e  C o u r t of C a n a d a  i n Van  der  Peet a n d Gladstone t a l k i n g a b o u t  a  n a t i o n a l g o a l of r e c o n c i l i a t i o n , w h i c h r e q u i r e s s o m e r e c o g n i t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l r i g h t s . A s a r e s u l t , t h e r e h a s b e e n s o m e w h a t o f a p a r a d i g m a t i c shift, a l t h o u g h o n e o f a m o r e pragmatic, political a n d limited c h a r a c t e r t h a n Boldt d i s c u s s e s .  Tbid at p. 31 Ibid,atp. 116 [  176  Is t h e r e a n y p r o s p e c t f o r a b r o a d e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f A b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g r i g h t s ? It s e e m s that t h e o n l y w a y A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s ' r i g h t s i n t h e f i s h e r i e s will e v e r b e f u l l y a c k n o w l e d g e d a n d r e s p e c t e d i s if t h e y c a n s o m e h o w b e a c c o m m o d a t e d w i t h i n t h e broader Canadian  interest.  T h a t requirement will, of n e c e s s i t y , f o r c e the  N a t i o n s to c o m p r o m i s e their positions a n d g o a l s significantly.  First  E f f e c t i v e l y , t h e y will  h a v e to p r e s e n t a n d d e f i n e t h e i r a s p i r a t i o n s in a m a n n e r w h i c h m i n i m i z e s t h e e f f e c t of t h o s e a s p i r a t i o n s o n t h e b r o a d e r c o m m u n i t y .  The Supreme  C o u r t a p p e a r s to  h a v e a t t e m p t e d to r e i n t e r p r e t f i s h i n g r i g h t s in that w a y i n its d e c i s i o n s i n Van  Peet a n d N.T.C. Smokehouse.  der  A s c o u l d b e p r e d i c t e d , t h e potential effect of  a  priority c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o n o t h e r i n t e r e s t s i n t h e i n d u s t r y i n t h e c o m m e r c i a l c o n t e x t w a s p e r c e i v e d by the Court a s b e i n g too great. p e r c e i v e d in that m a n n e r , b o t h b y t h e c o u r t s a n d  It i s l i k e l y that it w i l l a l w a y s  be  government.  Exactly h o w First N a t i o n s c a n present their rights in a w a y w h i c h is n o n t h r e a t e n i n g , o r at l e a s t m i n i m a l l y t h r e a t e n i n g , t o o t h e r i n t e r e s t s i s o b v i o u s l y critical q u e s t i o n .  the  A r g u a b l y , a n y d e f i n i t i o n of s u c h r i g h t s w i l l t h r e a t e n n o n - A b o r i g i n a l  i n t e r e s t s a t l e a s t to s o m e extent. F o u r of f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t  H o w e v e r , a s w e s a w f r o m t h e e x a m p l e s in C h a p t e r s c h e m e s in o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s , t h e r e a r e p o t e n t i a l  w a y s to a c c o m m o d a t e A b o r i g i n a l i n t e r e s t s in t h e e x i s t i n g f r a m e w o r k .  That these  alternative s y s t e m s a c h i e v e only a n a c c o m m o d a t i o n of A b o r i g i n a l interests, with the b a s i c r e g u l a t o r y f r a m e w o r k o f t h e d o m i n a n t s o c i e t y r e m a i n i n g e s s e n t i a l l y intact, i s a fact w h i c h must b e r e c o g n i z e d .  T o s o m e e x t e n t t h i s i s n o d o u b t a r e f l e c t i o n of t h e  177  state's continuing concern over protecting national interests. However, what must also be acknowledged is that the reality and complexity of fisheries management is such, particularly in the case of anadromous species, that it is not practical to have several completely independent and self-contained management regimes in place. Some co-ordination of management objectives and strategies is required and it is not surprising that the dominant society's system is the one which is invariably chosen to provide the framework.  To this writer's knowledge, there have been no radical shifts in fisheries management anywhere in the world to permit Aboriginal systems to completely dominate or co-exist on an equal basis with non-Aboriginal regimes. It seems highly improbable that such a radical shift will occur here in Canada, particularly in relation to salmon management.  However, although there is not yet a complete co-  management approach in the British Columbia fisheries regulatory regime as in some other jurisdictions, we saw in Chapter Four examples of some movements recently toward a more co-operative management system. Given the recent cutbacks in the Department's budget and its corresponding downsizing , it is quite 342  plausible that some degree of decentralization and devolution of authority will take place. To some extent, this has already started to take place, with the Department announcing that it is prepared to consider giving the British Columbia government  The Department announced in the summer of 1996 that it will be cutting its annual Pacific Region budget by $34 million in 1997. As part of the cuts, 236 full-time jobs will be eliminated. See L. Pynn, "Feds cut fisheries budget by $34 million" The Vancouver Sun (24 July 1996) A l , A7.  178  a n " e n h a n c e d r o l e " in f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t . 3 4 3  A s well, the recent S u p r e m e  Court  of C a n a d a d e c i s i o n s will m a k e it i n c r e a s i n g l y difficult f o r t h e D e p a r t m e n t t o m a n a g e A b o r i g i n a l fishing, both from a political a n d practical p e r s p e c t i v e .  Despite  S u p r e m e C o u r t ' s i m p l i e d r e j e c t i o n o f c o - m a n a g e m e n t in L e v w s a n d Nikal, it m a y that u l t i m a t e l y s o m e f o r m o f c o - m a n a g e m e n t  the be  s y s t e m will b e e s t a b l i s h e d in B r i t i s h  C o l u m b i a f i s h e r i e s in a n a t t e m p t to d e a l w i t h t h e c o n t r o v e r s y a n d u n c e r t a i n t y .  It  s e e m s u n l i k e l y , h o w e v e r , that t h e t r a n s i t i o n will o c c u r r a p i d l y .  It i s c l e a r that t h e c o - m a n a g e m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e w h i c h h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d i n this thesis is n o p a n a c e a . A s h a s a l r e a d y b e e n noted, the c o - m a n a g e m e n t  systems  w h i c h h a v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d d o not radically alter m a n a g e m e n t r e g i m e s o r permit c o m p l e t e A b o r i g i n a l a u t o n o m y in t h e f i s h e r i e s .  T h e y a r e at b e s t a c o m p r o m i s e , w i t h  F i r s t N a t i o n s u s u a l l y b e i n g r e q u i r e d to m a k e t h e l a r g e s t s a c r i f i c e s in t e r m s o f m a n y of t h e i r e c o n o m i c s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y a n d s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t  goals.  A s well,  in t h o s e  j u r i s d i c t i o n s in w h i c h a f o r m of c o - m a n a g e m e n t h a s b e e n i n s t i t u t e d in t h e f i s h e r i e s , conflicts c o n t i n u e to brew.  T o s o m e extent, t h e s e c o n t r o v e r s i e s m a y b e a function of  t h e n o v e l t y o f t h e s y s t e m s in p l a c e a n d m a n y of t h e m m a y b e r e s o l v e d in e n s u i n g years.  H o w e v e r , g i v e n the e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g complexity of f i s h e r i e s m a n a g e m e n t ,  p r o b a b l e that s o m e c o n f l i c t will a l w a y s p e r s i s t .  it i s  T h e h o p e i s that i n t h e f a c e o f t h i s  c o n f l i c t , c o - m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s will r e s u l t in b e t t e r m a n a g e m e n t w h i l e at t h e s a m e t i m e a n i n c r e a s e in A b o r i g i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e f i s h e r i e s i n d u s t r y .  As  Pinkerton  s t a t e s , " c o - m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m s s e t u p a g a m e in w h i c h t h e p a y - o f f s a r e g r e a t e r f o r  343  Crawley and Hunter, supra, note 61.  179  c o - o p e r a t i o n t h a n for o p p o s i t i o n and/or competition, a g a m e in w h i c h the a c t o r s c a n learn  to  optimize  horizons."344  their  mutual  good  and  plan  co-operatively  with  long-term  It s e e m s d o u b t f u l t h a t t h i s s t a t e of g r a c e e n v i s i o n e d b y P i n k e r t o n will  e v e r b e r e a c h e d in B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a f i s h e r i e s .  H o w e v e r , p e r h a p s ultimately,  a  s y s t e m c a n b e e s t a b l i s h e d w h i c h r e c o g n i z e s both the rights of A b o r i g i n a l p e o p l e s a n d the legitimate role they c a n play within fisheries m a n a g e m e n t . b y t h a t t i m e , t h e r e will still b e f i s h in t h e s e a t o m a n a g e .  Supra,  note 237 at p. 5.  And,  hopefully,  180  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Texts. Articles and Reports:  A b e l , K. a n d F r i e s e n , J . , e d s . Aboriginal  Legal Aspects  Resource  Supply and Services Canada,  A l d e n , E.  Historical  and the S p a r r o w  Fisheries  Sun ( 2 7 J u l y 1 9 9 6 ) A 1 9  A n d e r s o n , M . R . "The L a w a n d the Protection of Cultural Communities: N a t i v e A m e r i c a n F i s h i n g Rights" (1987) 9 L a w & P o l ' y Q.  T h e C a s e of  125  A s c h , M . a n d M a c k l e m , P. "Aboriginal Rights a n d C a n a d i a n Sovereignty: o n R. v. SparroW  Fisheries  A C o n t r a c t a r i a n Interpretation of  (Toronto:  B e n n e t t , M . G . Indian Fishing (Vancouver:  and Its Cultural  Bentley, S . "Indians' Right to F i s h :  W.I.C.  'The  M.  Surviving  in the Fraser  River  [unpublished]  17 A m e r . Ind. L. R e v . 1  Sparrow  as  Importance  T h e B a c k g r o u n d , i m p a c t a n d L e g a c y o f United  Doctrine:  B e g i n n i n g ? " (1990) 15 Q u e e n ' s L.J. Boldt,  of the  University of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1994)  Fisheries and Oceans)  States v. Washington"{1992)  Review  (1996) [unpublished]  Strategy  B a k e r , J . , e d . Group Rights  Binnie,  Essay  (1994) 2 0 C a n . Pub. P o l . 4 1 5  T h e B . C . A b o r i g i n a l F i s h e r i e s C o m m i s s i o n . First Nations'  System  An  (1991) 2 9 A l t a L.R. 4 9 8  Avio, K.L. "Aboriginal Property Rights in C a n a d a :  R. v . SparroW  Decision  1994)  " H o w fisheries f l o u r i s h " The Vancouver  Aboriginal  and  ( W i n n i p e g : University of M a n i t o b a P r e s s , 1991)  A l l a i n , J . a n d J . D . F r e c h e t t e . The Aboriginal (Ottawa:  Use in Canada:  Indians.  B e g i n n i n g of the E n d  or E n d  of the  217  The  Challenge  of  Self-Government  (Toronto:  University of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1993) Boldt,  M . a n d L o n g J.A.,  Aboriginal  e d s . The  Quest  for Justice:  Aboriginal  Rights ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1 9 8 5 )  Peoples  and  181  Boldt, M . a n d J.A. Long. Ideologies:  "Tribal Traditions a n d E u r o p e a n - W e s t e r n  Political  T h e D i l e m m a of C a n a d a ' s N a t i v e Indians" in M . B o l d t a n d J . A .  The Quest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights  eds.  Long,  (Toronto:  University of T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1985) 3 3 3  B o u w , B. " F r a s e r s o c k e y e fishery to o p e n a s run*upgraded"  The Vancouver Sun  (6  A u g u s t 1996) B1 Bowker, A.  "Sparrow's  Promise:  A b o r i g i n a l Rights in the B . C . Court of A p p e a l "  ( 1 9 9 5 ) U . T . F a c . L. R e v . 1 B r u u n , R. " T h e B o l d t D e c i s i o n .  L e g a l Victory, Political Defeat" (1982) 4 L a w & Pol'y  Q271 Canada.  British Columbia Treaty Negotiations: The Federal Perspective  (1995)  [unpublished] Canada.  The Western Arctic Claim. A Guide To The Inuvialuit Final Agreement  (Ottawa:  D e p a r t m e n t of Indian Affairs a n d Northern D e v e l o p m e n t ,  Canada,  British  Columbia  and  the  Nisga'a  Tribal  Council.  Negotiations Agreement-in-Principle ( 1 9 9 6 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] Canada,  British  Columbia  and  the  Nisga'a  Tribal  Council.  1984)  Nisga'a Treaty Nisga'a Treaty  Negotiations Agreement-in-Principle In Brief ( 1 9 9 6 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] Cardinal, H.  The Unjust Society: The Tragedy of Canada's Indians ( E d m o n t o n :  M.G. HurtigLtd., 1969) C h a r t r a n d , J . " S u r v i v a l a n d A d a p t a t i o n o f t h e Inuit E t h n i c Identity:  T h e Importance of  Inuktitut" i n B . A C o x , e d . Native People, Native Lands. Canadian Indians, Inuit and  Metis ( O t t a w a : C a r l e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 7 ) 2 4 1 C o a t e s , K. " T h e S i n e w s o f T h e i r L i v e s :  Native A c c e s s to R e s o u r c e s in the  Y u k o n , 1 8 9 0 t o 1 9 5 0 " i n K. A b e l a n d J . F r i e s e n , e d s .  Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects ( W i n n i p e g :  Aboriginal Resource Use in  University of M a n i t o b a P r e s s ,  1991)173  C o h e n , F . G . Treaties on Trial. The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights ( S e a t t l e : U n i v e r s i t y o f W a s h i n g t o n P r e s s , 1 9 8 6 ) C o h e n , F . G . "Treaty Indian T r i b e s a n d W a s h i n g t o n State:  T h e Evolution of Tribal  I n v o l v e m e n t i n F i s h e r i e s M a n a g e m e n t i n t h e U . S . P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t " i n E. P i n k e r t o n , ed.  Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries  Columbia Press, 1989) 37  (Vancouver:  University of British  182  The Commission on Pacific Fisheries Policy.  Canada's Pacific Fisheries ( V a n c o u v e r :  [Commissioner:  P.H.  Pearse]  Constans,  "The  Environmental  J.M.  Turning the Tide: A New Policy for  Supply and Services Canada,  Right  to  Habitat  Protection:  1982)  A  Solution" ( 1 9 8 6 ) 61 W a s h . L. R e v . 7 3 1  Sohappy  C o x , B . A . , e d . Native People, Native Lands. Canadian Indians, Inuit and Metis (Ottawa: Carleton University P r e s s ,  1987)  The Rights of Peoples ( O x f o r d :  Crawford, J., ed.  C l a r e n d o n P r e s s , 1988)  C r a w l e y , M . a n d J . H u n t e r . " S a l m o n d e a l g i v e s B . C . a b i g g e r s a y " The  Vancouver Sun  (16 July 1996) A 1 ,  A5.  C r a w l e y , M . " C o u r t limits a b o r i g i n a l f i s h i n g rights" August 1996) A 1 ,  A2.  Crutchfield, J.A. "The Fishery:  The Vancouver Sun  E c o n o m i c M a x i m i z a t i o n " in D . V  (22  Ellis, e d .  Pacific  Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a P r e s s , 1 9 7 7 ) 1 of M a n i t o b a P r e s s ,  1991)  D a l e , N. "Getting to C o - M a n a g e m e n t :  S o c i a l L e a r n i n g in the R e d e s i g n of F i s h e r i e s  M a n a g e m e n t " in E. P i n k e r t o n , e d . Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries (Vancouver:  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) 4 9  Davis Gray, J. "Fishing V e s s e l Association:  R e s o l u t i o n of I n d i a n F i s h i n g R i g h t s  U n d e r N o r t h w e s t T r e a t i e s " ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ) 1 6 W i l l i a m e t t e L. R e v . Department  of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s .  931  News Release B-HQ-92-25.  Fisheries Strategy: The Content ( J u n e 1 9 9 2 ) Department  of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s .  News Release B-HQ-92-24.  Fisheries Strategy: The Program ( J u n e 1 9 9 2 ) Doern, G.B., ed.  Aboriginal Aboriginal  "Introduction: T h e R e g u l a t o r y P r o c e s s in C a n a d a " in G . B .  The Regulatory Process in Canada  C a n a d a , 1978)  (Toronto:  Doern,  The MacMillan Company  of  1  Bargaining in the Governance of Pacific Coastal Resources: Research and Reform ( V a n c o u v e r : W e s t w a t e r R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , 1 9 8 6 ) Dorcey, A.H.J.  D o u b l e d a y , N . C . " C o - M a n a g e m e n t P r o v i s i o n s of the Inuvialuit F i n a l A g r e e m e n t "  in E. P i n k e r t o n , e d . Co-operative Management of Local Fisheries ( V a n c o u v e r : U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a P r e s s , 1 9 8 9 ) 2 0 9  183  Elliott, D . W . "In t h e W a k e o f  Sparrow.  A N e w Department of F i s h e r i e s ? " (1991) 4 0  U.N.B.L.J. 23  Elliott, D . W . , e d . Law and Aboriginal Peoples of Canada, 2 d e d . ( N o r t h Y o r k :  Capus  P r e s s Inc., 1 9 9 2 )  E l l i s , D . V . , e d . Pacific Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : Victoria,  University of  1977)  F i n n i g a n , R.A. "Indian Treaty A n a l y s i s a n d Off-Reservation F i s h i n g Rights:  A  Case  S t u d y " ( 1 9 7 5 - 7 6 ) 51 W a s h . L. R e v . 6 1 Fisheries Joint  Management  Committee,  1994/1995 [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] F o r e s t e r , J . E . a n d A . D. F o r e s t e r .  Fishing History ( S a a n i c h t o n ,  B.C.:  Annual Report 1992/1993, 1993/1994,  Fishing: British Columbia's Commercial Hancock H o u s e Publishers Ltd., 1975)  Foster, H. " T h e S a a n i c h t o n B a y M a r i n a C a s e :  Imperial L a w , C o l o n i a l History  a n d C o m p e t i n g T h e o r i e s o f A b o r i g i n a l T i t l e " ( 1 9 8 8 - 8 9 ) 2 3 U . B . C . L. R e v . 6 2 9  Fraser River Sockeye, 1994: Problems and Discrepancies. Report of the Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board ( O t t a w a : P u b l i c W o r k s a n d G o v e r n m e n t S e r v i c e s C a n a d a , 1 9 9 5 ) Fraser River Sockeye Public Review Board (Canada).  F r i e s e n , J . " G r a n t M e W h e r e w i t h t o M a k e M y L i v i n g " i n K. A b e l a n d J . F r i e s e n ,  e d s . Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects (Winnipeg:  University of M a n i t o b a P r e s s , 1991)  Galligan Jr., T . C .  a n d M.T.  Reynvaan  141  "Pacific Northwest  Indian T r e a t y  Fishing  R i g h t s " ( 1 9 8 1 ) 5 U o f P u g e t S o u n d L. R e v . 9 9 Galston, W . A.  Justice and the Human Good ( C h i c a g o :  T h e University of C h i c a g o  Press, 1980)  An Evaluation of the Pilot Sale Arrangement of Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy (AFS) ( F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s , Gardner Pinfold Consulting Economists Limited. 1994)  [unpublished]  Gilby, S . " T h e Aboriginal Right to a C o m m e r c i a l Fishery" (1995) 4 D a l h o u s i e J. of L e g a l S t u d i e s 2 3 1 Gould, R.A.  "To H a v e a n d H a v e Not: T h e E c o l o g y of S h a r i n g A m o n g  Hunter-  G a t h e r e r s " i n N . M . W i l l i a m s a n d E . S . H u h n , e d s . Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers ( M e l b o u r n e : G l o b e P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ) 6 9  184  G r a n t , P . R. " R e c o g n i t i o n o f T r a d i t i o n a l L a w s i n S t a t e C o u r t s a n d t h e F o r m u l a t i o n of S t a t e L e g i s l a t i o n " in B. W . M o r s e a n d G . R .  Indigenous Law and the State  ( P r o v i d e n c e , R.I.:  Woodman, eds.  Foris Publications, 1988) 2 5 9  H a m i l t o n , A . " T h e Unity of H u n t i n g - G a t h e r i n g S o c i e t i e s : R e f l e c t i o n s o n E c o n o m i c F o r m s a n d R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t " in N . M . W i l l i a m s a n d E . S .  Huhn,  e d s . Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers (Melbourne:  G l o b e P r e s s , 1982)  229  H a r d i n , G . " T h e T r a g e d y of t h e C o m m o n s " ( 1 9 6 8 ) 1 6 2 S c i e n c e 1 2 4 3 H a v e m a n n , P. " T h e I n d i g e n i z a t i o n of S o c i a l C o n t r o l in C a n a d a " in B. W . and G.R.  Woodman, eds.  Publications, 1988) Heinzman, R.H.  71  Indigenous Law and the S t a t e  Morse  ( P r o v i d e n c e , R.I.:  Foris  "Resolving Conflicts Between Native A m e r i c a n Treaty Rights a n d  U . S . T r e a t y O b l i g a t i o n s to F o r e i g n S t a t e s " ( 1 9 9 3 ) 7 E m o r y Internat'l L. R e v . H i l b o r n , R. a n d R . M . P e t e r m a n . " C h a n g i n g M a n a g e m e n t O b j e c t i v e s " i n  133 D.V.  E l l i s , e d . Pacific Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a Press,  1977)68  H o l m a n , G . " F i s h i n g Industry h a s a c h a n c e to s w i m rather t h a n sink"  Mail ( 2 7 F e b r u a r y 1 9 9 6 ) A 1 3 . Holzkamm, T.E.,  The Globe &  V . P . Lytwyn and LG. Waisberg. "Rainy River Sturgeon:  An  O j i b w a y R e s o u r c e i n t h e F u r T r a d e E c o n o m y " i n K. A b e l a n d J . F r i e s e n , e d s .  Aboriginal Resource Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects ( W i n n i p e g : U n i v e r s i t y of M a n i t o b a P r e s s , 1991) Homstein,  D.T.  119  "Indian F i s h i n g R i g h t s R e t u r n to S p a w n :  Toward  Environmental  P r o t e c t i o n o f T r e a t y F i s h e r i e s " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 61 O r e g o n L. R e v . 9 3 Huhn, E.S.  "Mobility a s a F a c t o r Limiting R e s o u r c e U s e in the C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u  o f N o r t h A m e r i c a " i n N . M . W i l l i a m s a n d E . S . H u h n , e d s . Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers ( M e l b o u r n e : G l o b e P r e s s , 1982)17 I s a a c , T. " U n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e ' T h e S p a r r o w Doctrine: Q u e e n ' s L.J. I s a a c , T.  Spanow  Decision: Just the Beginning: A C o m m e n t o n  B e g i n n i n g of the E n d o r E n d of the B e g i n n i n g " (1991)  16  377  "Discarding the R o s e - C o l o u r e d G l a s s e s :  M a c k l e m " ( 1 9 9 2 ) 3 0 A l t a L. R e v .  708  A  Commentary  of A s c h  and  185 J a m e s , M . D . Historic and Present Native Participation in Pacific Coast Commercial Fisheries ( O t t a w a : S u p p l y a n d S e r v i c e s C a n a d a , 1 9 8 4 ) James,  P.F.  " U n i t e d S t a t e s v. W a s h i n g t o n :  Implied Treaty  Rights to C o n t i n u e  F i s h i n g " ( 1 9 8 2 ) 1 8 W i l l i a m e t t e L. R e v . 6 5 9 Johnston, D . M . "Native Rights a s Collective Rights: A Question of G r o u p SelfP r e s e r v a t i o n " ( 1 9 8 9 ) 2 C d n . J . o f L. & J u r i s p . 1 9 Juergensmeyer, J.C. and J.B. Wadley. "The Common Lands Concept:  A  ' C o m m o n s ' Solution to a C o m m o n Environmental P r o b l e m " (1974) 14 Nat'l R e s . J. 361 K a l l e n , E.  Ethnicity and Human Rights in Canada  (Toronto:  Gage Publishing  Ltd., 1982) K a p a s h e s i t , R. a n d K l i p p e n s t e i n , M . " A b o r i g i n a l G r o u p R i g h t s a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l Protection" (1991) 3 6 M c G i l l L.J. 9 2 5 Keeping, J . M .  The Inuvialuit Final Agreement  (Calgary:  T h e C a n a d i a n Institute o f  Resources Law, 1989)  Kline, M . " T h e C o l o u r of Law:  Ideological R e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of First N a t i o n s in L e g a l  Discourse" (1994) 3 Social & Legal Studies 4 5 3 Kymlicka, W .  Multicultural Citizenship ( O x f o r d :  Landau.  "Empty Victories:  J.L.  Clarendon Press, 1995)  Indian F i s h i n g R i g h t s in t h e P a c i f i c  Northwest"  ( 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ) 1 0 E n v i r o n . L. 4 1 3  L e v i n , M . D . , e d . Ethnicity and Aboriginality: Case Studies in Ethnonationalism (Toronto: Lyon,  University of Toronto P r e s s , 1993)  N. "A P e r s p e c t i v e o n the Application of the Criminal C o d e to Aboriginal  P e o p l e s in Light of t h e J u d g m e n t of t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t of C a n a d a in  R. v. Sparrow"  ( 1 9 9 2 ) U . B . C . L. R e v . S p e c . E d . 3 0 6  M a c L e a n , D. a n d C . M i l l s , e d s . Liberalism Reconsidered ( T o t o w a , N . J . : R o w m a n & Allanheld, 1983) M a c L e o d , J . R . "Strategies a n d Possibilities f o r Indian L e a d e r s h i p in C o M a n a g e m e n t I n i t i a t i v e s i n B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a " i n E. P i n k e r t o n , e d .  Management of Local Fisheries ( V a n c o u v e r : Press,  1989)262  Co-Operative  University of British C o l u m b i a  186  M a r c h a k , P. " U n c o m m o n  Property" in P. M a r c h a k , N. G u p p y a n d J . M c M u l l a n ,  e d s . Uncommon Property. The Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British Columbia ( T o r o n t o : M e t h u e n , 1 9 8 7 ) 3 M a r c h a k , P. ' " B e c a u s e F i s h S w i m ' a n d O t h e r C a u s e s of International Conflict" in P . M a r c h a k , N . G u p p y a n d J . M c M u l l e n , e d s . Uncommon Property. The Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British Columbia ( T o r o n t o : M e t h u e n , 1 9 8 7 ) 153  M a r c h a k , P. " U n c o m m o n History" in P. M a r c h a k , N. G u p p y a n d J . M c M u l l a n ,  e d s . Uncommon Property. The Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British Columbia ( T o r o n t o : M e t h u e n , 1 9 8 7 ) 3 5 3 M c C a y , B.J. a n d J . M . A c h e s o n . " H u m a n E c o l o g y of the C o m m o n s " in B . J .  M c C a y a n d J . M . A c h e s o n , e d s . The Question of the Commons. The Culture and  Ecology of Communal Resources 1987)  (Tucson:  T h e U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a P r e s s ,  1  M c C a y , B . J . " T h e C u l t u r e of the C o m m o n s :  Historical Observations on Old and  N e w W o r l d F i s h e r i e s " i n B . J . M c C a y a n d J . M . A c h e s o n , e d s . , The Question of  the Commons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources ( T u c s o n : T h e U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a P r e s s , 1987)  195  M c H u g h , P . G . " S e a l o r d s a n d s h a r k s : T h e M a o r i F i s h e r i e s A g r e e m e n t (1992)" [1992] N.Z.L.J. 354 McHugh,  P.G.  The Maori Magna Carta. New Zealand Law and the Treaty of  Waitangi ( A u c k l a n d :  Oxford University P r e s s ,  1991)  M c H u g h , P . G . " M a o r i F i s h i n g R i g h t s a n d the N o r t h A m e r i c a n Indian" ( 1 9 8 5 ) 6 O t a g o L. R e v . 6 2 McMartin,  P.  "Fraser  s o c k e y e estimates rise again, allowing more fishing"  Vancouver Sun ( 1 3 A u g u s t 1 9 9 6 ) B1  "United States v. Washington (Phase II)  Meyers, G.D. Environmental Rev.  Servitude  Revisited:  The  Establishing an  Protecting Treaty Fishing Rights" (1988) 67  Oregon  L.  771  M i l l e r , D.  Social Justice  M i t c h e l l , B.  (Oxford: C l a r e n d o n P r e s s ,  "Hindsight Reviews:  1976)  T h e B . C . L i c e n c e P r o g r a m m e " in D.V.  Ellis, e d .  Pacific Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a P r e s s , 1977)148  187  Monson, P.C.  "United States v. Washington (Phase II):  T h e Indian F i s h i n g Conflict  M o v e s U p s t r e a m " ( 1 9 8 1 - 8 2 ) 1 2 E n v i r o n . L. 4 6 9  Morrell, M . " T h e S t r u g g l e to Integrate Traditional Indian S y s t e m s a n d S t a t e M a n a g e m e n t in t h e S a l m o n F i s h e r i e s of t h e S k e e n a River, British C o l u m b i a " in  E. P i n k e r t o n , e d . Co-Operative Management of Local Fisheries ( V a n c o u v e r : University of British C o l u m b i a P r e s s , 1989) 231  M o r s e , B . W . a n d G . R . W o o d m a n "Introductory E s s a y :  T h e State's Options" in  B . W . M o r s e a n d G . R . W o o d m a n , e d s . Indigenous Law and the State ( P r o v i d e n c e , R.I.:  Foris Publications, 1 9 8 8 ) 5  Mundie, J.H. "Concluding Remarks:  T h e P r o b l e m In Its S e t t i n g " i n D . V . E l l i s , e d .  Pacific Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a P r e s s , 1977)299 M u n r o , J . " T h e Treaty of W a i t a n g i a n d the S e a l o r d Deal" (1994) 2 4 V i c . U. of W e l l . L. R e v . 3 8 9 Native Brotherhood of British C o l u m b i a . Native  Programs,  Legal  Services Society.  Columbia ( 1 9 9 5 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] Neher,  P.A.,  Licensing Proposal ( 1 9 9 1 )  Fishing-Aboriginal Rights in British  R. A r n a s o n a n d N . M o l l e t t , e d s .  Kluwer A c a d e m i c Publishers, 1988)  [unpublished]  Rights Based Fishing  N e l s o n , R.K. "A C o n s e r v a t i o n Ethic a n d Environment:  (Dordrecht.  T h e K o y u k o n of A l a s k a "  in N . M . W i l l i a m s a n d E . S . H u h n , e d s . Resource Managers: North American and  Australian Hunter-Gatherers ( M e l b o u r n e : G l o b e P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ) 2 1 1  Tangled Webs of History: Indians and the Law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1 9 9 3 )  N e w e l l , D.  O ' R i o r d a n , T. " R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t in a G l o b a l C o m m o n s " in D.V. Ellis, e d .  Pacific Salmon Management for People ( V i c t o r i a : U n i v e r s i t y o f V i c t o r i a P r e s s , 1977)229 O s t r o m , E.  "Institutional A r r a n g e m e n t s for R e s o l v i n g t h e C o m m o n s  Dilemma.  S o m e C o n t e n d i n g A p p r o a c h e s " i n B . J . M c C a y a n d J . M . A c h e s o n , e d s . The  Question of the Commons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources  (Tucson:  T h e U n i v e r s i t y of A r i z o n a P r e s s , 1987) 2 5 0  188 P e a r s e , P . H . Managing Salmon in the Fraser. Report to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the Fraser River Salmon Investigation ( V a n c o u v e r : D e p a r t m e n t of F i s h e r i e s a n d O c e a n s , 1 9 9 2 ) P e t t y , K.  " A c c o m m o d a t i o n of Indian T r e a t y R i g h t s in a n International F i s h e r y :  An  International P r o b l e m B e g g i n g for a n International Solution" ( 1 9 7 8 - 7 9 ) 5 4 W a s h .  L.  Rev. 4 0 3 P i n k e r t o n , E. " I n t r o d u c t i o n :  Attaining Better Fisheries M a n a g e m e n t T h r o u g h C o -  M a n a g e m e n t - P r o s p e c t s , P r o b l e m s a n d P r o p o s i t i o n s " i n E . P i n k e r t o n , e d . Co-  operative Management of Local Fisheries  (Vancouver:  University of British  Columbia Press, 1989) 3  P i n k e r t o n , E. " I n d i a n s i n t h e F i s h i n g I n d u s t r y " i n P . M a r c h a k , N . G u p p y a n d J .  Uncommon Property. The Fishing and Fish-Processing Industries in British Columbia ( T o r o n t o : M e t h u e n , 1 9 8 7 ) 2 4 9  McMullan, eds.  P i n k e r t o n , E. a n d M . W e i n s t e i n . Fisheries That Work. Sustainability Through Community-Based Management. A Report to the David Suzuki Foundation  (Vancouver:  T h e David Suzuki Foundation, 1995)  P r i c e , R . T . Assessing Modern Treaty Settlements: New Zealand's 1992 Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement and Its Aftermath ( W o r k i n g P a p e r 1 9 9 6 )  [publishing pending] P u r i c h , D.  Our Land: Native Rights in Canada  (Toronto:  J a m e s Lorimer & C o . ,  1986) P y n n , L. a n d S . S i m p s o n . " F i s h e r s c r y f o u l o v e r l i c e n c e c u t s "  Sun ( 3 0 M a r c h 1 9 9 6 ) A 1 , A 6 P y n n , L. " F e d s c u t f i s h e r i e s b u d g e t b y $ 3 4 m i l l i o n "  The Vancouver  The Vancouver Sun  (24 July  1996)A1,A7 R e t t i g , R . B . , F. B e r k e s a n d E. P i n k e r t o n . " T h e F u t u r e o f F i s h e r i e s C o Management:  A M u l t i - D i s c i p l i n a r y A p p r o a c h " i n E. P i n k e r t o n , e d .  Management of Local Fisheries  (Vancouver:  Co-Operative  University of British C o l u m b i a  Press, 1989) 2 7 3 Richardson, A.  " T h e Control of Productive R e s o u r c e s o n the Northwest C o a s t of  N o r t h A m e r i c a " i n N . M . W i l l i a m s a n d E . S . H u h n , e d s . Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers ( M e l b o u r n e : G l o b e P r e s s , 1982)93  189  R i c h a r d s o n , M . a n d B. G r e e n . " T h e F i s h e r i e s C o - M a n a g e m e n t Initiative in H a i d a  G w a i i " i n E . P i n k e r t o n , e d . Co-Operative Management of Local Fisheries (Vancouver:  University of British C o l u m b i a P r e s s , 1989) 2 4 9  Rosenblum, V.G.  Law as a Political Instrument ( G a r d e n  City, N.Y.:  Doubleday &  C o m p a n y Inc., 1955) R u d d e l l , R. " C h i e f s a n d C o m m o n e r s : the Nootka" in B. C o x , e d .  Eskimos ( T o r o n t o :  Nature's B a l a n c e a n d t h e G o o d Life  Among  Cultural Ecology: Readings on the Canadian Indians and  T h e M a c M i l l a n C o m p a n y of C a n a d a Limited, 1970) 2 5 4  S a n d e r s , D. " I n d i a n H u n t i n g a n d F i s h i n g R i g h t s " ( 1 9 7 2 - 7 3 ) 3 8 S a s k . L. R e v . 4 5 Sanders,  D. " P r e - E x i s t i n g  Rights:  B e a u d o i n a n d E. M e n d e s , e d s . ed.  T h e Aboriginal P e o p l e s of C a n a d a "  in G . A .  The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,  3rd  ( T o r o n t o : C a r s w e l l , 1 9 9 6 ) 17-1.  S a n d e r s , D. " T h e N i s g a ' a A g r e e m e n t " ( 1 3 A p r i l 1 9 9 6 ) [ u n p u b l i s h e d ] B o o k R e v i e w o f Tangled Webs of History. Indians and the Law in Canada's Pacific Coast Fisheries ( 1 9 9 5 - 9 6 ) 1 0 8 B . C . S t u d i e s 9 4  S a n d e r s , D.  S a n g e r , D. " D e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t P l a t e a u C u l t u r a l A r e a :  Historical  a n d E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n s i d e r a t i o n s " i n B . C o x , e d . Cultural Ecology: Readings on  the Canadian Indians and Eskimos ( T o r o n t o :  T h e M a c M i l l a n C o m p a n y of C a n a d a  Limited, 1970) 194  S c h u l t z , R. " T h e R e g u l a t o r y P r o c e s s a n d F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l R e l a t i o n s " i n G . B . Doern, ed.  The Regulatory Process in Canada  (Toronto:  The MacMillan  C o m p a n y of C a n a d a , 1978) 128  S c o w , P . Analysis of Impacts on Federal Government Commercial Fisheries Licencing Policy and Regulations on Indian Fishing Communities and Proposals for Programs to Redress Adverse Impacts ( 1 9 8 7 ) [unpublished] Shapiro, M . "Political Jurisprudence" (1964) 5 2 K e n . L.J. 2 9 4 Shepherd, M.P. and Argue, A W .  The Commercial Harvest of Salmon in British  Columbia, 1820-1877 ( V a n c o u v e r :  Supply a n d Services Canada, 1989)  Slattery, B. " U n d e r s t a n d i n g Aboriginal Rights" (1987) 6 6 C a n . B a r . R e v . 7 2 3  190 S p r y , E . M . " A b o r i g i n a l R e s o u r c e U s e in T h e N i n e t e e n t h C e n t u r y in t h e G r e a t P l a i n s o f M o d e m C a n a d a " i n K. A b e l a n d J . F r i e s e n , e d s .  Aboriginal Resource  Use in Canada: Historical and Legal Aspects ( W i n n i p e g : U n i v e r s i t y o f M a n i t o b a Press,  1991)81  S t e w a r d , J . H . " D e t e r m i n i s m in Primitive S o c i e t y ? " in B. C o x , e d .  Cultural  Ecology: Readings on the Canadian Indians and Eskimos ( T o r o n t o : M a c M i l l a n C o m p a n y of C a n a d a L i m i t e d , 1 9 7 0 )  The  205  T e n n a n t , C . "Justification a n d C u l t u r a l Authority in s . 35(1) of the C o n s t i t u t i o n Act, 1982:  Regina v. Sparrow"  Tennant,  P.  (1991) 14 D a l h o u s i e L.J.  Aboriginal Peoples and Politics  372  (Vancouver:  U n i v e r s i t y of  British  C o l u m b i a P r e s s , 1990) T o w n s e n d , R. a n d J . A . W i l s o n . " A n E c o n o m i c V i e w o f t h e T r a g e d y o f t h e C o m m o n s " i n B . J . M c C a y a n d J . M . A c h e s o n , e d s . The Question of the  Commons. The Culture and Ecology of Communal Resources ( T u c s o n : T h e  University of A r i z o n a P r e s s , 1987)  311  T r e b i l o c k , M . J . " T h e C o n s u m e r Interest a n d R e g u l a t o r y R e f o r m " in G . B . ed.  The Regulatory Process in Canada  Canada,  (Toronto:  Doern,  T h e M a c M i l l a n C o m p a n y of  1978)94  V e s s e l s , R. " T r e a t i e s :  F i s h i n g Rights in the Pacific N o r t h w e s t - T h e S u p r e m e  C o u r t ' L e g i s l a t e s ' A n E q u i t a b l e S o l u t i o n " 8 A m e r . Inc. L. R e v .  117  W a e t f o r d , A . M . " T r e a t y of W a i t a n g i ( F i s h e r i e s C l a i m s ) S e t t l e m e n t A c t 1 9 9 2 " [ 1 9 9 3 ] A u c k l a n d U . L. R e v . 4 0 2 W a l t e r s , C . J . " M a n a g e m e n t U n d e r Uncertainty" in D.V.  Management for People ( V i c t o r i a :  Ellis, e d .  Pacific Salmon  University of Victoria P r e s s , 1977) 261  W a l t e r s , C . Fish on the Line. The Future of Pacific Fisheries. A Report to The David Suzuki Foundation Fisheries Project, Phase I ( V a n c o u v e r : T h e D a v i d Suzuki Foundation,  1995)  W e a v e r , Sally. " F e d e r a l Difficulties with A b o r i g i n a l R i g h t s D e m a n d s " in M . Boldt  a n d J . A . L o n g , e d s . The Quest for Justice: Aboriginal Peoples and Aboriginal Rights ( T o r o n t o : U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o P r e s s , 1 9 8 5 ) 1 3 9 W e i n b e r g , D.  " M o d e l s of S o u t h e r n Kwakiutl S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n "  in B. C o x ,  Cultural Ecology: Readings on the Canadian Indians and Eskimos ( T o r o n t o :  M a c M i l l a n C o m p a n y of C a n a d a Limited, 1970)  227  ed. The  191  W i l l i a m s , N . M . a n d E . S . H u h n . "Introduction" in W i l l i a m s a n d H u h n , e d s .  Resource Managers: North American and Australian Hunter-Gatherers (Melbourne:  Globe Press, 1982) 1  Zion, J . W . " S e a r c h i n g for Indian C o m m o n Law" in B . W . M o r s e a n d G . R . Woodman, eds.  Indigenous Law and the State  ( P r o v i d e n c e , R.I.:  Foris  P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1 9 8 8 ) 101  Caselaw: Calderv. British Columbia (AG.)  (1973), 3 4 D . L . R . (3d) 1 4 5 ( S . C . C . )  Daniels v. White, [ 1 9 6 8 ] S . C . R . 5 1 7  Guerin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S . C . R. 3 3 5 Ontario Mining Co. v. Seybold, [1903] A . C . 7 3 ( J . C . P . C . )  R.  v.  Cooper ( 1 9 6 9 ) ,  R.  v.  Derricksan  R.  v.  Francis ( 1 9 7 0 ) ,  1 D . L . R . (3d) 1 1 3 ( B . C . S . C . )  ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 71 D . L . R . ( 3 d ) 1 5 9 ( S . C . C . ) 10 D . L . R . (3d) 1 8 9 ( N . B . C . A . )  R. v. George, [1966] S . C . R . 2 6 7  R.  v.  Gladstone ( 1 9 9 3 ) ,  8 0 B . C . L . R . (2d) 1 3 3 ( C A ) , rev'd [1996] S . C . J . N o . 7 9 ( QL )  R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 S . C . R . 6 9 5  R.  v.  Jack,  R.  v.  Jimmy ( 1 9 8 7 ) ,  15 B.C.L.R. 145 (C.A.)  R.  v.  Jones ( 1 9 9 3 ) ,  1 4 O . R . ( 3 d ) 421 (Ont. Ct. (Prov. Div.))  R. v. Lewis  [ 1 9 9 5 ] B . C . J . N o . 2 6 3 3 ( C A . ) ( Q L ) , 1 6 B . C . L . R . (3d) 2 0 1  (1993), 8 0 B . C . L . R . (2d) 2 2 4 ( C A ) , a f f d [1996] S . C . J .  No. 4 6 (QL), 1  S . C . R . 921  R.  v.  R.  v.  LMIe,  [1995] B . C . J . N o . 2 6 3 4 ( C . A . ) ( Q L ) , 16 B . C . L . R . (3d) 2 5 3  Nikal ( 1 9 9 3 ) ,  8 0 B . C . L . R . ( 2 d ) 2 4 5 ( C . A ) , r e v ' d i n part, a f f d i n p a r t [ 1 9 9 6 ]  S . C . J . No. 4 7 (QL), 1 S . C . R . 1013  192  R.  v.  N.T.C. Smokehouse Ltd.  S . C . J . No. 78  (1993), 8 0 B . C . L . R .  (2d) 1 5 8 ( C . A . ) , a f f d  [1996]  (QL)  R. v . Pamajewon, [ 1 9 9 6 ] S . C . J . N o . 2 0 ( Q L )  R. v. Sampson,  [1995] B . C . J . N o . 2 6 3 4 ( C . A . ) (QL), 16 B . C . L . R . (3d) 2 2 6  R. v. Sikyea, [1964] S . C . R . 6 4 2  R. v. Sparrow ( 1 9 9 0 ) ,  7 0 D . L . R . (4th) 3 8 5 ( S . C . C . )  R. v. Van der Peet ( 1 9 9 3 ) ,  8 0 B . C . L . R . (2d) 7 5 ( C . A ) , a f f d [1996] S . C . J . N o . 7 7  R. v. White and Bob ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Saanichton Marina Ltd.  v.  (QL)  5 2 W . W . R . 1 9 3 ( B . C . C . A . ) a f f d [1965] S . C . R . vi  Claxton  (1989), 3 6 B . C . L . R . (2d) 7 9 ( B . C . C . A . )  St. Catherine's Milling and Lumber Co.  v.  The Queen ( 1 9 8 9 ) ,  14 A . C . 4 6  (J.C.P.C.)  Te Weehisi. Regional Fisheries Officer, [ 1 9 8 6 ] 1 N . Z . L . R . 6 8 0 ( H . C ) United States v. Washington, 3 8 4 F. S u p p . 3 1 2 ( W . D . W a s h . 1 9 7 4 ) , a f f i r m e d 5 2 0 F . 2 d 6 7 6 (9th C i r . 1975), cert, d e n i e d 4 2 3 U . S . 1 0 8 6 (1976)  United States v. Washington, 5 0 6 F. S u p p . 1 8 7 ( W . D . W a s h . 1 9 8 0 ) , a f f i r m e d i n part, r e v e r s e d in part 7 5 9 F . 2 d 1 3 5 2 (9th C i r . 1982)  Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association 61 L E d . 2 d 8 2 3 ( 1 9 7 9 )  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
Canada 60 0
United States 17 3
United Kingdom 7 0
China 5 1
France 4 0
Russia 2 0
Belarus 1 0
Japan 1 0
City Views Downloads
Saskatoon 49 0
New Westminster 8 0
Unknown 7 9
Beckenham 5 0
Ashburn 4 0
San Francisco 4 0
Ottawa 3 0
Beijing 3 0
Saint Petersburg 2 0
Buffalo 2 0
Shenzhen 2 1
Southend-on-Sea 2 0
Mountain View 1 2

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0099055/manifest

Comment

Related Items