B.C. First Nations Fishing Rights - Supreme Court Ruling

I do have to disagree that recreational fisherman on the BC coast have not been fishing just as long as FN. Recreational fishing has not been around for very long the first European was here in 1778, large scale European settlement only started in the mid 1800s, so recreational fishing has been around at the most 200 years in BC.

Are u arguing that Races that shown up to coast BC first should be given priority access? What comes after First Nations, People with majority of English heritage? Used to be a huge Japanese commercial fishing fleet in BC too that's been lost to the history books where is their reconciliation? . Maybe it should First Nations, Then English, Than japanese?

I think Japanese people here in BC have a pretty good case don't you?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ed-b-c-s-japanese-fishing-community-1.4041358
 
Are u arguing that Races that shown up to coast BC first should be given priority access? What comes after First Nations, People with majority of English heritage? Used to be a huge Japanese commercial fishing fleet in BC too that's been lost to the history books where is their reconciliation? . Maybe it should First Nations, Then English, Than japanese?

Its kind of a moot point, regardless of any of our opinion's aboriginal rights over recent immigrants have been recognized in the courts over an over again.
 
Good luck with that, the appeal options would be to the Supreme Court of Canada, and the case first has to be given approval to go forward and only if it meets the National Interest test. You need really deep pockets to play in that sand box - and the rec community has a very poor track record of getting individual participants to join groups and actually get involved to the point they buck up....who is going to pay? I don't see much evidence based on how the rec community has acted in the past of pulling together as a team...I would like to be proven wrong though!

Searun succinctly describes and lays out the problem. Also, the sporties spend far too much time fighting each other (just look at the hundreds of examples on this forum alone) and cannot join in a cohesive voice and action a cause. In the meantime, other groups are banding together and winning in court. The BC Supreme Court decision was years in the making - but were there any sporting groups attempting to challenge this over the years? Probably not - and now the decision has been cast and any attempts to change it, would take years and as one other person here duly noted:

This would be exceedingly expensive, and would take years (this case was a decade) if the court would even hear it. The governments record on cases in the past couple of decades has been pretty poor as well which I'm sure has weighed on the decision to accept it. In the mean time the changes would likely have to be implemented, and even if the case was won sometime in the mid 2020s, the changes would be entrenched and difficult to undo.
 
Searun succinctly describes and lays out the problem. Also, the sporties spend far too much time fighting each other (just look at the hundreds of examples on this forum alone) and cannot join in a cohesive voice and action a cause. In the meantime, other groups are banding together and winning in court. The BC Supreme Court decision was years in the making - but were there any sporting groups attempting to challenge this over the years? Probably not - and now the decision has been cast and any attempts to change it, would take years and as one other person here duly noted:

It is probably worth noting that had the conservatives still been in power they would have the very least not announced acceptance of the verdict right away, and would have at looked at the details of the decision and then decided if they would pursue a Canadian supreme court challenge. If they thought they could win they very well may have pursued it. The Liberals announcing compliance immediately makes me wonder if they even wanted to win.....
 
It is probably worth noting that had the conservatives still been in power they would have the very least not announced acceptance of the verdict right away, and would have at looked at the details of the decision and then decided if they would pursue a Canadian supreme court challenge. If they thought they could win they very well may have pursued it. The Liberals announcing compliance immediately makes me wonder if they even wanted to win.....

The Conservatives would of challenged it but they would also let company's rape the environment and off the stocks anyways.

Even if we elected a new government that would change the Law. The First Nations would Appeal on the basis of UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples).

"Finally, on 13 September 2007, the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by a majority of 144 states in favour, 4 votes against (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States) "
 
It is probably worth noting that had the conservatives still been in power they would have the very least not announced acceptance of the verdict right away, and would have at looked at the details of the decision and then decided if they would pursue a Canadian supreme court challenge. If they thought they could win they very well may have pursued it. The Liberals announcing compliance immediately makes me wonder if they even wanted to win.....

I try and stay out of the politics on such decisions. The BCSC judgement is online and I am about 1/3 of the way through reading it - may take a few hours (or more.)

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/06/2018BCSC0633.htm
 
From the Rulling and up for discussion, I am also confused what allocation would be left after a FN commercial fishery????

Salmon Allocation Policy

(917) Canada’s position from the beginning of the Negotiations has been that the plaintiffs have been given a commercial right of unknown scope; that is, the right takes its character from the word “commercial”. However, I agree with the plaintiffs that the right is an aboriginal fishing right. Its essential character is as an aboriginal right. Because it is also a commercial right, Gladstone states clearly that it is not an exclusive right, and does not extinguish the right of public access to the fishery. Nevertheless, as an aboriginal right, it has priority over the other sectors, after FSC and treaty rights (limitations the plaintiffs acknowledge), as long as the other factors in Sparrow are properly balanced.

(925) However, the fact that the declared aboriginal right is to fish and sell fish into the commercial marketplace does not lessen the priority to be accorded to the aboriginal right -- it does not allow Canada to start out on the allocation process by treating the plaintiffs’ fishery as simply another commercial fishery. To accord priority to the recreational fishery over the plaintiffs’ aboriginal commercial fishery is not justified.
 
Why Sockeye and Pink are not a problem

The Salmon Allocation Policy
[478]Canada’s allocation of salmon depends on and is restricted to the TAC allowed to Canada by the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the United States.

[479]Within the consideration of chinook (the species of most importance to the plaintiffs), there is a dispute between Canada and the plaintiffs about Canada’s Salmon Allocation Policy which gives priority to the recreational fishery and sets that allocation first. Under this policy, Canada takes the Canadian Total Allowable Catch (CTAC) allowed by the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the United States, sets aside FSC and Treaty fish, sets an allocation for the recreational fishery, and then purports to accommodate the plaintiffs’ aboriginal right from the remaining Canadian Commercial Total Allowable Catch (CCTAC) through buying back licences through the Mitigation Policy, and giving them to First Nations through PICFI and ATP.

[480]According to Mr. Grout, DFO’s Regional Resource Manager for Salmon, the Salmon Allocation Policy giving the recreational fishery priority in chinook was developed in 1999, at a time when the recreational fishery did not have the techniques for harvesting sockeye, pink and chum.

[481]The Salmon Allocation Policy also applies to coho. There is no directed commercial fishery for coho as the stocks of coho collapsed in the 1990’s. A “directed” fishery is one targeting a particular species, for which a total allowable catch (TAC) has been set. According to the policy, the recreational fishery takes priority over the plaintiffs’ commercial right in respect of coho. The recreational fishery is allowed to catch and retain only tagged hatchery coho.

[482]For sockeye and pink, the commercial sector has priority over the recreational fishery so the same issue does not arise.


[483]The plaintiffs say the Salmon Allocation Policy does not take into account the priority of its aboriginal right which must come ahead of the recreational fishery. Canada says the plaintiffs have been given a right to a commercial fishery and thus priority must be considered in the context of the commercial sector, not in the overall context.

[484]This policy was a matter of contention throughout the Negotiations.
 
Interesting how the different sides view the outcome quite differently. My limited understanding is that the judge put significant constraints around the decision.

Recognizing the Public Interest in Nation to Nation Fishery Negotiations


NEWS PROVIDED BY

BC Seafood Alliance
Apr 19, 2018, 16:50 ET


VANCOUVER, April 19, 2018 /CNW/ - "Reconciliation isn't just about negotiations between First Nations and the Crown, it has to directly involve those whose livelihoods might be affected in keeping with previous Supreme Court of Canadadecisions," said Gary Wharton, legal counsel and spokesperson for the intervenors representing the BC Seafood Alliance and the BC Wildlife Federation.


"The BC Supreme Court decision requires that the delineation of Indigenous fishing rights must include consideration of the rights and interests of all stakeholders," he added, noting that both the Supreme Court of Canada and the judge are clear that Crown is in a fundamental conflict of interest between its fiduciary responsibilities to First Nations and its duty to represent other interests in fishery matters. "Reconciliation must now explicitly include consideration of these interests."

"That's why we intervened," said Christina Burridge for the BC Seafood Alliance and Alan Martin for the BC Wildlife Federation. "It's a very complex case, going back almost a decade," they said, "but we intervened to make sure that the Supreme Court of Canadarequirement that delineating Indigenous rights required consideration of other rights and interests did indeed take place. We represent the common property right that goes back to Magna Carta."

They added, "the judge's decision is complex, but we are always ready to engage in constructive discussions over how we manage our fisheries to ensure conservation of the resource, enjoyment of eating or catching seafood and economic benefits to all Canadians."

SOURCE BC Seafood Alliance

rt.gif

For further information: Gary Wharton, Bernard LPP, 604.661.0601, wharton@bernardllp.ca; Christina Burridge, BC Seafood Alliance,604.377.9213, cburridge@telus.net; Al Martin, BC Wildlife Federation, 250.480.9694, alan.martin1710@gmail com
 
Interesting how the different sides view the outcome quite differently. My limited understanding is that the judge put significant constraints around the decision.

It's not a problem now because its limited to these 4 First Nations but there is a 100 First Nations on the Fraser the have been fighting for it as well.

Have a read

https://frasersalmon.ca/2018jan31_fsmc_community-report_final/
https://frasersalmon.ca/

My only cavite to all this would be if your going to give (Commercial FN, Commercial and Sports fishing the same allocation priority) the sports fishermen should be allowed to sell their catch.

It looks like the the Priority is going to be conservation>FSC> Commercial FN> Commercial/Rec
 
Interesting how the different sides view the outcome quite differently. My limited understanding is that the judge put significant constraints around the decision.

While I do understand what you are attempting to get across, it is my firm belief that it will be a very cold day in hell before such constraints see anything but the odd lip service along the way. I do wish I could believe otherwise, but given past and present actions, simply can not... :(

Nog
 
In a 400-page judgment, the judge called for changes to government policies, and gave the federal government one year to make those changes!
 
Interesting how the different sides view the outcome quite differently. My limited understanding is that the judge put significant constraints around the decision.

Yes, having spent most of the evening yesterday reading the judgment, the trial judge was careful to place restrictions on how the fishery was monitored. After all, the plaintiffs were seeking unfettered access to 30% of the chinook and 50% of the coho with no electronic monitoring, ability to dual fish (fish both for FSC and when it suited them commercial); they also wanted to manage themselves, and have DFO have to justify every single management measure. All of that and more was struck down because in essence the judge was savvy enough to see that unfettered access with no central control would lead to significant conservation issues due to over-fishing and also impact the rights of other users (the Canadian Public).

The scary issue really is this Liberal government seeks to prosecute a "reconciliation" agenda that will hand over allocation to FN's as the currency...at the expense of Canadian citizens. So a small group of people will get a disproportionately large share of the fish pie. My only hope is that when the Minister sits down to craft his allocation policy, that he starts to realize the social unrest, the huge impact to the Liberal political value on the west coast, not to mention the economic harm it will bring to Canada. This decision if unwisely implemented by its proponents could actually serve to very negatively impact how FN's and their agendas are played out in the Canadian public in years to come. People will reach a tipping point if this is poorly implemented.
 
... The scary issue really is this Liberal government seeks to prosecute a "reconciliation" agenda that will hand over allocation to FN's as the currency...at the expense of Canadian citizens.

This has already happened, sans compensation, numerous times.

... My only hope is that when the Minister sits down to craft his allocation policy, that he starts to realize the social unrest, the huge impact to the Liberal political value on the west coast..

Already understood as not even a remote consideration. The west plays damn near zero significance in the Easterner's minds. Really, we exist only to provide transfer funds and humorous interludes.

... This decision if unwisely implemented by its proponents could actually serve to very negatively impact how FN's and their agendas are played out in the Canadian public in years to come. People will reach a tipping point if this is poorly implemented.

Good luck with that. Sincerely that is.
I will not be holding my breath...

Nog
 
And the sad part is the majority of Canadians really do not care.
Using Fish as a reconciliation agenda rather than money will be fine with the majority of Canadians.
The Canadian public will not reach a tipping point over fish.
This has been proven by conflicts in Ontario and Saskatchewan which were about property and life and the Government bowed to the FN.

Fish , not a hope. As Nog said the Fat Lady is warming up.


Yes, having spent most of the evening yesterday reading the judgment, the trial judge was careful to place restrictions on how the fishery was monitored. After all, the plaintiffs were seeking unfettered access to 30% of the chinook and 50% of the coho with no electronic monitoring, ability to dual fish (fish both for FSC and when it suited them commercial); they also wanted to manage themselves, and have DFO have to justify every single management measure. All of that and more was struck down because in essence the judge was savvy enough to see that unfettered access with no central control would lead to significant conservation issues due to over-fishing and also impact the rights of other users (the Canadian Public).

The scary issue really is this Liberal government seeks to prosecute a "reconciliation" agenda that will hand over allocation to FN's as the currency...at the expense of Canadian citizens. So a small group of people will get a disproportionately large share of the fish pie. My only hope is that when the Minister sits down to craft his allocation policy, that he starts to realize the social unrest, the huge impact to the Liberal political value on the west coast, not to mention the economic harm it will bring to Canada. This decision if unwisely implemented by its proponents could actually serve to very negatively impact how FN's and their agendas are played out in the Canadian public in years to come. People will reach a tipping point if this is poorly implemented.
 
This is going to be a big mess for DFO’s already understaff and underfunded pacific division to attempt to manage. All this does is provide them A pipeline to sell their FSC fish and poached fish legally .

At this point a dead fish is a dead fish they might as well let them sell FSC fish if that’s what they choose.

This will just be a management headache that DFO does not have the resources to manage.

Or DFO May just shut down recreational fisheries like they do for sockeye and the only ones fishing will be FN for FSC fish.

The later is probably the more likely management strategie.
 
Perhaps it is time BEFORE Trudeau hands over all of our fishing rights; to stage some high profile protest fisheries all up and down the coast.
 
Back
Top