Ruling Denies Commercial fishing Rights to BC Nation

Derby

Crew Member
By CBC News, cbc.ca, Updated: November 10, 2011 11:05 AM
Ruling denies commercial fishing rights to B.C. First Nation
0You recommend this75%You don't recommend this25%Shared 8 times

A First Nation in British Columbia lost its bid to gain widespread access to commercial fishing rights in a Supreme Court decision Thursday.

The aboriginal band, called Lax Kw'alaams, was seeking a declaration that it is entitled to a native right to harvest and sell all species of fish – including seaweed, shellfish and fish – in its traditional territory in the Prince Rupert region of the province.

The band currently has the right to fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes, but not to sell. The claim was denied in lower courts and the Supreme Court upheld those decisions, and their reasons, in its unanimous decision Thursday.

If the Lax Kw'alaams had been able to establish that trade was integral to their culture and sustenance prior to contact with the Europeans in the 1790s, the Consitution would have protected their aboriginal rights and they could have been granted access to sell products on a commercial scale.

Top newsTeen killed by puck often put his body on the line
Bing: More on teen's death
Nine-year-old girl survives almost two days in car wreck
'Battle of the Blades' names Pelletier, Bonhomme champs
Video: Ottawa bus driver fired for shouting at autistic passenger
The Supreme Court found that they were not primarily a trading people pre-contact and therefore their ancient customs and practices do not translate into a constitutionally-protected right to harvest and sell all kinds of fish in a modern commercial fishery.

A lower court previously found that while the band's predecessors, the Coast Tsimshian, did fish a variety of species including salmon and halibut, they only traded in a specific grease product called euchalon, derived from one species.

The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts that the euchalon trade was sporadic and not central to their sustenance.

"It is not enough to show that some element of trade was part of the pre-contact way of life if it was not distinctive or integral to that way of life," Justice Ian Binnie wrote in the decision.

"Such sporadic trade as took place in other fish products was peripheral to the pre-contact society and did not define what made Coast Tsimshian society what it was."

Lax Kw'alaams appealed the ruling but the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the decision in December 2009, citing the trial judge's conclusion that it would be stretching the idea of aboriginal fishing rights to rule that the ancient grease trade must lead to a modern right to fish all species.

They argued the trial judge was too strict in her interpretation and that the euchalon trade was part of their ancestral way of life and on that basis, they should be allowed to continue to trade in fish generally.

The band had argued that under the Marshall decision of 1999, they have the right to fish and sell their harvest to economically support their community.

The Marshall decision granted fishing rights to Canada's First Nations and was itself based on a treaty right to earn a moderate livelihood.

A similar case brought before the B.C. Supreme Court in November saw a Vancouver Island native group, known collectively as the Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation, granted the right to harvest and sell all species of fish found within its territories.

The judge in that case also dismissed a claim to aboriginal title over the fishery, upheld the federal government's control over all fisheries and urged the band and Ottawa to negotiate how to handle native fishing and fish sales.

The Lax Kw'alaams First Nation had also argued that the Crown has a fiduciary duty to ensure they have access to the commercial fishery because of promises, expressed or implied, made by government officials in the 1880s when they were allotted reserves and fishing stations on their territory.

The Supreme Court also rejected that claim, saying the "Crown had not made express or implied promises of any preferential access to the commerical fishery, and had made its intention to treat aboriginal fishers in the same manner as other fishers clear."

With files from CBC News

External Links

Supreme Court of Canada
Lax Kw'alaams First Nation
Nuu-chah-nulth First Nation
 
It is true for the FN in the Port Alberni area, don't know about other areas. This is a deal they have worked out between themselves and DFO/Feds. Could have big impacts on sport fishing access to sockeye and chinook if the FN and commercials guys get their allocation first - which IMO will happen. Even worse over time if the FN's become economically dependant on selling their fish (which I can't imagine they wouldn't somehow - I think that's the Feds long term plan) then their rights to catch the fish will trump the sportfisher rights. Hope I'm wrong!
 
It is true for the FN in the Port Alberni area, don't know about other areas. This is a deal they have worked out between themselves and DFO/Feds. Could have big impacts on sport fishing access to sockeye and chinook if the FN and commercials guys get their allocation first - which IMO will happen. Even worse over time if the FN's become economically dependant on selling their fish (which I can't imagine they wouldn't somehow - I think that's the Feds long term plan) then their rights to catch the fish will trump the sportfisher rights. Hope I'm wrong!

I hope your wrong too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
their rites already trump ours......and only conservation trumps theirs, and that's even debateable, am i wrong?.....holmes*

You are right but I wonder if their Supreme Court rights only apply to food, ceremonial fish? Does this right apply to fish they want to sell?
 
I don't believe their is much to debate? That is, unless you are in or part of the treaty process, as they are Stage 4 or that process, don't have and haven't signed any Treaty! Take a look at their website, I think they have stated their position (right or wrong) clearly:

quote:
Q. What are treaties?

Treaties are constitutionally protected, government-to-government agreements, producing mutually binding obligations. Treaties implement, identify and define a wide range of rights and obligations, including existing and future interests in land and sea resources as well as authorities of governments, regulatory processes, amending processes, dispute resolution, fiscal relations and financial compensation.

Q. Why are treaties only now being negotiated?

Before Canada was a country Britain recognized that aboriginal people living here had title to land: the Royal Proclamation of 1763 declared that only the British Crown could acquire land from First Nations, and that was typically done through treaties. In most parts of Canada, the British Crown established treaties with First Nations before Confederation. The new Dominion of Canada continued this policy of making treaties before the west was opened for settlement, but in BC, this process was never completed.

When BC joined Confederation in 1871, only 14 treaties on Vancouver Island had been signed, and aboriginal title to the rest of the province was left unresolved. It wasn't until 1970 that Canada's aboriginal peoples were able to pursue aboriginal rights in the Supreme Court of Canada. Most First Nations had to wait until 1993 to pursue their aboriginal rights through the BC treaty process.
 
Fish allocated by treaties and Section 35, Food, Social and Ceremonial are in priority to all other sectors.
The four bands that have native only commercial fisheries have the same priority as regular commercial and recreational sectors. That being said, one of these is more equal than the other two.

GS
 
The Supreme Court of Canada do not give rights, they only interpret them. Small difference, but this last decision has me thinking that they are finally on the right track with respect to the mess that resulted from the Marshall decisions.

GS
 
Not sure what the fuss is about. The FN commercial fishery in Port Alberni works pretty well. It is at least an attempt to have a selective terminal fishery. If we eliminated the boat fleet and went to a selective terminal (in-river) fishery there would be greater ability to predict the run escapement and manage the number of fish making it up river to spawn. Not to mention fewer conflicts between sporties and commercial boats like we experienced last summer!!!

And on the other issue is pretty simple, FN fisheries get priority access over all other users for food and cerimonial purposes. Time to get over that, and for us to learn to work with FN as opposed to hucking flaming arrows.
 
Back
Top