top banner top banner top banner

Part One - Governance Toolkit (PDF)


 

Home > Building on OUR Success > Governance Toolkit
Download Chapter (PDF)

3.12  Fish, Fisheries and Fish Habitat


 

3.12.1. Background

The subject of fish, fisheries and fish habitat is one of the most important, but also complex and intricate, areas of jurisdiction being considered by our Nations.  Fish (salmon in particular) are extremely important to our Nations and to our way of life.  The fundamental interests we share as Nations are the same no matter where our Nation is located, whether on the coast or on inland waters, including areas that drain northwards into the Yukon and Mackenzie rivers.  Given the pressures on certain fish stocks and on fish habitat and competing interest in the fisheries, our ability to depend on the resource has been declining in modern times.

This subject overlaps with and is closely linked to other matters, such as the environment, water, traffic and transportation, as well as being impacted by economic development (commercial) issues.  Fish, along with wildlife generally, do involve a discussion related to on-reserve governance, but have much broader importance with respect to access to natural resources and the exercise of jurisdiction off reserve and within our broader traditional territories.

Today, after a hard struggle, our people have well-established Aboriginal and treaty rights in fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes (FSC) and, in certain circumstances, commercial purposes.  These rights have been established through a string of court cases that have confirmed a constitutional Aboriginal right in fish protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 (cases such as Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 BCCA 237; R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723; Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, 2007 BCSC 1700, which build on prior case law derived from R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, R. v. Sparrow,[1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; and Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010).  Based on the Sparrow test, our rights in fish for FSC purposes come before those of any other potential users of the resource and are limited only by issues of stock conservation and environmental considerations.  In BC, FSC rights in fish are exercised by most, if not all our Nations and by the majority of our citizens, sometimes individually and sometimes as part of the collective.  For those Nations on the tip of Vancouver Island, additional treaty rights have been established as a result of the Douglas Treaties, signed between 1850 and 1854.  All the modern treaties also address fish, fisheries and fish habitat and set out modern treaty rights.

Our Nations maintain that as we have rights in fish established under common law, we also have jurisdiction over our fisheries.  As with wildlife management generally and the regulation of the Aboriginal right to hunt, we argue it is logical to assume that if the individual or collective Aboriginal right to fish exists at law, then the concomitant right of the Nation to regulate that right must also exist as an aspect of its inherent right of self-government.  While this is an area of the law where our rights to governance continue to evolve and are not yet settled, most of our Nations are proceeding in practice based on this assumption.  Certainly, to a degree, all the comprehensive governance arrangements under the BC treaty process recognize a role for our governments in making laws in this subject area, and set out the right of the Nation to regulate the its fishers and fisheries and to participate in the overall management of the resource with Canada.  However, until agreement with the Crown is reached in a treaty arrangement or through a court decision on our rights to governance in this area, there is no certainty for those involved in managing fisheries as to our Nations’ roles.

To demonstrate in practice what that role should be, our Nations are increasingly exercising our jurisdiction (whether recognized by the Crown or not) over fish and fisheries both on and off reserve.  This is one area where asserting rights through First Nations’ law-making can be very useful in advancing the resolution of some complicated jurisdictional questions.  This is because where fishing rights have been recognized, there is a strong argument that our Nations have the responsibility and obligation to control who can fish and, where necessary, to enforce the collective right of our Nations against our own fishers regardless of what Canada or BC might think or do.   Some of our Nations acknowledge that enforcing their rules against their own people can be challenging, but they do it anyway, even, in some cases outside a modern treaty, that is, where this jurisdiction has not been formally recognized by Canada or BC.  Where Nations exercise such jurisdiction under treaty, they make it clear that passing laws without enforcing them diminishes the credibility of the laws and ultimately their governments.

Of course, the main reason to regulate access to the fisheries by our own people and other users is to protect the resource itself.  All our Nations desire to rebuild local stocks and participate in the domestic and, in many cases, commercial use of fisheries resources.  A major interest for our Nations, therefore, is the protection and enhancement of fish habitat within traditional territories that are the source of various species of fish, particularly salmon.  Our Nations are looking to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries resources, and to ensure that they will be there for future generations to harvest.  All governments that claim or have jurisdiction over the fisheries resources have an obligation to accommodate the broader interests of sustainability and to set conservation targets and rules in management regimes that sustain specific fish stocks of interest to our Nations, and only then, after ensuring our priority access, to consider the competing interests to harvest the same resource.

Lawmakers (including our own Nations) must accommodate our citizens’ exercise of our Aboriginal right to fish for FSC as well as for economic purposes, along with other policy considerations.  Our Nations, based on legal reviews, are also pushing the boundaries of conventional thought by indicating that societal use (in the FSC context) has not been fully defined and may have some economic attributes.  Nations on the Pacific Coast are worried that changes in the commercial fishing industry are reducing coastal Nations’ ability to access food from the sea, which may limit their ability to pass on the cultural aspects of fish and fisheries to the next generation.

In sorting out our governments’ role and our jurisdiction with respect to fish and fish habitat in implementing and regulating Aboriginal FSC rights and for other purposes, as well as ensuring the preservation of stocks and the habitat, it is necessary to understand how jurisdiction over fish, fisheries and fish habitat has evolved and how these resources are governed generally in Canada.

Section 91(12) of the Constitution Act 1982 (respecting “sea coast and inland fisheries”) gives the federal government exclusive authority over all fisheries in Canada.  These powers are exercised by a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans under the federal Fisheries Act (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14), through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO).  Annually in BC, the governor in council, on the direction of DFO, makes “BC Fisheries Regulations” under the Fisheries Act.  These regulations provide the authority through which the BC government manages inland, fresh water fisheries and recreational fisheries.  DFO retains direct management control over migratory salmon fisheries and all marine species in saltwater.  This is not the case in all parts of the country.

To complicate matters, this exclusive federal jurisdiction should not be confused with ownership of fish where the owner of the bed of the water course (stream and lake) has rights in fish in those waters.  In this case, the rights in fish in inland waters are viewed as a “proprietary” right (tied to the land and waters) and therefore a provincial matter under the Constitution Act, specifically section 92(13), which deals with the provinces’ law-making and other powers over “property and civil rights” in the province.  In BC, after the government lost a case before the Supreme Court of Canada on regulating fish in provincial streams and lakes, the province specifically made the beds of all streams and lakes in BC provincial lands.  This, however, generally does not affect reserve lands, where the foreshore, or bed of a stream or body of water, was included in the original land survey and transferred to Canada.   Interestingly, from the federal perspective, who owns the land under streams and rivers on reserve does raise questions regarding the full application of the federal Fisheries Act on reserve.  If the land and waters above those lands are part of the reserve, then is the Fisheries Act, in whole or in part, inapplicable?  Conversely, some may argue that our Nations on reserve don’t own the water in the same sense as they own land.  This is still an issue to be resolved, because it has not been adjudicated under s.35 or been the subject of post-1982 legislation.  Our Nations operate on the basis that, with respect to on-reserve governance, they do have and assert jurisdiction over the beds of water courses.  How this issue ultimately will play out for on-reserve jurisdiction over fish, fisheries and fish habitat remains to be seen.

DFO, on behalf of Canada, is the lead agency in all discussions with our Nations in respect of on- or off-reserve issues, whether over implementation of FSC or over jurisdiction and co-management of the fisheries resources.  It is responsible for all federal policy development and program implementation and regulatory changes in fisheries.  DFO creates the only programs to accommodate our peoples’ rights and interests in fish, fisheries and fisheries management.

In an attempt to provide some coordination, organization and focus in the discussions of the many complicated and interrelated issues surrounding the implementation of our Aboriginal rights in fish, in the late 1980s an MOU between the BCAFN and DFO was entered into.  The MOU established that in BC, DFO would provide a three-step process to meet the consultation requirements for identifying, accommodating or mitigating any potential infringements of our Aboriginal rights in fish.  Today, these operate as follow:

  1. Tier One: Nation engages first in its own internal Aboriginal-only meetings, recognizing obligations to meet adjacent Nations FSC needs, with traditional protocols playing a role.
  2. Tier Two:  Meetings between DFO and the Nations to engage in consultations, reviewing the Nation’s requests and advice developed in the Tier One meetings
  3. Tier Three: Where other stakeholders might be engaged in discussions with DFO and the Nations, those “third party” meetings take place.

In respect of Fraser River salmon, DFO places its main emphasis on implementing the Tier One and Tier Two process.  However, Nations advise that a more robust application would be more effective, and should be in place for all species and in all existing DFO management frameworks.  Our Nations hold that without these changes DFO is not meeting the federal government’s basic responsibility to accommodate existing Aboriginal rights in fish and fisheries. 

DFO’s responsibilities are significant.  Whatever our views of DFO’s effectiveness in carrying out its remit, it is, for better or worse, the only government agency with systems in place to try and regulate the fisheries.  In fact, DFO has extremely well developed systems for salmon management, despite its seeming inability to accurately estimate returning stocks. DFO’s systems are now being stretched, in particular by the emerging need for better scientific knowledge of local stocks.  This is not surprising, given the commercial importance of salmon and the existence of the Pacific Salmon Treaty with the US (Treaty Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Pacific Salmon, 17 March 1985).  In looking at information to guide policy development and decision-making, including when fisheries will open and what conservation measures are needed, the scientific work must include traditional knowledge.  Such knowledge is being increasingly used by our Nations in fisheries habitat work within their territories.  Some of our experts believe that perhaps too much confidence is placed in DFO’s scientific models, which do not incorporate Aboriginal traditional knowledge about matters such as tides and other impacts on migratory species.  This is why our Nations argue that, despite the size and resources available to DFO, their own jurisdiction must also be respected and accommodated.

In order to address the multitude of fisheries in BC other than salmon, DFO has developed complex “advisory” processes for the other species.  However, DFO accommodates a direct bilateral relationship with our Nations only in respect of annual plans for communal commercial, commercial salmon and the herring harvest.  Although there are other processes for overall fisheries management, our Nations representatives must still, unfortunately, participate in processes designed for third-party stakeholder involvement for species such as halibut, crab and prawn.  Our Nations take issue with the notion of discussing matters that may affect their s.35 fisheries in the Tier Three forums, which are considered inappropriate venues.

These and other matters between our Nations and DFO could be addressed by recognizing First Nations’ shared jurisdiction over fish, fisheries and fish habitat.  It should, therefore, be clearly understood that our Nations participate in these various DFO processes out of practical necessity.  These processes do not accommodate or exercise First Nations’ jurisdiction over fisheries, but should be seen for what they are: a way for our Nations to engage with Canada while Canada continues to assume responsibility for fisheries management and exercise its constitutional responsibility until the broader and more complex questions of our Nations’ jurisdiction and co-management arrangements can be answered.

There have been and are attempts to establish negotiating tables to discuss the bigger questions of reconciling our Nations’ rights and issues with respect to fish, fisheries and fish habitat, and with varying degrees of success.  The primary challenge of competing economic users of fisheries resources makes for very difficult discussions between our Nations’ governments and the other governments required to find ways to accommodate the Aboriginal rights in fish.  Major breakthroughs and reaching any resolution on the larger jurisdictional questions in comprehensive governance arrangements has also proven difficult, including through modern treaty making.

Fish, fisheries, and fish habitat issues have been very challenging in treaty negotiations.  While there are a handful of final agreements and agreements-in-principle, DFO officials have been unable (or perhaps unwilling) to secure mandates to conclude other agreements with particular Nations in the treaty process.  Currently, governments have refused to have serious negotiations on fish and fisheries through the BC treaty process, despite some earlier progress in finalizing treaty arrangements.  DFO constantly advises that it does not have the mandate to address Aboriginal rights and refers this to the federal treaty negotiations office, or INAC.  In the meantime, it continues to plan and manage fish in the absence of meaningful consideration of the Aboriginal rights, despite being the lead for fish and fisheries at treaty tables.  Not surprisingly, frustrations ensue and not just for our people at the table.

Some arrangements have been negotiated (and are summarized below) to assist in negotiating the fish chapters in modern treaties.  However, this matter was also addressed as part of the Common Table initiative, involving many of the First Nations in treaty negotiations.  They came together to develop common positions, options and opportunities for collective negotiations with Canada and BC.  Fish and fish habitat were identified by participating First Nations as one of the six “too hard” issues to be addressed by the Common Table.  The submissions made during these proceedings are useful and are cited below.  There has, unfortunately, been no comprehensive response to the issues raised at the Common Table from DFO or Canada.  DFO has, however, indicated it might look at ways to involve our Nations in governance or shared decision-making though an aggregated First Nations approach, on the grounds that co-management is too complex when it involves so many individual First Nation governments with recognized jurisdiction.

Some Nations continue to express concern that part of the failure to reach agreement on jurisdiction over fisheries, whether under the treaty process or otherwise, has more to do with DFO wanting to have our Nations agree to restrict an undefined Aboriginal right to FSC to defined plans and quotas in agreements.  In this way, DFO can accommodate other users that currently have lower priority than our people.  Put differently, once the rights to take FSC fish have been minimized, only then would DFO look at true co-management, and preferable through an aggregation of our governments on a regional or watershed basis.

Interesting comparisons can a be found in the United States with respect to implementing existing treaties and rights in fish based on historical numbers of fish and priority access.   The Douglas Treaties in BC are similar in nature to the treaties with the Tribes in Washington State, but the approach to implementing them based on court decisions has been quite different.  Unlike the situation with the treaties in Washington State that gave rise to the Boldtdecision (United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 312 (W.D. Wash. 1974)), Canada has never accepted or accommodated the Douglas Treaty right to “carry on their fisheries as formerly,” which was at that time primarily a commercial fishery, with fish being sold to settlers.  Currently, the optics are that government intends to enter into agreements with our Nations that contain the Aboriginal fishery in order to provide stability and access for other stakeholders to a resource that is being stretched and is in some cases diminishing.

Having said this, there remains a strong desire by our Nations to work with DFO and build capacity and structures to support our own regulation, governing and management of the various fisheries.  To this end, local discussions on joint decision-making and collaborative management are under way between groups of our Nations and DFO, with the expectation that some of these options for shared jurisdiction and/or administrative arrangements with First Nations can be established and open the way for more complete jurisdictional arrangements.  This is taking place both inside and outside modern treaty-making.

It is not just with DFO that our Nations have issues.  We have challenges involving our own governments.  Addressing fish, fisheries and fish habitat among our Nations has been a real challenge, given the complexity of managing mixed-stock salmon fisheries where weak or endangered stocks may be present among healthy stocks, travelling along the coast and returning to spawn in hundreds of rivers.  It has been a challenge to ensure that all stocks are protected and that all Nations relying on the same runs or different runs travelling at the same time have access to the resource after conservation needs have been met.  This is one area where cooperation and coordination between our Nations is vital.  This can be difficult to achieve, particularly when trying to develop a common position in discussions with DFO.  Currently, the First Nations Fisheries Council of BC discussed below is working with the BC leadership in developing a strategic approach to formalizing such cooperation and coordination.

Our experiences in working together on fisheries go back many years.  Historically those Nations with citizens engaged in a commercial fishery or employed in the fishing industry have been, and are, well organized.  Well before the protection of our rights through section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 and the subsequent string of fish-based court cases, specific parties within and members of coastal Nations were organized politically around the coastal commercial fisheries. The Native Brotherhood of British Columbia was established in 1931 and was one of the first political organizations in BC.   It is still very much in existence and provides a platform for the commercial aspect of our peoples' involvement in fisheries.  The decline in the commercial salmon industry has impacted livelihoods and the quality of life of our Nations and communities, as is reflected in the changed economic circumstances of many residents of coastal Nations.

More recently, our Nations, recognizing the need to work together on matters of broad concern, have mandated the establishment of the BC First Nations Fisheries Society, commonly referred to as the First Nations Fisheries Council (FNFC).  The BC First Nations Fisheries Action Plan was published in May 2007 as a collaborative effort of the BCAFN, UBCIC and the First Nations Summit.  The Action Plan sets out a common vision, identifies the priorities of BC First Nations with respect to fisheries, outlines issues of concern to First Nations and makes recommendations for action.

The FNFC as an umbrella organization works to advance the interests of all 203 BC First Nations, and protect Aboriginal rights and title concerning fish, fisheries and fish habitat.  Through its executive and operations staff, FNFC encourages Canada and BC to work collaboratively with First Nations on a range of administrative and resource-management issues, as well as related and evolving jurisdictional arrangements.

Finally, while this discussion has focused on jurisdictional questions off reserve and within traditional territories, we cannot lose sight of the fact that almost every community has reserves primarily intended to ensure our Nations have continued access to our sustaining fisheries.  Many of these, often very small, reserves were designated for fisheries use by the original Reserve Commissioners.

For these lands, the Indian Act has provisions for a band to make by-laws over fish and fish habitat, and some communities have been able to govern and manage their fishery to some degree on reserve by exercising this by-law-making power.  INAC is reluctant to allow such by-laws, specifically where there are issues of ownership of the bed of the river, or where the water body is or was wholly or partly outside the boundaries in the original reserve survey.  Where First Nations do have validly enacted fish by-laws, these displace federal and provincial laws and regulations in this area within the jurisdictional boundary of the reserves.

 

3.12.2. Indian Act Governance

Section 81(1)(0) of the Indian Act provides for a Nation to make by-laws with respect to “the preservation, protection and management of fur bearing animals, fish and other game on reserve.”  In BC, there have been various attempts to create fish by-laws under this authority, only one of which, Cowichan Tribes, has the force and effect intended by the Nation.  Others have been disallowed or gutted by court action.  At this time, Canada’s policy, it appears, is to disallow by-laws made under this section addressing fish, where those by-laws touch upon matters of federal or provincial jurisdiction or interest.

 

3.12.3. Sectoral Governance Initiatives

There are currently no broad sectoral governance initiatives dealing with jurisdiction over fish, fisheries and fisheries habitat. However, questions of jurisdiction are, of course, raised by Nations and in the work of the FNFC.  The FNFC is currently engaged with DFO in working groups in four main areas that necessarily consider questions of jurisdiction.  These are economic access; food, social and ceremonial fisheries; co-management of fisheries; and aquaculture.

FNFC has also undertaken a province-wide review with our Nations over the transfer of jurisdiction for fish farms and shellfish tenures from BC to Canada, which occurred in December 2010.  BC First Nations have taken a strong position that a First Nation must have an identified role in the permitting process for all these stationary commercial fisheries enterprises located in its territory, and an ongoing role in environmental monitoring as these enterprises operate.

 

DFO has, as discussed above, also expressed an interest in regional approaches to jurisdiction over fish and fish habitat, and a major initiative, the Fraser Salmon Road Map Process is under way between DFO and the First Nations who use Fraser salmon.  The hope is that this could eventually result in a more formal collaborative management agreement, with some aspects of management done jointly by First Nations and DFO.

 

3.12.4. Comprehensive Governance Arrangements

Treaty arrangements address access to fisheries and allocations for the Nation, and provide law-making authority to the Nations over the licensing of their fishery, designating fishers and trading, bartering and, in the case of Nisga’a, selling fish.   Provisions are also made for joint Crown-First Nation committees to participate in the management and administration of the fisheries, along with the right of the Nation to be involved in any other processes that may be established to manage fisheries on a regional or watershed basis.  Subject to the terms of the treaty, DFO remains responsible for the overall management and administration of fish, fisheries and fish habitat and Canada’s overarching jurisdiction is confirmed.

 

Given the way the treaties have been constructed, jurisdiction can be described as essentially following the ownership of the resources (the “proprietary interest” in the fish).  While jurisdiction is basically proprietary, the Nations’ influence then expands through the further definition of its relationships with the Crown.  Thus, fisheries is one of the subject areas for which the parties to the treaties have ended up creating joint management bodies, in this case the Joint Fisheries Committee.  It is important, therefore, when looking at the BC treaties to consider what goes into developing a fishing plans and managing the resource, and then to look at the law-making authorities of the Nations that follow in respect of those plans.

 

Sechelt and Westbank are different in that their agreements are restricted to on reserve and do not address access to the resource and allocations based on the Aboriginal right in fish.  Sechelt has jurisdiction over fish but has not enacted laws pursuant to this jurisdiction.  The Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement does not provide any new jurisdiction over fish, but keeps the by-law making powers of the Indian Act.  This is one of only a handful of areas in which Westbank law-making authority remains under the Indian Act (the others are health and property taxation).

 

3.12.4.1. – Comprehensive Governance Arrangement - Comparative Charts

 

  Fish and Fish Habitat:

Sechelt

The Council has, to the extent that it is authorized by the Constitution of the Band to do so, the power to make laws in relation to the preservation, protection and management of fish on Sechelt lands. (s. 14(1)(k))

Westbank

Westbank First Nation’s jurisdiction in relation to renewable resources does not include fish and fish habitat. (Part XII, s. 135)

Paragraph 81(1)(o) of the Indian Act R.S.C. 1985 in relation to fish shall continue to apply. (Part XXXI, s. 274)

Nisga’a

Subject to this Agreement, the Minister of DFO is responsible for the management of fisheries and fish habitat. (Ch. 8, s. 68)

Tsawwassen

The Minister of DFO retains authority for managing and conserving fish, aquatic plants, and fish habitat and will exercise that authority in a manner that is consistent with this Agreement. (Ch. 9, s. 14)

Maa-nulth

The Minister of DFO retains authority for managing and conserving fish, aquatic plants and fish habitat. (s. 10.1.8)

 

  Licensing Requirements:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

Nisga’a Lisims Government will make laws to establish and administer licensing requirements, for the harvest of fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement and the Harvest Agreement. (Ch. 8, s. 70(a))

Tsawwassen

No provisions

Maa-nulth

No provisions

 

  Designation of Fishers:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

Nisga’a Lisims Government will make laws to require the designation and documentation of persons who harvest fish or aquatic plants under this Agreement or the Harvest Agreement.

(Ch. 8, s. 70(b))

Tsawwassen

Tsawwassen Government may make laws in respect of the designation of individuals and vessels to harvest fish and aquatic plants under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right. (Ch. 9, s. 51(a))

Maa-nulth

Each Maa-nulth First Nation Government may make laws for the designation of individuals or vessels used to harvest under the Maa-nulth First Nation fishing right of that Maa-nulth First Nation. (s. 10.1.39(b))

 

  Trade and Barter:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

Nisga’a Lisims Government will make laws to require that any fish transported outside Nisga’a Lands for the purpose of trade or barter be identified as fish for trade or barter. (Ch. 8, s. 74 a)

Tsawwassen

Tsawwassen Government may make laws respecting the trade and barter by Tsawwassen Members of fish and aquatic plants harvested under the Tsawwassen Fishing Right. (Ch. 9, s. 53(c))

Maa-nulth

Each Maa-nulth First Nation Government may make laws for the Trade and barter of fish and aquatic plants harvested under the Maa-nulth First Nation fishing right of that Maa-nulth First Nation. (s. 10.1.41(c))

 

  Sale of Fish or Aquatic Plants:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

Nisga’a Lisims Government may make laws in respect of sale, in accordance with this Agreement, of fish or aquatic plants that are harvested under this Agreement or the Harvest Agreement. (Ch. 8, s. 72)

Tsawwassen

No provisions

Maa-nulth

No provisions

 

  Compliance with Fishing Plans:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

Nisga’a Lisims Government may make laws that require Nisga’a citizens and the authorized agents, contractors, and licensees of Nisga’a Lisms Government to comply with Nisga’a annual fishing plans. (Ch. 8, s. 74(b))

Tsawwassen

No provisions

Maa-nulth

No provisions

 

  Conflict of Laws:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

Federal law prevails. (Part V, s. 37).

Nisga’a

Nisga’a law made under ss. 69 or 70 prevails. (Ch. 8, s. 71)

Federal or provincial law prevails in the case of a law made under s. 72. (Ch. 8, s. 73)

Tsawwassen

Tsawwassen law made under s. 51 prevails. (Ch. 9, s. 52)

Federal or provincial law prevails in the case of a law made under s. 53.(Ch. 9, s. 54)

Maa-nulth

Maa-nulth First Nation law made under s. 10.1.39 prevails.(s. 10.1.40)

Federal or provincial law prevails in the case of a law made under 10.1.41. (s. 10.1.42)

 

  Joint Management Bodies:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

On the effective date, the Parties will establish the Joint Fisheries Management Committee to facilitate cooperative planning and conduct of Nisga’a fisheries and enhancement initiatives in the Nass Area. (Ch. 8, s. 77)

Tsawwassen

On the Effective Date, the Parties will establish a Joint Fisheries Committee to facilitate cooperative assessment, planning, and management of

a. the exercise of the Tsawwassen fishing right;

b. enhancement initiatives and stewardship activities by Tsawwassen First Nation; c. monitoring and enforcement activities in respect of Tsawwassen First Nation fisheries; and

d. other matters as the Parties may agree.

(Ch. 9, ss. 68(a) - (d))

Maa-nulth

The Joint Fisheries Committee operates to facilitate, in accordance with this Agreement, the co-operative planning and management of: a. the exercise of each Maa-nulth First Nation fishing right;

b. activities of the Maa-nulth First Nations related to stock assessment, enhancement initiatives, stewardship activities and fish habitat;

c. activities of the Maa-nulth First Nations related to fisheries monitoring and enforcement;

d. activities of the Maa-nulth First Nations related to environmental protection and ocean management activities; and

e. other matters as Canada and the Maa-nulth First Nations may agree.

(s. 10.4.1)

 

  Other Fisheries Management Bodies:

Sechelt

No provisions

Westbank

No provisions

Nisga’a

If Canada or BC proposes to establish fisheries management advisory bodies for areas that include any part of the Nass Area, Canada or BC will consult with the Nisga’a Nation in developing those bodies and, if appropriate, will provide for the participation of the Nisga’a Nation in those bodies. (Ch. 8, s. 83)

 

Tsawwassen

Where a regional fisheries committee is proposed or established for Aboriginal fisheries in an area that includes part of the Tsawwassen Fishing Area or Tsawwassen Intertidal Bivalve Fishing Area and that committee has functions and activities similar to those of the Joint Fisheries Committee, the Parties will determine which functions or activities of the Joint Fisheries Committee can be addressed more effectively by a regional fisheries committee, and will discuss the mechanism for participation by Tsawwassen First Nation in the regional fisheries committee.(Ch. 9, s. 81)

 

Where Canada or BC proposes to establish a public fisheries management advisory process for an area of the Fraser River watershed that includes any part of the Tsawwassen Fishing Area or Tsawwassen Intertidal Bivalve Fishing Area, Canada or BC will consult with Tsawwassen First Nation in developing that public fisheries management advisory process and, if appropriate, will provide for participation by Tsawwassen First Nation on the same basis as other First Nations. (Ch. 9, s. 89)

Maa-nulth

Where a regional fisheries committee is proposed or established for Aboriginal fisheries in an area that includes all or part of the Domestic Fishing Area and that committee has functions and activities similar to the Joint Fisheries Committee, Canada and the Maa-nulth First Nations will determine which functions and activities of the Joint Fisheries Committee can be more effectively undertaken by a regional fisheries committee and discuss the mechanism for the Maa-nulth First Nations’ participation in the regional fisheries committee.(s. 10.4.17)

 

3.12.5. BC First Nations’ Laws/By-laws in Force and Other Activities

Indian Act Governance

By-laws – Section 81(1)(o) Protection and management of fur-bearing animals, fish and other game on reserve

 

First Nation By-law# By-law Title Description

Ahousaht

1985-1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Concerning Fishing

Bridge River

1-1980

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Campbell River

1985-1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Regarding Fish.

Cowichan

2000-1

FISHING AND HUNTING

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Da'naxda'xw First Nation

1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Regarding Fishing And Fish Conservation And Protection.

Ditidaht

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Concerning Band Fisheries Conservation Officers.

Gitanmaax

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Gitanmaax

-

WILDLIFE

A By-Law For The Preservation, Management, Conservation And Use Of Fish

Gitwangak

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation, Management, Conservation And Use Of Fish On Reserve.

Gwa'Sala-Nakwaxda'xw

1994.07

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fish

Hagwilget Village

-

WILDLIFE

The Hagwilget Band Fishing By-Law.

Heiltsuk

18-1987

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fisheries

Hesquiaht

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Homalco

1984-1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Concerning Fish And Fish Protection.

Kispiox

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Regarding Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish On The Reserve.

Kitselas

-

WILDLIFE

By-law Respecting Fishing

Kwakiutl

1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting The Preservation Of Fish On The Reserve.

Lower Kootenay

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Preservation, Management Of Fur-Bearing Animals And Fish

Moricetown

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation, Management Conservation And Use Of Fish

Moricetown

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Concerning Fish

Moricetown

1

WILDLIFE

To Provide For The Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish And Game

Musqueam

3

WILDLIFE

Being A By-Law For The Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish In Designated Musqueam Indian Band Waters.

Namgis First Nation

14

WILDLIFE

Being A By-Law Concerning The Preservation And Management Of Fish.

Nuxalk Nation

11

WILDLIFE

To Provide For Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish And Game On The Bella Coola Reserve No. 1.

Okanagan

2

WILDLIFE

To Provide For The Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish And Game.

Old Massett Village Council

4

WILDLIFE

By-law Respecting Protected And Sensitive Species

Qualicum First Nation

1985-4

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish On The Reserve.

Skeetchestn

1985-1

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Squamish

16

WILDLIFE

To Provide For Preservation, Protection, And Management Of Fish On The Reserve.

Stellat'en First Nation

1

WILDLIFE

To Provide For Preservation, Protection And Management Of Furbearing Animals, Fish And Game

Tahltan

1-79

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation, Protection And Management Of Fish.

Tla-o-qui-aht First Nations

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Respecting Fishing

Tseshaht

-

WILDLIFE

By-Law Concerning Band Fisheries Conservation Officers.

Upper Nicola

80-1

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation - Protection And Management Of Fish.

Xaxli'p

1-1980

WILDLIFE

By-Law For The Preservation, Protection, And Management Of Fish On The Reserve.

 

 

Comprehensive Governance Arrangements

 

First Nation By-law Description

Huu-ay-aht First Nations

 

Fisheries Regulation

Sechelt Indian Band

1993-03

Fishery Management

Tsawwassen First Nation

 

Fisheries Operational Guidelines

Tsawwassen First Nation

 

Fisheries, Wildlife, Migratory Birds And Renewable Resources Act

Tsawwassen First Nation

 

Fisheries Regulation

Uchucklesaht Tribe

 

Fisheries Regulation

Ucluelet First Nations

 

Fisheries Regulation

 

3.12.6. Resources

  • First Nations Fisheries Council

3945 West 51 Avenue

Vancouver, BC  V6N 3V9

Phone:         604-269-3364

Email:info@fnfisheriescouncil.ca

www.fnfisheriescouncil.ca

  • Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO)

Suite 200, 401 Burrard Street

Vancouver, BC  V6C 3S4

Phone:         604-666-0384

Fax:              604-666-1847

info@dfo-mpo.gc.ca

www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

 

  • Native Brotherhood of British Columbia (NBBC)

Suite 710, 100 Park Royal South,

West Vancouver, BC V7T 1A2

Phone:         604-913-3372

www.nativevoice.bc.ca

 

  • Skeena Fisheries Commission

PO Box 18, Seymour Avenue, RR#1

South Hazelton, BC  V0J 2R0

Phone:        250-842-2213 (ext. 26)

Fax:             250-842-2253

www.skeenafisheries.ca

 

  • Musqueam Indian Band

6735 Salish Drive

Vancouver, BC  V6N4C4

Phone:         604-263-3261

Toll Free:     1-866-282-3261

Email: webinfo@musqueam.bc.ca

www.musqueam.bc.ca

  • Sparrow Case
     
  • Coastal First Nations

United Kingdom Building

Suite 1660, 409 Granville Street

Vancouver, BC  V6C 1T2

Phone:         604-696-9889

Fax:              604-696-9887

www.coastalfirstnations.ca

 

  • Coastal Guardian Watchmen Network

Suite 1051, 409 Granville Street

Vancouver, BC  V6C 1T2

Email: info@coastalguardianwatchmen.ca

www.coastalguardianwatchmen.ca

 

  • Fraser River Aboriginal Fisheries Secretariat

c/o The Nicola Tribal Association

PO Box 188

Merritt, BC V1K 1B8

Phone:         604-836-1909

Fax:              250-378-9119

Email: info@frafs.ca

www.frafs.ca

 

  • Haida Nation Fisheries

Old Massett - Phone:          250-626-3302

Skidegate - Phone:              250-559-8945

www.haidanation.ca

  • Uu-a-thluk Fisheries (Nuu-chah-nulth  Tribal Council)

P.O. Box 1383

Port Alberni, BC  V9Y 7M2

Phone:         250-724-5757

Fax:              250-724-2172

info@uuathluk.ca

www.uuathluk.ca

  • Appeal in Fishing Rights Case
  • Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

Terrasses de la Chaudière

10 Wellington, North Tower

Ottawa, ON   K1A 0H4

Toll Free:     1-800-567-9604

Fax:              1-866-817-3977

TTY:             1-866-553-0554

Email: InfoPubs@ainc-inac.gc.ca

 

      • Conveyance of Land to Hudson’s Bay Company by Indian Tribes (“Douglas Treaties”), found in: Papers Connect with the Indian Land Question, 1850-1875, Victoria, R. Wolfenden, 1875. Online: Government of Canada
        http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/1info/cnt-eng.asp
  • Pacific Salmon Commission

600 – 1155 Robson Street

Vancouver, BC V6E 1B5

Phone:         604-684-8081

Fax:              604-666-8707

Email: info@psc.org

www.psc.org

 

      • Treaty Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning Pacific Salmon, 17 March 1985, (last updated 29 January 2009) online: Pacific Salmon Commission <http://www.psc.org/pubs/Treaty.pdf>
  • Cohen Commission

Suite 2800, 650 West Georgia Street
P.O. Box 11530

Vancouver, BC V6B 4N7
Phone:         604-658-3600

Email: leo.parra@cohencommission.ca www.cohencommission.ca

 

<< Back to Table of Contents >>