|
|
January 22, 2010
Coastal First Nations
The Turning Point Initiative
United Kingdom Building
1051 – 409 Granville Street
Vancouver, BC V6C 1T2
Attention: Mr. Art Sterritt, Executive Director
Dear Mr. Sterritt,
Re: Coastal First Nations Land Use & Wildlife Management Proposals
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and Gary Wouters over the past few weeks to discuss management proposals for the North and Central Coast / Great Bear Rainforest. As agreed at our meeting on January 15th, we are responding in a timely fashion to the proposal from Coastal First Nations regarding land use management and bear hunting on the North and Central Coasts / Great Bear Rainforest as presented by you and Gary Wouters.
BC Wildlife Federation’s Board of Directors has carefully considered the proposal. Unfortunately, without sufficient information on what areas would be affected by varying levels of protection or how access and opportunity may be affected, we cannot render an informed decision at this time. We will require further mapping and harvest data in order to form a position that would be in the best interests of our membership and the residents of BC. BC Wildlife Federation has requested further information from the provincial government on this matter but has not received it as of this time.
We very much appreciate the opportunity these discussions have brought us. We have a better understanding of the dynamics surrounding this issue, Coastal First Nations cultural values, government responsibilities, and the interests and culture of non-first nation residents. It is our sincere desire to work towards resolution of this challenging issue through mutual appreciation of each other’s values.
Again we thank you for the opportunity to meet and we encourage further discussions with you regarding land use planning and shared values.
Yours in conservation,
Mel Arnold, President
BC Wildlife Federation
cc: BCWF Board of Directors
BCWF Committee Chairs
VANCOUVER: The Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) today released a position paper which challenges the validity of the federal government’s policy of recognizing “inherent” aboriginal self-government.
The position paper, Is “Inherent Aboriginal Self-Government” constitutional?, is posted Here:
http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/files/24/Is%20Inherent%20Aboriginal%20Self-Government%20Constitutional%20-%20%2012-01-10.pdf
The legal position paper argues that a constitutionally valid form of aboriginal self-government may be created through federal legislation that delegates government powers and authority to an aboriginal community. This has been done successfully with the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, the Yukon First Nation Self-Government Act, and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The delegation of federal and provincial powers enables aboriginals to use municipal-style government to run their own affairs, exercise their aboriginal rights, and use aboriginal title lands.
“We are for aboriginal self-government, which can be achieved within Canada’s Constitution,” stated Jeffrey Rustand, author of the paper and in-house counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
“Aboriginal communities should govern their own affairs, and do so with a degree of autonomy comparable to municipal governments. That’s a lot more than what most Indian bands have right now under the Indian Act,” continued Rustand.
The CCF’s legal position paper explains that for more than a century, the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly and consistently declared that the Constitution distributes all legislative power between the federal and provincial governments. The only “inherent” government power in Canada is that which flows from Canadian sovereignty, referred to in law as Crown sovereignty. The federal and provincial orders of government are the only sovereign governments under the Constitution.
Since 1995, the federal government’s policy of recognizing “inherent” aboriginal self-government has resulted in the Nisga’a Final Agreement, the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement and the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, all of which purport to create a “third order” of government that is outside of the Constitution, and not accountable to Canada’s federal or provincial orders of government.
This recognition of a “third order” of constitutionalized aboriginal government creates an uncertain legal environment for business, and for all citizens. Even if clear rules could be enacted for reconciling conflicting laws and authorities, the unwieldy complexity spells the end of functional government in Canada. The creation and imposition of new taxes and royalties on top of existing federal, provincial and municipal taxes will undoubtedly deter investment. Moreover, the federal and provincial capacity to enforce the law is necessarily reduced.
A “third order” of government hinders the federal and provincial governments’ ability to amend legislation for the purpose of accommodating changing circumstances and solving new problems which may arise. The legislation creating the “third order” of government found in the Nisga’a and Tsawwassen Agreements cannot be amended by Ottawa or Victoria like other legislation.
Most significantly, the recognition of “inherent” aboriginal government over Canadian territory constitutes withdrawal of Canadian government authority and law from that territory, an act known in constitutional law – and strictly prohibited by it – as abdication. The longer this federal policy remains in place, the more frequently Canadians will experience the violence and lawlessness which took place at Oka and Caledonia, and is currently taking place on Mohawk reserves along the border.
________________________________________
Canadian Constitution Foundation
1830 – 52 Street SE, Suite 240
Calgary, AB, T2B 1N1
Phone 403-313-1318
Fax 403-313-1380
Home Page: http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/index.php
By: Jeffrey Rustand
Canadian Constitution Foundation
http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/
Here is an extract from a letter by John J.L. Hunter, counsel for British Columbia, to the Supreme Court of British Columbia, dated March 4, 2009:
“The province of British Columbia has been involved in a dialogue with first nations’ leadership for some time regarding the resolution of longstanding barriers to the reconciliation process . . .
Our client feels that it cannot continue with its productive discussions with first nations while it is at the same time taking a strictly legal position regarding the test for aboriginal title in this case.
As such, we are instructed that the province has determined it can take no position in upcoming closing arguments in the Ahousaht litigation.”
In other words, the government abandoned the case and declined to defend the claim for aboriginal title by the Ahousaht Indian Band and other plaintiffs to the seabed off Vancouver Island and to the marine resources in, on and above that seabed. In the result, the court did not address the claim for aboriginal title but only because it found that the plaintiffs had the aboriginal right to fish and sell fish (commercial fishing rights), and there was therefore no need to consider the aboriginal title claim.
This was risky conduct by Premier Gordon Campbell and his attorney-general. Typically, when a defendant fails to defend a claim in litigation the plaintiff gets what it claims. The plaintiffs claimed the seabed to a distance of 100 nautical miles from the shoreline of Vancouver Island along about two-thirds of its length. Such a judgment, on its own and as a precedent, could have thrown the commercial and recreational fisheries into turmoil all along the B.C. coast. Yet Campbell and the attorney-general, Michael de Jong, walked away from the trial without arguing a defense. It was left to Canada as the sole defendant still standing to carry the defense. The judgment came down on Nov. 3, 2009. Canada, but not British Columbia, has appealed.
Earlier in the year the premier sought to deem virtually all land in British Columbia to be aboriginal title land, meaning that “indigenous nations” would have been treated by the government as if they had proprietary title, meaning right of possession and ownership of resources, to almost all land in British Columbia. This initiative was the proposed Recognition and Reconciliation Act. This was so extreme that even the quiescent business community roused itself to protest. So extravagant and weird was the proposal that in the end even most aboriginal groups objected, thinking it was a trick. Fortunately, the initiative was stillborn because of these objections.
Has the premier found a new way to give away British Columbia? Aboriginal groups claim approximately 110 per cent of the province. Campbell may have hit upon a strategy to give the province away by simply letting the courts give it away piecemeal, on a case-by-case basis.
According to the Supreme Court of Canada, the test for aboriginal title is continuous and exclusive control over the claimed land by the aboriginal claimant, from when the Crown acquired sovereignty in British Columbia in 1846 through to the present. This is a rigorous test, and for good reason, since aboriginal title gives exclusive ownership over the land, including surface and subsurface resources. Applied in British Columbia, with appropriate defense evidence, the test would recognize aboriginal title to only a small percentage of the provincial land base. A very generous estimate would be about five per cent.
Yet the premier seems intent on giving far more than that away, up to the entire province, without legal basis. The premier and his attorney-general owe it to the people of this province to explain this new strategy of non-defense, and how refusing to defend the legal rights and economic interests of British Columbians is a rational and responsible course of conduct.
Jeffrey Rustand is in-house counsel with the Canadian Constitution Foundation
Vancouver Sun, December 23, 2009
Northwest Fish & Wildlife Conservation Association
137 Parry Place
Prince Rupert, B.C.
V8J 4B1
December 29, 2009
Mr. Ralph Archibald
Environmental Stewardship Division
Ministry of Environment
Box 9339 Stn. Prov. Gov’t.
Victoria B.C. V8W 9M1
Re – Klappan River Road Blockade and Subsequent Proposed Wildlife Management Changes.
Dear Ralph,
The Northwest Fish and Wildlife Conservation Association membership (The Regional Branch of the B.C. Wildlife Federation), wish to express their extreme disgust and frustration towards the illegal road blockade on the Klappan River Road that occurred in September of this year.
Government and the two policing agencies responsible for enforcing the law failed to protect legal rights, opportunities, property and safety of many citizens. The illegal behavior of certain Tahltan Band Members and lack of punishment for their illegal behavior now demonstrates to First Nations people that breaking the law leads to successful campaigning that discriminates and unjustly hinders other law abiding citizens of British Columbia .
Government behavior and subsequent lack of action by policing agencies makes a mockery of the Canadian Justice System, now viewed by us as an internal attach on our Sovereignty!
At the Skeena Hunters Advisory Committee meeting held Dec. 12, 2009 in Smithers. Regional M.O.E. Manager Tom Bell revealed to the committee a joint proposal from M.O.E. staff and the Tahltan Band that would unjustly impact resident hunters of British Columbia. Reducing the hunting season for moose in Region 6-19 to 6-29 by 30 days, reducing the hunting season by 60 days in portions of 6-20 and putting the Stikine, Pitman and Chuckachida Rivers on L.E.H. for moose are management proposals that are neither scientifically or socially defensible.
It is our contention that the illusion of scarcity being promoted by certain members of the Tahltan Band is part of a propaganda smear campaign to deliberately discredit resident hunters.
It is also our contention and supported by M.O.E. Biologists that the moose populations in regions 6-19 thru 6-29 are robust and no infringement of Aboriginal hunting rights exists.
While we are prepared to enter into further discussion with your staff in Smithers regarding a game check station on the Klappan River Road it would be our expectation that the station would be run professionally and without prejudice and that all hunters including guided non-residents and F.N. be obliged to report their activity and success.
We are also prepared to discuss with your Smithers staff logistics and workability of a compulsory inspection center at or near Tatogga Lake Resort. Again we would expect all hunters including F.N. and non-residents to report their harvest.
Our members feel that they as resident hunters have been deliberately targeted with no mention of the harvest and impact of non-residents. We are aware that for many species in the area harvest is dominated by non-residents and not residents as touted by some.
Spatsizi, Stikine, Chuckachita, Pitman and Edziza areas are prime examples.
In closing I wish to point out that revising hunting regulations and then doing inventory work is completely backwards. There are no conservation concerns for moose anywhere in the area of concern but there is certainly an optics issue.
May we suggest running the game check station, doing inventory work and then come back to the table to see if management changes are required.
Yours in Conservation
Ken Franzen – Chair N.F.W.C.A.
c.c. Tom Ethier – Director Fish & Wildlife M.O.E.
Tom Bell Region 6 Manager M.O.E.
B.C. Wildlife Federation Membership
By: Wayne Moore
Castanet.net
December 4, 2009
http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/51240/B-C-hunters-betrayed-by-government
Hunters and fishermen with B.C. residency feel they are being betrayed by their own government.
The B.C. Wildlife Federation’s Political Action Alliance is fighting what it feels is reverse discrimination in a battle with the Guide-Outfitters Association of B.C.
BCWF spokesman Rich Petersen says resident hunters are losing out to out-of-province hunters.
In some areas of the province, Petersen says hunting opportunities run 70-30 in favour of out-of-province hunters.
“B.C. resident hunters are losing a lot of hunting opportunities,” says Petersen.
“The chances of a local resident obtaining a hunting tag are slim to none.”
Petersen says the problem lies with both the provincial government and the Guide Outfitters Association of B.C.
He says there is a government policy, the Allocation Policy, which determines the percentage of hunting opportunities that go to residents and those that go to non-residents.
“Negotiations began in 2004 on a new policy. After two-and-a-half year of negotiations, it was adopted in 2007. It has not been implemented due to political pressure from GOABC.”
Petersen says the new guidelines were supposed to be implemented in 2010.
“Government has been asked to forestall implementation until 2017. In the meantime, government has been reluctant to follow the allocation policy, mostly at the regional level.”
According to Petersen, who was involved in negotiations, the B.C. Wildlife Federation was very fair in dealings with GOABC.
He says they agreed to a larger reserve for out-of-province hunters than any other jurisdiction in Western Canada or the Western United States.
For example, Petersen says in Region Six (Skeena/Smithers area), local residents are supposed to be harvesting a minimum of 60 per cent but are getting only 30 per cent.
“The government is supposed to remove the barriers that are affecting residents success. They have refused to do that, mainly through pressure from the guiding industry.”
Peterson claims the guiding industry charge every non-resident hunter $150 which goes directly into a GOABC fund which they use to lobby the government to protect non-resident hunting issues.
“They have been fairly effective with that. We are a volunteer organization. We don’t have that kind of money.”
There are, according to Petersen, about 5,000 non-resident hunters coming into the province every year.
Petersen says the BCWF has started its own fund in hopes of using that money to lobby the government as well.
“We are just trying to get priority for resident hunters back on track in the province.”
**********************
BCWF Political Action Alliance
http://bcwfpaa.wordpress.com/
The world is run by those who show up.
|
|
