Custom Search
Top Stories
Go to Site Index See "Top Stories" main page
NEWS RELEASE · 10th November 2011
CBC
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.

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.

Read the Rest Here
Port Simpson (Lax Kw'alaams) is not a first nation.
Comment by Janice Robinson on 14th November 2011
It is but one of seven villages, of the Tsimshian Nation. But, if you really want to be a nation, then the Kitsumkalum "treaty office," has a job for one of your national dance groups.

Here's mud in your eye. It's a good day to be Tsimshian!
Fishing rights
Comment by Myrnafranke on 10th November 2011
The decision made by the Supreme Court is a travesty, banning a small First Nations band from the economic benefits from selling shellfish and seaweed. I see the court case is based on evidence, from anthropological reporting--traditional items used for trade being very specified. Did these come from oral reports or from early settlers? Thus there is a case for benefit of the doubt. The benefits from economic self-reliance for First Nations have been much touted by the Federal government, in many recent statements. But the will and justice to support the principle isn't there for our First
Nations in practice.