Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:49:00.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Up the Creek: Fishing for a New Constitutional Order

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2005

Kiera L. Ladner
Affiliation:
University of Western Ontario

Abstract

Abstract. Everyone familiar with the study of Canadian politics knows the joke about how a French national, an Englishman and a Canadian were asked to write an essay about an elephant: the French national wrote about the culinary uses of the elephant, the Englishman wrote about the elephant and imperialism, and the Canadian wrote a paper entitled, “Elephant: Federal or Provincial Responsibility?” Though simple, the joke conveys the essence of Canadian politics: always defined by jurisdictional disputes. The joke misses the boat, however, by ignoring the fact that indigenous people are now (as they always have been) engaging in jurisdictional debates in an attempt to challenge the Canadian constitutional order and to reaffirm their own constitutional order and autonomy. This paper examines one such dispute—the Mi'kmaw claim of rights and responsibilities for the salmon fishery—and presents it as a case of contested sovereignties and a resulting jurisdictional dispute. In so doing, I pose the question: Is salmon a federal, provincial or Mi'kmaq responsibility? In seeking an answer, this paper proceeds in an exploratory manner to map both constitutional orders, and the interrelation between these orders that results in the debate over responsibility for the salmon.

Résumé. Dans le milieu de la science politique au Canada, tout le monde connaît la blague du Français, du Britannique et du Canadien qui doivent écrire une thèse sur l'éléphant. Le Français disserte sur les usages culinaires de l'éléphant, le Britannique traite de l'éléphant et de l'impérialisme et le Canadien écrit une thèse intitulée : “L'éléphant : responsabilité fédérale ou provinciale?” Cette blague, dans sa simplicité, évoque l'essence même de la politique au Canada, car la politique canadienne a toujours été définie par des conflits juridictionnels. Mais, si elle illustre bien la nature de la politique au Canada, elle n'est cependant pas satisfaisante parce qu'elle ignore qu'aujourd'hui (comme autrefois d'ailleurs) les peuples autochtones s'engagent dans les débats juridictionnels pour contester l'ordre constitutionnel du Canada et pour réaffirmer leur propre ordre constitutionnel et leur autonomie. Cet article examine l'un de ces conflits : la revendication par les Mi'kmaq de leurs droits et responsabilités concernant les pêcheries de saumon – et le présente comme un cas de souverainetés contestées, et, par conséquent, un exemple de conflit juridictionnel. Je pose donc la question : “Saumon : responsabilité fédérale, provinciale ou Mi'kmaq?” En répondant à cette question, l'article explore les caractéristiques des deux ordres constitutionnels et leur connexions, ce qui mène à un débat sur l'attribution des compétences dans le domaine du saumon.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Augustine, Stephen. 2000. “Creation Story.” Video recording. Listuguj, Quebec: Mi'gmawei Mawiomi Secretariat.
Barsh, Russel Lawrence. 2002. “Netukulimk Past and Present: Mi'kmaq Ethics and the Atlantic Fishery.” Printemps 37(1): 1542.Google Scholar
Barsh, Russel Lawrence and James (sakej) Youngblood Henderson. 1999. “Marshalling the Rule of Law in Canada: Of Eels and Honour.” Constitutional Forum 11(1): 118.Google Scholar
Belchers Proclamation. May 4, 1762. PRO, CO 217/19: 27r-28r. Listuguj, Quebec: Mi'gmawei Mawiomi Secretariat.
Blair, Peggy. 2000. “Taken for ‘Granted’: Aboriginal Title and Public Fishing Rights in Upper Canada.” Ontario History 92(2): 3155.Google Scholar
British Columbia Provincial Court. Attorney-General of Canada v. Attorney-General of BC, [1930] A.C. 111 (P.C.).
Burrows, John. 2001. Recovering Canada: The Resurgence of Indigenous Law. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cairns, Alan. 1991. “Political Science, Ethnicity, and the Canadian Constitution.” In Disruptions: Constitutional Struggles, from the Charter to Meech Lake, ed. Douglas E. Williams. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.
Cairns, Alan. 1995. “Constitutional Minoritarianism in Canada.” In Reconfigurations: Canadian Citizenship and Constitutional Change, ed. Douglas E. Williams. Toronto: McClelland & Stewart, Inc.
Canada. Sessional Papers. 1922. “First Session of the 14th Parliament of the Dominion of Canada.” Volume nine. PC 360
Churchill, Ward A. 1993. Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present. Winnipeg: Arbeiter Ring Publishing.
Chute, Janet E. 1998. “Mi'kmaq Fishing in the Maritimes: A Historical Overview.” In Earth, Water, Air and Fire: Studies in Canadian Ethnohistory, ed. David T. McNab. Waterloo: Wilfred-Laurier Press.
Clark, Bruce. 1990. Native Liberty, Crown Sovereignty. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Coates, Ken S. 2000. The Marshall Decision and Native Rights. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Cornell, Stephen. 1988. The Return of the Native: American Indian Political Resurgence. New York: Oxford University Press.
Department of Indian Affairs. October-December 1895. Fishing Privileges for Restigouche Indians. Departmental file. NAC RG23, vol. 298, file 4231.
Harring, Sidney L. 1998. White Man's Law: Native People in Nineteenth-Century Canadian Jurisprudence. The Osgoode Society for Canadian Legal History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Harris, Douglas C. 2001. Fish, Law, and Colonialism: The Legal Capture of Salmon in British Columbia. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Henderson, James (sakej) Youngblood. 1994. “Empowering Treaty Federalism.” Saskatchewan Law Review 58: 243329.Google Scholar
Henderson, James (sakej) Youngblood. 1995. “Mi'kmaq Tenure in Atlantic Canada.” Dalhousie Law Journal 18: 196300.Google Scholar
Henderson, James (sakej) Youngblood. 1996. “First Nations' Legal Inheritances in Canada: The Mi'kmaq Model.” Manitoba Law Journal 23, (January): 131.Google Scholar
Henderson, James (sakej) Youngblood. 1997. The Mi'kmaw Concordat. Halifax: Fernwood Press.
Jaenen, Cornelius J. 1974. “Amerindian Views of French Culture in the Seventeenth Century.” Canadian Historical Review 55: 261291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Eleanor V. 1992. Mi'kmaq Consciousness. Master's thesis. Halifax, Saint Mary's University.
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Attorney-General for the Dominion of Canada v. Attorneys-General for the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia, [ 1898] AC 700 (PC).
Kyle, Rosanne. 1997. “Aboriginal Fishing Rights: The Supreme Court of Canada in the Post-Sparrow Era.” UBC Law Review 31(2): 293316.Google Scholar
Ladner, Kiera L. 2003a. “Governing Within an Ecological Context: Creating an AlterNative Understanding of Blackfoot Governance.” Studies in Political Economy 70: 125152.Google Scholar
Ladner, Kiera L. 2003b. “Treaty Federalism: An Indigenous Vision of Canadian Federalisms.” In New Trends in Canadian Federalism, eds. M. Smith and F. Rocher. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Macklem, Patrick. 1993. “Ethnonationalism, Aboriginal Identities, and the Law.” In Ethnicity and Aboriginality: Case Studies in Ethnonationalism, ed. Michael D. Levin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Macklem, Patrick. 2001. Indigenous Difference and the Constitution of Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Marshall Sr., Grand Chief Donald, Grand Captain Alexander Denny and Putu's Simon Marshall. 1989. “The Covenant Chain.” In Drumbeat: Anger and Renewal in Indian Country, ed. Boyce Richardson. Toronto: Summerhill Press, Ltd.
miigam'agan and gkisedtanamoogk. 2003–2004. Personal correspondence. Eskanoopetij (Burnt Church), Mi'kma'ki.
Miller, Virginia. 1976. “Aboriginal Micmac Population: A Review of the Evidence.” Ethnohistory 23: 117127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metallic, Isaac. 2004. Personal correspondence. Listuguj, Mi'kma'ki. February 17.
Mowat, John. 1888. Chaleur Bay and its Products for 1887–8. New Brunswick: Mirimachi Advance Office.
Obansawin, Alanis. 1982. Incident at Restigouche. National Film Board.
Pacifique, Father de Valigny. Fonds Pacifique de Valigny. University of Moncton Archives. File 9-4-2.
Patterson, Stephen E. 1993. “Indian White Relations in Nova Scotia, 1749–161: A Study in Political Interaction.” Acadeiensis XXIII(1): 2359.Google Scholar
Perley, M.H. 1850. Report on the Sea and River Fisheries of New Brunswick within the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and Bay of Chaleur. Fredericton: J. Simpson.
Prins, Harald. 1996. The MI'KMAQ: Resistance, Accommodation and Cultural Survival. Toronto: Harcourt Brace.
Restigouche Mission letters. 1891. Provincial Archives of New Brunswick. PANB RG10, RS 10 105 F-8875.
Rotman, Leonard. 1997. “Taking Aim at the Canons of Treaty Interpretation in Canadian Aboriginal Rights JurisprudenceUniversity of New Brunswick Law Journal 46(11): 1150.Google Scholar
Shortt, Adam and Arthur G. Doughty, eds. 1918. Documents relating to the Constitutional History of Canada, 1759–1791, volume one. Ottawa: J. de L. Tache.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Pamajewon, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 830.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Marshall I, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Marshall II, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533.
Supreme Court of Canada. R. v. Kapp et al., [2003] BCPC 0279.
Tully, James. 1995. Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Union of Nova Scotia Indians. 1977. Nova Scotia Micmac Aboriginal Rights Position Paper. Presented to the Government of Canada, 25 April.
Walter, Emily, R. Michael M'Gonigle and Celeste McKay. 2000. “Fishing Around the Law: The Pacific Salmon Management System as a ‘Structural Infringement’ of Aboriginal Rights.” McGill Law Journal 45(1): 263314.Google Scholar
Walters, Mark D. 1998. “Aboriginal Rights, Magna Carta and Exclusive Rights to Fisheries in the Waters of Upper Canada.” Queens Law Journal 23: 301368.Google Scholar
Wicken, William C. 1995. “Heard it from our Grandfathers.” University of New Brunswick Law Journal 44: 145161.Google Scholar
Wicken, William C. 2000. Mi'kmaq Treaties on Trial. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Wildsmith, Bruce. 1992. “Treaty Responsibilities: A Co-Relational Model.” University of British Columbia Law Review 26: 324336.Google Scholar
Williams, Robert. 1989. The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourse of Conquest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Robert. 1997. Linking Arms Together. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wright, Roland. 1994. “The Public Right of Fishing, Government Fishing Policy, and Indian Fishing Rights in Upper Canada.” Ontario History 86(4): 33762.Google Scholar