Commercial fishing group to call on courts to define moderate livelihood
The United Fisheries Conservation Alliance is pressing forward with its lawsuit to define the terms of a moderate livelihood fishery after Sipekne’katik First Nation dropped its own legal action against the federal government. Colin Sproul, president of the organization, emphasized the importance of clarity on the rights and limitations of a moderate livelihood fishery for all participants in the industry.
The decision by Sipekne’katik to discontinue its lawsuit, which sought to establish that the federal Fisheries Act infringed on its right to fish for a moderate livelihood, has paved the way for the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance to pursue its own legal challenge. The alliance, which had intervenor status in the previous case, is now taking the lead in seeking a court ruling on the parameters of a moderate livelihood fishery for First Nation communities in Nova Scotia.
The issue of defining a moderate livelihood fishery has been a point of contention since the 1999 Marshall decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, which recognized the treaty right of First Nations to earn a moderate livelihood. Despite the subsequent Marshall II clarification that allowed for government regulation in certain circumstances, the specifics of what constitutes a moderate livelihood have yet to be determined by the federal government in consultation with First Nations.
The dispute over the summer fishery in St. Mary’s Bay, where Sipekne’katik has been operating a lobster fishery outside the commercial season, has raised concerns among commercial fishermen about the lack of regulation and enforcement by Fisheries and Oceans Canada. While some First Nations fishers have asserted their food, social, and ceremonial rights in the area, the commercial operation has been a source of tension between different fishing groups.
Michel Samson, a lawyer for the United Fisheries Conservation Alliance, believes that the discontinuation of Sipekne’katik’s lawsuit indicates a recognition that the courts may not uphold the claims made in the case. With the alliance now leading the legal challenge, there is hope for a resolution that provides clarity on the boundaries of a moderate livelihood fishery and addresses the longstanding ambiguity surrounding this issue.
As the debate continues, it is essential for all stakeholders to engage in constructive dialogue and work towards a mutually agreeable framework that respects the rights and interests of all parties involved in the fishing industry. Only through collaboration and a commitment to finding common ground can a sustainable and equitable solution be reached for the benefit of all.
