"This we know: Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." - Chief Seattle in 1854 trying to get the President of the United States to understand the Native point of view.

The ethic expressed so well by Chief Seattle over 100 years ago might be expressed in terms of the physician's oath: "First, do no harm." It is one reason why Native people are so nervous about the Ontario government's new Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act. Some people are telling us that this Act is just a sop to Mike Harris' old hunting and fishing buddies, keeping his promise to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters before he leaves as Premier. But we think it opens a door that will be hard to close.

Let me explain by way of example. Sportsmen's clubs in our area (Georgian Bay and Lake Huron) are introducing thousands of pacific-coast salmon to the waters around the Bruce Peninsula in huge numbers. They assure us these salmon are good for the local economy and are a harmless addition to the ecosystem. The salmon might help boost the economy of the area by attracting other sportsmen to fishing derbies, but I'm not so sure they are harmless.

Pacific salmon are not from here - their ways do not suit the ecosystem they are being put into. Our streams are different - pacific salmon might swim up the Sydenham River to spawn, but what do they do when they get there? They may lay eggs, but how many are fertilized? And how many hatch? Apparently not enough to support a wild population because the clubs collect the eggs every year and incubate them in their own hatcheries. Then they dump the fry into the water in the Spring. This is not a self-sustaining population. It's not a natural population.

The top predators in these waters used to be "nmebin" (our word for lake trout) and "naame" (sturgeon). In fact Owen Sound bay, long before there was an Owen Sound, was called "chi-namewikwedong" - Big Sturgeon Bay). These two fish ruled the waters here but they did so without interfering with one another's ways.

This is not the case with stocked pacific salmon - stocked, I might add with the financial and technical assistance of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Salmon, particularly chinook salmon, are voracious eaters. They target alewife and rainbow smelts - the same species lake trout feed on. Chinook salmon eat anything that gets in their way, which is why they grow, in three years, to a size that it takes lake trout 10 years or more to reach.

The MNR itself has collected evidence that pacific salmon interfere with lake trout. Studies by its own biologists on one of the last native lake trout populations in Lake Huron show that salmon are invading the spawning beds of the lake trout and violently disrupting lake trout spawning activities. And lake trout caught as part of the study showed marks consistent with attacks by the larger, more aggressive salmon.

Our own biological staff and the independent biologists we frequently consult tell us our fears, sparked by our own ecological knowledge of the area, are well founded. Stocking exotic species (that is, species not native to the waters they are stocked in) is a risky business. There are numerous studies in the scientific literature documenting the ecological down-side of stocking exotics. For example, exotics can over graze the forage base (other, smaller fish), compete with native species for food and spawning space, alter the natural biomass of streams and rivers, and they can alter dramatically the communities of other species.

We cannot see a single ecological benefit to the stocking of pacific salmon in the Great Lakes. The only benefits salmon stocking seem to provide are economic and recreational. That is not only my opinion; it is the opinion of some pretty well known biologists as well. For example, last year, Dr. Howard Tanner (considered the godfather of salmon stocking) had this to say about salmonine introductions in the Great Lakes: "Sportfishing has become the key value for almost 100,000 square miles of productive freshwater." This is not a value we share.

And way back in 1968, the esteemed fisheries biologist Dr. Henry Regier warned us about the threat of ecological tinkering on natural species of Great Lakes fish. "Recent attempts in the Great Lakes to introduce exotics are not all 'a slow, careful searching for and evaluation of new species to supplement the old'. ... I suggest that we try to identify whom we are seeking to please by providing 10-pound salmon or striped bass!"

Whom the Ministry of Natural Resources is seeking to please, of course, are the hunters and anglers of the Province. Their provincial organization, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters has lobbied hard for a "right to hunt and fish". It seems they are about to get it with the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act. This is troubling. Will sportsmen now take it as their "right" to tinker so dangerously with the environment? Will they insist the government support their tinkering? Will they insist they have a "right" to introduce other exotics to Ontario's lands and waters - just so they will have more and more species to take? Will they assume their new "right" and their close partnership with the MNR trumps our hard won, constitutionally recognized, aboriginal and treaty rights?

Yes, certainly, the last question is of immense concern to Native people. For years the OFAH has had a severe case of constitutional envy. But the damage they will do to us with their new "right" will be matched only by the damage they will do to the environment. Manipulating the environment to support the sports industry is not good conservation, and neither is this new Act.
-----------------------------------

*Ralph Akiwenzie is in his seventh straight term as the Chief of the Chippewas of Nawash. During his term, the Band won court recognition of its aboriginal and treaty rights to fish for trade and commerce and has negotiated, with Canada and Ontario, the only comanagement resource agreement the Province has signed with Native people.

BACKGROUND provided by

David McLaren
RR 5, Wiarton ON, N0H 2T0
ph/fx: 519-534-4107 e-mail: d.mclaren@bmts.com
Visit Chippewas of Nawash First Nation on the Web:
http://www.bmts.com/~dibaudjimoh/
Visit the beauty of the Nawash reserve (Neyaashiinigmiing) on-line:
www.capecrokerpark.com
*************************************

COMMENT ON HERITAGE HUNTING AND FISHING ACT

UPDATE (22 Nov./01):

Since the comments below were sent to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources in response to the posting of the Act on the Environmental Bill of Rights website, the Act itself has been introduced in the Legislature. It can be found on the web at http://www.ontla.on.ca/documents/Bills/37_Parliament/Session2/b135_e.htm.

Although Bill 135 looks rather innocuous, I believe the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters will parlay their new "right" into increased control over the management of the Province's fish and wildlife. First Nations across Ontario have all been affected by the OFAH's aggressive lobby against their aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt and fish. That lobby was strong enough to derail the NDP's policy of recognizing Native rights in policy and regulation. It was strong enough to encourage MNR Conservation Officers to lay charges against Natives under the old Fish and Game Act.

That lobby was at its nastiest in the early 1990s when Davison Ankney was President - Mr. Ankney continues to be a strong voice for hunting and fishing as a sportsman's heritage and is central to the OFAH's suit against the MNR for banning the Spring Bear Hunt. The OFAH is claiming that the ban was illegal because it violates section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms - namely sportsmen's rights to express their "heritage" of hunting.

Section 3(6-8) of Bill 135 broaden the mandate of the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Committee (originally established under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act as the Fish and Wildlife Advisory Board): Section (3) says, On the request of the Minister of Natural Resources, the Commission shall consider and make recommendations to the Minister on the following matters: 6. Any other matter referred to the Commission by the Minister. 7. The design and establishment of a mechanism to finance matters referred to in paragraphs 1 to 6 [the promotion of sports hunting and fishing activities]. 8. The operation of the separate account referred to in section 85 of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997.

In other words, the Committee (which is appointed by the Minister and will undoubtedly continue to be comprised of representatives of the industry) will advise the Minister on a number of issues, including aboriginal use of and rights to resources, and how to maximize game fish and animal populations without regard for other species.

What's different is that the Committee will now have control over the operation of the $50 million Special Purpose Fund. I expect that control will evolve into an increasingly autonomous Commission which will be handed more and more responsibility for the "on the ground" management of fish and wildlife. As the comments below state, there will be no room for First Nations (in spite of their aboriginal and treaty rights) in this management regime. And conservation of species other than those valued by the sports industry will be all but ignored.

In this Bill, the devil is not in the details; it is in how it will play out on the ground. And that's why the Chiefs of Ontario passed a resolution in June 2001 opposing the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act (at end of this message).

It should be remembered that the sports hunting and fishing industry, for all the rhetoric about "heritage" is still an industry (and one which contributes less than $1 billion to the Provincial economy). Why not introduce legislation recognizing the right to drive or the right to log or the right to play hockey. Aren't they part of the "heritage" of even more Ontarians? They certainly contribute more to the economy - if that is your measure of what deserves to be deemed a "right".

COMMENTS ON THE EBR POSTING
By:
David McLaren
RR 5, Wiarton Ontario, N0H 2T0
phone/fax 519-534-4107 e-mail d.mclaren@bmts.com

2 November, 2001

Deborah K. Stetson, Manager, Wildlife Section
MNR Fish and Wildlife Branch
300 Water St., P.O. Box 7000
Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 8M5

COMMENTS RE: EBR Registry Number AB01E6001.
Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission

Dear Ms. Stetson,

First let me state that I am not opposed to sport hunting. In fact, I have hunted myself, although I no longer hunt because I do not need to obtain my food in that manner. However, if I did need to hunt to live, I would. I am a non-Native living in the Georgian Bay area and have some first hand knowledge of the practices of both Native and non-Native hunters and fishers.

I believe that hunting was once a part of our culture - in the days when we had to hunt to live, not merely live to hunt. However, hunting and fishing are no longer integral to non-Native Canadian culture. They are now sport activities, like hockey and merit no more legislative protection as a "heritage" than hockey does.

One of the determinants of whether an activity is an integral part of a culture is to look at the symbols associated with the religious beliefs of a people. Our symbols are not taken from the animal world; they are taken from the harvests of agriculture. Our symbols are bread and wine, not the crane or the rabbit or the wolf. It is wrong historically and anthropologically to say sport hunting and fishing is our heritage, especially when so few of us practice it. One might as well say driving cars is our heritage and make it a "right" rather than a privilege governed, as sports hunting and fishing are now, by licencing and government regulation.

It is no secret that the initiative for the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act came from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. Indeed the first draft of the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission was a document, authored by the OFAH, called "Game and Fish Management Systems". Because repeated requests for this document have not been answered, it is not possible to ascertain the nature of this Commission or its duties.

I was, until recently, a member of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. The OFAH has done a great job of protecting and promoting the interests of its members. Here's a short list: * a $50 million "Special Purpose Fund" from which sportsmen's clubs are able to fund their hatchery and deer yard activities; * a Fish and Wildlife Advisory Committee, which advises the Minister on a range of fish and wildlife issues, including how to spend the money in the Special Purpose Fund, and which is almost exclusively made up of representatives from the sports hunting and fishing industry; * funding transfers from the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources for things like hunter education which is now administered entirely by the OFAH; * expanded hunting opportunities through recent MNR policy to allow sports hunting and fishing in parks and protected areas, including the several created by Ontario's Living Legacy; * a new Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, which includes penalties for "interfering" with anglers and hunters; * MNR financial and consultative support for sportsmen's clubs' projects through Community Fish and Wildlife Initiative Programs; * close ties between the OFAH and the MNR (there are many crossovers in staff and the OFAH has the unfettered ear of the Minister).

The relationship between the MNR and the OFAH is so close that many in the field referred to Rick Morgan, the past Executive Vice President of the OFAH, as the unofficial Deputy Minister of the MNR. I attended the annual general meeting of the OFAH in February 2001 in which Premier Harris (not so jokingly) presented Rick with a parchment declaring him "Honorary-for-life Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Natural Resources".

The Premier then told his audience that the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act will pass into law - "It's not negotiable". That statement brings into question the purpose of the present posting on the Environmental Bill of Rights Registry and into disrepute the EBR process of public consultation.

It's no secret where most of the MNR's fish and wildlife policies and legislation originate - in the offices of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

So it's difficult, in the light of the list above and the strong support from government, to understand why sportsmen in Ontario need a "right" to hunt and fish, or a Commission - what else do they want from the MNR?

But perhaps the proposed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act is just "feel good" legislation, designed to please a certain third party interest group. If that is the case, then it will only become another layer of red tape - something else to get in the way of good management of the environment. No so benign will be its impact on Native rights, as discussed below.

If, however, the Act is more than window dressing - if, for example, the Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission that will spring from the Act devolves real power to the sports hunting and fishing industry, now or in the future, then Ontarians truly need to be concerned.

MANAGING FOR SPORT IS BAD FOR CONSERVATION

I was present at the 1998 OFAH annual general meeting when the President announced that the Association had formed a "wise use alliance" with the timber and mining industries for the purpose of dealing with the Lands for Life consultations. The reason for the alliance was simple. The Lands for Life process was going to open vast areas of the north to forestry and mining, and those industries build roads that hunters and anglers can use to access the fish and wildlife in remote areas. I began to question the conservation ethic of the OFAH.

Sportsmen's clubs, even when they act in partnership with the Ministry of Natural Resources, do not act in the best interests of the environment. The "wise-use" definition of conservation that the OFAH uses (essentially "the sustainable management of resources to benefit the greatest number") has long been discredited by science. You simply cannot "manage" the environment for the benefit of any number of user-groups in a sustainable manner. One of the first things to go is bio-diversity.

The loss of bio-diversity is a huge problem when you manage the environment to provide hunting and fishing opportunities for the sports industry. And it is an industry - the OFAH itself counts the economic impact of sports hunting and angling in the billions of dollars, although this is not realistic in the light of other reports. According to "The Importance of Nature to Canadians" (a 2000 Environment Canada report that compiled 1996 data from the provinces, including Ontario) only 3.5% of Ontarians participate in sport hunting activities. Sport hunting and fishing contribute less than $1 billion to the Province's economy; whereas, non-extraction activities such as camping, hiking, photography, climbing, bird watching etc. bring in over $3 billion.

The management of deer herds in Ontario is one example of how manipulation to support the sports hunting and fishing industry is bad news for animals. These populations are kept artificially high in order to ensure a good herd for the deer season every fall. Until the late 1960s hunters in Ontario were able to target the deer's natural predators - there was even a bounty on wolves and coyotes. Certainly hunters did not kill these animals in order to eat them.

In the winter, some sportsmen's clubs take great pains to feed deer in their areas, especially if the winter is harsh. Often clubs will go into deeryards to thin out the forest to encourage the growth of browse.

The biological impact on the deer is to allow the weaker members of the herd to survive, while the hunters may take the stronger members in the fall hunt. The gene pool is progressively impoverished.

The same kind of thinking that allows manipulation of the environment for the sake of game species is applied to other species as well. In 1997, when the MNR was contemplating re-introducing pheasants into southern Ontario, there was some discussion about having to take special measures to control raptors (personal correspondence with Dr. Vernon Thomas, University of Guelph).

Re-introducing animals once indigenous to an area with species from the same kind of habitat is not a bad thing, ecologically (the MNR-OFAH introduction of wild turkeys into Ontario is an example). But re-introducing species at the expense of other native species is not only repugnant; it's bad conservation.

And intentionally introducing species that have never been part of an ecosystem is beyond bad conservation - it's a dangerous tinkering with nature. It is not uncommon for sportsmen's clubs to stock Ontario's waterways with exotics (species that never existed in these waters before being introduced by man). For example, huge numbers of pacific coast salmon, such as chinook, are being stocked in this area of Georgian Bay by local sportsmen's clubs. These stockings are on top of large introductions of west coast salmon by US state governments and Ontario.

The top predator in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay used to be lake trout. But they were nearly extirpated by sport and commercial over-fishing in the late 1950s. All re-stocking attempts by the MNR have failed for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the Ministry's attempt to stock these waters with hybrids which did not successfully breed in the wild and which were genetically unsuitable for these waters in any case.

There are two small populations of indigenous lake trout left - one in Georgian Bay and one in Iroquois Bay. Unfortunately, the MNR's own biologists have discovered that stocked pacific coast salmon are actually attacking native lake trout on their spawning shoals and interfering in the reproduction of the lake trout. (Lake Huron Management Unit Annual Reports for 1993 and 1994). Other research shows that salmon compete directly with lake trout for food and territory.

Introducing exotics into an ecosystem is a dangerous enterprise in any event, as Stephen Crawford at the University of Guelph demonstrates in his recent monograph: Salmonine Introductions to the Laurentian Great Lakes, NRC Research Press, Ottawa, 2001.

I have heard and read that some sportsmen say the lake trout will probably never come back, so why not introduce another predator to the waters to take its place (Owen Sound Sun Times, August 21, 2001). There is an arrogance to this thinking that assumes we can fix nature if we break it. It is an arrogance that has been disproven by science and leads to the most disruptive and unsustainable management practices.

The manipulation of the environment by the sports hunting and fishing industry, often with the financial or direct support of governments around the Great Lakes are altering the ecosystems in the Great Lakes basin forever. The scientific literature on this subject is clear: managing fish and wildlife populations to benefit the sports hunting and fishing industry is bad for the environment.

Given the aggressive way in which the sports hunting and fishing industry moves to protect its interests, there is a real danger that, once the "right to hunt and fish" is legislated, the industry will insist that the MNR is obliged to bring in more sport fish and animals, even if they are exotic to Ontario. Already there is a disproportionate amount of money being spent to support species of interest to sportsmen as compared to species at risk. For example, $1.5 billion over 15 years will be spent on wetland rehabilitation by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Involved are Canada, the US, Mexico and Ducks Unlimited, an organization that enhances and protects wetlands for the sake of the game birds that frequent them.

Canada's contribution to the Waterfowl Management Plan is roughly $35 million a year. In contrast, the budget for Environment Canada's entire RENEW (REcovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife) program is $26 million. The funding sources for the RENEW program include federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as wildlife management boards authorized by land claims agreements, the private sector, museums, zoos, NGOs and aboriginal organizations. (www.cws-scf.ec.gc.ca/es/renew/).

IMPACT ON FIRST NATIONS

Although the EBR posting claims the Act "would have no impact on Aboriginal rights under the Constitution" experience shows that those who stand to benefit from the Act will use their new "right to hunt and fish" to circumscribe the rights of Native peoples and to exclude First Nations from the management of fish and wildlife, even in their traditional territories.

This will amount to derogation from aboriginal and treaty rights as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution, which says ...
(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.
(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may so be acquired.
(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

In the early 1990s, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, which everyone knows is the real author of the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act, lobbied hard against the government's policy to recognize the hunting and fishing rights of Native people.

In the course of the campaign, literature put out by the OFAH circulated mail-in cards for politicians. In the card addressed to "Messrs. Mulroney and Clark", the OFAH said, "As a result [of section 35(i) of the Canadian Constitution], there have been large native kills of spawning fish, nesting birds, moose, deer, wild turkeys, etc. during seasons that are closed to nonnatives in Ontario" (emphasis added). These allegations were not backed up with evidence.

In the 1993 kit sent out to its clubs to help them recruit members, the OFAH claimed as a reason to join that, "there have been countless instances reported of natives abusing fish and wildlife resources." Again, no evidence is offered, but the charges continue in the most inflammatory of terms: "So ... the carnage goes on. Spawning fish continue to be taken, pregnant deer and moose killed, wild turkeys shot and sold."

The OFAH made allegations that the practice of Native rights would decimate fish and wildlife stocks in various areas of the Province. The Chippewas of Nawash were endangering fish stocks in lake Huron and Georgian Bay; the Delaware of the Thames were "eliminating" the Lake St. Clair walleye; the Algonquins of Golden Lake would ruin Algonquin Park; the First Nations on Manitoulin Island would take all the deer. The campaign touched every area of the Province. None of the OFAH's charges proved true and there has been no decimation of fish or wildlife. However, several Native hunters and fishers were charged with offences under the Game and Fish Act.

In January 1995 three representatives of Nawash took a resolution to Zone H of the OFAH in an attempt to get the OFAH to drop its anti-Native rights positions and focus more on pollution and habitat degradation - two phenomena which have a well-documented impact on fish and wildlife populations. The resolution was defeated by a vote of 82 OFAH members to the 3 Nawash reps.

Based on what the OFAH has said and done on the issue of First Nations' rights in the past, the government should be wary of its support for the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and especially worried about its desire for a Fish and Wildlife Heritage Commission. It looks as though the sports hunting and fishing industry is looking for a quid pro quo - a kind of equal rights for all, as long as sportsmen's "rights" come first. How base a motive for a legislative initiative, especially when the interests of conservation will be so ill served.

Even today, the OFAH is actively opposing the recognition of the rights of Native people to hunt and fish. The Powley decision at the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's recognition that Métis people have a Constitutionally recognized right to hunt and fish. Mark Holmes, a communications specialist for the OFAH wrote an article on that decision published in the Globe and Mail on March 1, 2001, entitled "So, just who is a Métis". In the article he prophesied doom: "Last week's court decision will disrupt the system [of conservation] and jeopardize the conservation of our natural resources" as though all the Métis in Ontario were poised to gun down all the animals and net all the fish in the province. Not surprisingly the Ontario government has decided to appeal the Powley decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.

First Nations should expect the sports hunting and fishing industry to use the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act to try to constrain Native hunting and fishing as much as possible:
* by trying to limit the geographical range in which First Nations can practice their rights;
* by trying to impose seasons on the practice of Native rights;
* by excluding some species (such as salmon) from First Nations harvests;
* by insisting First Nations be licenced to practice their rights, perhaps under the controversial Aboriginal Community Fishing Licence Regulations, if not under direct provincial regulation;
* by insisting charges be laid against Natives who practice commercial rights to fish and wildlife.

Although the federal government is the primary fiduciary of First Nations, the provinces are obliged by the Constitution and any number of Supreme Court decisions to ensure their laws and policies do not interfere with Native rights - simply saying they won't on an EBR posting is not enough. The Ontario government must show some foresight here.

Quite apart from constitutional questions, there is a fundamental difference between those who hunt and fish to live and those who live to hunt and fish. The needs of the former should take priority. That the Supreme Court of Canada, guided by the Constitution, agrees, should be all the direction that governments need when allocating resources and choosing management partners.

Unfortunately the government has not chosen its management partner well. For the reasons above, the OFAH and its clubs are not proving to be competent managers of fish and wildlife. The Ministry of Natural Resources should be taking a closer look at inviting First Nations to be full partners in the management of resources (and not just fish and wildlife).

Certainly the traditional environmental values of aboriginal peoples regarding the environment are more in keeping with modern, scientific notions of ecosystem balance. The Native environmental ethic was well expressed by Chief Seattle in his remarks to an American President in 1854: "This we know: The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. This we know. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

The Convention on Biological Diversity, which Canada has signed and ratified, instructs the signing countries to enlist indigenous peoples and their traditional environmental knowledge in the management of resources in to order to better protect bio-diversity. For example, article 8j says, in part:
"Each contracting party shall ... respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices."

One of the tasks set out for the signing parties of the Convention is: "to develop appropriate mechanisms, guidelines, legislation or other initiatives to foster and promote the effective participation of indigenous and local communities in decision-making, policy planning and development and implementation of the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity at international, regional, subregional, national and local levels, including access and benefit-sharing and the designation and management of protected areas, taking into account the ecosystem approach."

Besides, there may be another constitutional question here - if First Nations have a right to hunt and fish for food and ceremony, and if some (the Chippewas of Nawash and Saugeen for example) have a right to fish or hunt for trade and commerce, then First Nations may also have a constitutional right to co-manage fish and wildlife with the Crown. Given the direction of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the benefits that would accrue to the environment from recruiting First Nations into the management of resources, why would a government wait for that question to go to court? Why would a government not welcome the traditional environmental knowledge of aboriginal peoples into their management schemes?

However, if management responsibilities are handed off to the sports hunting and fishing industry, that may be a contravention of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Worse, the opportunity to partner with First Nations will be lost.

In Ontario today, the government has signed only one agreement with a First Nation that can be fairly deemed a co-management arrangement. The Fishing Agreement signed by the Chippewas of Nawash and Saugeen, the federal government and the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources sets out how the MNR and the First Nations will co-operate in sharing information and performing management duties respecting the commercial fishery around the Bruce Peninsula.

How many other First Nations have rights to trade and commerce, but have not yet been able to bring them to court or to persuade the MNR to join them in the management of resources? These aboriginal and treaty rights need to be determined first, and management agreements with First Nations need to be put into place before the provincial government can safely share management with resource extraction industries.

SUMMARY

If the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act is "feel good" legislation designed to please a certain group that the government considers its constituency, then, at best it will result in another layer of red tape and probably get in the way of MNR managers trying to do their job. At worst, it will prepare the ground for a confrontation between the sports hunting and fishing industry and Native peoples who have constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights to hunt and fish and who have had to jump through several constitutional hoops in several courts of law to prove them. Ontario must not forget that the collective rights of Native people are not only rights enshrined in the 1982 Constitution, they are human rights recognized by the United Nations.

If the HHFA is not just window dressing, but will result in the sports hunting and fishing industry taking over government management duties for fish and wildlife, then there are serious consequences for the environment:
* Conservation will not be well served - manipulating fish and wildlife populations to increase hunting and fishing opportunities is proving to be unsustainable and bad environmental practice.
* More government responsibility for the environment will be off-loaded to industry - a policy that proved disastrous in Walkerton and is proving disastrous in the north as the realities of Ontario's Living Legacy unfold.
* Management duties will be handed to a third party user group without consideration of the management rights of aboriginal people and First Nations and before Native claims and rights have been fully recognized and satisfied.

In any event, the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act will derogate from First Nations constitutionally recognized rights to hunt and fish for food and ceremony, and, in some cases, their rights to hunt and fish for trade and commerce. It is potentially a discriminatory piece of legislation.

The government's record is not good on environmental and aboriginal issues. The proposed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act will not improve that record. If this legislation sees the light of day, we will know once and for all who runs the MNR and that the MNR will have become a handmaid to the baser instincts of Ontarians.

Regards,
David McLaren
-----------------------------------------------

RESOLUTIONS FROM ALL ONTARIO CHIEFS MEETING
Walpole Island, June 26-29, 2001

01/29 HERITAGE HUNTING AND FISHING ACT

WHEREAS we, the Chiefs of Ontario, understand that the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has already off-loaded many of its environmental management responsibilities to municipalities and resource extraction industries such as the timber industry, the mining industry and the sports hunting and fishing industry;

WHEREAS we believe that the off-loading of management responsibilities for natural resources to third party user-groups is contrary to the goal of conservation of natural resources;

WHEREAS it has been our experience that such off-loading is also prejudicial to First Nations' constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights and our land claims;

WHEREAS we have stated to the government of Ontario that Native land claims and rights must be settled before the government divests itself of its responsibilities for natural resources;

WHEREAS we view the MNR's proposed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and Fish and Wildlife Commission as being part of the MNR's plan to off-load management responsibilities for fish and wildlife to the sports hunting and fishing industry;

WHEREAS we believe the proposed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act in particular to be especially odious to us and prejudicial to our peoples' rights;

THEREFORE be it resolved that we the Chiefs of Ontario request the government of Ontario to withdraw its proposed Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and Fish and Wildlife Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we instruct Vice Chief Charles Fox to write to the Premier of Ontario concerning our objections to the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act and the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chiefs of Ontario devise a legal strategy to address our rights and their protection.

MOVED BY: Chief Ralph Akiwenzie, Chippewas of Nawash

SECONDED BY: Chief Joseph B. Gilbert, Bkejwanong Territory.

(Carried by consensus)

Below is a message from the Peaceful Parks group
Nov 27, 2001

Hello Everyone,

For those of you who haven't heard, the Tories introduced the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act into the Legislature last week. Bill 135 - the Heritage Hunting and Fishing Act - is now on the Legislative Library's website at http://library.ola.org/bbh/qry1_3.asp?billno=135&sess=372

No date has yet been set for 2nd reading but we are hearing that the government is seeking to pass the bill before Christmas. If you want to add any extra pressure, we recommend contacting both Howard Hampton - NDP Leader at 416.325.8300 or Dalton McGuinty - Liberal Leader at 416.325.7155. Tell them to vote against the bill.