Up the Creek: Fishing for a New Constitutional Order

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.

Institutional design and the accountability paradox: A case study of three Aboriginal accountability regimes in Canada

“…). Similarly, a number of Indigenous groups have codified their core values through a written or unwritten constitutional regime (Ladner ; Alcantara and Whitfield ; Borrows ). A First Nations governance regime that encapsulates a community's core principles should empower band members to successfully challenge their band council when necessary (Borrows : 207).…”

A Mi’kmaw Perspective on Advancing Salmon Governance in Nova Scotia, Canada: Setting the Stage for Collaborative Co-Existence

“…Ladner (2005) summarized Mi'kmaq governance as a "complex system of territorially defined relations and responsibility, multilevel governance, ethics and law [that] was and remains an effective means of managing a people, a territory and the relationship with other beings" (p. 941). The existence of distinct political districts within Mi'kma'ki ( Figure 2) sustained a certain number of families and allowed for intimate knowledge about movements of animals to be observed.…”

“…Salmon fishing rivers were shared among families, and sometimes other tribes, and fished on a rotational basis (Ladner, 2005;L. Marshall, personal communication, November 11, 2014).…”

Collaborative approaches to governance for water and Indigenous peoples: A case study from British Columbia, Canada

“…Concepts of self-determination are particularly important in North American Indigenous governance literature (Ransom and Ettenger, 2001;Ladner, 2004;see Alfred, 2005;Shadian, 2007;Coulthard, 2008). This focus reflects the contested legal and political status of Indigenous peoples as nations, and a growing movement by Indigenous people toward self-determination in the United States and Canada (Borrows, 2005;Turner, 2006;McNeil, 2008).…”

“…The right to Indigenous self-determination includes the right of Indigenous people to freely pursue economic, social and cultural development, the right to determine their political status, and the right to traditionally occupied lands, territories and resources (UNGA, 2007). Indigenous self-determination is of particular concern in parts of the world where Indigenous peoples and Indigenous nations have been marginalized and oppressed by colonization (Battiste, 2000;Ladner, 2004;Alfred, 2005;Mucina, 2008).…”