[nikitaga]

This isn't about treaties – BC signed very few treaties, unlike other provinces. The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes.

For example, does the constitution guarantee the indigenous people the right to subsistence fishing with traditional methods, or to large scale commercial fishing unlimited by any Canadian regulations, or something in between? None of that is defined in the constitution, it's all up for interpretation.

And this isn't about fishing either. No one's chanting #fishback around here, it's all #landback. 90%+ of BC land is currently public land that all Canadians are free to enjoy. Whether it stays public, or whether it is entirely privatized based on race, like the activists want, is a much bigger issue than who gets to overfish.

[bawolff]

> The rights to fish come from a couple of very vague paragraphs in the constitution and the royal proclamation. They are very much free to interpretation, and the courts have been re-interpreting them for decades to match the contemporary social attitudes.

That is the supreme court's job. They decide how to interpret things. Their interpretation is law.

Interpreting the constitution in the context of current social views of course is not a canadian invention but comes to us from the british https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_tree_doctrine

[nikitaga]

You say it like it's a good thing, but it's not. Specifically, the fact that our country's foundational document is so vague about our fundamental rights, is a very bad thing for everyone involved. If it was more specific, our fundamental rights would not only be more clear, they would also be more stable, not subject to the momentary (on a historical scale) whims of pop culture.

If our fundamental rights are subject to change every few years with a new Supreme Court decision, then we're either abusing the process to make these changes, or these rights should not be in the constitution in the first place. The constitution is supposed to contain the most fundamental, the most immutable rights.

We have a proper democratic process to update the constitution, but it requires a certain high level of consensus, as it should – these being our fundamental rights, after all. Yet this process is completely bypassed by activist judges who of course are happy to use the power that their predecessors afforded themselves. That is not a good thing in any way.

[philistine]

First Nations right have nothing to do with our constitution; it’s either treaties, or in the absence of it, a court agreeing to a nation asserting itself.

[bawolff]

The treaties are literally part of the constitution.

Also section 25 & section 35 of the constitution act talk about treaty rights:

35 (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. ... (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) treaty rights includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

[philistine]

I used an unfortunate shorthand; I said constitution when I meant charter of rights.

My point still stands; the treaties were vague, but that's what both sides wanted in the past. That courts are taking a written passage that says: the right to freely fish for our nation, and then taking that to mean more than you can take your boat and go out, but to mean your nation can own fishing companies, then that's fine legally. After all, they can freely fish.

To change them to be restrictive, you cannot change our constitution. You need to negotiate new treaties with First Nations. Who have no incentive to sit down and negotiate for a worse deal, when we haven't even legally respected the previous deal for centuries.