In the spring of 1992, CARC organized and facilitated workshops on behalf of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) to gather the views of groups interested in amending the Migratory Birds Convention (MBC). Workshops were held at nine locations across the country, with four in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Aboriginal organizations, hunting groups, and conservation organizations met with federal (CWS), territorial and provincial government representatives to discuss possible amendments to the convention and the best way to manage this international resource. While participants diverged on a number of issues, there were many areas of agreement and even consensus.
The concerns brought up by participants can be divided into two broad and related categories: rights and management. As might be expected, issues associated with rights engendered the most discussion and the least consensus. Questions about ways in which to manage migratory game birds were significantly less contentious and received much broader agreement. Importantly, participants were united in their commitment to the overriding goal of conserving migratory birds.
Aboriginal participants from across the country reminded workshop participants that it was their treaty and aboriginal right to hunt migratory birds. There was broad agreement among the majority of participants that aboriginal and treaty rights should be affirmed, and that the closed-season provisions of the MBC be dropped to permit aboriginal peoples to take birds legally throughout the year, subject to conservation. Some concern was expressed by some participants over the workshop definition of aboriginal peoples: Indian, Inuit, and Metis. Opinion was also divided on whether non-aboriginal people should be permitted to take birds in what is now the closed season; some participants believed that all Canadians should have the same rights of access to migratory game birds. Still others thought that non-aboriginal people living in the North should be subject to the same rules as northern aboriginal peoples.
Related, was the belief that government should recognize the right of aboriginal people to hunt anywhere in Canada, excluding areas that are in private ownership and areas that may require special provisions to protect important habitat. The proposal that a spring hunt be permitted in Canada north of a certain line was rejected by participants since it ignores aboriginal and treaty rights and because it would divide aboriginal people generally, and, in places like eastern Quebec, it would divide people of the same band. Many workshop participants felt that non-aboriginal hunters should continue to be subject to existing hunting regulations or those that evolve with time. However, at several workshops in the North, there was an openness to permit non-aboriginal people who live a subsistence lifestyle to participate in a spring hunt for migratory birds.
Participants felt that aboriginal and treaty rights were not limited to hunting migratory birds but should also include the collection of eggs. Where eggs are collected they are often an important food for elders. Consequently, many participants called for the MBC to be amended to decriminalize the traditional practice of harvesting eggs of migratory birds.
Discussions about how to manage the murre hunt were an important component of the workshop held in Goose Bay. There was general agreement that the murre hunt be legalized, and that a management framework be put in place to ensure the sustainability of the resource.
A good portion of the workshop discussions focused on management issues. Who would be the competent authority responsible for decisions about harvest allocations and guidelines, and enforcement? Who would undertake populations surveys and harvest-monitoring studies? Participants from regions with land claims agreements pointed out that to varying degrees these questions had been answered in the agreements. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, for example, have established wildlife management boards with members from government and land claim beneficiaries.
Aboriginal participants living outside land claim areas generally supported the establishment of wildlife co-management regimes between government and aboriginal personnel for migratory birds. Other participants, however, believed that co-management regimes should be open to all stakeholders. A common theme in all discussions about management was the belief that management regimes must reflect the distinctive character of the many regions of Canada. Increased local and regional authority was seen as key to providing the flexibility necessary to accommodate the variety of conditions across the country. Nevertheless, all participants were interested in developing a management system which would tie local co-management regimes to broader flyway management plans.
Participants urged the federal government to explain aboriginal values, rights, and customs, and Canada's constitutional obligation to aboriginal peoples, to negotiators representing the U.S.
Workshop participants were divided on how to proceed towards amending the MBC. Some groups believe that aboriginal and treaty rights guarantee aboriginal peoples' participation in actively developing the Canadian negotiating position and in negotiations with the U.S. Other participants disagreed, arguing that negotiations were solely a responsibility of the federal government. In all workshops, participants agreed that amending the MBC would be futile if there was insufficient waterfowl habitat as a result of physical destruction or pollution. While participants recognized that the MBC does not deal with habitat protection, they urged government to devote much greater attention to this matter, and suggested that habitat protection be referenced in the MBC.
Sarah Kalff is Senior Policy Analyst with the Canadian
Arctic Resources Committee.