Submitter: Laurence Brown

Community: Lumby

Date Submitted: August 23, 2023

Summary:

The commission’s terms of reference are unclear on several points. For clarification, the commission should establish the exact jurisdiction of its objectives, certify predators and other species as stakeholders and ensure that First Nations people do not bear a disproportionate burden for conserving sockeye salmon stocks.

Submission:

Summary: Proportionality of Conservational Responsibilty



Subject: “Terms of Reference”: Subordination: syntactic clarification.



Subject: terms of Terms of Reference:





“(A)”, “stock”; “broad”; “cooperation”; “stakeholders”: specification.



Whether public perception of Federal impartiality relevant to subject matter?



“(B)”, “consider”: with regard to syntactic subordination of “Terms of Reference”.



Whether object of “(B)” may be exempted from:



“(C)”, “investigate”:



“(I)”, “impact”; “conditions”; “predators”:



quantification; subordination; specification; proportion. …?



“traditional spawning grounds” …



“(D)”, “recommendations”, “sustainability”,



“policies”; “practices”; “procedures”, “management”, “fishery …”





Whether: <: &o, Objection @ NSA.wagonburners.org :>





With regard to the matters signified above, and specifically in regard to “(D)”,

I submit the following ‘recommendations’:



1) That the commission establish the exact jurisdiction and jurisprudence

of its objectives.



2) That the commission recognize the a posteriori priority of



a) certain native “predators” {i.e.: bear; eagle; heron} as “stakeholders”;



b) certain native ‘other factors’ {i.e.: beaver; beaver dams; fisher},



and ensure that they do not bear any burden of ‘responsibility’ for “the

aim of conservation of the sockeye salmon stock” through “the policies, practices and procedures of the Department in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery …”



3) That the commission ensure First Nations people do not bear a disproportionate burden of ‘responsibility’ for “conservation of the sockeye salmon stock” through “the policies, practices and procedures of the Department in relation to the management of the Fraser River sockeye salmon fishery …”





Although I consider the reasons for my recommendations to be manifest and self

evident, I submit the following explanations for them, in order:



In regard to



1) The Terms of Reference can be construed as delimiting the jurisdiction of

the Commission within a context of commercial resource conservation. If that is

the case, then that case should be unequivocal. Other interpretations are manifest in the submissions of certain participants and the public. [Here, I note that the medium of publicity chosen by the Commission is international in scope, and the

potential for misunderstanding assumes global proportion.]



2) The possible “recommendations” of “(D)” could have significant further impact

on certain native non-human “predators” and “other factors” in addition to the known

quantitative impact of commercial “sockeye salmon stock” exploitaton. [Here again,

the global medium of publicity commands diligence. If the Commission has accorded

standing to participants on the basis of a non-commercial interest in FOOD, then

the interests I have identified (and others besides) should be accorded advocacy.

In that regard, any member of the Commission Staff is qualified to provide competent

representation.]



3) I deduce that the non-commmercial interests of First Nation participants bear

most significantly upon the possible recommendations of “(D)”. There is a suggestion that, whether the notion of Canada wishes or not, there are certain moral and legal considerations which may not be disregarded or negated by economic expedience. Here, global publicity must face the scrutiny of “customary and conventional international law” to which the notion of Canada is signatory. In this matter, I adduce that the Commission may be informed by scientific data respecting the biology of human beings influenced by millenia of dietary acculturation. Restrictive or prohibitive policies must ensure annual provision of the specific cultural dietary requirements of ALL dependent First Nations peoples PLUS a scientifically rigorous and statistically sound regenerational ‘escapement’ of “sockeye salmon stock” regardless of any commercial economic consideration, and that policy must be unequivocally stated.