22t PEDFRAl ARRANdlMKN^lS Willi HRI I ISII ( ()| I VtHIA 



iiic ot Its constitutumal junsdiction over property .iml 

 civil rights, the province may confer tishini; privileges in 

 nontidal waters and thus regulate tishing activities indi- 

 rectly. 



Collision between the two governments in this area of 

 fisheries management has been avertcil ("or decades 

 through intergovernmental arrangements, ilie federal 

 government has retained responsibility under the Fisher- 

 ies .Act for managing ail tidal fisheries and for managing 

 salmon even in freshwater. But the prinince administers 

 and enforces the conservation regulations for freshwater 

 species (all trout, including anadromous stcelhead and 

 cutthroat), also enacted under the federal F'isheries Act. 

 The province issues nontidal sportfishing licences under 

 provincial legislation, and exercises complete control 

 over oyster leasing. Although these arrangements have 

 been in place for many years, they are not supported by 

 formal agreements. The only modem and clearly articu- 

 lated intergovernmental arrangement is the 1979 federal- 

 provincial agreement to sponsor the Salmonid Enhance- 

 ment Program. 



A similar jurisdictional overlap occurs in mariculture. 

 As the owner of most of the foreshore on the Pacific 

 coast, the province controls access to mariculture fisher- 

 ies such as oysters and clams in the intertidal zone. The 

 federal government is the undisputed owner of the 

 seabed underlying Canada's territonal waters off the 

 coast, but ownership of the inside waters (east of Vancou- 

 ver Island, the Queen Charlottes and a line joining them) 

 is in dispute and before the courts. If the province is 

 successful, its potential for engaging in mariculture man- 

 agement and leasing would broaden considerably. Simi- 

 larly, both governments claim jurisdiction over marine 

 plants. Since 1912, the province has had administrative 

 responsibility for oyster culture under a formal agree- 

 ment with the federal government, but arrangements 

 between the two govenunents for other species and 

 marine plants are informal or lacking. 



A second area of constitutional overlap concerns fish 

 processing and marketing. The provincial government is 

 responsible for shore-based processing facilities and the 

 sale of fish in the province. (These functions come under 

 provincial property and civil rights responsibilities.) But 

 because most fish produced commercially on the Pacific 

 coast are shipped out of the province, the Department of 

 Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for inspecting them 

 under its jurisdiction over interprovincial and interna- 

 tional trade. Through informal arrangements between the 

 two governments, quality standards are applied to fish 

 marketed in the province as well. 



A third area of overlap concerns fish habitat protec- 

 tion. In this area, federal fisheries responsibilities are 

 pitted against provincial ownership and control over land 



and freshwater. No formal procedures arc m place lo 

 guide the atlministrators of the two governments in this 

 sphere, altlioiigh recently, in the wake ot the highly publi- 

 cized incident at Riley Creek and the subsequent ct)n- 

 fronlation between the two governments, officials agreed 

 to consult in an attempt to forestall such crises in the 

 future. But these arrangements relate only to logging, 

 they are informal, and they provide no system other than 

 communication to resolve conflicts. 



These fragmentary and inconclusive arrangements 

 between the two governments are inadequate. In a few 

 cases, the respective roles of the two governments are 

 recognized and documented in a formal agreement; in 

 others, the recognition is only tacit; while in many impor- 

 tant areas, mutual responsibilities are completely 

 undefined. 



AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

 FISHERIES AGREEMENT 



To deal with matters of mutual concern to the govern- 

 ments of Canada and British Columbia relating to fisher- 

 ies and fish habitat management, I propx^se a formal com- 

 prehensive agreement. This agreement, which I refer to as 

 the Canada-British Columbia Fisheries Agreement, 

 should clarify and harmonize administrative responsibili- 

 ties, establish new cooperative programs, and set out pro- 

 cedures and working arrangements for the resolution of 

 problems. 



I suggest that the agreement be negotiated and signed 

 by the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the 

 provincial Minister of Environment on behalf of their 

 respective governments. 



Since some of the issues that should be included in the 

 agreement are more or less separable, of varying com- 

 plexity and likely to take differing times to negotiate, I 

 propose a general framework agreement with a number 

 of supplementary components. The framework agree- 

 ment would set out a general commitment to cooperation 

 and the scope of matters to be included. The supplemen- 

 tary agreements would deal with more specific matters. I 

 thus recommend — 



1. The Government of Canada should invite the Govern- 

 ment of British Columbia to join in a comprehensive 

 intergovernmental agreement on fisheries matters. 

 The agreement should consist of a master or frame- 

 work agreement providing for supplementary agree- 

 ments on the following: 



i) A renewed Salmonid Enhancement Program. 



ii) An inventory of aquatic habitats. 



ill) Cooperative arrangements for habitat manage- 

 ment and pollution control. 



