Canadians intrinsically believe in the principles of fairness and equality. Therefore, it is likely we would not stand for Korean-only logging, German-only mining or any other race-based industry. Yet politicians continue to allow a discriminatory Aboriginal-only fishing strategy to continue.

The Aboriginal Fishery Strategy (AFS) was first implemented on the Pacific coast, by the Mulroney government, in 1992. Since then it has expanded to include Quebec and Atlantic Canada. The program enables native bands to manage and sell their food fish. It was expanded in 1994 to allow government to take voluntarily retired commercial fishing licences and the issuances of new licences and offer them to eligible native organizations. Other Canadian fishers - commercial or recreational - are entitled only to whatever fragments that might remain. In other words, native Canadians fish first.

The federal government claims to have implemented this program as a way of complying with the Sparrow Supreme Court of Canada ruling. Unfortunately, the government justification is based on a false interpretation of that ruling.

The 1990 Sparrow decision did not give natives the "inherent" right to a native-only commercial food fishery. What the decision did do was affirm that native people have a right - protected by the Constitution - to harvest fish for food, social and ceremonial purposes. This is nothing new.

In Canada natives have always enjoyed the same right of access to commercial fisheries as all other Canadians. In British Columbia prior to the implementation of the AFS, native people participated in the commercial fishery at a ratio ten times that of their ratio to the general population. There was no need for the Aboriginal Fishery Strategy then or now.

Based on the AFS's 2000-01 annual report, Canadian taxpayers spent approximately $35 million on 99 AFS agreements signed in British Columbia, Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Of this funding, over $19 million was spent on co-management and well over $14 million was spent on licences.

The AFS was further expanded in 1999, when the Supreme Court ruled in the Marshall case to uphold a 1760 treaty right of Mi'kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy natives to fish to secure necessaries, or to earn what the court calls "a moderate livelihood". In December that same year, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans received Cabinet approval for a $160 million budget for the Marshall Phase I program - $135 million for fisheries access and $20 million for capacity building, co-management and economic development.

It is interesting to note that in 1996, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the claim of both the Sto:lo and the Nu-Chal-Nulth bands to exclusive native fisheries. The 1998 Thomas case, affirmed a native-only fishery to be illegal. Even more startling, in 2001 a federal parliamentary committee also found the fishing policy to be illegal. That said, the federal Liberal government continues to implement the program.

Not only can the AFS be attributed as a source for escalating tension between native and non-native fishers (Burnt Church and the Fraser River), but there is even growing tension between natives. A Newfoundland Mi'kmaq man is fighting his band over a communal fishing licence issued by AFS. And in B.C., due to alleged native over-fishing on the Fraser River, bands located upstream do not have enough fish for ceremonial purposes.

Even if you can forget about the blatant misinterpretation of the court decision and the disregard for equality, it is difficult to forget that politicians have introduced racial tensions into an industry where few existed and where natives already had a history of success.