R. v. Morris

R. v. Morris
Collection
Supreme Court Judgments
Date
2006-12-21
Neutral citation
2006 SCC 59
Report
[2006] 2 SCR 915
Case number
30328
Judges
McLachlin, Beverley; Bastarache, Michel; Binnie, William Ian Corneil; Deschamps, Marie; Fish, Morris J.; Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Charron, Louise
On appeal from
British Columbia
Subjects
Aboriginal law
Constitutional law
Notes
SCC Case Information: 30328
Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Citation: R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915, 2006 SCC 59
Date: 20061221
Docket: 30328
Between:
Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen
Appellants
and
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
‑ and ‑
Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick,
Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta,
Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw), Red Rock Indian Band,
Conseil de la Nation huronne‑wendat, Te’mexw Treaty Association,
Chief Allan Claxton and Chief Roger William
Interveners
Coram: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
Joint Reasons for Judgment:
(paras. 1 to 61)
Joint Dissenting Reasons:
(paras. 62 to 140)
Deschamps and Abella JJ. (Binnie and Charron JJ. concurring)
McLachlin C.J. and Fish J. (Bastarache J. concurring)
______________________________
R. v. Morris, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 915, 2006 SCC 59
Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen Appellants
v.
Her Majesty The Queen Respondent
and
Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario,
Attorney General of Quebec, Attorney General of New Brunswick,
Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Attorney General of Alberta,
Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw),
Red Rock Indian Band, Conseil de la Nation huronne‑wendat,
Te'mexw Treaty Association, Chief Allan Claxton
and Chief Roger William Interveners
Indexed as: R. v. Morris
Neutral citation: 2006 SCC 59.
File No.: 30328.
2005: October 14; 2006: December 21.
Present: McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache, Binnie, Deschamps, Fish, Abella and Charron JJ.
on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia
Aboriginal law — Treaty rights — Right to hunt — Two members of Tsartlip Indian Band charged under provincial wildlife legislation of hunting with firearm during prohibited hours and hunting with illuminating device — Whether treaty right to hunt includes right to hunt at night with illuminating device — Whether provincial legislation of general application infringes band’s treaty right to hunt — Whether provincial legislation applicable to band by virtue of s. 88 of Indian Act — Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57, ss. 27(1)(d), (e), 29 — Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑5, s. 88 .
Constitutional law — Indians — Provincial wildlife legislation — Two members of Tsartlip Indian Band charged under provincial wildlife legislation of hunting with firearm during prohibited hours and hunting with illuminating device — Whether valid provincial legislation of general application inapplicable to band because it interferes with band’s treaty right to hunt — Whether provincial legislation nonetheless applicable by virtue of s. 88 of Indian Act — Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91(24) , 92(13) — Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑5, s. 88 — Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57, s. 27(1)(d), (e).
The accused, both members of the Tsartlip Indian Band of the Saanich Nation, were hunting at night when they shot at a decoy deer set up by provincial conservation officers to trap illegal hunters. They were arrested and charged with several offences under British Columbia’s Wildlife Act, including: (1) hunting wildlife with a firearm during prohibited hours (s. 27(1)(d)); (2) hunting by the use or with the aid of a light or illuminating device (s. 27(1)(e)); and (3) hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons (s. 29). At trial, as a defence to the charges under s. 27(1), the accused raised their right “to hunt over the unoccupied lands . . . as formerly” under the North Saanich Treaty of 1852. They also introduced evidence that the particular night hunt for which they were charged was not dangerous. The trial judge found that “night hunting with illumination was one of the various methods employed by the Tsartlip [people] from time immemorial”. However, despite the evidence that night hunting by Tsartlip hunters had yet to result in an accident, he nonetheless concluded that the accused did not have a treaty right to hunt at night because hunting at night with an illuminating device was “inherently unsafe”. The trial judge entered convictions on count 1, conditionally stayed count 2 because of the rule against multiple convictions arising from the same delict, and entered acquittals on count 3. Both the summary conviction appeal judge and the majority of the Court of Appeal upheld the convictions based on the prohibition of night hunting (s. 27(1)(d)).
Held (McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Fish JJ. dissenting): The appeal should be allowed. The convictions are set aside and acquittals entered.
Per Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron JJ.: The Tsartlip’s right to hunt at night with the aid of illuminating devices is protected by the North Saanich Treaty. The historical context indicates that the parties intended the treaty to include the full panoply of hunting practices in which the Tsartlip people had engaged before they agreed to relinquish control over their lands. One of those practices was night hunting and, as the trial judge acknowledged, night hunting by the Tsartlip includes, and always has included, night hunting with the aid of illuminating devices. Even on a literal construction, the language of the treaty supports the view that the right to hunt “as formerly” means the right to hunt according to the methods used by the Tsartlip at the time of and before the treaty. The right of the Tsartlip to hunt at night with illuminating devices has of necessity evolved from its pre‑treaty tools to its current implements, and the use of guns, spotlights, and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip’s historic hunting practices. However, it is acknowledged that it could not have been within the common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries a right to put human lives in danger. This is confirmed by the language of the treaty itself, which restricts hunting to “unoccupied lands”, away from any town or settlement. Since British Columbia is a very large province, it cannot plausibly be said that a night hunt with illumination is unsafe everywhere and in all circumstances, even within the treaty area at issue in this case. Accordingly, while s. 29 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibits hunting or trapping “without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons”, is a limit that does not impair the treaty rights of aboriginal hunters and trappers, paras. (d) and (e) of s. 27(1), which apply without exception to the whole province, are overbroad and infringe the treaty right to hunt. Something less than an absolute prohibition on night hunting can address the concern for safety. [14] [25‑35] [40] [59]
The relevant provisions of the Wildlife Act are valid provincial legislation under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 . Since treaty rights to hunt lie squarely within federal jurisdiction, provincial laws of general application that are inapplicable because they impair “Indianness” may nonetheless be found to be applicable by incorporation under s. 88 of the Indian Act . While, on its face, s. 88 cannot be used to incorporate into federal law provincial laws that conflict with the terms of any treaty, the provinces may regulate treaty rights under certain circumstances. Provincial legislation of general application that interferes in an insignificant way with the exercise of that right do not infringe the right; but where, as in the case of s. 27(1) (d) and (e), such legislation is found to conflict with a treaty in a way that constitutes a prima facie infringement, the protection of treaty rights prevails and the provincial law cannot be incorporated under s. 88 of the Indian Act . [42‑46] [50] [54]
Per McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Fish JJ. (dissenting): The impugned ban on night hunting with a firearm (s. 27(1)(d)) is valid provincial legislation that applies to the accused. [82]
The Wildlife Act falls in pith and substance within the province’s powers. It is not directed at a federal head, like Indians, but more generally at safety, a matter within provincial power. The ban on night hunting is an integrated part of a broader provincial scheme applicable to all British Columbians and aimed at assuring the safety of the province’s hunters and residents. Since this provision does not conflict with federal legislation, the doctrine of paramountcy has no application. Finally, where a provincial law of general application does not affect a treaty right, and does not otherwise touch upon core Indianness, that law applies ex proprio vigore, without recourse to s. 88 of the Indian Act . Provincial legislation that falls outside the internal limits on the treaty right that the parties to the treaty would have understood and intended does not encroach on the treaty right. [82] [87] [92]
A treaty must be interpreted in a manner that best reconciles the interests of the parties to it. The right to hunt protected by the treaty is subject to an internal limit: it does not include the right to hunt in an inherently hazardous manner. Rather, the right to hunt must be exercised reasonably. Although, at the time the treaty was signed, the practice of hunting at night did not pose the same dangers as it does today, the parties to the treaty must have understood that the right to hunt did not carry with it a right to hunt dangerously. Furthermore, just as the methods and means of exercising the right should not be frozen in time, neither should the government’s legitimate safety concerns. Adapting the exercise of treaty rights to modern weaponry without adapting the corollary legitimate safety concerns would lead to unacceptable results. [82] [108] [110] [115]
Here, s. 27(1)(d) of the Wildlife Act regulates the internal safety limit on the treaty right of the accused. A ban on night hunting with a firearm is a reasonable exercise of the Province’s regulatory power in defining this internal limit. Since the regulation of dangerous hunting falls outside the scope of the treaty right to hunt, no treaty right is engaged. Accordingly, as no aboriginal right is asserted, and as the provincial law does not otherwise go to Indianness, the law applies ex proprio vigore. [82] [129] [132]
Cases Cited
By Deschamps and Abella JJ.
Applied: R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; referred to: Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; R. v. White (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613; R. v. Bartleman (1984), 55 B.C.L.R. 78; Saanichton Marina Ltd. v. Claxton (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 79; R. v. Marshall, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, 2005 SCC 43; Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146, 2002 SCC 31; Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031; Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 723.
By McLachlin C.J. and Fish J. (dissenting)
R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075; Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146, 2002 SCC 31; Paul v. British Columbia (Forest Appeals Commission), [2003] 2 S.C.R. 585, 2003 SCC 55; R. v. Francis, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 1025; General Motors of Canada Ltd. v. City National Leasing, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 641; Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. v. Saskatchewan, [2005] 1 S.C.R. 188, 2005 SCC 13; Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010; Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456; R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533; R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771; R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393; Myran v. The Queen, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 137; R. v. Sutherland, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 451; Moosehunter v. The Queen, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 282; Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309; R. v. Côté, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 139; R. v. Paul (1993), 142 N.B.R. (2d) 55; R. v. Marshall, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, 2005 SCC 43; R. v. White (1965), 52 D.L.R. (2d) 481, aff’g (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613; Prince v. The Queen, [1964] S.C.R. 81; R. v. Nikal, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1013; R. v. Seward (1999), 171 D.L.R. (4th) 524; R. v. Bernard (2002), 200 N.S.R. (2d) 352, 2002 NSCA 5, leave to appeal refused, [2002] 3 S.C.R. vi; R. v. Pariseau, [2003] 2 C.N.L.R. 260; R. v. Southwind, [1991] O.J. No. 3612 (QL); R. v. King, [1996] O.J. No. 5458 (QL); R. v. Harris, [1998] B.C.J. No. 1016 (QL); R. v. Ice, [2000] O.J. No. 5857 (QL); R. v. Stump, [2000] 4 C.N.L.R. 260; R. v. Barlow (2000), 228 N.B.R. (2d) 289, leave to appeal refused, [2001] N.B.J. No. 145 (QL), 2001 NBCA 44; Turner v. Manitoba (2001), 160 Man. R. (2d) 256, 2001 MBCA 207; R. v. Augustine (2001), 232 N.B.R. (2d) 313, leave to appeal refused, [2001] N.B.J. No. 190 (QL), 2001 NBCA 57; R. v. Maurice, [2002] 2 C.N.L.R. 273, 2002 SKQB 68; R. v. Pitawanakwat, [2004] O.J. No. 2075 (QL), 2004 ONCJ 50; R. v. Yapput, [2004] O.J. No. 5055 (QL), 2004 ONCJ 318; R. v. Maple, [1982] 2 C.N.L.R. 181; R. v. Machimity, [1996] O.J. No. 4365 (QL); R. v. Polches (2005), 289 N.B.R. (2d) 72, 2005 NBQB 137.
Statutes and Regulations Cited
Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 91(24) , 92(13) .
Constitution Act, 1982, s. 35 .
Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I‑5, s. 88 .
Indian Act, S.C. 1951, c. 29.
Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57, ss. 27(1)(d), (e), 28(1), 29.
Treaties
North Saanich Treaty of 1852.
Authors Cited
Wilkins, Kerry. “Of Provinces and Section 35 Rights” (1999), 22 Dal. L.J. 185.
APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Lambert, Huddart and Thackray JJ.A.) (2004), 194 B.C.A.C. 107, 317 W.A.C. 107, 25 B.C.L.R. (4th) 45, 237 D.L.R. (4th) 693, [2004] 2 C.N.L.R. 219, [2004] 5 W.W.R. 403, [2004] B.C.J. No. 400 (QL), 2004 BCCA 121, affirming a judgment of Singh J., [2002] 4 C.N.L.R. 222, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1292 (QL), 2002 BCSC 780, upholding the convictions entered by Higinbotham Prov. Ct. J., [1999] B.C.J. No. 3199 (QL). Appeal allowed, McLachlin C.J. and Bastarache and Fish JJ. dissenting.
Louise Mandell, Q.C., Ardith Wal’petko We’dalx Walkem, Bruce Elwood and Michael Jackson, Q.C., for the appellants.
Lisa J. Mrozinski and Paul E. Yearwood, for the respondent.
Mitchell R. Taylor and Mark Kindrachuk, Q.C., for the intervener the Attorney General of Canada.
Ria Tzimas and Elaine M. Atkinson, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.
René Morin, for the intervener the Attorney General of Quebec.
John G. Furey, for the intervener the Attorney General of New Brunswick.
P. Mitch McAdam, for the intervener the Attorney General for Saskatchewan.
Sandra C. M. Folkins and Angela Edgington, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.
Diane Soroka, for the intervener the Eagle Village First Nation (Migizy Odenaw).
Harley I. Schachter, for the intervener the Red Rock Indian Band.
Michel Beaupré and Simon Picard, for the intervener Conseil de la Nation huronne‑wendat.
Written submissions only by Robert J. M. Janes and Dominique Nouvet, for the intervener Te’mexw Treaty Association.
Written submissions only by Jack Woodward and David M. Robbins, for the intervener Chief Allan Claxton.
Written submissions only by David M. Rosenberg, Patricia Hutchings and Jay Nelson, for the intervener Chief Roger William.
The judgment of Binnie, Deschamps, Abella and Charron JJ. was delivered by
1 Deschamps and Abella JJ. — This case raises the question whether a provincial government acting within its constitutionally mandated powers can interfere with treaty rights and, if so, to what extent.
2 In 1852, James Douglas, Governor of the Colony of Vancouver Island, representing the British Crown, enshrined in a treaty the recognition that the Saanich Nation would be “at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands; and to carry on our fisheries as formerly”. Ivan Morris and Carl Olsen, both members of the Tsartlip Band of the Saanich Nation, were charged, among other charges, under s. 27(1)(d) and (e) of British Columbia’s Wildlife Act, S.B.C. 1982, c. 57, for doing what the Tsartlip have done, as the trial judge noted, “from time immemorial”: hunting for food at night with the aid of illuminating devices.
3 As a defence to the charges under s. 27, Morris and Olsen raised their right to hunt under the North Saanich Treaty of 1852 (“Treaty”). The Crown concedes that Morris and Olsen have a right to hunt but asserts a ban on hunting at night. Morris and Olsen counter that they were observing safe hunting practices and that provincial regulations cannot affect their treaty right.
4 In this case, we conclude that the Tsartlip’s right to hunt at night with the aid of illuminating devices is protected by treaty. Although the prohibition against dangerous hunting contained in s. 29 of the Wildlife Act is a limit that does not infringe the treaty right, the complete prohibition on hunting at night with an illuminating device set out in s. 27 is overbroad because it prohibits both safe and unsafe hunting, and, in the case of aboriginal hunters, infringes their treaty right.
5 The evidence at trial was that the Tsartlip’s historic aboriginal practice of hunting at night with illumination has yet to result in a single known accident caused by those engaging in it. In our view, paras. (d) and (e) of s. 27(1) of the Wildlife Act, despite being part of a valid provincial law of general application, prohibit the exercise of a protected treaty right and are inapplicable in this case. We would therefore allow the appeal, set aside the convictions and enter acquittals.
1. Background
6 Morris and Olsen were arrested on November 28, 1996 on Vancouver Island for breaches of prohibitions contained in the Wildlife Act: hunting of wildlife with a firearm during prohibited hours (s. 27(1)(d)); hunting by the use or with the aid of a light or illuminating device (s. 27(1)(e)); hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons (s. 29); and, in the case of Olsen only, discharging a firearm at wildlife from a motor vehicle (s. 28(1)).
7 The backdrop to the prosecution of Morris and Olsen was a change of administrative policy on the part of the provincial Crown, acting through conservation officers. The evidence is that the Tsartlip had hunted at night for generations until the charges were laid in this case. They had received confirmation from the Minister of Forests, David Zirnhelt, that there would be no prosecutions in connection with the exercise of hunting and fishing rights pursuant to the Treaty. On the basis of this assurance, the Tsartlip entered into an arrangement with Doug Turner, Chief Enforcement Officer of the Conservation Officer Service for Vancouver Island, whereby any treaty beneficiary charged in relation to night hunting was instructed to phone Mr. Turner. Once Mr. Turner received confirmation that the hunter in question was a member of the Saanich Nation, the hunter would be released. This arrangement, it appears, ended with Mr. Turner’s retirement in 1996.
8 In November of that year, not long after Mr. Turner’s retirement, a conservation officer was invited to speak at a “rod and gun” club meeting where members expressed dissatisfaction about Indians engaged in night hunting. A decoy operation was promptly organized to trap night hunters, as a result of which Morris and Olsen were arrested and charged. The Tsartlip were not forewarned of the operation and no discussion took place after the charges were laid.
9 The trial in Provincial Court lasted five days. Morris and Olsen raised their rights under the Treaty as a general defence to the charges. The conservation officer acknowledged that safety concerns are inversely proportionate to the remoteness and density of the population.
10 Morris and Olsen led evidence to the effect that night hunting is part of the Tsartlip tradition and has been carried on in safety for generations. They also introduced evidence that the particular night hunt for which they were charged was not dangerous. Morris and Olsen were caught by provincial conservation officers using a mechanical black-tailed deer decoy. The decoy was set up on unoccupied lands 20 metres off a gravel road. It was, one of the conservation officers testified, a spot chosen for its safety. Officer Gerald Brunham explained the choice of site as follows:
Q Were there any residences in that vicinity?
A Not within two kilometres.
. . .
Q And you chose that particular [hunting] site because of safety aspects?
A Yes.
Q So would it be accurate to say that there were no private property, no campers, no dwellings within the range that a bullet would travel?
A Yes.
Q And you chose that specific hillside so that if a bullet did go through your decoy it would go into a hill and into the trees?
A That’s right.
11 The trial judge found that “night hunting with illumination was one of the various methods employed by the Tsartlip [people] from time immemorial” ([1999] B.C.J. No. 3199 (QL), at para. 19). However, despite the evidence that night hunting by Tsartlip hunters had yet to result in an accident, he nonetheless concluded that Morris and Olsen did not have a treaty right to hunt at night because hunting at night with an illuminating device was “inherently unsafe” (para. 25).
12 They were both convicted of hunting during prohibited hours contrary to s. 27(1)(d), and Olsen was convicted of discharging a firearm at wildlife from a motor vehicle contrary to s. 28(1). However, despite his conclusion that night hunting was inherently unsafe, the trial judge acquitted the appellants on the count of hunting without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons (s. 29). As well, the trial judge conditionally stayed the charges of hunting with the use or aid of a light or illuminating device contrary to s. 27(1)(e), based on the rule in Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729.
13 The convictions based on the prohibition of night hunting (s. 27(1)(d)) were upheld by a summary conviction appeal judge ([2002] 4 C.N.L.R. 222, 2002 BCSC 780) and by the majority in the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, with Lambert J.A. dissenting ((2004), 25 B.C.L.R. (4th) 45, 2004 BCCA 121). The only provisions at issue in the appeal before us are s. 27(1)(d) and (e).
2. Analysis
14 The analytical framework in which to consider this case can be divided into two parts. The first step is to determine whether the impugned provisions of the Wildlife Act impair a treaty right. This entails characterizing the scope of the treaty right claimed by Morris and Olsen and delineating any limits on that right. We acknowledge at the outset that there is no treaty right to hunt dangerously. Thus s. 29 of the Wildlife Act, which prohibits hunting or trapping “without reasonable consideration for the lives, safety or property of other persons”, is a limit that does not impair the treaty rights of aboriginal hunters and trappers. At issue are the limits imposed by s. 27(1)(d) and (e). In our view these prohibitions, presented as safety measures in relation to the Tsartlip, are overbroad and infringe the treaty right to hunt.
15 The second step is to analyse whether the impugned provisions of the Wildlife Act are valid and applicable under the constitutional division of powers in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and under s. 88 of the Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5 . In our view, because paras. (d) and (e) of s. 27(1) are inconsistent with the Treaty, they do not apply to Morris and Olsen either directly, of their own force, as provincial law, or as incorporated federal law under s. 88 of the Indian Act .
2.1 Evolution of the Treaty Right
16 Between 1850 and 1854, 14 treaties were concluded with bands living on Vancouver Island. These came to be known as the Douglas Treaties, named after James Douglas, Governor of the Colony of Vancouver Island at the time. The Treaty alone covers approximately 22,000 hectares situated on lands that are partly uninhabited and partly inhabited.
17 In exchange for the surrender by the Saanich of their lands on Vancouver Island, the Crown made a number of commitments to them, including the following guarantee:
[I]t is . . . understood that we [the Saanich Tribe] are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry on our fisheries as formerly. [Emphasis added.]
Each of the 14 treaties contained this commitment in the same formulation.
18 The language of the Treaty stating “we are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands” exemplifies the lean and often vague vocabulary of historic treaty promises. McLachlin J., dissenting on other grounds, stated in R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 456 (“Marshall No. 1”), at para. 78, that “[t]he goal of treaty interpretation is to choose from among the various possible interpretations of common intention the one which best reconciles the interests of both parties at the time the treaty was signed”. This means that the promises in the treaty must be placed in their historical, political, and cultural contexts to clarify the common intentions of the parties and the interests they intended to reconcile at the time.
19 The Douglas Treaties were the reflections of oral agreements reduced to writing by agents of the Crown. The historical background to these treaties has been ably documented by the B.C. Court of Appeal in three decisions: see R. v. White (1964), 50 D.L.R. (2d) 613; R. v. Bartleman (1984), 55 B.C.L.R. 78; and Saanichton Marina Ltd. v. Claxton (1989), 36 B.C.L.R. (2d) 79. This historical context reveals an overriding intention that the methods by which the Saanich traditionally hunted be brought within the Treaty’s protection.
20 First, it was in the interest of all parties to preserve traditional hunting and fishing practices among the Tsartlip and other Douglas Treaty bands. As Lambert J.A. stated in Bartleman, at p. 90:
[A]t the time of the treaties, it was a concern of the colonial government not to disturb the Indian people in their traditional food-gathering activities. It was in the interest of the government of the colony of Vancouver Island and of the Indians that the Indians should be able to support themselves in their traditional ways.
21 The interests of the colonial government in preserving the traditional Tsartlip way of life were a reflection of the economic and demographic realities of the region, including concerns for the safety and security of the small number of settlers. Norris J.A. summarized these imperatives as follows in White, at p. 657:
[I]t was at the time of Douglas particularly important for the maintenance of law and order that Indian rights be respected and interpreted broadly in favour of the Indians, not merely for the due administration of law, but also for the safety of the settlers who constituted a minority of, at the most, 1,000 persons, there being 30,000 Indians on Vancouver Island alone, apart from the warlike tribes to the north, who always constituted a raiding threat and against whom the maintenance of friendship with the local Indians afforded a measure of security.
22 Second, the historical record discloses that Governor Douglas represented to the Indian peoples with whom he entered into treaties that the treaties would secure for them the right to continue their pre-treaty hunting practices. In a letter to the Colonial Secretary dated May 16, 1850, Douglas stated the following:
I informed the natives that they would not be disturbed in the possession of their Village sites and enclosed fields, which are of small extent, and that they were at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands, and to carry on their fisheries with the same freedom as when they were the sole occupants of the country. [Emphasis added.]
(See White, at p. 651.)
23 Douglas wrote a similar confirmation to the Speaker and members of the House of Assembly of British Columbia, advising them that:
[The Indians] were to be protected in their original right of fishing on the Coasts and in the Bays of the Colony, and of hunting over all unoccupied Crown Lands: and they were also to be secured in the enjoyment of their village sites and cultivated fields.
(Bartleman, at p. 89)
24 These external acknowledgments by Douglas are significant where, as here, the treaty was concluded orally and subsequently reduced to writing. The oral promises made when the treaty was agreed to are as much a part of the treaty as the written words: see Marshall No. 1, at para. 12.
25 The promises made by Douglas confirm that the parties intended the Treaty to include the full panoply of hunting practices in which the Tsartlip people had engaged before they agreed to relinquish control over their lands on Vancouver Island.
26 One of those practices was night hunting. The trial judge acknowledged the “considerable body of evidence supporting the fact that night hunting has been an accepted practice of the Tsartlip people from pre-treaty days to the present” (para. 18). His most significant finding about night hunting was that it includes, and always has included, hunting with the aid of illuminating devices:
[N]ight hunting with illumination was one of the various methods employed by the Tsartlip people from time immemorial. [para. 19]
27 This finding reflected the evidence of Tom Sampson, a member of the Tsartlip Indian Band who had hunted for 56 of his 65 years. He described the various ways illumination was historically used in night hunting, including:
. . . a carbide light, it was what the coal miners used to use, and prior to that we used — in fishing, we used the hollowed out part of our canoe and we used pitch from a tree, the stumps we would cut out and shape and put in front of the canoe as a light for hunting and fishing.
28 The relevant provision of this Treaty, as previously noted, states that the Tsartlip “are at liberty to hunt over the unoccupied lands; and to carry on [their] fisheries as formerly”. There is no dispute, at least for the purposes of this case, that the words “as formerly” apply to both the hunting and fishing clauses.
29 As McLachlin J. stated in Marshall No. 1, at para. 78, these words “must be given the sense which they would naturally have held for the parties at the time”. She also said that “[t]reaties should be liberally construed and ambiguities or doubtful expressions should be resolved in favour of the aboriginal signatories”. Even on a literal construction, the language of the Treaty supports the view that the right to hunt “as formerly” means the right to hunt according to the methods used by the Tsartlip at the time of and before the Treaty. This would obviously include those methods the Tsartlip have used in hunting “from time immemorial”.
30 From 1852 to the present, the tools used by the Tsartlip in hunting at night have evolved. From sticks with pitch to spotlights and from canoes to trucks, the tools and methods employed in night hunting have changed over time. These changes do not diminish the rights conferred by the Treaty. The right of the Tsartlip to hunt at night with illuminating devices has of necessity evolved from its pre-treaty tools to its current implements. As McLachlin C.J. observed in R. v. Marshall, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 220, 2005 SCC 43, at para. 25:
. . . treaty rights are not frozen in time. Modern peoples do traditional things in modern ways. The question is whether the modern trading activity in question represents a logical evolution from the traditional trading activity at the time the treaty was made . . . . Logical evolution means the same sort of activity, carried on in the modern economy by modern means. This prevents aboriginal rights from being unfairly confined simply by changes in the economy and technology.
31 This approach has led the Court in other cases to acknowledge, for example, that hunting with a rifle and ammunition is the current form of an evolving right whose origins were hunting with a bow and arrow (Simon v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 387), and that a treaty right to erect a log cabin for hunting purposes flows from the former use of mossy lean-to shelters (R. v. Sundown, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 393).
32 The evidence in this case makes clear that the use of guns, spotlights, and motor vehicles reflects the current state of the evolution of the Tsartlip’s historic hunting practices. Morris testified at trial that the Tsartlip used to hunt at night with
what they called torch lamps, and I heard this story told to me by our older hunters, that they used sticks with pitch on the end of them to do the same kind of hunt [but that the Tsartlip had] moved into these new tools of the spotlight and of the gun, where it’s made it easier for us to hunt. And then we use our vehicles instead of walking or paddling a canoe.
33 This evidence reveals that the weapons, means of transportation and illuminating devices used in hunting have become more modern. But changes in method do not change the essential character of the practice, namely, night hunting with illumination. What was preserved by the Treaty and brought within its protection was hunting at night with illuminating devices, not hunting at night with a particular kind of weapon and source of illumination. This conclusion is dictated by the common intentions of the parties to the Treaty, as distilled from the context in which the Treaty was entered into. The purpose of the hunting clause was to preserve the traditional Tsartlip way of life, including methods of gathering food. It was, in addition, designed to benefit the settlers, whose interests at the time lay in friendship with the Indian majority on Vancouver Island.
34 Each of these interests could best be met by simultaneously ensuring both the protection of the settlers and the continuation of the hunting methods traditionally used by the Tsartlip. The common intention which best reconciles the interests of the parties is one that brings a right to hunt as they always had within the ambit of the Treaty. This includes the right to hunt at night with illumination.
35 We agree, as stated earlier, that it could not have been within the common intention of the parties that the Tsartlip would be granted a right to hunt dangerously, since no treaty confers on its beneficiaries a right to put human lives in danger. This limitation on the treaty right flows from the interest of all British Columbians in personal safety. It is also confirmed by the language of the Treaty itself, which restricts hunting to “unoccupied lands”, away from any town or settlement. British Columbia is a very large province, and it cannot plausibly be said that a night hunt with illumination is unsafe everywhere and in all circumstances, even within the treaty area at issue in this case.
36 This Court stated in R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 533 (“Marshall No. 2”), at para. 37, that “regulations that do no more than reasonably define the . . . treaty right in terms that can be administered by the regulator and understood by the . . . community that holds the treaty rights do not impair the exercise of the treaty right” (emphasis deleted). As well, as noted in R. v. Badger, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 771, at para. 89, “reasonable regulations aimed at ensuring safety do not infringe aboriginal or treaty rights to hunt for food”.
37 The question, therefore, is how to identify and define internal limits on a treaty right. The consensual nature of treaty rights and their specific origin and structure dictate that a respectful approach be adopted. Individual statutory provisions have to be evaluated to determine whether, based on the available historical evidence, they are consistent with the common intention of the parties to the treaty.
38 In our view, the best reconciliation of the parties’ intentions is one that preserves as much as possible the ancient practices the Tsartlip would have understood as forming part of their “liberty to hunt” under the Treaty, subject only to the limit that they do not have a right to put lives or property at risk. Thus, at the very least, the safety limitation in the Treaty should not be drawn so broadly as to exclude all night hunting. It could not have been within the common intention of the parties to completely ban night hunting, which was a long-accepted method of hunting for food.
39 Nor can it be said that such a blanket exclusion should now be implied as a matter of law. If a night hunt is dangerous in particular circumstances, it can (and should) be prosecuted under s. 29. Here, the appellants were acquitted of dangerous hunting. The implicit limitation found by our colleagues the Chief Justice and Fish J. has a scope that interferes with the time-honoured right instead of allowing for the right to be exercised subject only to principled limitations. Protected methods of hunting cannot, without more, be wholly prohibited simply because in some circumstances they could be dangerous. All hunting, regardless of the time of day, has the potential to be dangerous.
40 The blanket prohibition of s. 27(1)(d) and (e) applies, of course, throughout British Columbia, including the vast regions of the interior. Much of the north of the province is uninhabited except by aboriginal people, and there are areas where even they are seen only occasionally. To conclude that night hunting with illumination is dangerous everywhere in the province does not accord with reality and is not, with respect, a sound basis for limiting the treaty right.
2.2 Constitutional Division of Powers
41 Having found that the Tsartlip’s treaty rights include the right to hunt at night and with illumination, we must now determine whether the impugned provisions of the Wildlife Act are nevertheless applicable from the perspective of the constitutional division of powers in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 . By virtue of s. 91(24) , Parliament has exclusive power to make laws in relation to “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”. Provincial laws whose “pith and substance” relates to this head of power are ultra vires and invalid (Kitkatla Band v. British Columbia (Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 146, 2002 SCC 31, at para. 67). However, provincial laws of general application that affect Indians only incidentally and are enacted under a provincial head of power will be found to be intra vires and valid.
42 In this case, there is no question that the relevant provisions of the Wildlife Act are valid provincial legislation under s. 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867 , which refers to Property and Civil Rights in the Province. However, where a valid provincial law impairs “an integral part of primary federal jurisdiction over Indians and Lands reserved for the Indians” (Four B Manufacturing Ltd. v. United Garment Workers of America, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1031, at p. 1047), it will be inapplicable to the extent of the impairment. Thus, provincial laws of general application are precluded from impairing “Indianness”. (See, for example, Dick v. The Queen, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 309, at p. 326.)
43 Treaty rights to hunt lie squarely within federal jurisdiction over “Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”. As noted by Dickson C.J. in Simon, at p. 411:
It has been held to be within the exclusive power of Parliament under s. 91(24) of