|
|
Donc, dans l'arrêt Sparrow, lorsque la Cour suprême dit qu'on devrait donner davantage de possibilités aux peuples autochtones pour pêcher à des fins alimentaires, sociales et rituelles, le problème consiste à déterminer combien de poissons cela représente, jusqu'à quel point il est possible de pêcher.
|
|
|
So when the Supreme Court in Sparrow said that greater opportunities had to be given to aboriginal people for the food, ceremonial, and social purposes, the problem was, how much fish is that? To what extent can that be stretched? The aboriginals say they need more for fish for food and ceremonial purposes. Then the question came also of whether they could sell what they caught for food, social, and ceremonial purposes. In many cases, the Supreme Court said they couldn't sell it, but in some cases they said if it is something that was inherent to your culture, you were doing it in the past, you were trading with fish and neighbouring tribes, and so on, then you can take your food fish and also sell it.
|