1. Introduction My name is Adam Olsen. My name is TSUNUP. I am a member of WJOLELP. I am WSANEC (Straits Salish). My family lives on both sides of the International border which cut WSANEC into two parts, Canadian and American.

I am “directly affected” by the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion Project proposed by Kinder Morgan. I am intervening on three of the 12 relevant issues as laid out by the Hearing Order.

3. The potential commercial impacts of the proposed Project. 5. The potential environmental and socio-economic effects of marine shipping activities that would result from the proposed Project, including the potential effects of accidents or malfunctions that may occur. 9. Potential impacts of the project on Aboriginal interests.

The proposed Project will have an immediate impact on the WSANEC territory, my families fishing sites protected by the Douglas Treaty and my family’s commercial interests in accessing and selling fish.

The evidence that I am submitting to this process will establish my ongoing connection to fish, show that my ancestors fished specific locations on the shipping routes, my treaty guaranteeing my right to “fish as formerly”, a Canadian court decision defining “fish as formerly” and proof that the Straits Salish engaged our fishery as a commercial enterprise not just merely for subsistence as it is commonly misunderstood.

I do not support the current transport of diluted bitumen through or near my fishing grounds. I do not believe the National Energy Board process has adequately addressed the significant treaty and commercial interests of my family or WSANEC people and therefore the NEB must recommend the project should not proceed.

Due to the fact that the WSANEC, through the North Saanich Douglas Treaty, have a right to “fish as formerly” and this right was established in 1852 and has not been surrendered or negotiated, and that the commercial aspects of this right have never been fully recognized and have been impeded through numerous legislative decisions made by representatives of the Crown, whom James Douglas was acting on behalf of in the signing of the Treaty of 1852, the perceived economic benefit of the Trans Mountain Pipeline Expansion project must be considered in this light.

2. Hereditary Fishing locations throughout the Salish Sea 2.1. Throughout my life I have been told of my family’s history as Straits Salish fishers. I have been told of my ancestors who fished numerous sites throughout the Salish Sea including but not limited to sites on Mayne Island and Mitchell Bay on San Juan Island. These stories have been shared through our oral tradition by my parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins and other relatives.

These sites are hereditary. I know through my oral tradition that the sites have been passed down from generation to generation and that the sites in these specific locations are directly related to my family. This means that my family has the right to fish at these locations as our ancestors did. These sites are our inheritance and that it is our duty to not only utilize these sites but to protect them. My family is has lived and fished throughout the Salish Sea for countless generations before the Canada/United States border was established. My extended family is still lives in Saanich and on either side of the border, which is an added complexity in this matter.

I do not have available a map to show the exact locations of these hereditary fishing sites. However, I anticipate that such maps may be made available to the Panel in the written evidence of other intervenors, particularly from the W̱ SÁNEĆ Nation.

2.2. Our family developed a diversity of seafood resources. Our sockeye fishing locations were some of the most valuable of the resources, but they also included many other fish, shellfish and sea sponges.

2.3. For most of the last century we have not had access to our fishery for personal or commercial use. Over the past two years the Saanich and Lummi Nations have renewed their reef net fishery. My family has played a central role in re- activating our fishery. The Reef Net fisheries have significant cultural meaning for the W̱ SÁNEĆ People as was articulated clearly by Elder John Elliott of during his Aboriginal Oral Testimony, delivered as part of this Hearing, on November 24, 2014 at the Victoria Conference Centre.

2.4. The oral traditions of my people regarding the locations of our traditional fishing sites have been further substantiated by independent scholarly research. While I unfortunately did not have the funding or financial capacity to obtain my own expert evidence on this subject, I ask the panel to consider the following publication as further corroboration of the extent and location of my ancestors’ marine resource harvesting activities:  Wadewitz, Lissa K. (2012). The Nature of Borders: Salmon, Boundaries and Bandits of the Salish Sea. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Specifically, Ms. Wadewitz provides maps (p. 93-94) with resource locations of both the Saanich and Lummi (my ancestors) collected by anthropologist Wayne Suttles in the 1940’s and 1950’s. The maps are attached as Appendix [1].

These maps clearly substantiate the oral tradition of our resource locations as told to me by my relatives.

3. The Douglas Treaty guarantees my fishing rights and my family’s fisheries.

3.1. I am a member of W̱ JOȽEȽP (Tsartlip) located on the Saanich Peninsula. We are signatories to the North Saanich Treaty signed on February 11, 1852 with Sir James Douglas who was acting on behalf of the Crown (the “Douglas Treaty”).

The Douglas Treaty is attached as Appendix [2]. The attached version of the Douglas Treaty was printed from https://www.aadnc- aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100029052/1100100029053 on May 26, 2015.

3.2. The Douglas Treaty guarantees the Aboriginal signatories the right to “hunt over the unoccupied lands” and to “carry on our fisheries as formerly.” For brevity, I will refer to the latter right as the right to “fish as formerly”.

3.3. My family has lived in W̱ SÁNEĆ for countless generations. As a member of W̱ ŚANEĆ from W̱ JOȽEȽP, the Douglas Treaty applies to me and guarantees my rights to “fish as formerly” at my family’s hereditary fishing sites.

3.4. Under s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, “[t]he existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed." Thus, my fishing rights under the Douglas Treaty are also constitutionally protected.

3.5. The BC Courts have clarified the nature of the fishing rights guaranteed by the Douglas Treaty. A March 30, 1989 decision of the Court of Appeal, Claxton v. Saanichton Marina Ltd. ([1989] 3 CNLR 46 (BCCA)), found that:  In making treaties with the Saanich People, James Douglas was carrying out imperial government policy. (Page 3)  “… the word “Fishery” may be used to denote not only the right to catch fish but also the place where the right can be exercised.” (Page 4)  The right to carry on the fishery guaranteed by the treaty is unqualified. (Pages 6-7) “While the right does not amount to a proprietary interest in the sea bed nor a contractual right to a fishing ground, it does protect the Indians against infringement of their right to carry on the fishery”. (Page 7). This includes the right to travel to and from the fishery. (Pages 7-8.)  In interpreting treaties certain general rules should be applied. Those rules are that treaties should be given fair, large and liberal construction in favour of Indian people, should not be construed technically but in the sense understood by the Indian people and any ambiguity should be interpreted against the drafters. As well, as the honour of Crown is involved no sharp dealing should be sanctioned, and evidence of conduct as to how the parties understood the treaty should be used to give the treaty content. (Pages 3-4)

A copy of the Claxton v. Saanichton Marina Ltd. case is attached as Appendix [3].

4. My fishing rights include the right to fish for commercial purposes. 4.1. As noted above, The Douglas Treaty guarantees my unqualified right to fish “as formerly” at my family’s hereditary fishing sites. My ancestors’ traditional uses of these fishing sites were not limited to subsistence fishing, and included fishing for purposes of commercial trade. My treaty right to fish “as formerly” therefore includes the right to fish for commercial purposes.

4.2. I have learned through my oral tradition, passed on to me by members of my family, that we used the resources (including fish) collected at our sites for many purposes including commercial trade. Those resources were traded to a variety of people. For example, I have learned that the indigenous people of the Salish Sea and elsewhere in British Columbia and Canada were a main supplier of rations to forts and non-aboriginal settlements in Victoria, Western Washington, near the Fraser River and other locations on the B.C. Coast. They collected numerous commodities, and specifically salmon, and traded it commercially. It was their business, their trade and they engaged in the activity for financial gains.

4.3. While I regrettably did not have the funding or financial capacity to obtain my own expert evidence on the full extent of coastal First Nations’ commercial fishing activity, there are numerous academic sources that detail the vibrant commercial trade in salmon between aboriginal peoples and their customers, such as the Hudson’s Bay Company. I would direct the Panel towards the following resources if they wish to learn more:

 Wadewitz, Lissa K. (2012). The Nature of Borders: Salmon, Boundaries and Bandits of the Salish Sea. Seattle: University of Washington Press.  Harris, Douglas C. (2008). Landing Native Fisheries: Indian Reserves and Fishing Rights in British Columbia, 1849-1925. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

5. My family’s connection with fish is integral to our Aboriginal traditions and cultural identity. 5.1. My family continues to have a strong connection to seafood resources. My immediate family continues to regularly consume salmon and other seafood. The depth of our connection to these resources cannot be adequately articulated. They form a fundamental part of who we are. 5.2. This connection is consistent with Aboriginal families across the province. In October 2014 I started a Facebook group called “Show Kinder Morgan Your Food Fish!” I asked First Nations people to share their photos of salmon with me. I collected over 1100 photos from more than 150 people from over 50 communities. The photo deck attached is the best way that I can illustrate the connection we have with just one species of fish.

The photo deck is attached as Appendix [4].

6. The proposed tanker route passes directly through my hereditary fishery.

6.1. Tankers currently pass directly by my family’s hereditary fishing locations near Mayne Island while operating in the Straight of Georgia and Boundary Pass and directly adjacent to Mitchell Bay on the San Juan Island while operating in Haro Straight.

The map showing the proposed tanker traffic routes and movements can be found in Trans Mountain filing #A3S4R8

6.2. The proposed additional tanker traffic from this project would also pass directly by my family’s hereditary fishing locations as well as the many other suitable locations that we can fish at currently.

7. The increased tanker traffic would negatively impact my commercial fishing interests and my cultural connection to fish.

7.1 The proposed tanker traffic increase will increase the opportunity for an accident or malfunction and will cause other negative impacts such as increased erosion and wildlife disruption. The proposed increase in tanker will traffic will disrupt my ability to exercise my treaty-guaranteed rights because it will impede our ability to access our fishing locations. The safety of our family members while practicing our right to “fish as formerly” in our hereditary locations will be negatively affected.

7.2 In particular, I am concerned that the increased tanker traffic could have the following negative impacts:  It may limit the times when I am able to exercise my constitutionally; protected treaty rights to fish at my family’s hereditary fishing sites;  Safety concerns when travelling to and from my family’s hereditary fishing sites;  Increased risk of collision between fishing vessels and the tankers;  Potential for damage or destruction of fishing gear;  Increased shoreline erosion;  Increased negative impact on numerous species, including endangered species such as the Southern Resident Killer Whales.

8. A tanker spill would negatively impact my commercial fishing interests and my cultural connection to fish.

8.1 There is a growing body of evidence, put forward by other intervenors in this process, that a spill of diluted bitumen would be catastrophic to the health and viability of coastal ecosystems, including salmon populations. A spill could therefore be devastating to my family’s hereditary fisheries, effectively destroying our treaty-guaranteed fishing rights as well as severing our cultural connection to a central part of our identity as W̱ SÁNEĆ people. The proposed spill response plan is not adequate to address these concerns, given that a spill would irreparably harm my family’s fishery and the rights we have been guaranteed.

8.2 In particular, I am concerned that a tanker spill of diluted bitumen (or of bunker fuel or other contaminants associated with the tankers) could have the following negative impacts:  It could prevent me from exercising my fishing rights due to a voluntary or regulatory closure of the fisheries;  It could seriously damage the marine habitat that the fish populations in my family’s hereditary fishing sites rely upon;  It could reduce the potential economic benefits of my family’s hereditary fisheries by reducing the quantity and quality of the fish;  It could disrupt my family’s attempts to reconnect with our ancestral heritage through the exercise of our traditional, treaty-protected fishing practices.