What is the aboriginal right to trade the products of the land and adjacent waters for other goods?

279. The right to trade the products of the land and adjacent waters for other goods is not unlimited. The right stands as a continuation of the aboriginal people's historical reliance on the resource. There is therefore no justification for extending it beyond what is required to provide the people with reasonable substitutes for what it traditionally obtained from the resource. In most cases, one would expect the aboriginal right to trade to be confined to what is necessary to provide basic housing, transportation, clothing and amenities ‑‑ the modern equivalent of what the aboriginal people in question formerly took from the land or the fishery, over and above what was required for food and ceremonial purposes. Beyond this, aboriginal fishers have no priority over non‑aboriginal commercial or sport fishers. On this principle, where the aboriginal people can demonstrate that they historically have drawn a moderate livelihood from the fishery, the aboriginal right to a "moderate livelihood" from the fishery may be established (as Lambert J.A. concluded in the British Columbia Court of Appeal). However, there is no automatic entitlement to a moderate or any other livelihood from a particular resource. The inquiry into what aboriginal rights a particular people possess is an inquiry of fact, as we have seen. The right is established only to the extent that the aboriginal group in question can establish historical reliance on the resource. For example, evidence that a people used a water resource only for occasional food and sport fishing would not support a right to fish for purposes of sale, much less to fish to the extent needed to provide a moderate livelihood. There is, on this view, no generic right of commercial fishing, large‑scale or small. There is only the right of a particular aboriginal people to take from the resource the modern equivalent of what by aboriginal law and custom it historically took. This conclusion echos the suggestion in Jack v. The Queen, 1979 CanLII 175 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 294, approved by Dickson C.J. and La Forest J. in Sparrow, of a "limited" aboriginal priority to commercial fishing.