THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, June 1, 2021
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met by videoconference this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to study matters relating to fisheries and oceans generally, as stated in rule 12-7(11).
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators and witnesses to please keep your microphones muted at all times unless recognized by name by the chair. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue. If you experience other technical challenges, please contact the ISD service desk using the technical assistance number provided.
Please note that the use of online platforms does not guarantee speech privacy or that eavesdropping won’t be conducted. As such, while conducting committee meetings, all participants should be aware of such limitations and restrict the possible disclosure of sensitive, private and privileged Senate information. Participants should know to do so in a private area and to be mindful of their surroundings.
I would also like to remind you that when speaking, you should be on the same interpretation channel as the language you are speaking.
If there are no questions, we will now begin with the official portion of our meeting.
My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are participating in this meeting: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Senator Larry Campbell, Senator Bev Busson, Senator Dan Christmas, Senator René Cormier, Senator Brian Francis, Senator Stan Kutcher, Senator Rose-May Poirier, Senator Mohamed-Iqbal Ravalia, Senator David Richards and Senator Pierrette Ringuette.
I welcome all of you and viewers across the country who might be watching this morning.
Honourable senators, we are meeting under our general mandate, which was referred to our committee on March 30, 2021, to study the implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries. I wish to note that following feedback we received following a meeting last April, the committee has chosen to modify the wording of the studied topic we are here to discuss today. Originally, it was the “implementation of Indigenous commercial fishing rights,” which has now been changed to the “implementation of Indigenous rights-based fisheries.”
For our first panel on the newly worded topic, we are pleased to welcome Ms. Janice Maloney, Executive Director of Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office, and Tracey Cutcliffe, Senior Negotiator from L’nuey. Welcome to both of you, and thank you for joining us virtually this morning. We will start with a presentation from Ms. Maloney, to be followed by Ms. Cutcliffe.
Janice Maloney, Executive Director, Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Senate and honourable guests. Thank you for this opportunity to speak here today.
To date, your committee and the House of Commons committee has heard from many of my colleagues, all of whom shared their valuable insights on the implementation of our right to fish and to sell for a moderate livelihood. My colleagues have spoken to the legal application of Marshall I and Marshall II, and DFO’s restrictive mandate and its impact on our 20 years of negotiations and consultations on implementation.
Specific scientific species evidence and traditional and cultural practices, which guide our fisheries — these concerns are still outstanding. I trust that you will take my comments today in the context of those who have come before me. Twenty years of negotiations cannot possibly be compressed into a five-minute speech.
DFO continues to impose the Fisheries Act and commercial regulations on our rights-based fisheries. We have heard this is the only path forward. This approach ignores the principles of UNDRIP, the Calls to Action of the TRC and the Supreme Court ruling.
We have been coming to the table to discuss the implementation for over 20 years, and DFO has either not had the mandate or has a mandate that is too restrictive, as alternative approaches do not fit their one prescribed idea of how to fish under the Fisheries Act and commercial industry regulations.
We have proposed solutions to ensure orderly fisheries. We have developed a mobile app — a reporting application — with which our harvesters report their catch-by-catch, trap locations, sales and harvest. We’ve also proposed a collaborative enforcement protocol for conservation and protection officers to work closely with our community officials. We have provided a list of authorized harvesters, trap allotments, fishing areas, vessels, vessel registrations and tag numbers. Solutions provided; all ignored.
We are told our fisheries will put a strain on species conservation, yet we are fishing fewer traps than the number of banked and unfished licences. There is no additional effort. Our Netukulimk fishery principles, which ensure that no one takes more than they need, are more stringent than any other commercial regulations. The current commercial model of maximum sustainable yield or exploration is in contradiction with the Mi’kmaq concept of Netukulimk fisheries. Fishing under that model would not align with our traditional values. Our harvesters continue to be harassed, bothered and have their lives made harder with fines, seizures and court dates.
A Mi’kmaq Netukulimk fishery would allow for natural seasons of the species, but these natural cycles don’t align with the commercial regulations. Our harvesters have small boats that are unsafe to compete with commercial vessels. Any adjustments to seasons requested by the Mi’kmaq would not only be sustainable but also safer.
The Mi’kmaq are the rightful stewards of our resource. We have been living on these lands and waters since time immemorial. We know how best to protect our species from overharvesting. Again, solutions provided and ignored.
The Supreme Court has told DFO that rights-based fisheries have priority over all other fisheries. Livelihood fishing is a right. Commercial fisheries are a privilege. We don’t want to take away from the commercial industry. We just want to respect fish, respectfully. There is room for both successful Netukulimk and commercial fisheries. We have been off the water for way too long. Our constitutionally recognized right must be implemented.
The Supreme Court told us to work collaboratively with DFO, and we have for over 20 years. We have proposed solutions for orderly fisheries — Mi’kmaq-authorized fisheries that take into consideration the health and sustainability of the resources. However, our systems do not fit the existing DFO fisheries mandate or the Fisheries Act.
We have seen the recommendations from TRC, UNDRIP and the Supreme Court, all of which should guide DFO to come to several conclusions that Mi’kmaq traditional values are valuable, that our practices are sustainable, that we can govern our own resources and that our rights are paramount. We have been flexible, we have been patient and we have been collaborative. We continue to consult, negotiate and try to find a collaborative approach on the implementation of our right so our Mi’kmaq people are not harassed while they support their families.
The existing Fisheries Act does not account for Mi’kmaq fisheries. If the Fisheries Act and regulations are the only way forward, there is no way forward.
Wela’lin. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Maloney. We will now hear from Ms. Cutcliffe before we move on to questions.
Tracey Cutcliffe, Senior Negotiator, L’nuey: Good morning, chair, honourable committee members, ladies and gentlemen, and Ms. Maloney. Thank you for the invitation to participate today. My name is Tracey Cutcliffe, as mentioned. I am the senior negotiator with L’nuey, the Abegweit Mi’kmaq rights initiative. In Prince Edward Island, the Mi’kmaq are the beneficiaries of the constitutionally entrenched Aboriginal and treaty rights of this province, recognizing that the Mi’kmaq, the Wolastoqey and the Passamaquoddy were the signatory nations to the Peace and Friendship Treaties. However, for the purposes of my participation today, I will speak to the Mi’kmaq treaty right and most specifically to Abegweit.
Over 21 years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada released the Marshall decision. It was, of course, a landmark day for the Mi’kmaq of P.E.I. and all of Mi’kma’ki. It confirmed what the Mi’kmaq have maintained for generations; that the treaties signed by their ancestors guaranteed the Mi’kmaq the right to hunt, fish and gather to generate a moderate livelihood. Mi’kmaq fishing rights were practised for millennia, codified with the Crown 260 years ago, entrenched in the Constitution in 1982 and then affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1999.
The Abegweit Mi’kmaq have acknowledged that when the Supreme Court affirmed the treaty right, it did also confirm that the Government of Canada could regulate the right. However, the ability to regulate is not unfettered. The high court outlined the purposes for which regulation was appropriate. Specifically, the livelihood fishery can only be regulated for purposes such as conservation or other compelling and substantial public objectives. Any Crown attempt to regulate must be justified and must be consistent with the parameters set down by the Supreme Court of Canada — specifically in R. v. Sparrow and later in R v. Badger, both of which, of course, were referenced in Marshall.
The ruling is clear. If the Crown is attempting regulation, it must justify the restrictions on the exercise of the treaty right as follows: There must be a valid legislative objective, and it must be remembered that the objective of the department in setting out the particular regulations will be scrutinized. The honour of the Crown must be upheld and, finally, there must be as little infringement of the right as possible in order to effect the desired result. Further to that, the Aboriginal group in question — the Mi’kmaq — must be meaningfully consulted with respect to the regulation measures attempting to be implemented.
There is a heavy onus on the Crown to justify any limitation of the treaty right. The minister cannot use her arbitrary discretion to limit the treaty right through regulation. One of the most significant frustrations expressed by the Abegweit Mi’kmaq leadership is the position of Canada, which essentially attributes the burden with regard to sustainability on the Mi’kmaq as an excuse to limit the constitutionally protected treaty right. This frustration is amplified by the fact that any past experience with respect to sustainability risks for various species has only happened as a result of post-colonial, non-Indigenous commercial fishing efforts. In fact, it’s only in recent years that the Mi’kmaq have finally gained even a modest access to the industry.
The Mi’kmaq are the original stewards of the land and its resources in Abegweit, and the protection and sustainability of these resources remains a priority. However, the Mi’kmaq have also been denied access to these resources for the last 300 years. They are understandably seeking fair access to the industry, which can begin to address the socio-economic gap between the Mi’kmaq and other Islanders. Since the Marshall decision in 1999, the Abegweit Mi’kmaq have remained committed to negotiations as the correct path to resolving and ultimately implementing these outstanding treaty rights.
As a negotiator who is privileged to serve the Abegweit leadership in current negotiation efforts, as I was following the Marshall decision in 1999, I can attest to the goodwill and commitment of the Mi’kmaq at these tables. I can also attest to the goodwill and commitment of the various federal government officials who sit across these tables. The difficulty, however, rests with the mandates under which we all respectively operate. For our federal government colleagues, unless they are provided with negotiation mandates that are, first, grounded in a respect for the rule of law and, second, provide the opportunity to establish fair access and a fair and reasonable stake in the industry that is essentially Mi’kmaq by right, the processes will continue to break down and the collective commitment to reconciliation will continue to be unrealized.
Wela’lin. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses, and we are going to proceed now to questions from our senators.
Senator Francis: This question is for Ms. Cutcliffe and Ms. Maloney. From a negotiation perspective, how do you compare the actions of Canada following the Marshall decision versus the circumstances in the region today?
Ms. Cutcliffe: Thank you, senator. I think the best way to answer that is the difference that 21 years makes. Following the Marshall decision, there was a two-pronged approach to the response to the decision by the federal government. The first approach was a mandate provided to DFO to come to short-term, without-prejudice agreements that would provide, on a policy basis, increased access to the fishery and increased opportunities for gaining capacity within the First Nation communities. The Marshall Response Initiative agreements were entirely without prejudice to rights and can probably best be summarized as providing an opportunity to buy, essentially, peace on the water in order to have the Mi’kmaq and Canada come to the table to resolve the longer-term issues of how appropriately to implement the right.
The difficulty is that second path — which was mandated originally to Indigenous Services Canada, now Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs — is the path that has engaged everyone at tables, but those negotiations have gone on for far too long. So the difference is, I think, that the Mi’kmaq now have an understandable level of frustration over the commitments they made following those short-term responses, which can best be described as the Mi’kmaq having agreed under the Marshall Response Initiative to fish under the regulatory regime but in no way impact their rights, with everyone being committed to getting to a negotiation table to resolve the full implementation of the right.
The difference, I think, between 1999 and now is the understandable and significant frustration after the Mi’kmaq committing to those negotiations and being in the exact same position where Mi’kmaq are being charged for the exact same offences that Donald Marshall Jr. was acquitted of in 1999.
Ms. Maloney: I think Ms. Cutcliffe did an excellent job outlining the difference between 1999 and now. I absolutely agree; the frustration level has gotten to the breaking point, where for over 20 years — even beyond that, for 300 years — the Mi’kmaq have been fishing. When the Supreme Court of Canada came down and said, “Yes, absolutely, this is a constitutionally protected right,” there was hope that we could sit down and have meaningful discussions when we have seen the Canadian law and, really, the Constitution of Canada saying, yes, this is a protected right.
Over 22 years later, we are still in the same place, where our fishers are out there being harassed and bothered and charged and fined trying to support their families and coming home with fines they can’t afford, so raising the frustration level, absolutely.
Senator Francis: Thank you, both.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you, witnesses. Notwithstanding the entire issue of rights underpinning the fact that the minister has the ability to make regulations in regard to fishing sustainability, Ms. Maloney, you stated that it seems that, from your perspective, the natural fishing season is not aligned with DFO regulations. I was always under the impression that DFO fishing times and spots were to sustain the fishing industry.
Could you elaborate and give examples in regard to how you differentiate between what the DFO fishing season is and what you find is the natural fishing season?
Ms. Maloney: Thank you for that question. I think it’s an important one because it’s really with regard to the respect for Indigenous or Mi’kmaq traditional knowledge. Our elders and our traditional keepers have told us that — I know this is not fish — when you are going to harvest birch bark, it will be at the time when the lightning bugs come out. Every year, there is a time frame. It doesn’t happen exactly at a specific time. It is a range, so you follow the natural scope of things. What is going on in the environment today? How are the resources? Is the water colder? Is the water hotter?
There absolutely is value in contemporary science — I’m not saying anything against that — but I think we need to respect and acknowledge Indigenous traditional knowledge, and that’s what our Netukulimk fisheries are based on. The scope doesn’t always align with the contemporary science of DFO. This is where we have to sit down and have those discussions. When and where do our community members need to fish based on what is going on in our natural world?
Senator Ringuette: I get the focus of what Ms. Maloney is indicating to us. Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: I have two questions, and if I don’t get the second one answered, maybe I’ll go on the second round.
The first one is to both of our witnesses. First, thank you for appearing and for sharing your insights. They are very useful and helpful.
What role, if any, do you think that systemic racism may be playing in the escalation of tensions in the fisheries or in impeding the achievement of a mutually acceptable solution?
Ms. Maloney: I think systemic racism is absolutely a key discussion in this. Let’s look at the Fisheries Act before we go to the division of powers.
The Fisheries Act does not allow for Indigenous fisheries, period. That’s all there is to it. We’ve heard that there is some room for movement, but really, there is not enough to recognize, respect and implement Indigenous fisheries. So as I said in my statement, it has to align with commercial fisheries, and that in and of itself restricts Indigenous fisheries. How can that not be systemic racism?
With respect to the division of powers, I will go back to the Constitution. There are two. There are federal and provincial powers. In provinces, you can’t sell. The division of powers says the province is in charge of who gets to sell, and I know this is not provincial but I am going to mention it. So if DFO does not authorize our fisheries, then our fishers can’t sell their catches.
So in the division of powers, there is no room for Indigenous governments, Indigenous laws and an Indigenous way of being. Systemic racism, not only in the Fisheries Act but a number of areas, does definitely play a very key role in stopping us from implementing our rights.
Ms. Cutcliffe: I am not Mi’kmaq. I am privileged to serve the Mi’kmaq here in P.E.I., but I would echo Ms. Maloney’s response. By its nature, systemic racism is a system that has ingrained biases against a particular group. In this situation, I believe there is absolutely ingrained systemic racism that is influencing not just the legislative process but also the responses in the communities. Again, by its nature, it’s a system that has the ingrained, baked-in biases that are attributable, I think, to some of the violence that has happened on the water in the fall.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much to the witnesses. I’m glad I’m here to hear you speak.
Since I was a kid in Burnt Church watching a First Nations kid try to get herring to sell to the lobster traps, I realized there was something inherently wrong with the laws that didn’t allow First Nations to fish, and I believe that treaty rights give you every right to fish.
In my own circumstance, I can’t take a salmon from the river. I can’t take a salmon from the Miramichi. My son has never been fishing with me, except one day I poled down the Northwest Miramichi and hooked a few fish to let him land them. He’s never had that experience. I can’t take a bass of a certain size out of the river. I will lose my truck and go to court. So there’s unfairness on that side too. I just want to mention that without complicating matters.
My only concern about this with regard to the lobster fishery is the time of year the traps are dropped. That’s my only concern. This is what I mentioned to Senator Christmas and Senator Francis, whom I respect tremendously. I believe that’s a concern with some of the fishers on the water, and I would like the two witnesses to respond to that, please. Thank you for being here.
Ms. Cutcliffe: Thank you, senator, for the question. I think that is exactly the difficulty, the notion that the Mi’kmaq should be required to accept at face value the insistence that the commercial fishery based on season is inherently justified based on a starting position that they are in place with respect to conservation and sustainability. For 20 years, the Mi’kmaq have requested substantial and factual and scientific information to support the notion of the existing regulated commercial fishing seasons as being justifiably an infringement on the right. That information has not been presented, and that is one of the difficulties.
The notion that the Mi’kmaq should accept this insistence that these seasons are something that are in place to support conservation and sustainability is something that is unfair without the appropriate information to justify it. I think you can look no farther than the groundfish fishery collapse when it happened. It was also regulated and it had all of the conservation and sustainability excuses, let’s say, with respect to regulation and that fishery did collapse. I’m pleased to see it’s making a revised comeback.
The bottom line is this is not something that the Mi’kmaq, by law or otherwise, need to accept at face value. The onus is on the Crown to provide the substantive factual and scientific information that can prove that those seasons are justifiably an infringement on the Mi’kmaq right.
Ms. Maloney: I’m going to agree with that with respect to the development of the timelines and the seasons. There was no consultation. There was no consultation with the Mi’kmaq with respect to identifying those timelines. Even further, to follow up on Ms. Cutcliffe’s words, there was no information provided to the Indigenous groups on the reasons why the seasons are the way they are and the deadlines and timelines.
That is an important component. I know senators asked me about the natural cycle. Well, we don’t know today, had we had meaningful consultation and discussions, whether these timelines would exist in the exact way as they are now. It’s a conversation that needs to happen and happen quickly.
Senator Richards: Thank you very much. Maybe you could write the chair to let us know whether you think the buying out of Clearwater could help the Mi’kmaq bands find buyers for their lobsters, since the Mi’kmaq bought it out last fall or last winter.
Senator Christmas: It’s great to see you both, Ms. Cutcliffe and Ms. Maloney.
I’d like to direct the next question to Ms. Maloney. I want to lead her down a path that maybe she wasn’t expecting. As a lawyer, you understand that, before Marshall, there was another Supreme Court of Canada case called Simon v. The Queen, 1985 that recognized the Mi’kmaq treaty right to hunt in the province. After a few years, as you know, the province accepted the implementation of the right in 1990, and the Mi’kmaq have been harvesting wildlife since that time, some 31 years now.
To your knowledge, has the Mi’kmaq endangered the conservation of any wildlife species since that time?
Ms. Maloney: Thank you, Senator Christmas, for that question. One of the things we always explain at the table is after that case there was a lot of static and crunchy conversations around now that the Mi’kmaq have the right to go hunting that we will endanger the species, whether it be the moose or the deer.
That clearly has not been the case. We have so many deer where I live here in Millbrook. In Truro, you will see the deer running around in the streets. They even use the crosswalks. And the population of the moose is really quite healthy. So through our Netukulimk practices and the practices of listening to our elders and traditional people, we have worked together with government officials and listened to our traditional people and the resources are, in fact, very healthy.
Senator Christmas: The harvest, as you know, of the moose population was initially quite controversial in Nova Scotia. This goes back to the 1980s and the 1990s. You mentioned how the Mi’kmaq have applied their traditional law of Netukulimk these some 30 years. Can you, for the benefit of this committee, describe how the Mi’kmaq have been conducting their moose harvest over the past 30 years and how this has been implemented?
Ms. Maloney: So the moose harvest is an exercise of hunting right by individuals. It is a community right. We go up as individuals or communities.
In the most recent years, communities have gone up with their youth, and they have taken their youth harvesting. They’ve taught them traditional ways. They’ve come back. They’ve had the animals butchered and then provided it to elders in the communities and community members. So the teachings of the harvesters, the traditional people, are taught to the young people and passed on. The resources are brought back to the community for those individuals who both live off- and on-reserve and are given out. So you do get meat from the harvested animals.
They go up before the hunting season. They’re very careful during the hunting season to watch the weather and how things are proceeding. So the time may be a little bit different, but if it’s warm, they’re not going to go up because they know that if you’re going to hunt on a warm day, you’re going to spoil the meat. You don’t want to do that. You’re taking into account your harvest and using your harvest, all of your harvest, to provide for your family and to provide for your community. So they only take what they need. In every people, you’ll find one or two who go to the extreme, but the majority take only what they need, provide back to the community and provide teaching to our youth.
Senator Busson: My question is for Ms. Cutcliffe. You have a great deal of experience in negotiations — 20 years — and I expect that most of those 20 years were focused on this difficult issue.
Do you believe that the uncertainty of the definition of “moderate livelihood” has exacerbated the difficult negotiations for a Mi’kmaq rights-based fishery? You have been part of these negotiations for a long time. Is that an impediment to peace on the water? If the definition were to be clarified in a Supreme Court decision or reference, would that be helpful in the difficult task of finding a solution to the Mi’kmaq right to fish?
Ms. Cutcliffe: Thank you, senator. That’s an excellent question, and I appreciate it.
In my opinion, there has been too much focus on defining “moderate livelihood.” I think the focus needs to be on implementation of the right. We have a situation now where the Mi’kmaq, after close to 300 years of being denied their treaty right — which was a mutually beneficial treaty to both the British Crown and the Mi’kmaq, which is important to remember — over the last 21 years have failed to have implementation of the right following the Supreme Court of Canada decision and yet have a very small piece of a robust industry. I think the focus on defining what exactly “moderate livelihood” means is less important than allowing the Mi’kmaq, Maliseet and Passamaquoddy their appropriate place in an industry they’ve been denied access to for 300 years.
There are various definitions of what people consider to be a fair and moderate livelihood. I’ll paraphrase Chief Darlene Bernard in saying that a moderate livelihood for you and me is the same thing; people need to have what they require to provide for their families, and communities need to be able to provide for their communities. Those requirements are no different for a non-Indigenous fisher than for an Indigenous fisher.
I don’t think further clarification through the courts of the Marshall decision is necessary. The focus needs to be on what the Supreme Court of Canada recommended, which is a negotiated solution to this outstanding issue.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to the witnesses.
I have a more broad, sweeping type of question. Given the fact that discussions regarding the implementation of treaty fishing rights are nation to nation, do you have any tangible suggestions as to how non-Indigenous commercial fishers could contribute to a process with a more consensus-based solution, given the polarized position we see today and the negative consequences and outcomes we’ve seen? Thank you.
Ms. Maloney: We had said earlier that the commercial fishers, the industry fishers, are out there doing the job they’ve been doing for years. We don’t want to impact this or stop them from doing this. We want to respectfully implement our rights in a traditional manner.
We’ve tried to bridge that gap and continue the conversation. Our rights discussions are clearly with the Crown, with DFO, and that’s where our focus is. We need to learn how to fish together respectfully and continue the conversation after we’ve had meaningful discussions with DFO and Canada on implementation.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Ms. Cutcliffe: My comments would be the same. Your question was prefaced on these being nation-to-nation discussions, and it is critically important to be respected in these discussions.
The Mi’kmaq leadership in P.E.I. has focused a great deal of attention on public education and awareness over the last year to help educate and raise the awareness level with respect to treaty rights and, as Ms. Maloney referenced, the priority of access around the fishery from a food and social ceremonial rights-based fishery, to a treaty rights-based fishery, down to the existing privileged, regulated commercial fishery.
In P.E.I., one of the strategies has been to ensure that the public is educated and informed and that the non-Indigenous fishery is receiving the same information.
I am pleased to say that, in P.E.I., progress has been made. I know the chiefs have been meeting with the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association. Obviously, there will continue to be tensions and challenges, but I think there is a renewed recognition from the non-Indigenous fishing association and its members that there is a rights-based fishery and that it needs to be accommodated. The next step is to determine, as Ms. Maloney said, how everybody gets to participate in the fishery in a respectful manner. It is important to continue open dialogue and provide materials and educational opportunities, as well as more opportunities for relationship building within the Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishery.
Senator Ravalia: Thanks.
Senator Francis: This question is for both witnesses. Given the increase in population since 1999, how has the failure to implement the treaty right impacted the social and economic conditions of the Mi’kmaq in your provinces, and how comparable are they to the non-Indigenous population?
Ms. Cutcliffe: Thank you, senator. I will answer and then turn it over to Ms. Maloney.
With the increase in population, I think the socio-economic gap between Indigenous Canadians generally and certainly the Mi’kmaq here in P.E.I. continues to grow. This is an issue that is centuries in the making. The gap will not be addressed in the short term. It will require multiple tools to be brought to the table to begin to address it in a substantive way. At the top of that list is recognition and support for implementation of rights such as the commercial-based right to the fishery.
In short, I think you’ll continue to see challenges and growth in the socio-economic gap as community leaders have to meet the demands of a growing population. All the tools need to be brought to the table, including policy responses, to address this increasing problem, but certainly at the top of the list is the implementation of rights.
Ms. Maloney: Thank you for that question.
The socio-economic element and the growth in our youth and community have huge impacts for not implementing our rights. If we look at one of our largest communities, Eskasoni First Nation, child poverty there is at over 72%. If we don’t have parents who are able to go out and implement their rights — if we don’t have parents who are out there meaningfully bringing home resources to feed their families — you will continue to have food sustainability issues, you’ll continue to have housing issues and you will continue to have child poverty issues.
So the socio-economic issue will continue to grow with the increase of populations. The implementation of the livelihood right is one piece of the puzzle in helping — and I don’t even want to say “helping” — our Indigenous communities to work ourselves out of that. Our communities are tired of being managers of poverty. It’s time for us to take control, and implementing our rights is definitely one way of doing so.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: To both witnesses, our current approaches to conservation and sustainability decision making is not acceptable to all fishers. How should decisions about conservation of the fisheries be made, who should be involved and what decision-making processes should be conducted?
Ms. Maloney: I was hoping to follow up on this. When Senator Christmas asked about moose and asked how it was done, in our Mi’kmaq communities, we have gone to all the communities and asked how they want to hunt. From what we heard from all harvesters, we developed moose guidelines. So the Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia have developed their own rules around how to fish. So this question is very similar to that.
When it comes to conservation decisions, number one, we have to listen to our traditional people and elders, see what’s going on in the environment and have ongoing discussions not only internally but with DFO. It is a collaborative approach, because the resources are all of ours to share. So we need to continue those discussions.
We definitely need to include science groups. The Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia, and Indigenous communities overall, have built great capacity through our science organizations. You’ve heard from some of the representatives previously. Those individuals need to be at the table. It’s about our people with traditional knowledge and also contemporary scientists.
As for how decisions are made, it’s a collaborative approach. How do we get where we need to get, and does the answer need to be exactly the same? Maybe not. We haven’t had that discussion, so let’s talk about it.
The decisions will be dependent upon the facts and what we hear from our community members.
Ms. Cutcliffe: Yes, I would agree. The Supreme Court of Canada was very clear that a treaty right can’t be limited without justification, and that in and of itself is a pretty clear indicator that the Mi’kmaq need to be at those decision-making tables.
The Mi’kmaq have been open to collaborative approaches. They would be, and continue to be, open to a truly co-managed approach to the regulation of the fishery.
Essentially, you’ve got a Supreme Court of Canada decision that made the clear direction that regulatory space needs to be made for the Mi’kmaq, and the best way for that to happen is for the approach to appropriate regulation to include the Mi’kmaq at that table. That needs to be done in a real and substantive fashion.
The Mi’kmaq have made it very clear — and Ms. Maloney has referenced all of the wonderful work that’s happening, certainly in Nova Scotia, with respect to science and capacity — but the Mi’kmaq are prepared and ready to be at those tables, and they need to be respected in a way that reflects the very clear direction of the Supreme Court of Canada. They need regulatory space to be provided, and the best and most appropriate way for that to happen is collaboratively.
The Chair: Thank you.
Just a reminder to all: We’re having a wonderful conversation here, but we only have five minutes left, give or take. We have four senators who want to ask questions, so I would suggest that senators direct their questions to one of our witnesses, if that’s possible, to keep things as short and concise as possible. That goes for answers, as well, because our time is very limited.
Senator Richards: This is the question I asked at the end of my last round. Will Clearwater being bought out by the Mi’kmaq nation help Mi’kmaq fishers be able to sell their catches, and will it increase their prosperity? Either witness may answer, please.
Ms. Maloney: The purchase of Clearwater is an economic development endeavour. It is a commercial fishery. So we know there are food, social and ceremonial fisheries; livelihood fisheries; commercial fisheries and communal commercial fisheries. This is a commercial event, and it’s not to be confused with a livelihood fishery.
So it will not help a livelihood fisher to sell their catches.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: I’ll direct my question to Ms. Maloney.
One of the Mi’kmaq communities in Nova Scotia, Potlotek, conducted a moderate livelihood fishery last fall and had planned to conduct one this spring. Can you describe the process that Potlotek had undertaken to develop its moderate livelihood harvesting plan, and how was that plan received by DFO?
Ms. Maloney: The plan with respect to developing the Netukulimk fishery plan was to go to the community members and ask them what and how they want to fish. Right now, that plan is focused on lobster, but the intention is to look at other fisheries.
The community members have provided input about what they feel. That includes chief and council, the traditional people, the elders, fishers and community people.
It was approved by the community and by the chief and council, and then it went to the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs — which I’ll note is not all 13, so we don’t represent all 13. It was approved under the principles as identified by the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaw Chiefs. So that authority not only went from community members, but it went to chiefs and councils to the assembly, based on Netukulimk principles.
Senator Christmas: And how was that received by DFO?
Ms. Maloney: From DFO, we’re hearing that the Netukulimk plan is a good plan and an orderly plan, but it doesn’t fit. They have continued challenges around the access. They have continued challenges around seasonality. There is no authorization, so to speak, from DFO, even though it has been authorized through multiple layers of Mi’kmaq government and Mi’kmaq community members.
So it is somewhat confusing when you hear that it’s a good plan but, no, we can’t do it.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
Senator Ringuette: I have a quick technical question.
Is the 4% quota for native fisheries a result of DFO buying quotas from other fisher groups, or was that an additional 4% to the former quotas?
Ms. Cutcliffe: I’m not sure if Ms. Maloney has the answer to that, but I would need clarification on what 4% quota you’re referencing, senator.
Senator Ringuette: We’re hearing that, overall, the native communities have about 4% of fishing rights. I need to understand if that was the result of DFO purchasing quotas from other fishing groups, or if it was in addition to overall fishing quotas.
Ms. Cutcliffe: If you are referencing, senator, the general percentage of the current fishery in the Atlantic, there would have been some other, we’ll say, acquisitions out of that. A great deal of that small percentage would have been the result of the Marshall Response Initiative agreements following the Marshall decision in 1999. In that instance, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did purchase licences that fulfilled the obligations under those agreements.
Ms. Maloney: I will add, with respect, those agreements were made without prejudice and they were not specific to implementing rights-based fisheries. It was to provide access to the resource.
Ms. Cutcliffe: Absolutely. That’s a very good point that needs to be constantly reiterated. Those were without prejudice to rights. They were essentially agreements that were based on, for lack of a better description, policy and economic development objectives. The best way we’ve described them in the past is those agreements were intended to buy peace on the water long enough for Canada to be able to come to the table and meaningfully consult and negotiate a longer-term resolution to the implementation of the rights.
The Chair: I want to thank our witnesses for a great presentation and the very open discussion we had here this morning. I advise our senators that we will prepare for our second panel.
Ms. Cutcliffe: Thank you very much.
Ms. Maloney: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Honourable colleagues, joining us for our second panel, we have Ian MacPherson, Executive Director of the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association. Captain Robert Jenkins was hoping to be here this morning, but as they say in Newfoundland and Labrador, he’s gone fishing.
We will be joined later, once we get our technical difficulties straightened out, by Martin Mallet, Executive Director of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union.
Ian MacPherson, Executive Director, Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association: Thank you. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment, on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union and our colleagues at the Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association, to extend our condolences to all Aboriginal communities that are grieving for the tragic loss of lives at the Kamloops residential school site. This is yet another example of why Canada needs to reconcile with its past. I’ll mention it again here this morning that our fishing organizations are striving to work hand in hand with Indigenous groups across the Maritimes, have done so for many years and are looking forward to resolving our remaining common issues.
The Prince Edward Island Fishermen’s Association would like to thank the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans for the opportunity to present today on the implementation of an Indigenous rights-based fishery. I would be remiss if I did not say this topic is one that is complicated and multi-dimensional. However, no matter how complex an issue may be, as an organization that represents over 1,260 captains, we are committed to finding solutions that work for all harvesters.
I would like to start off by stating in clear terms what is not working and note the surprise some government officials still show as to why the current situation is unsettled.
The issue is quite simple: When you are discussing matters that could potentially impact the future incomes of thousands of fishers and do not engage them in a respectful and meaningful way, tension and speculation escalate. Also, when the traditional knowledge of non-Aboriginal harvesters is not being treated with the respect it deserves, again, this adds to an escalation of tensions and speculation.
Quite frankly, the non-Aboriginal harvesting sector does not have faith that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada has the best interests of harvesters at heart. To add to this mistrust, much of what is being discussed between the federal government and First Nations is under nation-to-nation information blackouts.
So where do we go from here? In the past few weeks, two significant reports have been tabled on the current challenges facing Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal harvesters regarding the integration of an Indigenous rights-based fishery into an existing seasonal fisheries structure.
The Surette report and the House Standing Committee on Fisheries’ report regarding treaty rights in pursuit of a moderate livelihood have noted significant problems in the current negotiation process. It is noted that neither a number of First Nations nor organizations representing non-Aboriginal harvesters are satisfied with the current structure.
Since October 2019, a number of fishing organizations in Atlantic Canada have been requesting a model be put in place that gives all harvesters meaningful input into topics such as conservation of the resource, current and future science and continued coexistence of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal harvesters, and how to maintain the financial viability of owner-operators and various Aboriginal licences in their respective communities.
On Prince Edward Island, we have had a dialogue with our First Nations chiefs on their vision of a moderate livelihood. Our collective goal is to seek a made-in-P.E.I. solution for the challenges before us. Other than one jurisdiction, I am not aware of any additional direct dialogue taking place in Atlantic Canada between harvester groups and First Nations. Therefore, this brings us to next steps and what they can be.
The current model is not working, yet it is discouraging there is no discussion on what a new model can look like, and more importantly, there seems to be no sense of urgency in seeking a better solution with the fine target dates in place. In a vacuum, human nature shows us that many people assume the worst possible outcome and react accordingly. I would like to reiterate that the PEIFA does not support threats or violence towards any harvester to be made at any time.
The PEIFA is working with other harvester groups in the Gulf and Maritime regions. We are seeking a model that is facilitated by outside facilitators, with a structure that could include Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal co-chairs. DFO needs to be part of this discussion, and they should assist with the organization of the process but not lead it. The time has come for all harvesters to be included in meaningful dialogue, discussing areas of mutual concern, and most importantly, getting current, serious issues on the table.
News releases, media interviews and opinion pieces promote positional views and do not offer constructive ways to discuss the core issues that have led to the problems in the past.
In conclusion, we are hoping the Senate committee has truly heard our concerns. We will work with all harvesters and government departments to change the process. Before I conclude, I would like to acknowledge that DFO is planning a lobster round table on lobster science. There has not been any industry involvement or terms of reference developed at this time, but it is a step forward.
This completes our opening statement. I would welcome questions from the committee members at the appropriate time during today’s session. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. MacPherson.
Martin Mallet, Executive Director, Maritime Fishermen’s Union: Good morning, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I would like to take a moment on behalf of the Maritime Fishermen’s Union and our colleagues at the PEIFA to extend our condolences to the Aboriginal communities that are grieving for the tragic loss of lives at the Kamloops Indian Residential School site. This is another example of why Canada needs to reconcile with its past.
I’ll mention again here this morning that our fishing organizations are striving to work hand in hand with Indigenous groups across the Maritimes. They have done so for many years and are looking forward to solving our remaining common issues.
Our organization represents over 1,300 independent inshore owner-operator fishermen in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The current upheaval in our fisheries gives us a definite sense of déjà vu. Post Marshall decisions I and II, our fishermen in communities were significantly affected, especially during the Burnt Church crisis in New Brunswick.
Back in November 1999, Michael Belliveau, our then-executive director, had given a similar presentation to mine today to the House FOPO Committee of the day that still resonates with us after 20 years.
Many of the recommendations emanating from the committee’s final report were applied by subsequent governments and, as stated in the Macdonald-Laurier Institute report by Ken Coates last year, have resulted in a wide range of important benefits for Indigenous groups across the Maritimes and the Gaspé Peninsula.
Among others, one of the benefits was a significant increase in on-reserve fishing revenues for the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet growing from $3 million in 1999 to over $150 million in 2016.
This was the result of a successful commercial fishery integration by many Indigenous groups, which the MFU and other organizations also helped foster following meaningful dialogue and understanding. However, despite these positive impacts, many challenges remain today for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups. The moderate livelihood definition and implementation of resource access rights remain at the top of the list. However, our understanding of past and current processes was and still is today that this implementation would be done through DFO-regulated commercial communal access.
In our communities, the tensions that have occasionally arisen between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishers have been about out-of-season fishing and illegal sales of fish harvested for FSC purposes. The development of a new moderate livelihood fisheries access without the same season and rigorous regulation and enforcement of its commercial fisheries will exacerbate such tensions. However, expansion of First Nations’ participation in communal commercial fisheries does not carry the same risk.
Over many decades, fishing organizations across Atlantic Canada have worked diligently with the federal government to establish a co-management approach that is often cited internationally as a model for nations to strive for. This model, based on an ecosystem and precautionary approach, seeks to balance fishing output with the ecosystem’s ability to regenerate and sustain itself — for example, the use of effort- or quota-based management and fishing seasons protecting reproduction periods, et cetera.
We must also consider socio-economic and traditional input from fish harvesters and Indigenous groups. These DFO-administered “advisory committees” provide the basis for meaningful representation and dialogue in fisheries management across Canada.
Our Canadian lobster resource management is a resounding example of this model’s success. It currently generates tens of thousands of fisheries-related moderate livelihood jobs for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous folks. Therefore, any additional access needs to be considered through the lens of this well-balanced management system, while also taking into consideration the socio-economic importance and dependence of coastal communities on this fishery.
In closing, our organization supports the basic principles of the Marshall decision and Indigenous commercial access to fisheries under federal management. However, one of our greatest critiques of the decision is it did not establish a timeline for government to implement the said decision and any measurable implementation targets. This has created uncertainty, which is the basis for the high level of anxiety that exists today within our fisher membership, and not knowing where their family-based owner-operator businesses will be in the near, mid-term or long-term future.
Finally, addressing these concerns will require a forum where differing perspectives can be heard and acceptable solutions developed. We understand that negotiations must take place on a nation-to-nation basis, but fishermen need to be consulted and part of the process. If not, another generation will be sitting at this table in 20 years talking about the same issues unaddressed. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you to our witnesses.
Senator Francis: This question is for Mr. Mallet and Mr. MacPherson. It’s nice to see you again.
From an industry perspective, if there is an acceptance of the affirmed treaty right, what steps does your industry association propose to allow the Mi’kmaq fair access to the industry that they have been doing the last 300 years?
Mr. MacPherson: As I alluded to earlier, we need direct dialogue. Fortunately, we have had several very productive meetings in Prince Edward Island, but that needs to be on a wider scale. I think a lot of the anxiety is based on one of the plans. One of our chiefs has shared their plan with us. You could feel a lowering of the tension in the room because I think people had expected a lot more access was what that particular chief was seeking.
That being said, it’s getting people in the room. We get bits and pieces. We don’t get told very much. This is why we are proposing a facilitated model that will get the groups together to talk about harvesting for everyone and how to keep money in the supply chain and benefit our communities. Thank you.
Mr. Mallet: I would echo what Ian mentioned. We need a model where Indigenous groups and associations can discuss and maybe talk together about a differing model for the upcoming years. But that needs to be done before the negotiation process starts with government. That’s not the case right now. It’s the opposite. The uncertainty that it is creating is unbearable for our fishermen on the ground.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Cormier: I want to apologize to my colleagues and to the witnesses of the first panel for being late. Travelling between New Brunswick and Ottawa is not an easy task these days.
My question will go to Mr. Mallet. We talked about simplifying these issues. We had that big issue of nation to nation, the relation between the Crown and the First Nations and then the relation between the commercial fishers and the Indigenous fishers.
[Translation]
Mr. Mallet, what have we learned from the tragic experience at Burnt Church? I have a nephew by marriage from the Indigenous community in that area who had a tremendous relationship with a non-Indigenous fisherman. They developed a working relationship that was extremely positive. What have we learned from that experience and how can current issues guide us, even as the events seem to have calmed down somewhat. I’d like to hear what you have to say about that.
Mr. Mallet: I will answer in French as well. At the time, we thought that we had learned about the importance of collaboration, discussion and dialogue between the fishers’ associations and First Nations individuals making a living from the fishery, either commercially, for food or for ceremonial reasons. It was only at the time of that crisis, when the Maritime Fishermen’s Union and the Indigenous chiefs of the time negotiated together with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions were able to be found.
As I mentioned previously, if those discussions are held before negotiations with the federal government begin, we will be able to find common ground and solutions that will work for everyone.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Busson: My question is for Mr. MacPherson, but Mr. Mallet could answer as well if he might.
I listened to Mr. MacPherson’s presentation, and clearly he has a lot of frustration about the nation-to-nation negotiation and the fact that commercial fishers are not a part of the negotiations; they seem to be able to become involved in an informal manner but not in a formal manner. Indeed, you described, Mr. MacPherson, situations where information blackouts occurred where you had no idea what was being discussed.
You talked briefly about a new model that might include you formally in these discussions in order to move forward. From the discussion, it seems that, in principle, you and the Indigenous fishers can have a meeting of the minds about your needs, wants and aspirations but that you cannot seem to be able to formalize that in any kind of process. Can you describe what a process like that might look like?
Mr. MacPherson: We work with a number of other groups, so it’s not just a PEIFA suggestion. DFO is definitely part of the dialogue. I listened to the earlier presentations by our colleagues from the Aboriginal groups, and there is frustration on both sides. I think we need an independent facilitator and to have harvester Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal groups represented as co-chairs. There are a lot of common issues to discuss.
Certainly for Ms. Maloney, in terms of plans, it’s all gate-keeping. In terms of discussions about what is in a conservation plan or whatever, we are not privy to any of that information. What fuels the fire is that people are wondering.
There are people out there who are breaking the rules on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, that gets media attention. However, there is a lot of commonality that comes through dialogue, and I’m pleased with our situation. I know that Mr. Mallet has good dialogue with some of his First Nations in New Brunswick, but it needs to be widespread in order to help us move forward.
Senator Busson: Thank you very much.
Mr. Mallet: I would add that if there are to be facilitators to help with the discussion, I would strongly recommend — and I think it was part of the Surette report — that Indigenous groups propose their own facilitators, from a trust perspective.
One of the issues we have now is in terms of the closed-door negotiations with DFO speaking on commercial fishermens’ behalf. There is very little trust with DFO at this time, and we’ve had many issues in the past that have brought us to this point. A big part of the solution would be for us to have an open dialogue with DFO and Indigenous groups together.
Senator Richards: I have already asked two questions to the last panel, so I will not take up too much time. I will ask this, for either witness: What main issue of concern do you see that, if resolved, might resolve things on the water? If you could answer that, I’d be grateful. Thank you very much.
Mr. MacPherson: Is there a number out there in relation to what Aboriginal communities are seeking in terms of percentage of the fishery? That’s a big one. Mr. Mallet may see this differently, but first and foremost we want to protect the resource. Unfortunately, in Atlantic Canada we are very dependent on lobster, more than we’d like to be. This is why the tensions seem to primarily revolve around the lobster industry.
As the previous group noted, shared science and projects are what we are striving for. With the Lobster Science Partnership Roundtable, our concern is that it may be a one-time shot and then everybody is supposed to go and do their own thing. We are talking about something that is ongoing and that addresses issues for everyone as they come up in the fishery.
Senator Kutcher: Mr. Mallet, you mentioned illegal fishing. I would like to hear from both of you on this. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans in the House of Commons heard concerning testimony about the impact and depth of this issue. In your opinion, how much of a problem is illegal fishing, and what role might it play in inflaming or perpetuating the current conflict in the fishery?
Mr. Mallet: It is a large part of the conflict going on right now in some areas. I think the longer it takes to resolve moderate livelihood access to the fisheries, the more these issues will potentially arise.
We talk about “illegal” with regard to current regulations — with regard to the FSC fishery, for instance — or basically fishing without any licence, without respecting the currently established fishing season.
To answer part of your question and also the previous question, the timing of the fishing seasons is important in all fisheries, and especially in the case of lobster. Over the last 100 years we’ve garnered a large amount of knowledge and science on best management practices for that species. The timing of the fishing season is extremely important. If there are changes to be made to the fishing season to accommodate the moderate livelihood fisheries access, we need to be sitting at the table and talking with Indigenous groups that are asking to change the seasons.
Senator Christmas: I’d like to address my question to either representative.
I understand that the Maritime Fishermen’s Union attended a series of reconciliation workshops last year between the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters’ Federation and DFO. How have these workshops fostered reconciliation between your organizations and First Nation groups?
Mr. MacPherson: I think they were a good start, senator. There is a lot of information to absorb, and I think we’re scheduled for a follow-up session. From that series, we came up with a number of questions. We’ve heard some contradictory information. I would say it’s been beneficial, overall, for a first start. However, as you can appreciate, and as I mentioned earlier, these are very multidimensional and intricate issues.
Mr. Mallet: I’ll add that, like Mr. MacPherson mentioned, it’s a good start. The next step would be to start changing the system and how it would work for the government and fishing associations. Working on examples of a better model should be part of the upcoming discussions, I would hope.
Senator Ataullahjan: My question is for Mr. Mallet.
In your view, how could DFO implement treaty fishing rights in support of a moderate livelihood for Indigenous fishers while also providing certainty and predictability regarding access to aquatic resources for all fishers?
Mr. Mallet: That’s the big question we’re all asking each other. The dialogue we’re having right now, like we just mentioned, with Ottawa, is hopefully going to help to come to some kind of a model at some point, but there needs to be a dialogue between First Nations and fishing associations to see how we can, together, come up with a model that could work with government.
There’s only one pie to share at the end of the day, and fisheries access, as it is right now, through a commercial fisheries lens — we see moderate livelihood fisheries access almost similar to the model of the owner-operator small-scale fisheries access. At the end of the day, they’re all based on the idea that you’re going to be selling the fish or lobster, and that needs to happen by working together.
Again, it’s about dialogue. At some point, we need to have facilitators to help us bring people together and have these discussions.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to our witnesses.
We’re well into the fishing season. Everyone is nervous about the potential for tension and polarization in the coming season. Do you see DFO taking any tangible steps to provide a clear direction and reduce the uncertainty, particularly for the non-Indigenous commercial fishers, this year and into the future?
We’ve talked about models, and we’ve talked about negotiations. In listening to you, I fear that the chasm appears to be widening rather than narrowing. Maybe I’ve misread the situation.
How much resistance is there within your own organizations to arriving at a solution that’s tangible and agreeable to all parties? Thank you.
Mr. MacPherson: What might have been lost in all the discourse over the last couple of years is that there has generally been a peaceful coexistence. We sat down with the federal government in 2019 because a number of groups were hearing some very unsettling information coming back that things could escalate, and unfortunately, they did last summer.
People want to go out and focus on earning a living without all that additional stress and tension. Our intent here this morning is to point out that, yes, there have been some positive things and some development, but my view is that there’s not the sense of urgency that there needs to be. We’re hearing, and I think everyone on this call heard, the frustration from our First Nations representatives this morning.
To me, it’s a broken system, and no one seems to be very committed to fixing it and making it better. That’s why things escalate. If that continues, it will be because of the frustration, and we want to prevent that at all cost.
The Chair: We’re going to go to our second round now.
Senator Francis: This question is for both witnesses.
What measures have your respective associations taken, not only to create opportunities for your members to learn about the Mi’kmaq and our inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights, but also to combat the prevalence of systemic racism and discrimination targeted at First Nations as seen by acts of intimidation and violence in southwest Nova Scotia last fall?
Mr. MacPherson: Perhaps I could address that one first, Senator Francis. I believe, as Ms. Cutcliffe mentioned earlier, there is a program that Abegweit has rolled out that has come up since we met last fall. It was a very productive meeting. We are hoping to have another soon. As Abegweit’s Chief Bernard said, we will reconvene once she’s consulted her people in terms of the direction they see a moderate livelihood fishery going.
There is an opportunity there. The biggest thing is to always be dealing in factual information. What we’re putting out as an association is that we don’t want to jeopardize the relationships we’re building in P.E.I. here, but collectively, we’re working with DFO and some other partners to get more factual information out to all members.
Mr. Mallet: Regarding the southwest Nova Scotia situation, we need to get to a point where we can have a regional table to discuss common issues, common fisheries requests and to talk science. When I talk about science, I talk about science in a very broad manner. You have fishers’ traditional knowledge but also the traditional Indigenous Mi’kmaq knowledge that’s really important to have at the table and as a buy-in to the process.
It’s going to take time to get to the level of knowledge or to address some of the knowledge gaps that we might have in some areas, but once we have that table working and talking a common language, which is, for me, putting my biology background hat on for a second, I think we can talk the same language and get somewhere.
Mr. MacPherson: Just so you know, Senator Francis, we are working as a gulf group with Quebec also, and we have made a formal request that Allister Surette be engaged again to try to build on the organizations he connected with for his first report and go from there. We’re waiting on a response.
We were on a call yesterday. It didn’t seem particularly helpful, but we’ve got to get things moving forward here.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
Senator Christmas: My question is directed to both witnesses.
On March 31, 2021, as you mentioned earlier, the federal special representative, Allister Surette, issued his final report on a moderate livelihood fishery. One of his recommendations, recommendation number 3, is the establishment of what he called a dialogue forum between Indigenous and non-Indigenous fishing groups. It appears to me that DFO is in the deep background.
What are your thoughts about this recommendation, and do you feel that members of your organizations can support this recommendation?
Mr. Mallet: We’ve had examples in the past, and let’s say currently, in New Brunswick, where we’re having sit-downs with some Indigenous communities to talk general fisheries management issues, science and collaborative projects, without DFO at the table. We’re having good discussions.
One commonality that we both have is a common distrust or a set of issues dealing with DFO on an independent basis. So I think, moving forward, if we can have these dialogue tables and come to common agreements on how we can share and commonly manage our fisheries, that’s going to go a long way to establishing a better system moving forward.
Mr. MacPherson: Senator Christmas, to answer your question, I think there would be strong support. It was the PEIFA that initiated getting together with our Island chiefs last October because we were frustrated about asking to have some sort of dialogue for over a year.
Again, we need input from the Aboriginal community for sure on whether this would be a good model or not, but having co-chairs and having an independent facilitator, to me, the intent would be to involve the parties that need to be involved. They don’t necessarily need to be tripartite meetings. We’re just putting that out there, but it’s certainly open for discussion. You’re absolutely right, there were several recommendations in the Surette report that showed support for something like that.
Senator Christmas: Thank you.
Senator Richards: Senator Christmas asked my question, but I think it can be asked again, so I will ask it.
I’ve dealt with the DFO on salmon and bass in the Miramichi, and I’ve been completely frustrated by their attitude. I’m sure maybe you guys have been too.
How has the DFO muddied the waters in all of these collaborations? Would a nation-to-nation dialogue not work as well as a fishers-to-fishers dialogue?
Mr. MacPherson: I’m going to maybe step out here. Certainly for the Aboriginal community, there are things that are viewed as being very colonial. I guess on our side there are things that we view as being very paternalistic. We’re just not involved. As I alluded to earlier, when there’s a vacuum, people start to assume the worst, and that’s a real problem. It’s hard for us to manage that.
To go back to the organizations, there are a number of individuals in Nova Scotia, for example, who don’t belong to any organization. It’s really a challenge to get an educational piece out there, but it doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done.
Mr. Mallet: I’ll just add that I think the current way of negotiating by the government with these RRA agreements that are not being made official is wrong, there’s no transparency. They’re just piecemeal negotiations to buy a little bit of time on an issue that needs to be public, transparent and involve all stakeholders and rights holders. By continuing in this direction, we’re just following the colonial divide-and-conquer strategies that were put in place back in the 1700s.
Senator Richards: Thanks very much to both of you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question is for both of your associations. How can they improve their knowledge of the way fishers operate who are not part of your associations, meaning the ones from First Nations?
We hear a lot about rights, of course. We also hear about science. We say that we have to become more knowledgeable about the science, but, in my opinion, there is also a very fundamental issue. That issue is the culture and the differences in culture between your two groups.
How can your associations work together? What do the fishing members of your associations need to improve, not only their scientific knowledge, but also their understanding of the cultural vision of fishing that First Nations have?
I would like to hear what you have to say about it because it seems to me to be a fundamental issue. It is not about rights and science. It is about the ability to recognize the other’s vision of fishing. I acknowledge that the issue is very broad.
Mr. Mallet: Senator Cormier, I believe that, at the local level, we have to set up a negotiating table, a discussion forum, between the First Nations’ leaders and the fishers’ associations. They would discuss fishery management matters and the potential for collaborative projects. We have talked about collaborative projects and about science. For example, as you know, we at the MFU have projects for stocking and managing the resource, with lobster, for example, and we have recently started discussions on that precise subject. However, this is also an opportunity to work together on the issue that you raised, the way of approaching or developing an awareness system that would improve the flow of First Nations’ cultural information to our fishers. However, it all must be done through dialogue between the associations and the First Nations.
As I mentioned earlier, the current model, basically “divide and conquer,” constantly drives us apart. We have to put an end to that model in order to revert to a model that allows collaboration between the fishers in the First Nations and in the associations. Common approaches could then be developed before going to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
[English]
Mr. MacPherson: Senator, I think that is a great question. I’ll just go back to our experience last October where we sat down with our Island chiefs, which I think was probably one of the first times in many years that had happened. Irrespective, we had kind of a loose agenda and had no idea how it would start off. Bobby Jenkins, our president, spoke and the two chiefs spoke.
What was interesting, for the first 15 or 20 minutes, people talked about their history and what the fishery meant to their community, things that weren’t directly fishing-related. I think that is a way to start understanding some of the other person’s challenges or the community’s challenges or the things that they’re up against.
Three hours later we adjourned, but to me, having our chiefs talk about their communities and what’s going on and their challenges is far more powerful than anything I could do as an individual or an association. That’s why I hope that we can have informational meetings where the chiefs are comfortable to speak about their positions and why they need to do what they need to do.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
Senator Kutcher: Gentlemen, in an article dated May 19, Fred Wien and co-authors pointed out that, in their opinion, systemic racism was so ingrained and so problematic that it was getting in the way of solutions being realized. They suggested an aggressive three-pronged approach, which included anti-racism programs, intense public education and cross-community engagement activities.
What are your thoughts about these suggestions? Do you feel they are feasible or necessary? And if they are, how should those interventions occur?
Mr. MacPherson: I think those are three good areas. I think it would probably be most effective if individual communities decided what would be the best approach for their particular area.
As I said, there are many aspects of these issues, and there is a lot of information that needs to be exchanged. We need to get something in place that’s going to make that a little easier.
The PEIFA will continue to seek meetings with our Island chiefs. In both cases, DFO were invited as observers, not active participants. That’s how it starts.
One of the things that, maybe, the senators are not aware of was that in Sou’West Nova, the groups down there were meeting with their local chiefs for several years. Unfortunately that came off the rails. They might be a great group to talk to in terms of what went well and what didn’t work well, and go from there.
The Chair: I would like to take the opportunity now to thank our witnesses for continuing with this very important discussion and assisting us with our study. If after today — and I should have mentioned this to our earlier witnesses — you think of something you would have liked to pass on to us in regard to information, and you didn’t have the opportunity to do so during our session this morning, please contact our clerk with a written submission or any information that you think would aid us with the work we are doing here.
I want to thank our senators and staff for our meeting this morning.
I would like to, on behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, extend our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and communities of those mourning the loss of the children at the Kamloops residential school site. As a father and grandfather, I can only imagine the amount of grief that has been experienced there. It’s affected us all. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and communities.
With that, I thank you all for your attendance this morning.
(The committee adjourned.)