THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 30, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:08 a.m. [ET] to Government Response to the fourth report of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, tabled with the Clerk of the Senate on July 12, 2022.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador and chair of this committee. I have the pleasure to be here this morning.
Today we are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to me or the clerk, and we’ll work to resolve the issue. I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Ataullahjan: Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Good morning and welcome. Senator Mohamed Ravalia from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome.
Senator M. Deacon: Good morning, Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Francis: Good morning and welcome. Brian Francis, P.E.I.
Senator R. Patterson: Welcome. Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Hello. Stan Kutcher from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
On March 7, 2023, the government’s response to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans fourth report entitled Peace on the Water was deposited with the Clerk of the Senate. An order of reference to study the government response was referred to the committee on February 24, 2023.
Today, under this mandate, we will hear from the following witnesses: Ken Paul, Fisheries Negotiator and Research Coordinator, Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick, and Junior Gould, Chief, Abegweit First Nation, Regional Director General, Maritimes Region. Excuse my Newfoundland language if I did anything to your titles or your name.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand both witnesses have opening remarks. Following the presentation of your remarks, members of our committee will have some questions for you. Mr. Paul, I will give you the floor first. Thank you.
Ken Paul, Fisheries Negotiator and Research Coordinator, Wolastoqey Nation of New Brunswick:
[Indigenous language spoken]
I am from the Wolastoqey community of Nequtkuk also known as Tobique First Nation.
Before I go into my remarks, I just want to acknowledge the retired Senator Dan Christmas, whom I know was very instrumental in the work of this committee and with this report. He has connections to my home community in Tobique, and we consider him a friend and a member of the family. I just hope that he is really enjoying his retirement post Senate.
A little bit about our nation: The Wolastoqey Nation has, since time immemorial, occupied the lands and waters that transcend the borders of New Brunswick, Quebec and the state of Maine. Our territory includes Wolastoq, also known as the beautiful and bountiful river that you may know by its colonial renaming as the Saint John River. Our waters include those of the Bay of Fundy and the approaches to the Gulf of Maine which our ancestors fished and cared for since time immemorial. Territories to the east and west are those of our sister nations the Mi’kmaq and the Peskotomuhkati, with whom we have nation-to-nation relationships. Our First Nation communities in New Brunswick include Oromocto First Nation, St. Mary’s First Nation, Kingsclear First Nation, Woodstock First Nation, Tobique First Nation, and Madawaska First Nation.
The Wolastoqey Nation entered into Peace and Friendship Treaties with the Crown. While we appreciate that Canada’s Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of the 1752 Treaty from the Simon case and the 1760-61 Treaty from the Marshall decision, we remind Canada that our treaty relationship began with the Treaty of 1725. Our treaties do not cede title of lands or resources. They guarantee the Wolastoqiyik’s inherent rights in our territory, including the right to fish. As you are aware, the Wolastoqey Nation also has a constitutionally protected, inherent right under section 35 of the Canadian Constitution to be self‑governing, as do all First Nations in Canada.
One of our leaders, Chief Allan Polchies Jr., gave testimony to the committee at this time last year which contributed to the Senate report Peace on the Water. We commend the work of POFO and the 10 recommendations put forward.
We have reviewed the Government of Canada’s response, through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), and we are disappointed that they indicated there is no need for any substantive changes to their legislation, regulations, policy or programs. The limited mandate and tools available to DFO to implement the proper exercise of our section 35 rights severely restrict Canada’s ability to fulfill its obligations to recognize and support our Wolastoqey Nation to re-establish the governance of our lands, waters and resources.
While our member communities have participated in different programs, such as the AFS, the Marshall Response Initiative, AICFI and AAROM, we are in complete disagreement with DFO’s assertions that these rights-based programs are any kind of fulfillment, partial or otherwise, towards implementing our section 35 inherent aboriginal and treaty-protected rights. Our leadership has entered into these signed agreements as interim access and capacity-building opportunities.
While DFO frequently talks about collaboration with First Nations, in practice DFO leans heavily toward a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it approach that makes largely cosmetic changes. DFO consistently avoids or is unable to execute real changes that could actually improve outcomes for our nation and fulfill Canada’s constitutional obligations.
These agreements are interim measures. The AFS is a strategy, not the implementation of any right. It allows for training and monitoring opportunities for our members, but it is severely limited. There has not been any significant change in funding or scope of the strategy since the 1990s, despite the ever-changing environmental and social needs in our territories and waters. DFO also decided to attach the food/social/ceremonial licenses to the AFS agreements.
The FSC licenses are also woefully inadequate to provide for the real needs of our community members. The FSC policy regime was an interim measure in response to the Sparrow decision of 1990. DFO continues to fail in their application of the decision. Our FSC is not priority access, which is part of the Supreme Court decision. The department continues to favour its commercial industry over our rights.
The FSC licenses also infringe upon our rights. They limit First Nations to only fish the species listed in the license, along with a number of restrictions as to location, method, time of year and require the First Nation to suspend their rights. More than one of our communities have not signed their AFS agreements for several years because of the suspension of their rights and have unfortunately had to forego federal funding support for the field work and employment of the community members because the FSC license compliance is a requirement under the agreement. In response to this, the department still attempts to impose the FSC licenses on the non-signing First Nations. Some of our First Nations are signing these agreements under duress, as they are dependent on the AFS dollars to support their monitoring work and provide employment. We are unsure why DFO did not acknowledge Sparrow or the requirement for priority access in its response to POFO.
The communal commercial regime is also an interim measure. The MRI, and now AICFI, was set up to provide economic opportunities and allow First Nations and Canada time to implement the Supreme Court of Canada’s directive to Canada and the true intent of the Peace and Friendship Treaties. However, we are in our twenty-third year since the Marshall decision without any substantive movement on behalf of Canada to recognize our self-determination or governance authority of our traditional lands, waters and resources.
With respect the Rights and Reconciliation Agreement negotiations, we are disappointed that the mandate and offer that Canada has presented at the beginning of the process have not changed despite years of negotiations and exchanging of information and sharing of priorities. There are several problems with the RRA, including the requirement to suspend our rights for the period of the agreement and the limited use of the funds towards purchasing commercial licenses, boats and gear. The RRA is essentially an enhanced AICFI.
While the minister has touted the funding made available to MRI, AICFI and RRA, we must clarify that these funds primarily benefit the commercial fishing industry and not our First Nations because of DFO’s willing buyer-willing seller policy. Commercial license holders receive the monetary benefit of these funds because First Nations are obligated in most cases to use the money to purchase access at inflated prices from existing licence holders. The willing buyer-willing seller program is an extraordinarily inefficient policy approach, contrary to DFO’s public statements. It is also premised on the backward assumption that we will only be allowed access to our own constitutionally protected fisheries if commercial fishers agree to sell our own rights back to us.
There is nothing about this approach that is fair or equitable. DFO has been infringing our treaty-protected and Aboriginal rights for decades, and continually approaches the issue giving preference to commercial license holders who have privileged access from the department, and First Nations may or may not be accommodated.
All of the agreements DFO wants us to sign require reporting to DFO and cede the decision-making authority to the minister. DFO only has the Fisheries Act to attempt to accommodate our rights and would require our nation to accept, at best, collaborative agreements. However, our nation has inherent aboriginal and treaty-protected rights that cannot be unfairly limited by an act of parliament, such as the Fisheries Act. Our leaders, both past and present, have never ceded any authority over our lands, waters and resources. Any agreement with Canada or the Crown must recognize our governance authority. We also require funding and support to re-establish our laws and to build our science capacities, monitoring capacities and economic opportunities and anything else related to fisheries and marine resources. These are some of the foundations necessary for us to exercise good governance.
We support POFO’s recommendation to move the main-table negotiations to CIRNA, with DFO in an advisory role. Unfortunately, DFO’s mandate is explicitly limited to provisions within the Fisheries Act and current policies. The minister acknowledged this limitation in her response by referring to self‑government agreements. DFO’s purpose is to support maximum sustainable yield of the fisheries — in other words, fisheries are primarily exploitable economic ventures for Canada regulated by the Fisheries Act.
While we recognize and will continue to look for economic opportunities from fisheries for our communities, our approach, based on our values, will prioritize the long-term viability of all our fisheries. Our holistic approach comes from our traditions and values that manage towards abundance rather than simply sustainability. We do not limit ourselves to simply looking at fish in monetary terms. It is our responsibility to look at all factors affecting the health and abundance of our marine relatives, beyond the strict Fisheries mandate. We do not believe DFO has the ability to do this under the Fisheries Act.
More than anyone, we are concerned with the sustainability of the fisheries, but we need recognition of our governance authority to be able to have a positive impact. We are attempting to get recognition of our governing authority as well as support to aid us in building the various aspects necessary to govern and manage our lands, waters and resources, and we would like Canada to abide by the SCC Sparrow and Marshall decisions, along with other SCC directives, and provide priority access to our resources in our traditional territories. A policy and legislative framework that is still fundamentally based in the inequities and colonial biases of many decades ago is never going to lead to positive outcomes for us.
With that, I will say wela’lin, and I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Paul. To comment on your opening remarks, when you spoke about Senator Christmas, I guarantee you that this committee misses his direction and the very productive time that he spent with us. We wish him all the best also.
Chief Gould, please go ahead.
Junior Gould, Chief, Abegweit First Nation: I would like to acknowledge the territory I come from, Abegweit, now known as Prince Edward Island. We are part of the Prince Edward Island provincial territory, but it also extends into District 7. Our district goes into Pictou Landing, Pictou Island.
I would like to acknowledge my former chief of Abegweit First Nation, Senator Francis, who sits here today. That is part of the reconciliation process. You have the right people in the right places, and I want to acknowledge Senator Francis. Thank you.
Kwe, hello. [Indigenous language spoken] On behalf of the Abegweit First Nation, I want to thank the chair, Senator Manning, and the entire committee for their time, effort, attention and the quality of your work in creating the report Peace on the Water. I want to thank Minister Murray and the Government of Canada for responding to this report, and I encourage the minster and her department to treat this work as urgent.
Today, I am sharing my opinions on the government’s response to the report Peace on the Water as a person who has been a captain of one of our communal fishing licences for 15 years. Prior to the Marshall decision, I was a tribal police officer, RCMP auxiliary. In addition to my industry experience as a fisher and my political experience as a chief of the Abegweit First Nation, I am also the Acting Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations from Prince Edward Island, which is a new appointment. Thus, I bring a national First Nation perspective to the discussions, as well.
I make the following comments to Minister Murray’s DFO and Government of Canada official response to the Peace on the Water report, responding to the minister’s response to recommendations 1, 2, 6 and 7.
What is in practice has been “effort based” allocations for decisions on quota. All stakeholders are told that decisions are based upon science and conservation; however, in practice, decisions for species-specific quotas, or allocations, go first to the present commercial fishers, fishery associations, lotteries, and then to others, which includes First Nations.
My recommendation is that, in the case of all species-specific quotas, decisions are made based upon independent conservation and science, including Indigenous knowledge. Quotas should be distributed from the lens of conservation and science to First Nations rights holders first, then commercial licence holders, fishery associations, lotteries and finally others. We are not “others.”
I recommend that DFO ensures all Indigenous fishing experts are at the decision-making table at all levels.
I also recommend that the minister stops the status quo practice of the DFO-RCMP regulation and enforcement lens that provides the impression to the non-Indigenous community that Indigenous fisheries are not rights-based but rather is a fishery to be accommodated through the present practice and history of the commercial fishery.
Recently, our First Nation has been pursuing a nation-to-nation agreement to collaboratively manage our fishery. This process has been undertaken by me personally. When all stakeholders are more involved in the process, it provides engagement and is a proactive, not a reactive, process.
Rights and reconciliation agreements that ask a First Nation to set aside its rights for 5 to 10 years do not create trust among anyone, nor does it support the principle that First Nations fisheries are rights-based, backed by a Supreme Court ruling; rather, it promotes the status-based approach of regulation and enforcement from both DFO and RCMP that continues to cause trouble on the water, as demonstrated at Burnt Church and more recently at Saulnierville.
With the Minister of Fisheries open to work with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, my recommendation is to make the Minister of Indigenous Relations the lead authority on the implementation of a rights-based fishery.
Responding to recommendations 3, 4, 8 and 9 in the minister’s response, I recommend the following:
First, stop the status quo practice of operating from the federal lens of the DFO-RCMP dictating enforcement and regulations without true engagement or respect. Federal policies and practices like this did not work for residential schools and will not work for the fisheries.
Second, start from the premise that First Nations have the right to fish and earn a moderate livelihood.
Third, on all licences issued by DFO, have the written licence include that the licence is based upon the Fisheries Act, conservation and the constitutional right of First Nations to fish. In my discussions in Prince Edward Island, that was the number one problem. It wasn’t my due diligence as a First Nations leader to explain to the non-aboriginal fishers what our right are about; it’s yours. As the Canadian government, I think you failed the Canadian taxpayers by not explaining the difference between a right and a privilege.
Fourth, the minister needs to review the department’s internal work processes and eliminate many steps in the DFO reporting, accountability and work processing system. That will demonstrate there is trust and accountability for the funding for both the Crown and the First Nation. All Nations are audited independently, which holds the nation accountable to dollars and departmental investments. We see it as redundant to keep our people in a state of necessity and need. All First Nations are audited, and these practices are redundant.
Fifth, I recommend the minister looks for ways to provide continuous education to all levels of government and with stakeholders in the fishing communities on First Nations rights. Ongoing education opportunities should take place in Indigenous communities. For example, during discussions on moderate livelihood in P.E.I., I met, presented and had meaningful peaceful discussions with the PEI Fishing Associations, wharf authorities, RCMP, DFO, local schools and non-Indigenous groups. That work takes time and should be supported financially.
Finally, on recommendation 10, reporting, the minister states that her department uses its own Departmental Results Report, which is publicly released yearly and provides an update on progress to implement the rights-based system. My recommendation to the minister would be to have a third party complete an independent evaluation on the implementation of the rights of the fisheries, reporting yearly. That work would provide all stakeholders with reassurances that the Government of Canada is committed to holding itself accountable, and it would give decision-makers information that is impartial and free from potential bias.
As I conclude my remarks, I am happy to answer any questions and make comments on any of the government’s responses to Peace on the Water. This work is urgent. My community is going on the water next week, and I am concerned. This is urgent. There is no easy answer. We all need to treat this matter as urgent, work together on solutions and have the rights‑based fishery fully implemented.
Wela’lioq.
The Chair: Thank you, chief. Thank you both for your remarks. We have a list of senators ready to ask questions.
Senator Francis: Thank you, witnesses.
Both of you might have touched upon this subject in your opening remarks, but I’ll ask it again just for greater clarification. In Peace on the Water, this committee recommended that the federal government pursue a reallocation approach rather than the current buy-back approach. However, in the government response, Minister Murray restates the preference of her department for the buy-back approach but acknowledges that a lack of willing sellers at market value cannot be an impediment to implementing the rights-based fisheries. Would you agree that a reallocation approach is necessary because the buy-back approach has been widely unsuccessful since commercial licence holders have been unwilling to sell their licences or quotas at a reasonable market price, especially when it comes to a lucrative species such as lobster?
Mr. Gould: I’ll start.
As I stated in my opening recommendations, the existing system does not work. I think the federal government has designated this from the bottom up. It’s given it to policy and procedures, and status quo doesn’t work. As an example, under Marshall, which is an accommodation agreement, the buy-back process was exasperated. I think fair market value was double or triple the licence value in the industry. That sets precedent right there. Continuing that practice won’t work.
The problem I have with all these processes is that they’re at the lower level. It’s at the ground level. That’s the problem. We’re not talking about the real nation-to-nation discussions, and that discussion is plain and simple. I’ll use an example. In Prince Edward Island, we were talking about entering a RRA. The buy-back process in banked licences should not be a leveraging tool for departmental pressure on us to forfeit our rights as First Nations. We have an RRA. I’ll tell you this, the people in our region have received bank licences for access to the industry based on whether they signed the agreement or not. That is not good-faith negotiation. That is not nation-to-nation negotiation. That is departmental leveraging, and that’s where it’s at.
The practice and policy from an effort-based industry — which is what it is. An effort-based industry is based in trap in and trap out and species affected by science and conservation. That’s how the industry is governed. It’s not a conservation industry. DFO has the right to implement and create licences based on those facts and their science. It’s an effort-based industry. If they create more licences to accommodate the need and necessity to address the rights protected by the constitution of Canada, then it’s simple. There are other ways of doing it. We have just never been addressed at that level to do it. They put it down at the departmental level and bind us up with bureaucrats and everything else. It just hinders our people. We have done our due diligence and continue to do it.
Mr. Paul: This is our view of the whole buy-back program. These were interim measures that were put in after the Marshall decision. They were supposed to be three-year agreements. The Government of Canada extended those unilaterally. It did provide some economic benefits for our communities. They were able to fish commercially for the very first time without persecution. However, those interim agreements were supposed to buy time to allow the negotiations to figure out what the treaties mean in a modern context. That turned into the AICFI, and now the RRA process is basically the same thing as the AICFI because it restricts you. You can only buy licences, vessels or equipment and gear. Our nation has six communities. We don’t have a wharf. We don’t have processing plants. We don’t have storage facilities. We don’t have trucks. If there was flexibility to do some of those kinds of things with any kind of funds, that would be much better for us because we need to be involved within the entire value chain.
The other problem we have with this concept is that it looks like a First Nation community will get money, but they actually don’t get the money. For example, if one of our communities signed on and got a $10 million agreement, well, that money flows through the community and goes off to the commercial industry who are willing to sell their licences. So the community actually doesn’t get $10 million. As well, the inflated prices — because it’s an open market — also cause problems. Something like $10 million sounds like a lot of money, but you would be lucky to get nine lobster licences for that. You couldn’t buy a snow crab licence because that’s $12 million to $14 million. An elver licence is in the tens of millions of dollars. It doesn’t make sense to us to do that.
DFO has the authority to make these decisions. The minister has that discretion. If DFO is insistent on staying within their total allowable catch or within their effort-based fishery of limiting lobster traps and things like that, we would ask the minister to accommodate that at her discretion by making that space to provide temporary access.
Senator Francis: My follow-up question is this: In your opinion, is it beyond time for the federal government to take immediate steps to move beyond its preference for short-term responses such as the RRA agreements lasting five to ten years, and if so, could a permanent solution be found in the creation of a new legislative framework that is separate from the Fisheries Act?
Mr. Paul: I do think there has to be a significant change. We can’t do this under the Fisheries Act. Our rights can’t be bound by the Fisheries Act. If the mechanism is a new legislative framework, that would be great, but we want to negotiate governance. In my remarks, I mentioned that. With governance comes these other mechanisms that have to be put into place, such as monitoring, developing our own science capacities — which will include our traditional, Indigenous knowledge systems — potentially enhancing the roles of guardians and things like that. But we don’t have the supports to do that kind of work. All of that is the stuff necessary for good governance, and we can’t do that under the thumb of DFO’s Fisheries Act.
DFO’s Fisheries Act really just wants us all to fish either on our communal commercial fisheries policies — which are very much like commercial fisheries policies — or on FSC, fisheries policy. It’s just limited. Also, it always defers that the minister will have the ultimate authority and say over what we do. On a nation-to-nation basis, I don’t think that’s the intent of treaty negotiations.
Mr. Gould: Thank you for the question, senator. It’s a good question, and it continues from your first one.
Status quo doesn’t work, as I said in my opening comments. Historically, we can look at the failed federal government practice of residential schools, which is in everybody’s minds and fairly fresh history, to see how the government deals with the Indian problem. We stand before you now with honour and — I respectfully say — as the Indian problem.
We make recommendations based on what we know is the problem, and we have a quick fix. I think the departmental practice of bureaucratic control and colonial, top-down representation by the federal government is a way of displacing the responsibility. That’s evident in the history of the practice of the federal government with First Nations. Nation-to-nation is a good terminology to use, but nation-to-department allows you to bypass your responsibility as a governing body, the government. It’s simply put that it should be in the right place. Crown‑Indigenous Affairs is the place where these things should be. When you talk about nation-to-nation, it should be that kind of respect. It’s not departmental. It’s kind of insulting if you don’t use the intellectual definition of your government and the top‑down hierarchy and the way it should be run. You put us at the bottom and work up. It’s in your policy. It’s in DFO’s act.
During the time of the previous chief, Senator Francis, we worked with the rules and regulations of DFO. Right now, my community is a constructive part of the industry, and we have been since post-Marshall. We have been given access and opportunity. We appreciate that. My people in Abegweit do not want to go backwards. We also don’t have access to a harbour or to advance our access to the industry. We’re very limited in that. However, we are progressing. The power of the people is the people doing the work on the ground. The power of the management is here at this level — the power to give them more access and protect our generations in the future. It’s the chiefs. It’s the representation. We can give you technical responses all day long, and you can have your science call my science, but it just doesn’t work, and it hasn’t worked. I think the responsibility should be at the highest level of government and should be at Crown-Indigenous Affairs.
The Chair: I will just advise my Senate colleagues that we have a long list of senators who want to ask questions, so on first round, I will limit it to a question and a follow-up. Then if we need to, we’ll go to a second round. This is just to make sure everybody gets in on time.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you, gentlemen, for meeting with us. We really appreciate it.
I’m just giving notice that all my questions for all the discussions we are going to have will focus on one area, and that will be on the response to sections 3, 4, 8 and 9 and the section on continuing education. If any DFO officials are watching, please come with data and don’t tell us you are going to send us stuff later. All right. So we’re clear there.
First of all, I’m going to focus on the education program pertaining to rights-based fisheries. It says here:
… the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of making information on rights-based fisheries easily accessible to stakeholders and the general public.
The questions I have for both of you — and thank you, Chief Gould, for raising this issue — are as follows: Which programs have you seen in your communities? If you have seen any, what has their impact been? Has it changed people’s attitudes? Has it changed people’s knowledge, and has it changed people’s behaviours? Have either of your communities been asked to co‑create, co-lead, co-distribute and co-evaluate any of these educational programs?
Mr. Paul: Just for clarification, are you asking about the impact in our Indigenous communities, our member communities?
Senator Kutcher: Yes, I would like to know about your own communities, and then we’ll get into the wider stuff.
Mr. Gould: What was the first part of the question?
Senator Kutcher: Which of these programs that the government says they are doing have you actually seen?
Mr. Gould: The results?
Senator Kutcher: The program. The second question is that if you have seen these programs, what have the results been from them? Have they changed people’s attitudes? Have they changed people’s behaviour or knowledge about rights-based fisheries?
Mr. Gould: Now I have clarity on the question. Thank you for the question.
Yes and no. As far as the access to industry and giving us the power and tools to enter the industry based on the policies of DFO, whether it be an accommodation agreement from Marshall on, it has given us the opportunity to get engaged and give our people the authority to create their own wealth and meaningful employment. So in that way, it has worked as far as the protections it has allocated in money and human resources.
Senator Kutcher: My apologies. They said they are going to make educational programs that will make information on rights‑based fisheries easily accessible to the general public. I’m asking if you have seen any of these kinds of programs.
Mr. Gould: If you want to skip the first part, what I was segueing into was that, no, it has not given an impact. As I stated in my recommendation, I shouldn’t, as a leader of the First Nation, have to go around to a port authority and educate them on the rights based on the Marshall decision. I shouldn’t have to do that. I shouldn’t have to explain the Sparrow decision and what that means. I shouldn’t have to do that.
My recommendation is how you circumvent the grey area that we exist in right now and is added into the agreement. I’ll say this to the fishermen in P.E.I., I have said this: Your federal government that you purchased this licence from owes you, one, an explanation or a refund, because, two, they haven’t told you that not only will conservation dictate it and the Fisheries Act, but the First Nations’ right to the industry should dictate it as well. It’s not our fight to have with the non-Aboriginal. DFO and every level at the federal government hasn’t educated them. So I made a recommendation that the general licence would be based on these conditions: conservation, which we all respect; the Fisheries Act, which is the law, and we respect that, but there should also be a First Nations treaty — as an acknowledgement. They haven’t even done that yet. There has been no change in the education process for the non-Aboriginal fishermen other than a reaction to the existing problems that are happening. So there hasn’t been, no.
Senator Kutcher: Not to the fishermen, and not to any in the general public that you are aware of?
Mr. Gould: None that I have seen in my 15 years as a captain with a lobster licence and all the years I have done as a chief.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Mr. Paul: The department has not come into our communities to educate. I don’t know 100% everything that goes on, but I have not seen any requests, and I probably would know. We have never been asked to contribute to any education program. Quite frankly, I’m a little bit nervous if the department takes it upon themselves to do this without input, because the department has a different view. They look at it through the Fisheries Act lens, and our rights go far beyond that. What Chief Gould is talking about here, general education of the public, Senator Francis and the rest of us had to learn the hard way about this treaty stuff because we never grew up with this in school. I learned about the French Revolution, the Soviet Union and things like that. I never learned about treaties in Canada. We had to learn from being in the field after the Supreme Court of Canada recognized these things.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much. I’ll cede the rest of my time because otherwise I’ll spend the whole time here.
The Chair: I saw that in the past. That’s the reason I said what I said before I gave you the floor.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for your presentations.
In the government response, the minister states that she is
… committed to reviewing and amending its relevant laws, regulations, policies, and practices in consultation and cooperation with Indigenous peoples, including Treaty Nations, to fully implement rights-based fisheries …
Since the Senate adopted the report in September of 2022, have your communities been consulted by Fisheries and Oceans Canada on this topic?
Mr. Paul: We’re in consultation with the department regularly on many different species, but as far as the minister making a commitment, the minister is very limited in what the mandate of the department is, and they can’t implement our rights.
The department takes the approach of a species-by-species management of commercially viable species. Yes, our community members have to have economic benefit from these resources that were managed by our ancestors, but we also have this environmental ethic which comes from our Indigenous knowledge and from our values system, and we are concerned about the habitat. We are concerned about things sort of categorized as cumulative effects, which is sometimes beyond the department’s mandate if it’s under a provincial legislation or, you know, some other federal or provincial entity. For us, we look at what’s best for the fish. We don’t look what’s best for the fishers. The fishers will adapt.
I can’t see a pathway for the department to actually do this kind of work which is going to actually fulfill and really save the fish and by extension save us as a species walking this earth because if we don’t have healthy fisheries, we will cease to exist. We’re trying to get recognition and support for that. Yes, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will probably have a role to play in this, but they should not be the ultimate authority over all of these fisheries. Based on our Peace and Friendship Treaties, we all talk about unceded territory. None of our ancestors ceded any territory to any of this stuff. And we assert that. It’s just that Canada has claimed jurisdiction over the fisheries, but we don’t know if there is a way to get them to prove that. This is why we’re in these negotiations. We’re trying to figure this out, to actually figure out the governance, not just trying to figure out what fish species we want to have access to.
Mr. Gould: Respectful to time, senator, the answer is no. And here is why it’s a simple, easy “no.” I know best practice because I have instituted it. I mentioned earlier about reactive policy and procedures of the federal government in dealing with certain problems, such as the Indian problem. That’s how we’ve been treated historically. I’m proactive. I’m a proactive chief. When the fisheries moderate livelihood was being implemented in Epekwitk, in P.E.I., I was proactive. I had the merchant response tactical team contacted from the RCMP. I have had meetings with the schools. I have gone to schools to speak because I know my children will be sitting beside the non-Aboriginal children, and the hatred and animosity they hear at home or wharves or harbours was there and relevant. So I had to educate the teachers. I met with the staff and facility. I explained how the Abegweit First Nation will be moving forward with a moderate livelihood based on their rights as a treaty people. I had to educate a principal in the high school. I went to multiple high schools. I created a tactical committee which involved — I contacted DFO and asked them to join the committee, representatives from the RCMP, the neighbouring Fishermen’s Association, P.E.I. Association, came to the First Nation and sat with us, and I moderated the potential for any fighting on the water. That’s why when I had the opportunity to come and speak to this, I speak from the heart with the concern of my people, the treaty rights that we have and the failed practices of the government and the departmental level. So the easy answer is no, they have not. But we have. We have exercised our due diligence as the Abegweit First Nation. We practise all of the DFO regulatory bodies, which we feel is an infringement upon our right. But we are walking this. We are slow walking it so we can get into a relationship where we in P.E.I. can show you best practice, how a First Nation can determine itself and implement its own program and services in which we can better our people.
Senator Ataullahjan: Chief Gould, you said you were seen as the Indian problem. It makes me very sad that we continue to have marginalized communities that are being further marginalized.
Mr. Gould: Thank you. I appreciate that. I don’t know if you want me to comment on that further.
Senator Ataullahjan: I would like a comment on that.
Mr. Gould: I can speak on this on every level — from my experiences on the water, as a tribal police officer, as an auxiliary RCMP officer, as the president of the Aboriginal survivors for healing, as a son of Roger Gould who went to Shubenacadie Residential School, in any capacity that I can speak to this. The historical practice of the federal government has been reactive to deal with the problem, whether it be non‑Aboriginal fishermen burning DFO offices or whatever. It’s always been about reactive approach. Our people have always suffered that we are the Indian problem. I’m honoured that we have senators that have lived experience and traditional knowledge to bring to this table, and we are both honoured to be here and share with you our traditional knowledge, but we are the new Indian problem, and unfortunately that is the way it is right now. It’s happening in P.E.I. It’s happening all around.
For P.E.I. specifically, I will share with you this, and this is why it gets to the departmental level. There is a harbour in Prince Edward Island which is in my backyard, and the name is Savage Harbour. I find it offensive. Me, I’m a big guy and I can handle it. It doesn’t make me cry. It doesn’t hurt me. I’m upset, and it’s my job and my due diligence as chief and leader of the Abegweit First Nation that my aunts, uncles, mother or grandfather are offended by that. I know that if my dad was here today and knew we were fighting to have that name changed, he would be proud of me. He went to residential school. He was told he was a savage, and they tried to take the savage out of him. I appreciate the name changes in other areas, but if there is something that’s relevant to the First Nation people and it’s not even addressed, it shows that we are the Indian problem still.
A Band-Aid solution for a historical problem in our country should be addressed with historical responses, and it should be urgent. The fisheries is just a catalyst for the stuff that has happened on residential schools, and it is unfortunate that we as a people still see ourselves not as a productive coherent part of society but as a problem. The practices and policies within departments of the federal government, in every branch in every level, that has to change. We do feel that way. I make no apologies for how my people are treated. Thank you.
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you both for your very compelling testimony today.
I’m going to focus on recommendation 5 of the committee with respect to Indigenous knowledge and participation in fisheries and management decisions. Given the rather fractured relationship with DFO, particularly with respect to treaty-protected rights, can you speak to any successes or innovative approaches to fisheries management that have emerged through collaborations with DFO, and whether these have been actually integrated into your broader management network?
I was also curious to know, particularly with the P.E.I. experience, how you have been able to integrate some of your traditional knowledge and cultural practices into fisheries management, given the fact that, historically, traditional knowledge has been sort of thrown out of the water and it’s all been science-based. Yet, we have been struggling to get answers from DFO as to how this science-based operation actually works. Thank you.
Mr. Gould: I’m going to work backwards and I will mess up the sequence of questioning.
On the science-based approach, it’s pretty straightforward. There have always been two sciences in the industry. There is the DFO science, which is based on science, according to them. There is also the fishermen’s science, which is based on academic science. There has always been that conflict. We have seen that in our observational skills. That’s all we have, is an observational skill, because we are new to the industry. If you present a science, we trust that in good-faith negotiations, which is the only way we operate as First Nations. We believe that science, but if there are two sciences, we are confused. We have our traditional knowledge. I know how to fish in P.E.I. I know how to catch an eel at night-time. I know how to catch a shellfish, like a lobster, with a stick. I know how to do that. That’s my traditional knowledge. When I’m confronted with DFO and the regulatory regime which says you can or you can’t do this, and I have to educate people and explain that in P.E.I.
If we’re all talking about the same thing, let’s be relevant. They try to say, “Well, if you’re First Nation people, go into your teepee and fish out of your canoe.” I’m, like, “Yeah, we will, but here’s the deal. You go back to wherever you came from, Spain or your English country, and you petition your king to put a crew together to sail across the ocean. I’ll take my sons. I’ll ask my former chief if him and his boys will join me. We’ll be at the shore. We will wait for you. Six months to a year later, you can sail across the ocean. You’ll probably bump into Newfoundland. Find your way across. When you get lost, we’ll come get you. Then we’ll all fish on the north shores of P.E.I. We’ll teach you how to fish with the materials there, the birch bark. We’ll all fish out of a birch bark canoe. For entertainment, I’ll wear a loincloth if that will make you happy.”
The cooperation of management and collaborative agreements has to be realistic. You cannot cherry-pick time. You cannot cherry-pick history and try to implement a change in policies. If the First Nation traditional knowledge is respected in any capacity, we would have a say in a lot of these things. But we don’t. We don’t see it. We don’t see it in today’s practices. We see it, unfortunately, as a continuation of residential school policies and practices. We are the Indian problem.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Mr. Paul: The term “traditional knowledge” is, for me, a little bit incomplete. I always try to promote the words “traditional knowledge system.” I want people to understand it’s a way of knowing, just like a Western knowledge system or Western science system, to try to work out some respect for it. It’s not information that you can just take and use at your — there is an actual methodology behind it. Also, our value systems are embedded within this. When you talk about Indigenous knowledge, values have to be part of that. You have to talk about the context. That’s really important. That comes back to our culture. It’s also place-based.
There are also a number of challenges with respect to intellectual property rights. There is no regime in Canada, or internationally, to protect the Indigenous knowledge of Indigenous peoples. WIPO is trying to work on this. They are trying to do this within Canada and all these different kinds of things within the regulations under the Fisheries Act about this. We’re still trying to figure that stuff out.
Whenever DFO makes a decision to move against any of our fishers who are fishing what they are declaring under their own rights, DFO will come in and take gear. They may detain individuals. They say, well, this is because of conservation purposes. We started asking DFO, “Can you please provide the science to indicate why this person with ten lobster traps in the Bay of Fundy is threatening the population of lobster, whereas you have 300,000 traps when the commercial fishing season is open?” They keep not doing that. They just keep saying, blankly, “This is conservation.”
Over the years, I’m sure that some of our AAROM work and stuff like that have had minor effect, but nothing really substantive. We are trying to work with DFO on American eel and elver science and indexed rivers, because the department only has one indexed river in Nova Scotia on the Atlantic Ocean side. Based on those counts, they try to extrapolate about the entire elver population for the whole of Atlantic Canada. We don’t think that’s sufficient. The Bay of Fundy is a different system. The Wolastoq and all the other rivers within our traditional territories are different river systems. We want to do that work. We’re not getting funding support for that, but we are still reaching out to try to do this kind of stuff.
It is really hard for us to do this work. The other misnomer people have about Indigenous knowledge, or their mis-idea about it, is that it’s cheap, free. Well, it actually takes up people’s time. It should be supported, just like you would support any kind of science work. Data management is very important as well. We need GIS systems and things like that. I know that if we can do this work, we will have a contribution that we can get into the best possible science to really get a better understanding of what’s going on with the health of our fisheries.
Mr. Gould: In Prince Edward Island, just by best practice to show how the First Nation in P.E.I. has done their thing, since the Sparrow decision recognized the food and ceremonial right, we, the Abegweit First Nation, since then and even to this day, have shelved our right on our own decision-making process to be involved with the commercial. It’s always about, you can feed somebody once, but if you teach them how to fish, they will feed themselves forever. We have always had that philosophical view with the First Nation through our leadership. What we have done, to this day, is that we take our commercial revenue and use our own source of revenue and expenses, and we don’t increase the effort on the industry. We choose not to. We use our own money. We pay for our own ceremonial lobster. Anything that we do, we take it out of our own source of revenue. We take the hit on the commercial end because we think it is important to be consistent with our messaging on how we are working with the public, and we do in P.E.I.
At the bureaucratic level, they offered us to increase. “We will give you an extra thousand traps to accommodate their” — and we were, like, no, because we don’t want to infringe upon the relationship we have with the non-Aboriginal fishermen. We want to be consistent within the policy and the regime, the seasons and everything. We have existed that way in the absence of Marshall and in the absence of the federal government fulfilling their accommodation agreement to help us in every capacity. We have done our due diligence, and we continue to do it.
One quick little subtext: I apologize for using the words “Indian problem,” but how the federal government has dealt with the residential school children and stuff like that is a historical fact. I apologize if it seems inappropriate in the context I’m speaking about.
Senator Ravalia: It’s very appropriate. Thank you to you both.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for being here today. Your comments have been direct. I was going to say — I’m from Cape Breton — no BS in it. It has been direct. I’m not sure if I’m allowed to say that. It’s been really helpful for us. I hope that you will consider doing a press release or something afterwards, because the information that you have provided has been so helpful to me, particularly, but to everybody.
I’ll get back to our report and ask you a question. Our report recommended that the federal government create a new legislative framework to advance the full implementation of the rights-based fishery. That was one of our recommendations. In the government response, the minister continues to advocate for short-term responses under the Fisheries Act, such as the rights, reconciliation agreements and the moderate livelihood plan. Do you agree with the minister’s response? To what extent does the Fisheries Act allow for the full implementation of your constitutionally protected rights to not only fish for a moderate livelihood but to manage and govern this resource on your own? You sort of answered it all in response to other questions, but this would be more direct.
Mr. Paul: The Fisheries Act only allows us to fish commercially. That’s the problem. I’ll come back. Yes, we have to get economic benefits off these fisheries, but that’s not the only thing. The Fisheries Act and the department are really focussed on maximum sustainable yield, so they look at this as a resource and tend not to pay attention to non-commercially viable fisheries. Even the commercial seasons are set up to maximize the economic benefits.
I know with the case of Shubenacadie, they tried to launch a summer fishery. They actually brought in scientists. They had a management plan, but the department would not allow them to do that. They took traps and they denied the management plan, so no science is collected in the area of Saulnierville between May and November. In conversations I have had at some senior departments, they told me that, “If Mi’kmaq fish in the summertime, they can catch seven times more lobster because the lobster will go up into warmer and shallower waters in the summer.” That’s the assumption, namely, that Mi’kmaq are going to abuse the lobster. There are these types of assumptions from department officials. I don’t know if it’s fear-based. I’m not sure why they have to come back with these kinds of reasons.
Our rights will be contained in the Fisheries Act. There are provisions in the Fisheries Act which are advantageous to our communities with respect to creating employment because we are severely under-employed in our communities. The income levels in our communities are far below the Canadian average. Our members don’t understand how people can fish in our traditional land and waters, like in the river systems or in the marine sector, and make millions upon millions of dollars, but we’re not allowed to do that even though we’re the rights holders. We don’t have priority access. That’s another thing. I don’t understand why DFO can’t acknowledge that and can’t do something to make that happen.
Mr. Gould: To elaborate a bit, senator, you’re from Cape Breton. The concerns of the Mi’kmaq there are different from those of mainland Nova Scotia. We’re from District 7 in Abegweit, which stretches across the traditional territory, including Pictou. There are no cookie-cutter answers to that. If you try to apply a cookie-cutter solution, you’re going to fail.
Is there a part of the question that we haven’t addressed or that we didn’t answer, or something you would like to readdress?
Senator Cordy: You’ve given answers to that, but it makes me wonder if maybe — and I think you mentioned it, Mr. Paul — it should be an Indigenous file and not a Fisheries file.
Mr. Gould: Yes. From the top down, that’s how it should be. When you talk about nation-to-nation, it’s not a departmental issue. It’s a hypocrisy of policy and procedure if it’s dealt with at the departmental level.
For example, in Prince Edward Island — and this kind of explains it a bit — when the Marshall decision was brought down, it gave us the right to access the industry. The greater public thought that every First Nation person would run in the water and steal all the fish. That’s what they thought. So Prince Edward Island implemented the professionalization of the industry. At the time, as the tribal peace officer and supporter, I think of Chief Raymond Francis at the time, said, “Let’s get ahead of this and become professionalized.” By practice, every First Nation member today is completely within the safety regulations and all the professionalization of the industry. However, because they couldn’t grandfather in the fishers in their industry, P.E.I. dropped it. They were no longer interested in providing a safety net. It was only an excuse to hinder us from doing the process.
If the Supreme Court of Canada recognizes your right to do it and you keep doing it at the provincial government level or at the department in the federal level, you haven’t addressed the real issue, which is the highest level of governance. If you have a department that can address it, that’s where it should be. I think that’s the problem. I don’t know what the easy solution is, but I think the start should be at the highest level of government.
Senator Cordy: I had a call after our report came out. You talked about education. I’m talking about the general population of Canada. I had a call about the report, saying, “You’re saying we need to implement the Marshall decision. We need more time.” When a constituent calls, I’m usually a tenderfoot, but I said, “Well, work around it. How much time do we need? We have had 23 years since the Marshall decision came down. What is enough time? Is it 25 years we should wait, or 30, or 50? How long? Give me a number. How many years should we wait to implement it?” I think it’s been around for so long that people forget how long it has been around. Why haven’t the recommendations been fully implemented?
Mr. Gould: I love that part of it. As a segue, when I went to Saulnierville as a First Nation leader, and as a coach who coached some of those kids who were being attacked by the non‑aboriginal fishers in the community, I didn’t go there for whatever political bias a First Nation was trying to implement or their perception of their right. That is not why I was there. I was there because our First Nation people were being physically attacked. I was there because a kid that I coach was being attacked. That’s why I went. My sons and I went to that. I stood in that line.
Why it’s relevant to speak to this — and, as a Senate, you should understand this — is the young non-aboriginal fishermen who work there is a French guy, an Acadian. He was flying the Acadian flag, and he walked towards the line divided by RCMP on both sides and DFO in between. As a chief, I stood and I watched him. He walked where I could talk to him. I said, “This isn’t about that. I don’t respect you for flying that flag. This isn’t about race.” It isn’t. If that flag had a dollar sign on it, that would be what it was about. It wasn’t about nation-to-nation. It was about money. That’s what it was about. I would have had more respect for that kid if he came down there carrying a flag with a dollar sign on it because we are friends of the Acadian people. It was not about that. It was about the fishermen at the wharf who were being challenged. I respect that. They are fearful for their livelihood, their truck payments and putting food on their tables. I respect that.
The only way that you and I can do it is if someone takes responsibility and addresses the issues that should be addressed. Giving the information to the general public and letting the general public fight about it is a banana republic. That’s not what government’s about. Our government is taking the responsibility for their judiciary obligation to fulfill their obligation as a government. What I’m seeing in this is the Senate is taking this up. I think the recommendations are moving in a positive direction. I really do. That’s why I have taken my time from my community to come here. I’m honoured to be here.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to our guests for being here today, and to the Library of Parliament for the report in preparation. It’s very helpful.
I’m a guest on this committee. I’m privileged to have been here the last few weeks to pick up some key learnings in this area. I had some questions around the recommendations of the government and the response to Indigenous peoples playing an important role in management. You have been so clear that I don’t have to ask any questions on that. I think I’m really clear on where you’re coming from and that we need to reconsider the lane of this work and the lane of where this work happens best from start to finish.
I am going to ask a specific question, but I also encourage you, through speaking with me or with anyone on this committee, to make sure you get it all on the table today. You have been really candid, but we have a finite opportunity. We want to make sure that if there is something we haven’t asked, that you have the opportunity to express something that we may not have gone into. So please, leave it all on the table before we finish.
I want to come back, Mr. Paul, to something you said about those who don’t sign up for the AFS agreements. I’m trying to picture this in real life. You said the department still tries to impose the FSC licenses on the non-signing First Nations. What does it lock like in practice? Earlier, you mentioned individuals being detained under auspices of conservation. What does it look and feel like on the ground? We don’t have the privilege of having the large group of folks that you’re working with here today. What is that pulse on the ground? What is the hope? What is the optimism around fisheries and relationships and being able to do the work that they strive to do each day?
Mr. Paul: All the stuff within the Aboriginal fisheries strategy with respect to guardian programs and monitoring work, stuff like that, also has the FSC license attached. The communities need the money to create that employment to take care of the lands, but the department says, “If you sign on, you have to have this licence.” That’s why the communities didn’t sign it. They thought, “We will try to figure out self-employment through this.” They have done that.
What happened in our communities — and this is if a community didn’t have a signed agreement — was unbelievable. For example, to feed my family, I will take my 14-foot boat out and put 10 traps in the water. Then I try to catch some lobster so I can feed my family. In trying to do that, these people have been met with big patrol boats and, in some cases, helicopters. The response, the overcompensation of enforcement, has been unbelievable. I guess it’s part of an intimidation factor as well. We have had members handcuffed on small boats. That’s a dangerous practice. If you go over the side with handcuffs on, you’re going to drown.
The department then comes back and says that they will impose the last agreement we signed, whether it was two years ago, five years ago or eight years ago. So if a member goes out to do their work, if they try to fish something that is not within that agreement, area or season, then they are going to face enforcement.
We hosted a fisheries forum for our nation last September. I invited members of DFO to come in to talk about specific policy things that were important for our nation. It was a tense meeting, I must say, but in the end, I think there was value in having them there, and there were some conversation that happened after.
At the end of the first day, somebody came up to me and said, “You know, it was funny. Of those 12 people who came from DFO, none of them had sidearms.” I told that to DFO in a post‑meeting. I told them that’s what they were dealing with. Members of our community think that DFO is just fisheries officers, because that’s what they see. When you see somebody coming up to you with a sidearm, pepper spray and all that kind of stuff, there is fear. You automatically go on the defensive. That is part of the relationship problems we see in the field.
Regardless of that, our members know they have rights. Social media has shared a lot of things around. People know about food, social and ceremonial fisheries and don’t understand why that is not priority access. They understand the Marshall decision and don’t understand why they are not allowed to fish to support a livelihood for their communities or for their family.
I explained that to DFO as well, but I never get any kind of satisfactory answer or any willingness to change. I don’t think they can change. I don’t think the department has the tools or the mandate to actually do what is necessary. That is why we keep coming back to thinking that maybe the best short-term solution is the recommendation of moving the negotiations to CIRNA, with DFO as an advisor. At least with CIRNA, we can start negotiating governance, laws and things like that, rather than having whatever we put forward on the table being looked at in terms of how it looks under Fisheries Act.
Senator M. Deacon: Would you say if there was the one thing — the one win, the one thing that might come out of all of these discussions and testimony — it’s that shift? Is that the one that would give you the most hope, I suppose, and optimism that this might be a more optimal track?
Mr. Paul: There are two things: One of them is priority access, and the second is to move the negotiations to CIRNA.
Senator M. Deacon: Do you want add anything?
Mr. Gould: I’ll work backward. To that last question, yes. As to why, that’s because, under AFS, post-Sparrow, we entered AFS agreements. That was well and said. Then we entered the Marshall accommodation agreement, which was tweaked, turned and didn’t hold any prejudicial language. It was more toward accommodation, which our people felt was okay, for the majority. We went 15 years since the Marshall decision with no tweaking or real merit to the discussion of accommodation. It was just about allowing us access to an industry we were denied for years.
AFS was brought back to the table as part of the negotiation tactic to have us sign an RRA. We felt that the RRAs had some prejudicial language, which was an infringement upon our rights. Our tech was on top of that. But it troubled me that it was a leveraging tool, to continue to use things like post-Sparrow, the AFS agreements and other things as leveraging tools to make us sign. We have never felt that we had to have an agreement signed with you to do it. My community has to because, as I said earlier, not all the First Nations have access to a harbour, port or authority. We have to make decisions as leadership in the best interests of our people.
So when you think of it and you put in the context of that, from way when it started to where we are today, the better answer is that status quo does not work. I have had the opportunity to negotiate in RRAs. I have done this in our community of Abegweit. Because of my learned experience and the traditional knowledge I bring to the table, I’m the lead negotiator with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. There are two reasons: One, I don’t trust the department; and two, I am not the signer on our treaty rights; my people are. They say, “You can’t go to the table and negotiate, chief.” I said, “Yes, I can. That’s why I was elected. I was elected to lead. I will be at that table.” I will take back to my people the offer that the federal government is offering us through DFO based on our treaty rights. The people will decide if it’s in our best interest to enter into those agreements.
As a leader, I don’t feel there has been true effort from DFO, or however it was delegated, to enter into meaningful agreements. It’s not the case. It’s just a quick fix for something that hasn’t been addressed. We have enough internal, traditional and academic knowledge to address these issues internally, whether they be governance, management — everything. We have the skills. We have developed those. We are no longer a problem. We just want to be respected as part of the society.
Senator R. Patterson: This has been very meaningful. Thank you for sharing your knowledge, because that is where it all starts.
Most of my questions have already been scooped, but I will see if I’m hearing correctly, and I’m going to really focus on governance. There are tools and then there are principles that you talked about. I have certainly heard that trust is an issue, because nation-to-nation relations are based on trust, not policy. Policy is a lower level “doing thing.” For what should be rights‑based nation to nation, you’re being pushed to the policy doing level but not actually able to negotiate truly, nation to nation, with what fisheries mean to your nations, your people, and to sustainability and reconciliation. So my first question is: Am I hearing you correctly? Then I have a follow-up question.
Mr. Paul: One of the things we keep insisting on is a bilateral relationship with Canada. What has happened since I’ve been in this role for a few years now is that something will happen within the department — they will discuss something or work with another First Nation — come up with an idea and then try to impose it upon us. For example, there was a questionnaire that they sent to us last year, maybe last spring. We didn’t participate in that. It was supposed to be for all the First Nations in Atlantic Canada because DFO wanted to come with a common approach. We didn’t participate in that. We wrote a letter saying, “We have been involved with negotiations. What is it that we are not talking about in negotiations that you think you will capture within the questionnaire?”
There were other initiatives that we had proposed, such as joint work on science. The department came back and said it was a great idea and that we would likely get a call from some of their senior staff in Ottawa. Three months later, I received an email with an announcement that DFO would host a lobster science forum, and one of the main participants was people from the commercial industry. We said, “You know there are problems with racism and things like that out in the field. Are you vetting these people who are coming in there so that our members are actually going to feel safe in that environment?” DFO said, “No.” We said, “We didn’t create this with you, so we’re not going to participate in that, either.” It is not that we don’t want to get to the science, but we want that respect, bilaterally, on a nation-to-nation level.
We can’t speak on behalf of the Mi’kmaq because we are not part of the Mi’kmaq, but we work with them and are very cooperative. We have interrelations with them on many different levels. It is baffling to me that the department is still trying to give a blanketed approach. Chief Gould even talked about that. You can’t have one solution for all the First Nations because our circumstances are different, our histories are different, and our languages and cultures are different.
Mr. Gould: It’s very evident in practice with the federal government. Within this year right now, I took over the lead negotiations for the Abegweit First Nations’ interests. The federal government’s mandate under RRA was something we weren’t happy with. It ended last April. Then I met with them and found out it didn’t end. There was no new mandate implemented; it was a continuation of the previous mandate.
So I went to the table and I met with the people. I was wondering, “Why is the chief meeting with these low-level bureaucrats on a treaty rights negotiation process?” I ended the meeting and walked. I thanked them for their time, because I’m respectful to the technical professionalism of the people who work for and with us. I appreciate that. But I said that this is not a meeting that the Chief of the Abegweit First Nation should be in. I don’t think the federal government has changed anything. When the question was asked if we think it’s important, yes, we do think there should be a departmental shift at the highest level where they can actually recognize nation to nation.
I don’t know how to put it in a context you could understand it. A French-speaking province in Canada was going to split the country in half because of their right to protect their culture and their identity, and we as Canadians felt it was important to give them that respect, but we won’t talk to First Nations people at the same level? How would the French community feel if it were deferred to an English-speaking sub-level parliamentary committee? How do you think our country would be today? I’m pretty old. I remember those heavy discussions. I think it was great that that respect was given to them. This is what we want for our First Nation. As a young man growing up in our communities, I understand how the whole thing works. I love my country. I have always stood beside it, and I have said that. If I go to school and I’m forced to speak French and I can’t even speak — [Indigenous language spoken]. I don’t understand my own language. A little bit, and that’s it. It’s hard. It’s very hard.
Then we go to these minister’s meetings where you’re the chief now and you’ll be given that respect, and I’m meeting with bureaucrats, based on treaty rights? Senator, we have dealt with this time and time again. We think the realignment of the nation-to-nation building will be fundamental to start moving forward. There are opportunities here. I am hoping there is a new federal mandate when it comes to RRAs, take out the prejudicial language, address the issues that I am talking about and the plight of our people. You do the educational component with the non-Aboriginal population. We’re doing our due diligence. My community wants to work side by side with the PEI Fishermen’s Association. We want to work within seasons. Other peoples don’t. We are not the same. We’re not the same. I’m a little taller than Ken. We’re not the same. I popped the chair up before I sat down. But our interests are the same, and it is based on constitutional rights protected by the Supreme Court of Canada. We should be protected by the constitution of Canada. So wela’lin. Thank you.
Senator R. Patterson: What I’m hearing is it’s not about the problem we are trying to solve here. You have Department of Fisheries, who, from what you have said — I’m hearing you say it’s about rules — are putting rules in place, whereas you’re saying, “But you’re not actually addressing the issue and what the problem is.” You need to have that pre-discussion about what it means to negotiate nation-to-nation and, as Indigenous peoples with your nations, to be able to talk about what it means for you. One of the things that you said earlier is the fact that maybe this doesn’t belong in the Department of Fisheries at this time. You need to have negotiations and governance structures elsewhere. I think that’s what I heard.
The second thing is that this is actually tying into Recommendation 5 because it talks about consultation, which is rules application, as opposed to, “But you haven’t negotiated the right question with the nation.” If you were able to go back and have a look at Recommendation 5 that talks about explaining and other words such as that, integrating knowledge, Indigenous laws and principles into where we’re going — if you were to actually change that recommendation somehow to make it more about truly being heard at a nation-to-nation level, what would that look like? Because then you can integrate what Recommendation 5 has been saying.
Mr. Paul: Our goal is to get recognition and support to govern our waters. Not only fisheries, but all the things that affect fish. Because a fish by itself is — yes, it’s a being. It’s a relative. But it has to have clean water, and it has to have clean habitat. It has to have free access to anywhere it is spawning. Things such as shipping, pollution from agriculture, forestry, municipality, sewage, all that kind of stuff, all impact that, as well as noise. We want to be able to impact and really try to build the best conditions for fish, especially migratory species that go literally thousands of kilometres out to sea. They come back to our homelands. If we’re not taking care of the waters when they come back, why would they come back?
We want to participate in the science process. We want to share the science. Our elders are giving us that direction to do that, but we don’t get the support to do that. With our Indigenous knowledge, even within the Fisheries Act, it says that it will be considered. It doesn’t say it will be used; it says it will be considered. So that’s, honestly, kind of a little bit patronizing. “Oh, I’ll consider that, but you know …” I know that kind of means “no,” right?
Like I say, I can’t see a pathway to this within DFO, within their current system. This is why we keep talking about elevating it into another system so we can actually talk about governance and all of the systems we need to put in place and get recognized. I tell members of my community that the ancestors signed the treaties 250 years ago for us to be here today in this situation. The work we are doing today is continuing the work of the ancestors. In the future, we will be the ancestors. We want to do what we can now to enable the future generations to be able to have healthy fisheries.
Mr. Gould: Just real quick, I’m going to go there with that. The Marshall decision was a decision from our — I say “our” because I’m a Canadian. I am proud of that — from our Supreme Court. There was a second Marshall reading. Our people know what the second reading was. It was an interpretation of the law put forward because there had to be an amendment to it because it was a free-for-all. That’s not going to work. I’m not going to say the words, but it was a problem. They addressed that, and they changed it. Then they implemented the Marshall decision after the second reading.
It is frustrating that we are here today and we still have those kinds of negotiations. The department shouldn’t be trying to implement a constitutional right protected by the Supreme Court of Canada at the department level. It’s so frustrating.
We have not collaborated. I knew he was going to be here. We have not collaborated our stories. Just in our collective traditional knowledge in our different territories, Mi’kma’ki and — we just — it is shared understanding. Our people understand it is a communal right to an industry.
A CBC reporter called me last year, and I said, “Yeah, I’ll talk to you.” I hate talking to them sometimes, but I said, “Yeah, I’ll talk to you.” He said, “The Chief of Lennox Island is implementing her moderate livelihood. What are you doing, Chief Gould?” I said, “The community has decided we are still reviewing it. We want to implement a moderate livelihood in which we can govern and be responsible for it.” He said, “Can you define what a moderate livelihood is?” That’s the problem. The second reading was to deal with the problem. There was a caveat added to the legal jargon to limit and put parameters on it without defining it. It’s still vague. It’s ambiguous now. Okay, what’s a moderate livelihood? I asked the reporter this: “You tell me what a moderate livelihood is.” He said, “Well, I can base it on what the species-specific industry is, lobster, snow crab, whatever, so I have a guesstimate.”
Okay. I don’t know that. I don’t have that information, but I can tell you this: I know what a moderate livelihood is not. As a fisherman who fished in Prince Edward Island for 15 years under Chief Francis, it is not poverty. I fish for the season. I’m under contract work, working with the communal licence, which is what we’re limited to, 500 people. We’re contracted out. I make $11,000 as a contract salary. I make $11,000 or $12,000 on EI, which is the equivalency of welfare, based on the country that we’re in. In a seasonal environment of opportunity, we are very limited in P.E.I., and we do the best we can with what we have. So I told the reporter, “I know what a moderate livelihood is not. It is not below the poverty line in Canada.”
But our First Nation people are left there continuously, and it’s hidden behind stuff like conservation or effort. The effort industry is a hindrance to the non-Aboriginal fisheries. They don’t understand that. If you follow and you go after the conservation right, the industry changes from an effort-based industry to a conservation-based industry. That changes in the act, in how it’s implemented and the protection that the federal government has to apply. Those things aren’t talked about. It’s only talked about when it’s a way to hinder or keep the First Nations down. We were at the subcommittee on lotteries for the total allowable catch, the TAC, in the region for snow crab. There is a common courtesy call that they give us, but there is no true meaningful engagement in it. Ken and I know this. We have a shared view that the failed negotiations of the past have resulted in things, unfortunately, like residential schools and the aftermath of it. Go back further than that to the failed practice of negotiations with First Nations and the original people. The time for trinkets and beads is over. It has to be meaningful, collaborative agreements that we are entering. Unless we trust you and the people that we are negotiating with — it’s not at the department level. It should be at the highest level. That’s why we both shared, without even talking about it, that it should be transferred over.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Let me just echo what my colleagues have said about how important and useful this discussion is.
I’m going to quote from the minister when she responded to us, because I think it comes down to, in essence, an impasse. I think that’s really where we are, and the discussion here today has only reinforced my impression of that. I would then like to ask about getting past this, moving to a different place.
When the minister came to the Senate and when we received the letter of response, she responded very clearly to what was one of our strongest recommendations, which was to move this to nation-to-nation negotiation. We have had a number of different dimensions of that discussed here today.
The reason that I want to name this as an impasse is that in her letter she said:
Since my appointment in 2021, I have met with several Treaty Nations’ Chiefs and Councils and discussed many issues of importance, including the treaty right to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. As Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, I serve as a representative of the Government of Canada when participating in nation-to-nation discussions related to fisheries, and I remain committed to advancing these discussions.
The language is polite, but she is basically saying nothing is going to change. Forget that whole idea of nation-to-nation, and forget there being at that level of treaty negotiation. We had a very strong consensus on this committee that that was a crucial shift that needed to take place. You have confirmed that with a range of expertise and examples that are very powerful in demonstrating why it’s important. So we sit here together, and we agree on something, and it has been turned down flat by the minister.
What are your thoughts on next steps? We have tabled our report, but obviously we’re sitting here today because we’re not going to let that go. There is more that we can do together on this. I would really appreciate your thoughts on what those next steps might look like.
Mr. Gould: I’ll let him go first because I —
Mr. Paul: We know. We all know why by now.
Well, we’re not going to wait for DFO. This is a different generation that are coming into the equivalence of middle management and our senior relationships now. We know, generally, what we need to do to realize our inherent rights and the power of our treaty-protected rights. We are building those things. We would love to have partners, whether they be federal partners, provincial partners, academia, NGOs or even industry. We will approach these groups to help us to move along with the vision, and if they can contribute to different pieces of what we are trying to do, then, yes, we’ll accept that in. After we build the trust and all these other kinds of things.
But it’s not the Indian problem. It’s the DFO problem. They keep getting in the way of what we’re trying to do and not really providing the justification for it. They have the power and the might of their whole CMP, not to mention the Department of Justice and everything else. Despite all of that, our members are going to do what they know is important because the whole climate crises is having a serious impact on young people. There is climate depression. My daughter talked to me about that about a year and a half ago. She just kind of stated, “Yeah, I’m kind of depressed all the time.” I said, “What do you mean? Why are you depressed all the time?” She said, “Well, by the time I’m 30, there is probably not going to be any more wild animals.” I took that to heart, and I know that I have to continue to stay focused on advancing these things and supporting those that can do it, providing opportunities when we can.
But I got to say it’s hard with the department. I don’t know if it’s because they don’t want to change or if they are unable to change. I know the minister has to put forth a strong position on the Government of Canada because she is the federal representative, but I don’t think that her statements are very good.
If I’m going to build a shed and the department comes in, “Well, okay, we have a hammer,” which is the Fisheries Act, and, “Here you go. Go build your shed.” I can only hammer nails with this thing. I can’t build a shed with this. “No, no, here is the hammer.” We need a whole suite of tools to be able to do this. We need to have the support, both funding and the recognition, of our authorities as Indigenous peoples in our own Indigenous lands and waters.
Mr. Gould: I speak loud because I’m a storyteller. I think a lot of our traditional knowledge is based in story. We don’t have a written language. We have a historical, oral language. So whenever I speak, I do speak in tales, in stories.
I spoke earlier about a name change in Prince Edward Island which I have been fighting for and an advocate for, but I left out the details which are relevant to your question. When I received my mandate by my people four years ago, it was to address one of the names in the province we felt was a little offensive. So I started that process. I knew it was a process. It wasn’t me pounding on the table cursing and swearing and yelling, like the old-school idea of how to get things done. Civil disobedience was the birthplace of great countries and democracies, and I get that, but there are other ways. I spent the last four years talking with local churches and schools, empowering the people in the communities to have an open mind and understand why it is offensive and why it is a different way of looking things. I’ve spent the last four years petitioning every aspect of it. I understand due process. I understand that they just can’t go in there and change the name of a community because someone is offended. There is a process they have to follow. There are provincial law or federal jurisdictional things on the harbour. I get that, and I respect that. But due process is engagement, and with our due diligence as a people, it doesn’t matter what this interim government will say. Based on our treaty rights, we will always fight for it. If we identify it as a need for us to take care of the next generation and protect our future, we will continue to fight for it. If it takes me another 4 years or 10 years to do it, we will continue. That’s why we’re here today. That’s why I’m here to support Senator Francis in this, and the entire Senate, because I believe that this is the process that will force that change. I think if you can’t get the bureaucratic arm of the federal government to do it, then bring it to the people, bring it to Canadian citizens and say, “Is that name offensive to the people in P.E.I.? If it is, let’s do something about it as a people.” I think the court of public opinion influences the highest level of governance.
Senator McPhedran: Have you considered opening discussion directly with the minister of CIRNAC?
Mr. Gould: We have. I’m in Ottawa all week. I’m not just here for this. I’m at the Assembly of First Nations next week. My beautiful wife and my trusty assistant, we are here. Like I said, I bring to you due diligence from our community and how my community has directed and mandated me to do this, to move our community in a positive way forward by entering true faith negotiations. I kind of jokingly said earlier about the times of trinkets and beads are over. Well, they are, because in good faith negotiations, if two adults sit down in the room and talk, things can be accomplished and done. We are trying our best, and that’s why we’re here to support what you are doing with the recommendations, and we’re trying to add to it and give you a little clout to continue the good fight.
Senator McPhedran: Is that on a singular basis? Are the chiefs of the communities that are addressed particularly by Peace on the Water working together toward that kind of outcome?
Mr. Gould: There are so many variables. As Ken said earlier, and I agree, we both — we haven’t collaborated on this but we share an interest. What I’m saying, he said. We have answered each other’s questions hopefully in a productive manner. But each First Nation is different, and in our due diligence as leadership, whether it be technical or a tribal council or a chief, is about educating our people just in the simple fact that it s a communal right. And we are educating our people, but you are not. So we’re continuously trying to do our due diligence in every capacity. I’ll shut up.
Mr. Paul: A few of our chiefs have had direct discussions with Minister Miller about this, along with a bunch of other things. He seemed to be somewhat receptive, although there was no commitment made thus far. When we have really important responses — like, we wrote to the minister after the Peace on the Water report came out — we copy Minister Miller on this correspondence. We want both CIRNAC and DFO to know what our expectations are to build our governance.
The Chair: We are going to our second round now. We have a hard stop at 11 a.m. We should be okay.
Senator Francis: Ken, I believe, touched on this earlier in his remarks. I wanted to ask if they could both expand. Is racist intimidation and violence at the hands of DFO, RCMP or other fishers still an issue for your community members and broader First Nations? If so, could you give us some examples? What has happened since the attacks against members of the Sipekne’katik First Nation? Could you also comment on whether the federal government is doing enough to prevent and address the situation?
The Chair: We have a hard stop at 11 a.m., just to let you know.
Mr. Paul: Yes, it is. It is still there. I know that in my personal interactions with department officials, they just have — they don’t understand the whole treaty, what treaty and inherent rights actually mean because they are program people. They are the ones who are supposed to be administering this stuff. I think that racism comes from fear. It also comes from, I guess, being uneducated about topics. I know that the department has told us that they are doing things internally with education of some of their staff members and stuff like that. It seems to be a little bit light. They’ll do blanket exercises and things like that in very safe environments.
With respect to the fishers, that’s very intimidating to us. The fact that we don’t have a wharf now is a very important thing for us. If any of our members who are fishing and renting out wharf space in these non-native areas say anything about rights, there is a fear, a concern, that if they go out in their boat, they’ll come back and something happened to their vehicle.
We have seen what would happen with Sipekne’katik. We know that it has happened in other areas, like up in Unama’ki and places like that where boats have been vandalized or let go at night when people aren’t around and things like that. Our members don’t want to agitate that.
The thing about it all is that all of these non-native communities are all making money off of our fisheries. People are selling us bait. People are processing our equipment. We’re buying boats from them. Yet we’re still sort of seen as the problem. I don’t know how to get past that.
The education system, unfortunately, has not served any Canadians because we never learned about treaties. I think there is a treaty education process in Nova Scotia. With respect to the rest of Canada, there is not one in New Brunswick. I’m not really sure how to deal with that, but I know it’s present and it’s concerning.
Mr. Gould: I was ready to write down your response if you had the answer.
Thank you for the great question, senator.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and I will look at my wife because I love her. Yes. You can’t address the problem if you don’t talk about it and you don’t address the real solution.
I’m going to make myself vulnerable here. I don’t believe in systemic racism, I really don’t, and here’s why: Society is racist. Once you allow racism to be departmentalized, it alleviates due diligence on the individual. Society is racist. You departmentalize it. You put it over there. You have this checkbox. “Are you First Nation? Check. Oh, okay. See, we’re not racist.” You know what I mean?
The ideology behind racism is if a person is treated differently in society — and I spoke to this. If you ever want to make a reference to my Facebook page, everything is up there. I wear my heart on my sleeve. As a leader, I think it’s my job. Everything that has happened to our people is because we are considered a subpar part of society. We don’t get the same respect as other Canadian citizens. We don’t. It’s evident in everything that has happened. You look at this one department, DFO. It’s consistent. History keeps repeating itself. You go to Saulnierville. Where is the Saulnierville incident or the Burnt Church incident going to be tomorrow?
We’re doing our part. We are trying to get ahead of it, trying to educate. There are people who are listening. There are good Canadian people here. There are. There are good committees. There are good senators. There are good politicians. But they are not listening.
If you just continue to departmentalize the responsibility as Canada, the problem that First Nations face is, right off the get‑go, we have four strikes against us.
We don’t have access to an industry. We’re a shellfish people. In P.E.I., this is our territory. We are 10,000 years. I’m arguing in a backroom with somebody who says, “I have been a farmer for 50 years.” “Good for you. Good for you. I have been here with my family. I mean, how far back do we go?” “Well, we can’t go there.” You know what I mean? It doesn’t make sense to us. It doesn’t.
We’re respectful to that. We are fishing beside you. We are working with you in your governance. We are here, a part of the government now. I think we show that we have the capacity to be a part of society. But we’re never given the credit. We’re never given our time at the microphone.
I joke with my colleague Ken as to what would be a quick answer to the racism problem. I don’t know. I mean, it goes way back. It’s more than residential schools. It’s more than the education system right now.
I do a seminar in which I hold up a book like this in UPEI. It’s a great big thick book. I hold it up like this. I hold two pages. Eventually, someone in the back, because of their intellect, says, “What are you doing, chief?” I say, “These are the pages of history documenting P.E.I. and a lot of the Atlantic region on the history of First Nation peoples, and the history right now, today.” I say that if you go to wherever the individual is from, your country, whether it be China, whatever, those histories and cultures are rich and thick. In Canada, there are two pages. I don’t remember any of these discussions.
Then you say, “Well, what’s wrong? We’re not racist.” Yes, you are, society. Yes, you are. If you are allowed to departmentalize it and blame this and that, it alleviates your due diligence and your responsibility as a person, as an individual.
That’s why we’re not getting any further ahead. We are slowly going in a positive direction. That’s why I’m here. That’s why a lot of our kids are educated. We have a lot of good, technical people that we can call on. That’s why I say that whole problem is changing. We have solutions.
The Chair: Just to remind senators once again, we have a hard stop at eleven o’clock.
Senator Cordy: My question is a follow-up to Senator Francis again.
When our committee was meeting, we heard so much testimony on — I know you don’t like the term, but we heard “systemic racism,” is what we heard. We actually made recommendations that the federal government address it and provide training. When we got the response back from the minister, it was, well, there is training if you want to take it. There is voluntary education, if you want to take it.
In a perfect world, Chief Gould, we would be doing what you are doing and going to schools and talking to kids. If we were the provincial government, I would certainly, as a former teacher, be recommending that we look at how we teach history within the school system, starting with young kids so that it’s not news when they are 20 years old and so they are learning the history. You are absolutely right. There was nothing much when I went to school accept hundreds-of-years-old information about our Indigenous or Mi’kmaq people in Nova Scotia.
Has the federal government taken enough steps to deal with the opinions of people who are there, at least within their own department, and not just within their department — not just within DFO, but also CIRNAC, RCMP? You spoke about, in Nova Scotia, the challenges when the RCMP was there. It certainly isn’t conducive to a dialogue when you have got lineups of RCMP officers standing there. What do we do? How do we deal with it?
Mr. Gould: I have a quick response, and then I will give my entire time to Ken.
I think the way it’s being dealt with is a tokenization of our people. I mean that. We have people who have been involved right from Sparrow on who were involved with enforcement with DFO. He was able to report back to the community that there is a very deep-seated resentment for our peoples in that part of it. My brother and my family are involved with the RCMP. It exists in those realms. I think just putting a token First Nation on the boat when he is doing his job does not help. In Saulnierville, the line when I am there as the chief and the leader of my people, that’s our line. If you stick a token First Nation guy to try to quell the violence, you know what I mean, that’s not being proactive. That’s not being helpful. You haven’t addressed the core value or the core root of the problem.
Go ahead, my friend.
Mr. Paul: There was the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in 1996, I believe. There has been the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women and Girls, and there has been the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. They all have recommendations. Maybe federal government departments should look at all of those recommendations relevant to their work and actually implement those. Those are sanctioned by Canada.
Senator Cordy: Not just one department —
Mr. Paul: No, it’s definitely not just one department.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for that.
Senator Kutcher: I’m going to continue on the issue of racism.
One of the things the continuing education section here says is that the department is doing unconscious bias training, often referred to as implicit bias training. Let me read you a quote from the Scientific American:
There is just one problem with this issue: We just don’t have the evidence that implicit bias training actually works.
Well, it wouldn’t be the first time the government is doing stuff we know doesn’t work.
What would you suggest, besides going into the schools? I have a place on the north shore of P.E.I. What would you suggest would be a different model or a different way to start having some of those conversations and moving in new directions?
Mr. Gould: It just has to be a philosophical shift. If you identify the core root of the problem, it gives you a basis to come up with a solution, collectively. That’s the conversation that isn’t happening. Putting a Band-Aid on the dam is not going to stop the dam from flooding the countryside. It won’t. It might slow it down a bit, but it won’t stop it.
I’m all about education. Recently, with my mandate as the chief, I’ve had the opportunity to influence other areas. I have skipped us because our generation is lost in racism and rhetoric that is just so confusing. I focus on the children because it’s about education. If there are 100 kids when I’m speaking — I do high schools right up to the University of P.E.I. If there is one kid who says, “Hang on a second. That’s not true. I spoke to Chief Gould. I heard him speak at school, and that’s not true about First Nations people. They are not all lazy. They are not all this, this and that. They are good, hard-working people.” Use my community as an example. We are well educated and doing well within all of the policies and procedures. But the focus is all on the negative, and that’s because we as a society have allowed it to happen and continue to allow it to happen. We haven’t addressed the core problem, and the core problem is education. One of those kids will go home — and I have had them say this — “I remember playing ball against you back in the day, Junior” — that’s what they call me — and they say, “My daughter spoke today about what you said, and that really touched and moved her.” That changed that person’s perspective about how she felt about us as a people. That was worth it.
Senator R. Patterson: We know the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act has been around since I’m going to say 2021, even though we know it’s earlier than that. I just had to pull up the early progress that they published last year in June. We have talked about policy versus true nation-to-nation top-level governance, and embedded right in there are many of the elements that you have mentioned.
There are many Indigenous nations. It isn’t one homogeneous clump, which is part of that racism you are talking about. Have you been involved in any way in discussing action plans and putting them at the highest levels of governments under that act that you have that right to negotiate in terms of fisheries and industry? Have you been involved in any way?
Mr. Paul: There is participation from our nation into a process, and I believe the Assembly of First Nations is meeting on this next week.
There is concern about the act itself because it was ushered through during COVID. It has “rights” right in the title — that’s what it’s about — but there were no consultations on it. The other concern we have is that it’s an act of Parliament, which means that a governing party can, at any time, change provisions in it. It’s not our law; it’s Canada’s law. So we are kind of concerned about those kinds of things.
We also look at what happened in British Columbia, where they have had this legislation — DRIPA — for about five years now, but they haven’t been able to make any substantive changes in their laws yet. We know that if we are going to see substantive changes, it is going to take a long time. We’re not sure what it’s going to look like at the end.
So we have got to deal with it, because it’s there. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend to my chiefs that we should wait for it. We have started moving, but we have to keep moving in the direction of establishing our governance. If that legislation will support some of that along the way, great. If not, then we’ll still continue to do what we need to do.
Mr. Gould: The unification of the treaty rights is what we’re doing at the Assembly of First Nations. It’s on that lobbying. I was able to recently change — and I’m not tooting my own horn — but you can change a bureaucratic arm or a government process, because P.E.I. is now recognized as having a seat at the executive table to the Assembly of First Nations. P.E.I. was umbrellaed under New Brunswick for years. Both Senator Francis and I fought to change that, and we did it. One of the things I was able to do — when you talk about within our own due diligence — I would go to the mic and I addressed 600 chiefs in British Columbia. I successfully navigated the support to have P.E.I. recognized as an executive at the table. It was my ability to connect the First Nations on the East Coast to the West Coast in that the treaty rights infringements on our people under the Marshall decision, or the absence of an accommodation agreement post-Marshall, can affect their salmon rights on the West Coast exactly the same — and everybody in between. It was possible for me to go to the mic and say how important it is for a small province and a small First Nation with 500 members — they are just as important when it comes to treaty rights and precedents. There is a unified approach at the Assembly of First Nations, but there is such a diversity of individual interests.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Gould, Mr. Paul and senators for a very interesting and productive discussion.
Just to echo the words we heard, I grew up in Newfoundland and Labrador learning in our systems about Napoleon, the Russian czars and American presidents, not about Newfoundland and Labrador. I think we have a long way to go on many facets of that.
I want to thank our senators, witnesses and the people who helped us put on this meeting this morning. Thank you for your participation. Take care.
(The committee adjourned.)