THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, April 27, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:06 a.m. [ET] for the consideration of the 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; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Bev Busson, senator from British Columbia, and I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting today.
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 the chair or the clerk and we will work to resolve the issue.
I would now like to take a few minutes to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator R. Patterson: Senator Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Kutcher: Senator Stan Kutcher, Nova Scotia.
Senator Ravalia: Senator Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator McPhedran: Senator Marilou McPhedran, Manitoba.
Senator Cordy: Senator Jane Cordy, Nova Scotia.
Senator Quinn: Senator Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. On March 7, 2023, the government response to the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans’ fourth report entitled Peace on the Waterwas deposited to 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, the committee will be hearing from the following witness: Chief George Ginnish, Co-Chair and Chief of Natoaganeg First Nation, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.; MTI for short. Before we get started, I would like to recognize that another senator has entered the room.
Senator Ataullahjan: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, Ontario.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, senator.
Thank you, Chief Ginnish, for taking the time to appear before us today. We’ll ask for your opening remarks, please.
George Ginnish, Co-Chair and Chief of Natoaganeg First Nation, Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc.: [ Indigenous language spoken. ]
Good morning. Thank you, chair and senators. I am the chief of the Natoaganeg First Nation, formerly known as Eel Ground First Nation. That’s still our mailing address. I am co-chair with Chief Rebecca Knockwood of Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc. which is our Mi’kmaq political organization in New Brunswick.
Dear committee members and fellow panellists, thank you for the opportunity to be with you here today. We are now almost 24 years out from the Supreme Court decision in Marshall, and yet progress towards implementing the right to fish in pursuit of a livelihood remains far too slow.
Our communities continue to be denied both adequate access to the fishery as well as a true shared decision-making process with respect to fisheries management. While the government response to your study points to a number of initiatives they claim are designed to address the Senate committee’s recommendations regarding implementation of Mi’kmaq rights, these initiatives are mostly incremental in nature and related more to capacity building without providing true rights recognition or shared decision making.
While Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., or MTI, has participated in negotiations under the rights implementation approach, and some of our communities are prepared to sign on to a rights implementation agreement, the process has been too slow, inflexible and not sufficiently grounded in true rights recognition. Some of the problems have included the fact that the mandate, including the amount of funding available for purchases of licenses, was not developed in collaboration with MTI. Future negotiation mandates need to be co-developed. The approach remained rooted in the idea that treaty right can be implemented through providing access in fully subsidized commercial fisheries as opposed to recognizing that a rights‑based fishery is unique and cannot simply be implemented through commercial access. MTI had put negotiations on pause on more than one occasion due to inflexible positions taken by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, or DFO. This included an initial unwillingness to consider alternative ways of providing Mi’kmaq access that MTI had put forward on behalf of their members.
The agreement creates fisheries advisory committees but does not go as far as giving the Mi’kmaq a role as true treaty partners in decision making over fishery as envisioned by both MTI and the Senate committee. The process did not reflect the government’s commitment to nation-to-nation negotiations. DFO initiated side negotiations with individual communities in an attempt to undermine the collective efforts of the nation. The government response continues to reflect the incorrect assumption that each community is a treaty nation as opposed to the Mi’kmaq nation being a nation made up of many communities. The Aboriginal Fisheries Strategy, or AFS, the Atlantic Integrated Commercial Fisheries Initiative, or AICFI, and Treaty Related Measures, or TRM, and other funding mechanisms help building capacity in fisheries and fisheries management, but they do not, by themselves, lead to the implementation of treaty rights.
We support the committee’s recommendation that responsibility for negotiations be transferred to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, or CIRNAC. This is in line with recommendations from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, or RCAP, which advocated for creation of this department, stating that:
. . . a new Department of Aboriginal Relations should be assigned to negotiate and manage new agreements and arrangements from the federal government’s side.
If the legislative mandate of the respective departments prevents this, then the legislative structure needs to change to address Canada’s commitment to implement RCAP.
On safety, education and building trust, general continuing education developed and provided by the government itself at a national level is no substitute for education that is led by the Mi’kmaq and delivered to DFO officials in our territory. MTI offers a number of treaty education tools delivered by our communities. Uptake from DFO on these offerings has been limited in recent years. We are encouraged that DFO and the federal government recognize that more needs to be done, but we wonder if the approach needs to change. The Mi’kmaq, Wolastoqiyik and Peskotomuhkati are treaty partners with the Canadian government. Once it is truly understood and appreciated by DFO, the Government of Canada, all fishers on the water and the general public that we are true partners, we will start to see real progress.
Wela’lin.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Chief Ginnish, for those opening remarks. I already have a number of people on my list who would like to ask you some questions.
Senator Quinn: Thank you very much, Chief Ginnish, for being here this morning. The deliberations we had during the development of our work leading to the report were really interesting and fascinating, and you are continuing that discussion this morning, particularly around treaty rights.
My question is coming from the angle of the department’s approach and then the First Nation’s approach with respect to some of the science that supports — or not — the directions that the department moves in. One of the things I fear is that they don’t take traditional knowledge into account seriously enough or strongly enough. I’m wondering if that perception is correct. That’s the first question. Second, how do we better integrate those two approaches so that we get better shared values in managing that fishery?
Mr. Ginnish: I absolutely agree with you, senator. It’s absolutely essential that a Two-Eyed Seeing approach and traditional knowledge be held on the same level as science. That way, we can have fulsome discussions, and then it’s a true partnership. It’s not DFO utilizing their science to restrict our treaty access. It’s looking at ways to collaborate and to develop a fishery that honours the treaties and meets the needs of our communities. Because quite frankly, it has been 24 years. I have been a chief for 26 years, so I have experienced pushing this up a very steep hill to try to increase opportunity for our peoples.
Senator Quinn: We have our national headquarters here in Ottawa, then we have our regional headquarters and also people out in the field. I’m wondering where we need people to have a better understanding of treaty rights and the difference between rights and privilege with respect to access to fisheries. Where do we need to really concentrate to start that movement that causes people to start thinking differently? Because I think that’s an issue.
Mr. Ginnish: Yes, absolutely, I agree. I think I mentioned in my remarks that our organization has reached out to our treaty partners — the Government of Canada, different programs and the Province of New Brunswick — and is more than willing for our traditional knowledge department to share. We would certainly love a collaboration to be able to share that information as broadly as possible. We have been working really hard with different partners. We have met with the Law Society, and one of our top priorities is equity and justice. We have spent a lot of time with the Law Society of New Brunswick, educating them so that if they are involved on either side of the table, either in helping protect us or in prosecuting us, they have a better understanding. It’s absolutely essential.
However, I think there has to be a willingness for that to happen. To this point, a lot of what is happening is program based. It’s prescribed. It’s not true treaty. If time could be spent to educate so there is a better understanding, I think that would change things. For example, we have a steady partnership with the City of Miramichi. Over the last three years, we have spent a lot of time with the mayor and council, sharing our challenges and our history in this region. I think we’ve built a good partnership. We have a group that was one of the first to come on board and recognize the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. They work really hard to understand and support us, and we would really love to have that same type of uptake, especially with the Province of New Brunswick. We have some real challenges there. You have probably seen that we’re in court on land title because, try as we may at the negotiation table, we’re just not on the same page or understanding.
Our arguments are based on the treaties, they are based on legalities. But how do we get to that point where we can have a meaningful discussion that is going to move us down a path that will help our communities? I will mention at every opportunity I get that the Mi’kmaq in northern New Brunswick are some of the poorest postal codes in Canada. My parents and grandparents depended on hunting, fishing and gathering to survive and it’s sad to see the state of our river now. The salmon returns to the Miramichi, but it’s not available for food for our community. We’re trying really hard to train our people to look for other opportunities for employment and for social and ceremonial food.
Senator Quinn: I’m just trying to narrow this down a little bit. In my experience, in my former position down in Saint John, I had a lot of tremendous interaction with First Nations and with Fisheries officials. I’m trying to figure out where the main point of educating people in the system is to the realities of treaty rights. I saw excellent work by Fisheries officials in the field who are interacting with First Nations, and yet I feel that they were a bit handicapped because of having to go back up the line either to the region or to Ottawa. How do we get over that, take the treaty right reality and have people understand it so they take a different approach, within the system of government?
Mr. Ginnish: Yes, I agree, that’s absolutely necessary. We will push to that end, but there has to be that willingness within government to embrace that and work with us. Try as we may, until DFO, CIRNAC and ISC are willing to do that — I can’t paint everyone with the same brush; there are efforts, but it’s a lot of work, and there has to be a real partnership. Our group, MTI, really reaches out, and I know they are sharing with our different partners. It’s a process. Unfortunately, we’re only really getting to the point where our organizations have been funded to the point where we can actually do this work, and it has only been a couple of years. There is a lot of work to do, but I’m confident that we’re a partner, we’re available and we continue to reach out and hope that our efforts will improve the relationships and understanding.
Senator Quinn: Thank you so much, chief.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much, Chief Ginnish, for being with us today.
Recognizing the many challenges that you have faced — and there has been a fairly consistent theme from all the witnesses that we have heard about this kind of rather acrimonious relationship between DFO and the Indigenous communities — do you have any examples of successful collaborations between your community and the DFO in protecting fish populations and habitat? Is there any platform from which you think that a more cordial, tangible relationship can be built so that we can move forward in a positive way with respect to the rights of our Indigenous communities?
Mr. Ginnish: We have some small positives, most of which happen at the bottom in regards to relationships that we would build with the C&P officers who are actually the people that are on the rivers working with our guardians. We have actually had a number of guardians from our communities seek work with the department and have been successful. Those individuals are really key in building relationships. We had one who retired not too long ago who was constantly reaching out and trying to broker discussion. We’re fortunate that a young gentleman who had come up through the system in our community was recently — it’s probably a couple of years ago now — hired as a C&P officer. He is in the community and is talking to our folks.
It’s working collaboratively, it’s doing joint patrols and it’s realizing that we have as much at stake here. I find the relationship with DFO has really been, on the ground in the past, a policing thing. They are watching our nets and they are making sure that the fish are tagged. It grates on the nerves of a person who is out there struggling to feed their family and they are going to zoom up in a motorboat and say, “You didn’t tag the fish yet. What’s going on?” I’m on a boat by myself, I’m trying to hang onto a net, get a fish in the boat and not fall in the river. Over time, it’s relationship building. It’s having that understanding, and we can do that if we have First Nations as a part of that structure. DFO is an institution. They have their regulations and laws.
I would honestly say, as a chief, I have seen improvement. I can talk to the regional director general, or RDG, in Moncton if we have issues. Within their mandate, they will work with us to try to be as reasonable as possible. The local offices work well with our communities. A lot of the time, the issue is higher up the food chain. It’s with access and having sufficient opportunity for our members. Right now, moderate livelihood is very limited in Natoaganeg, partially because of our location. We’re an hour and a half from the coast, so when you look at lobster, it’s a bit of an endeavour when you are that far from the community and there is always the tension on the water regarding whether there is enough stock. From our perspective, those things need to be ironed out ahead of time. For many years we have looked for food, social and ceremonial, and it has been a real challenge to get DFO and MFU on the same page and say, listen, we need 100 traps to feed our people, and then to fish them with the limited number of captains and small crews who are trying to make a living as well. If you throw 10 more traps on their boat, that’s extra work. They are not paid for that work. Those are things we’re trying to work through at that level.
Senator Ravalia: Chief Ginnish, it seems that on the ground level and as you alluded to earlier in response to Senator Quinn, there seems to be an element of congeniality, collaboration and an opportunity to dialogue. The problem appears to be higher up. So if you make an approach to, say, DFO in Ottawa, what kind of response do you get? Do you feel somewhat like you are out of that loop where some of the key decisions are being made? Perhaps this is a difficult question, but it’s one that I often think about. To what extent do you feel that institutional racism, which is perhaps embedded within this process, actually negates the efforts that you make?
Mr. Ginnish: I would know, through experience, that racism is a challenge. It’s fear that happens, whether it’s in DFO or MFU, that there isn’t enough to go around and that somehow our rights are less than commercial access. I can speak from experience because, in regard to being out of our element and going to Ottawa to try to impress on our specific community need, I have been there a half a dozen times to speak to the Senate, to speak with senators, to seek support from our MPs, for a sober second look at what Marshall provided to our communities and how inequitable that initial allocation was.
There was one accommodation made at one time. Our community and some of the inland communities and Fort Folly Mi’kmaq were not allocated any snow crab as part of the initial Marshall allocation, and try as we may, every year since Marshall we’ve tried to make the case. Why were we excluded from this? Why are some communities seeing $10,000 per capita funding of programs in their communities and ours are a quarter or a third of that? How does that set us up for commercial success and give opportunities?
We had been here probably five or six years now to see Senator Mockler and Senator Adams, and they really tried to help. They advocated directly to DFO on our behalf. I think that same type of pressure, right across the country, probably might have helped drive what we call the “Jones process,” or the latest round of RIA negotiations and funding. I think Canada recognized that it was not equitable, so on the second go-round, the funding was per capita. But that still didn’t address the initial inequity.
We’ve spent time with former ministers. On our own dime, we’ve gone to Ottawa to share this information, to have our legal team and our advisers share this, and it has been lip service, mostly. The willingness to really fundamentally look at the disparity and act on it just hasn’t happened. We’ve got the latest offering that, with the current willing seller/willing buyer scenario that DFO is also entrenched in, as soon as a community goes to look for access to purchase a licence, the price just went up. It has been a heck of a challenge to find things.
Our community went out on our own three years ago. We said we’re tired of waiting, we’re going to purchase a snow crab licence. We looked for a licence and it took us two years to find one that we thought was half decently priced and we were able to negotiate a purchase with the owner. We have now transitioned over a couple of years that we are fully in charge of that, and 60% of the crew is from our nation and they’re learning. In another year, it will be totally run by our community. But we had to borrow $13.5 million to make that happen, and we did that based on the fact that there was 5.5 in this latest funding RIA that would be available to us. We said we need to diversify, we’ll pick up an extra lobster licence if we fully sign on to this RIA. Our council sees that we have to do this. It’s not that we want to do this, but we have to work with this process in the interim to try to develop a moderate livelihood process because there is nothing else available to help us get there. This is another five‑year investment to make that happen. It will be 29 years since the court case, and we’re still trying to find a way to implement the treaty and not have it as a separate Aboriginal commercial. The treaty still isn’t recognized.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Chief Ginnish, for being with us this morning. It is always helpful when you get a government response to have experts in the field to discuss what has happened.
We heard a lot from witnesses, particularly government witnesses, about the buy-back program. This morning I reread the government response to refresh my memory about it, and they do have a section on fisheries access. They spoke about how their preferred approach was to provide funding to First Nations to acquire licenses, which would be the buy-back program. In the very next paragraph, they say the voluntary commercial licence and quota relinquishing process or the buy-back approach in support of licenses has seen some success. We heard that it was limited success, to put it mildly. Then the next paragraph goes on to say that there is a lack of willing sellers — and you referred to that earlier in your comments about the crab fishery — at market value and that it is an impediment to implementing rights-based fisheries.
One paragraph talks about how this is their preferred approach and the next two paragraphs go on to say “some success” and the next one says that it is, in fact, an impediment. I wonder if you could tell us your feelings about how successful or if successful the buy-back has been.
Mr. Ginnish: This is DFO. This is Canada’s design. This is how they think that our rights are to be integrated into the fishery, and that’s to displace. Their thought process is that in order to accommodate our right, they have to displace existing commercial fishers. We don’t agree with that, but when that’s the only process in town, then we’re forced to have to try to work with it. It is a challenge. A senator previously mentioned that prices are inflated; a seller may think that it’s government money on the table and I will get as much as I want. That is an absolute challenge.
Not everyone wants to sell their licence, and what’s available is very limited and expensive. From our perspective, we’re pushing a number of initiatives through the RRA discussions. If Canada is saying that there is only so much available quota in certain fisheries, we’re saying that part of this discussion is to make new and emerging fisheries and set them aside for First Nations. Give us an opportunity. There is no one in certain areas; don’t open it up if you have not accommodated our treaty rights yet. Give us certain accommodation. There are a couple of areas being looked at in our river, like the striped bass in the Miramichi. We have commercial striped bass fishery. It’s year‑to-year, and we’re saying, don’t let anyone else into this fishery. Right now, they’re only allowing four traps on this river to fish a certain size of bass that can be sold by our community.
That is a make-work project with the markets that are available because it is brand new. It’s putting four or five of our members to work, and it’s creating a little fund for the community. With our commercial fishers, because the licenses belong to the community, we charge them a fee for the use of the licence and that money is then shared with the community. It’s kind of a royalty that is paid to our members who can’t fish. As for other opportunities, there is talk of a redfish fishery reopening, set that aside for First Nations along with any other emerging fisheries. If there is additional quota, let us fish it.
We’re not only dealing with government. We’re dealing with fishery organizations, fishers who don’t want to give up any of their space on the field. That’s what we always come back to say. You’re trying to accommodate a right in a process that is not designed to do that. We need separate discussions about this. How do you incorporate? How do you set aside right off the bat? That continues to be a challenge. That’s always a discussion at our tables with DFO and with our negotiators at Mi’gmawe’l Tplu’taqnn Inc., or MTI.
Senator Cordy: I’m from Nova Scotia, so I really remember the Marshall decision and all the racism related to Donald Marshall. I’m not even talking about the fisheries. I’m talking about the racism that was shown to him in the judicial system and, of course, the fishing. Then the judgment came down in 1999. That was almost 24 years ago. How much has changed in 24 years? One would have thought that was sufficient time for everyone to get their ducks — or fish — in a row. And in Nova Scotia just a few years ago, when the fisheries opened on the South Shore, we saw on the news every evening the Indigenous boats being burned, the storage shacks being burned and the RCMP standing around basically watching.
How much longer do we have to wait for the Marshall decision to be fully implemented?
Mr. Ginnish: My question exactly. It’s long overdue. In terms of access for our communities, I think we’re under — in terms of the fact we have a treaty right and the need for employment. Some of the people that push against our rights the most are ones that are ignorant in that they don’t have the facts. They don’t understand that not every band member has a free ride. I will share the fact that the after-tax per-household income in my community is half of what it is two minutes down the road, and that’s after tax. So you look at the impact that has on a family’s ability to look after itself, to support its children and to send its children to be educated and support that process. It’s a challenge.
Ignorance and unwillingness to share — you see a lot of it, unfortunately, lately, and I think the political atmosphere across especially North America is embracing this. It’s just a racist approach — people fighting to protect what they think is theirs and not recognizing that the law and the land we consciously share. It was our ancestors that absolutely shared. We’re going through a specific claims process with our community right now for loss of lands that were squatted on and stolen from our community right back to 1788, and it has taken this long to have the ability to research that and have support to do that. So, yes, it has been awhile for Marshall, but it has been a whole lot longer since pre-Confederation. Anything of value, we fight for. We fight for our little place, and there is always a challenge that someone is willing to take it if we don’t fight back.
However, as I mentioned earlier to the senator, we are educating people. We have allies, but unfortunately, I feel there is some embedded racism and fear that if we benefit somehow, they are losing. We try really hard to get the message out. In Miramichi, the council understands that if we’re prosperous, the whole region prospers. We’re doing an economic leakage study now with the three First Nations on the river here just to show the city that this is what we contribute. They will want to embrace our pocketbooks and be kind — and not be ignorant to our people because if they are, we’re just going to go to Moncton or someplace else. There is a whole issue of tax exemption and how New Brunswick had worked to make that as hard as possible for our members — our poorest members. Every dollar counts. Right now, we will work to educate the chamber of commerce. If they are charging us 15% on certain things and sending it to New Brunswick, they’re not seeing that. Our poorest of the poor are losing that in their buying power. If they work with us, they will see that 15% reinvested in this region. How many businesses would say no to a 15% increase in business? We have to really spend a lot of time educating, and we can only hope that it will stick more than not.
Senator Cordy: You raised the issue of racism and the poverty in your particular area. The response to the report from the government talks about the racism and laws and regulations in terms of Indigenous peoples, and there is an action plan in the establishment of a UN declaration act that should be tabled in Parliament by June 2023, which is five weeks away.
Have you or any Indigenous leaders that you know in New Brunswick been consulted on this UN declaration act, which is supposed to be tabled in five weeks’ time? Hopefully, it’s at the printers by now. Hopefully, all the consultation has been done. Do you know anybody who has been consulted?
Mr. Ginnish: Actually, our chiefs would have attended a special assembly of the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, in early April. This has been discussed in committee with our chiefs and regional chiefs for the last while. But we spent an entire day and a half of a three-day meeting just dealing with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP, and what it might mean.
It’s an effort, but there are still areas that I think we would like to see tweaked. The principles of ownership, control, access, and possession, or OCAP, is another area — it is the ownership and control of our information. Right now, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada knows everything about us. They have more information about our community than we have. It has been a couple of years now that a First Nations governance institute is working with our communities so we can control that information. That is very much a driver for everything we want to do, knowing what our growth is and our ages. We have a young population, and they are very determined to be successful and play a role.
Our challenge lately is that we’re spread too thin with the number of people we have. In New Brunswick, we have 15 First Nations, and I think AFN has about 30-plus tables — chiefs’ committees — on issues. You have communities trying to keep a couple of things up in the air and stay ahead. What usually happens is that the majority will deal with two or three of the most urgent issues in front of us, and then you hope the other ball doesn’t land on the ground while you’re doing that. It’s a juggling act for sure.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, chief.
Mr. Ginnish: You’re welcome.
The Deputy Chair: Next on my list, chomping at the bit, is Senator Kutcher.
Thank you, chief. I understand that you have so much to say, and it’s a rare opportunity to have you here to speak with us. I will ask our senators to please try to keep questions focused on the government response.
Senator Kutcher: I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question to the chief, and thank you, chief, for your thoughtful and constructively critical testimony. It has been very helpful.
Before I ask my question, I just want to note, Madam Chair, that you mixed your metaphors. Chomping at the bit is not a fishing metaphor.
Listening to your testimony and some of the other testimonies we had reminds me of the proverb from John Heywood from 1546 that says there were “none so blind as those who will not see,” which takes me to the issue of racism.
This committee has had concerns and they have not been alleviated by the government response about what I call “ingrained racism” because it talks about systems, communities, organizations and people. One of the things the government has suggested they are doing is offering courses in DFO, whereas the scientific evidence raises concern that these courses may not be effective and they actually have a negative impact.
Chief, do you have any suggestions for us that we could identify, think about or look further into — areas that you think, both from your experience and also from your knowledge of interventions, that may be effective in addressing the concerns around racism?
Mr. Ginnish: Thank you for the question, senator. I’m going to share a little story that speaks to the challenges we have with this. In New Brunswick, you’re probably aware that three young people were killed at the hands of police officers in responding to emergency calls. Our chiefs had demanded an inquiry into systemic racism in the justice system of the Government of New Brunswick. They steadfastly refused to do that, instead offering up an inquiry into racism in general. What they did to the chair of that was they looked at her report part way through and then censored her. We had met with her prior to that, and she was going to make a number of recommendations, including an inquiry into the criminal justice system in New Brunswick, and New Brunswick squashed that.
That speaks to racism at the highest level in this province. That is our reality, that is the reality of our relationship with the Government of New Brunswick. They look at us asserting our title, our treaty rights, as a threat to their governance and to their people. Our MTI people now are legal, we’re dealing with trying to calm New Brunswickers that we’re not after their personal property. That was spun by the premier of this province in press releases, like the Wolastoqey and the Mi’kmaq are coming for your cottages and your lands. We clearly stated that is not our intention. The whole reason for the legal challenge is because New Brunswick is not willing to come to the table in a meaningful way.
We’re part of a rights table — New Brunswick, Canada and our Mi’kmaq MTI nations — and the majority of the time, if New Brunswick shows up, they’re not prepared. When you have that type of non-buy-in from what is supposed to be a treaty partner that has benefited from our relationship, our territories and our resources for hundreds of years, you scratch your head and wonder if we have to wait another two years until the government changes and things might get better. I’ve endured five successive one-term governments, and the latest has been the only government that has been in place for more than four years, and this one is the most challenging of all.
We’re seeing that, Senator Kutcher. When your provincial government has that take on things, you can only imagine what the more racist components are saying.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you for that. Could I follow up more on that, specifically with the response that we got from DFO? Has DFO ever spoken to you, sir, or to any of the other chiefs or communities that you are aware of to work together with you to try to come up with effective ways of addressing racism?
Mr. Ginnish: On racism specifically, I would say no.
Senator Kutcher: So there has been no discussion on the issue of racism with the people you’re trying to deal with. They have not even included you in discussing this issue.
Mr. Ginnish: Not to my knowledge. There may have been minor forays as part of the organization, but as far as the leadership level with senior DFO, no, I can’t recall there ever being that effort. It’s always an emergency situation that generates some need to talk. But nothing substantial, absolutely not.
Senator Kutcher: Do you think, at the very least, it might be a useful idea for DFO to start having these discussions with the Mi’kmaq communities about ways that racism could be addressed?
Mr. Ginnish: Yes, absolutely. As part of a treaty implementation move, treating our rights like a program isn’t going to work. We need legislation. We need legislation to help with the management and to recognize the right. So far, as long as DFO is doing this as a program off the side of their desk, I don’t think things will change substantially.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, chief. I appreciate that.
Mr. Ginnish: You’re welcome. Thank you, senator.
Senator R. Patterson: Thank you, Chief Ginnish, for sharing your story with us. It is never easy, but it is very compelling. We’re hearing a similar story with the previous witnesses, from your communities, that this is not a rights-based fisheries. We have certainly seen progress — I am reiterating what I have heard so far — that there is a benefit at the basic level where relationships can be built, which is culturally relevant, but when you start to move up it becomes rights-based not for Indigenous peoples, but rights-based for other groupings. I think that’s what I’m hearing.
When I look at the government response, one of them, as part of their critique, is that we need to start focusing better on the delivery of programs, co-design and co-development, but we consistently hear that regardless of what is being said, that’s not happening because these programs are being implemented. As we’re getting to end of your testimony, with your permission, I wouldn’t mind a little blue sky thinking from you because you’re having “equal” pushed on you and not “equitable.” When, as a nation, you are coming from a disadvantaged position, it doesn’t matter how much policy or how many licenses they throw at you, you are not going to be able to pull yourself into an equitable position.
Given that, and looking at the fact that the recommendation says we need to prioritize principles of co‑design, co‑development and co-delivery, if you were able to go back and reset the button, how could we look at redesigning, moving forward on truly making an equitable, rights-based, respectful fisheries?
Mr. Ginnish: Knowing what I know now, if we could go back, we would have refused the money that was thrown at our communities right after the court decision. That process happened far too quickly and without any deep thought about what it would mean, without any equity. You mentioned equity, and that has been my byline. Every time I sit down with the government, I say that we don’t need equity, we need equity plus because we’re not starting off at the same place as most Canadians.
We’ve done this for 24 years. We’ve tried to play within the existing structures and it’s not working. If we’re going to have more programs that are developed primarily by DFO, things are not going to fundamentally change. Absolutely, it has to be co‑designed and it has to be legislation. We can’t continue on or we’ll find ourselves in the same place 10 years down the road, and only that our communities will have grown, the demands will be higher.
We keep saying, “Give us the opportunity to try to do this.” We train and use every opportunity to get our people ready so they can fish and do so safely so that they are not putting themselves at risk.
But, yes, I don’t know how we have — this will help. This will absolutely help. When you have a committee of the Senate pointing back to the government that this is an issue, then we will use that for our battles here in our community.
It’s hard to get us all on the same page. We have 11 Mi’kmaq First Nations that work jointly on this. Each of our needs and our areas are unique. The majority of us are in our traditional sixth and seventh territories, so we have a lot in common. We fish the same areas, so it makes sense to do that.
How do we look back? I would say we should really look hard at what Canada provided to our communities and recognize that inequity. That’s a starting place. When there is success, I recognize that, and I love to see that. I know you have the success of a number of communities — First Nations — in Nova Scotia working together to purchase Clearwater, and that is a major accomplishment. That’s being involved in the resource at every level.
We want that opportunity here as well. We’re smaller in terms of numbers, but there needs to be a real opportunity for us to not only succeed but also to have our right recognized, and recognized in law, not just in policy. So far, the policy is not getting us equity plus. It’s not changing the poverty in our communities; it’s certainly not.
There is lots of room for improvement, senator, absolutely. We absolutely appreciate the efforts of this committee in bringing that to government.
Senator R. Patterson: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: After Senator McPhedran asks her question, Chief Ginnish, I hope we can beg a few more minutes of your time for some follow-up questions before we conclude.
Mr. Ginnish: Sure. Absolutely.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you so much.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much for being with us for such a thoughtful conversation today.
I would like to ask you to focus, please, on what possibilities there are for this committee to be supportive going forward from the report, your observations and the information you have shared with us today. In particular, I would like to ask you to further explore the comment you made about the need for a shift from DFO as the primary department with the minister as the primary minister. You know that, in our report, we observed considerable difficulties or challenges with this relationship, and you have only underscored that today with what you shared with us. But as important as the information-sharing is, we need to take action or not; decisions have to be made about that.
I’m inviting you, chief, to share with us your thoughts on what this committee might do to further the recommendations that we have made in the report and about which you have spoken today.
Mr. Ginnish: One that is absolutely essential is to move the responsibility of this from DFO to CIRNAC. That is where we have our nation-to-nation discussions in regard to treaty. DFO is not that body, and as long as they are in charge of this, it’s not going to get that level of attention.
We have seen progress, many recommendations in regard to even dividing CIRNAC from ISC, from the service body, to Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada has made a difference. Splitting those responsibilities so the ministers clearly understand what their roles are.
If I could pick one thing, it would be that going forward, CIRNAC be responsible for treaty implementation discussions on Marshall. I think that would make a huge difference. There would be an opportunity there.
DFO just is not set up to deal with the intricacies of this. They’re always thinking about the commercial fishery and the impact our rights have on it. We need an arm of government that is all about our rights and focusing on that relationship.
I know it’s a bit all over the place, but it would be wonderful if that could happen. We continue to strongly advocate for that. So far, we’re not hearing any great support for it. If this committee were to say, “If there were one thing that could really make a difference,” absolutely, that would be it.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much for the clarity of your response.
Chief, it’s so powerfully evident how committed you are to your community, how long you have been a leader sustaining your community and how much you know about the tragic history of the Marshall decision and your rights not being implemented or respected by Canada. If our recommendations for action in the Senate report Peace on the Water come to naught — nothing happens — what do you think will happen to the youth of your nation?
Mr. Ginnish: There absolutely wouldn’t be “peace on the water,” unfortunately, and that’s not good for anyone.
We have that same type of discussion. We’re trying to share with New Brunswick, even, that we want to benefit from the resources that are our treaty right in New Brunswick. By working together, we all benefit. For some reason, there is reluctance there to go down that road. It seems they would sooner fight with us in court for four or five years during their term and then kick it further down the road once again.
If you look over my shoulder, there is a picture. That is the Pomquet bay. That’s the bay where Donald Marshall fished his eels. That’s surrounded by our treaties. That’s a reminder every day of what we need to do to honour our ancestors. We’re here because of them. I have a little grandson now who is 18 months old, and I want him to have an opportunity to live in his community, to be educated, and to come back and help if he so wishes; I hope he would. I’m the proud father of four daughters. I have got three teachers and a social worker. We laugh and say, “Okay, the social worker is there to support all the trials and tribulations of the politicians and the educators.”
I really hope that we can recognize that. I mentioned the City of Miramichi. They were one of the first to stand up and support the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. That’s a great opportunity to share and educate. We have been doing that, and we have had people come forward and say, “We never knew. We had no idea.”
There is still a lot of hurt in the community, and it’s going to take time. We have gone through the Indian Day School settlement process, and that has opened wounds that are difficult. We have gone through COVID. There are mental wellness challenges with our youth right now because of being out of their groupings and being segregated. We’re finding that it’s a challenge to reintegrate everyone and support them. There is a fear. Am I going to get sick? Are my parents going to get sick? We have lost a lot of people. We are still in challenging times. We need to show that we’re not just going through the motions, that there is a real desire and that we have partners who are willing to help us make a difference, to recognize, be honourable and give us a fair opportunity in our lands to be successful and to give back.
We’d love to collaborate so that everyone has a good life and respects our mother, the earth, and that she is here for us, for the future.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much.
Mr. Ginnish: You are welcome. Thank you.
Senator McPhedran: Chi meegwetch.
The Deputy Chair: Before we let you go, I’m going to indulge myself with one comment, and I’ll ask you to respond to that. There might be a question embedded in it, but I’ll try to be as brief as I can.
In listening to what you say, talking about the proliferation of misunderstanding, and I might even say misinformation, about rights-based versus privilege-based fisheries in your region and across Canada, it seems to me that the conversation is more about rights than it is about fish. Of course, we’re here because one of the things that we have recommended and that you have endorsed and reinforced in your comments is the fact that DFO is perhaps not the ministry to carry these issues and challenges forward. And our report endorses that as well. I’m wondering if you might comment on my summation that this is the case.
Also, one of the things you talked about that you find very frustrating is the fact that the misunderstanding is the lack of education and ignorance about the rights of your people and your nation to fish under treaty rights and traditional culture. I wonder if I would be naive in saying that perhaps we might push in our response to their response — and you can tell in the room that people here intend to be tenacious about our report — that CIRNAC perhaps take over, at least in the beginning, the explanation and the education of people around the rights of the fishery. Not necessarily the fish of the fishery, but the rights of the fishery and as a first step in that transition, that they are responsible for taking up the responsibility to make sure people understand what rights-based versus privileged-based fisheries really is about.
Mr. Ginnish: Absolutely. National information sharing versus our little attempts or our little pockets to try to do this would make a difference. I’m very glad to hear that you are recommending as well that CIRNAC, at least at the beginning, help us get to the point where we actually have something that could be — I’ll harp on the need to embed this in legislation, because we have the same challenges here in New Brunswick in a number of other areas. If it’s not legislated, if it’s only a program, it will not endure. It will not be there to support our development going forward. So, yes, absolutely, please.
After 42 years in politics, I really want to be able to say that we accomplished something. There are some days when you scratch your head and say, “My god, it’s like the Bill Murray movie Groundhog Day.” You wake up and it’s the same day all over again and you’re not getting any further down the road. Some days are like that, other days are better. This is definitely one of the better days. Anything that we can do at MTI to share this message and to support this committee, we will absolutely be there to do that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. With those comments, I want to sincerely thank you for spending the time — and as you notice, we are a little over time — to recognize that what you are saying is so appreciated coming from someone who has lived this experience every day for the last number of years that you have quoted. Thank you very much for your time, your comments and your recommendations. They will be duly noted as we move forward. Thank you again.
Mr. Ginnish: Absolutely. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to be here.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senators, next on today’s agenda is consideration of future business. I suggest that the committee proceed to an in camera discussion for consideration.
Are there any objections to us going in camera? Hearing none, it is agreed.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Deputy Chair: Senators, we are now in public.
Is it agreed:
That the $98,914 budget application for travel to Newfoundland and Labrador (Clarenville, Elliston, South Dildo and St. John’s), for a fact-finding mission and public hearings, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Approved. Thank you, senators.
This budget will now be submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to be reviewed by the Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS.
Is it agreed, senators:
That the $11,003 budget application for the chair’s participation in the Aqua Nor 2023 conference in Trondheim, Norway, be approved for submission to the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration.
Approved. Hearing no nays, thank you, senators.
This budget is now to be submitted to the Standing Senate Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration to be reviewed by Subcommittee on Senate Estimates and Committee Budgets, or SEBS. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)