THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 18, 2023
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:10 a.m. [ET] to study 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.
Senator Fabian Manning (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome. My name is Fabian Manning. I’m the chair of the committee, and I’m a senator from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Should any technical challenges arise today, particularly in relation to interpretation, please notify me or the clerk, and we will work to resolve your issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of the committee to introduce themselves.
Senator Quinn: Good morning. Jim Quinn, New Brunswick.
Senator Cordy: I’m Jane Cordy, a senator from Nova Scotia. Welcome.
Senator McPhedran: Marilou McPhedran, a senator from Manitoba.
Senator Francis: Senator Francis, Epekwitk, or Prince Edward Island.
Senator Petten: Senator Iris Petten from Newfoundland, Labrador.
Senator Ravalia: Good morning, and welcome. Senator Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Chair: I would like to take a moment to extend a special welcome to Senator Petten, who is joining us this morning to observe and participate in our meeting. We are the first committee that she has come to participate in since her arrival in the Senate last week. We’re delighted to have her with us.
On March 7, 2023, the government 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, the committee will be hearing from the following witnesses of the MAWIW Council: Aaren Sock, Chief, Elsipogtog First Nation; Tara Levi, Executive Director; Sean Triska, Fisheries Manager; and Caitlin Stockwell, Legal Counsel on behalf of Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj, First Peoples Law. Please forgive me if I have done anything to the pronunciation of your nations.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here to join us today. I understand that Chief Sock has some opening remarks. Following the presentation, members of the committee will no doubt have questions for you. Chief Sock, the floor is yours.
Aaren Sock, Chief, Elsipogtog First Nation, MAWIW Council Inc.: Mr. Chair, first, I hope you do not take offence when you see smoke coming out of my ears when you are mispronouncing our nations. If you do not mind, I will take this opportunity to educate the committee. Elsipogtog is pronounced like “Elsie,” “book” as in something you read and “took” as if you took it — Elsipogtog. Esgenoôpetitj — I do not know how I can relate that into English, but it is “Es-gen-oh-beh-dij.”
Honourable senators, [Indigenous language spoken]. What I just said in my language is that if there were an opportunity for senators to learn my language, a lot of these issues that we are facing today in terms of — I want to choose my words carefully, because I do not want to call it “fighting,” but “clashes” or whatever. I guess it is a lack of coming to an understanding. Regardless, a lot of these issues wouldn’t have existed if people took the time to understand our language and understand us as a people.
With that, our First Nations, Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj, are here today to make submissions on the importance of Canada’s engagement of our self-governance rights and freedoms over fisheries in Mi’kma’ki. We have always had a way of doing things through consensus, and fisheries are no exception. In fact, because fisheries have known such contentions in Mi’kma’ki, it is all the more important to engage in consensus decision-making. The conflict and consternation are not going away, as we recently learned. The misinformation has deepened. Deflections abound, aggression prevails, and we have shared roles and obligations to correct the record of our arrangements and relationships in the eyes of society.
The notion of consensus is not unknown to Canada. We are urging Canada to use its own section 4.1 of the Fisheries Act to establish true consensus decision-making with our nations. I am highlighting Canada’s failure to engage our inherent governance rights over fisheries and Canada’s refusal to enter into a real, meaningful and equal government-to-government partnership with our nations.
I can’t empathize enough the importance of consensus decision-making. The preventable loss of a fisher, a close friend and relative, Jonathan Craig Sock, known as “Jumbo,” is a casualty of not engaging in consensus decision-making. Jumbo was lost at sea when the Tyhawk capsized, faced with ice. We have asked DFO to delay the season because of this very concern. DFO failed to delay, and the opening of the crab season basically put our smaller boats at a major disadvantage against the larger, commercial vessels.
We call upon Canada to fulfill its promises and obligations to do the right thing and establish true consensus decision-making in some sort of an agreement with our respective nations regarding all aspects of the fishery in Mi’kma’ki. Our people, rights and freedom cannot draw breath otherwise.
Our ancestors, at the time of the treaty, did not agree to the nature of our relationship as it stands and would never have considered Canada’s displacement of our nation’s authority over our territory. We know consensus-based decision-making is the way forward. We look forward to engaging to spur that process as a part of article 27 of UNDRIP’s promise. Wela’lioq.
Is there anything that you wanted to add, Tara?
Tara Levi, Executive Director, MAWIW Council Inc.: I just wanted to emphasize section 4.1. Chief Sock has eloquently said that this is near and dear to our hearts, especially with the loss of a friend, a leader, a father and a son. This true decision-making consensus — we need to be part of it. This is very emotional, because this is a good friend and brother to Chief Sock. Those decisions are not just for our communities, but it is for every fisher that we go through. In order for us to move forward, and in the spirit of truth and reconciliation, we need to be a part of that decision-making. We’re capable of doing it. We’re able to do it. We are not asking to be above the minister, but we are seeking true, shared decision-making when it comes to our people and our fishers.
The Chair: Thank you.
Before I turn to Senator Francis for questions, I want to take the opportunity on behalf of the members of the committee here this morning to express our condolences for your loss. Many of us are from Atlantic Canada, and we know full well that the sea gives very much and the sea can take very much at the same time. We know exactly how you feel, and I know that I speak for all members when we express our deepest sympathies and condolences to Chief Sock, the family and to the community as a whole.
Senator Francis: [Indigenous language spoken] Ms. Levi, good morning, and thank you for coming.
I will ask this question to whomever would like to take a crack at answering it. In 2019, Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj First Nations signed a time-limited rights and reconciliation agreement. Before I ask you about the government response, could you please update us on the status of that agreement and what has happened in your communities over the last four years in terms of funding and other supports.
Ms. Levi: I will give my response, and then I will defer it to Ms. Stockwell, our legal counsel.
The status of our agreement as of now, four years later, is that we have yet to reach our collaborative management agreement. There have been roadblocks. There have been hurdles in our way. Everything has changed, and new requirements have been given to us. It has been very strenuous on our organization. For the last four years, we have found innovative ways of pursuing and continuing our fisheries program, especially the Guardians program. We have applied for funding through the Coast Guard, through our province and through other agencies. We haven’t stopped our work, and we’re not going to stop our work. That is where we are.
I will defer to Ms. Stockwell on the legal aspects of it.
Caitlin Stockwell, Legal Counsel on behalf of Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj, First Peoples Law, MAWIW Council Inc.: Good morning, everyone. Thank you to the honourable committee for having me here this morning and to Chief Sock and Ms. Levi for your important submissions.
To follow up on Senator Francis’s question, as Ms. Levi has been alluding to, in Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj’s 2019 RRA, or Rights and Reconciliation Agreement, DFO committed to enter into collaborative decision-making arrangements with the nations. That has been, as Tara has been saying, a long negotiation process, one of the main issues being that DFO would not recognize the true equal partnership that Chief Sock was emphasizing the importance of; namely, that the nations are able to make recommendations to the minister on Fisheries Act decisions but cannot enter into true consensus decision-making arrangements where there is an equal partnership.
As you have heard this morning, and as the honourable committee recognized in its recommendations to Canada, there is an existing mechanism in the Fisheries Act to provide for true consensus decision-making. Section 4.1 recognizes that the minister can enter into agreements with Indigenous nations that further the proper management and control of the fisheries and facilitate joint action on these issues. This joint action recognizes a joint equal partnership, not final decision-making authority over the implementation of the Elsipogtog and Esgenoôpetitj’s rights.
Senator Francis: My next question is also for anyone who would like to answer. Are your First Nations satisfied with the government’s response to our report entitled Peace on the Water?
Ms. Levi: No. I will just give the one-liner. The response ignores our nation’s submissions and the committee’s recommendations that DFO use section 4.1 of the Fisheries Act to enter into true consensus decision-making arrangements with our nations for our fisheries.
We want to thank you for that report, Senator Francis. The committee here has really taken the time to listen to our issues and to our struggles. The Senate has really clearly defined what needs to happen, and we appreciate that, but we feel that the minister did not even acknowledge or recognize section 4.1 and true, shared decision-making.
Senator Francis: Thank you for that.
Mr. Sock: My response wouldn’t be so formal. In the world of politics, the minister’s response, in my opinion, is basically saying a whole lot without saying anything at all. What I mean by that is she says the right words, or the department says the right words, but the follow-up is not there. The actions are not there. That is essentially what I would like to add.
Senator Francis: Thank you, chief.
Ms. Stockwell: I would add to Chief Sock’s and Ms. Levi’s comments that the minister’s response did not address the use of section 4.1 specifically for true, shared decision-making for decisions that are made under the Fisheries Act.
If there’s any ambiguity whether section 4.1 can be used for this, Canada has an obligation to ensure it is interpreting section 4.1 in line with Canada’s UNDRIP commitments. This is recognized in Canada’s federal UNDRIP legislation, UNDRIPA, and as Chief Sock has spoken about this morning, UNDRIP recognizes the right of nations to provide their free, prior and informed consent to decisions that are made about the use of their resources.
If the minister can point to something in the Fisheries Act that prevents section 4.1 from being used for this, which we cannot see, then this is exactly where the Fisheries Act needs to be amended to be consistent with UNDRIP and other commitments that the federal government has made to Indigenous nations across Canada.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you to the witnesses once again for being here.
Twenty-three years after the Marshall decision, we still appear to be in the status quo. We have heard from witnesses on both sides. Our concern as a committee has been how far and wide the gap continues to be with respect to implementing Indigenous rights-based fisheries. Historically, most of the negotiation has been done with DFO. Do you feel that adding Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada as a whole-of-government approach might be the next step? What steps can we take to ensure that the rights of the Mi’kmaq nation are respected, and that, furthermore, the violence we’ve witnessed is abated on a go-forward basis? Obviously, there is so much tension in the communities and uncertainty as to where we can go. In your own minds, have you envisioned a go-forward plan that can be supported more broadly?
Mr. Sock: We’ve seen a tiny bit of that type of relationship when it comes to negotiations. We’ve seen it at the RRA level. From what we’ve picked up, there seems to be a communication issue between the two departments. When there is already confusion and disassociation amongst our groups and others involved, just having CIRNAC and DFO at the same table — we have seen a lack of communication, for lack of a better term. Although we think that would be the way forward, there needs to be the same level of commitment between CIRNAC and DFO. Whereas CIRNAC seems to be a little bit more committed, DFO takes an approach where they don’t see us as an equal partner.
Ms. Levi: To add to Chief Sock’s comments, it would be a good idea that DFO has a watchdog, whether it is CIRNAC or another department. I feel that, as Chief Sock says, DFO does not want to work with us as a section 4.1 nation-to-nation. There has to be a neutral body that comes to this negotiation table that is not holding prejudices in the back of their minds about incidents that have happened in the past, even with communities. These are long-standing relationships that we have had with the department. We have witnessed amongst ourselves the two departments not communicating properly, but CIRNAC was more open to hearing our discussions, our ideas and the implementation of our rights. So yes, some form of body needs to happen, especially at these higher-level talks. Local staff is not appropriate. We should have an independent body or a watchdog during these types of negotiations.
Senator Ravalia: I wonder if there are any examples of where 4.1 of the Fisheries Act has actually been successfully followed or implemented in any of the communities. Are there any areas that we can use as a starting foundational element to build on?
Ms. Levi: We’ll defer to legal.
Ms. Stockwell: Thank you, senator, for the question.
Section 4.1 has never been used to enter into an agreement with an Indigenous governing body before. Despite that change being made to the Fisheries Act in 2018 and that direction from Parliament being there, this has never been implemented by DFO. We’re sitting here five years later, and the question is, can we use this section to address some of these concerns of violence and conflict that you’ve raised?
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much.
Senator Quinn: Thank you for being here this morning. This is a very important topic.
I want to pick up, chief, on your opening remarks about education. I must say I’m from New Brunswick. I went to school through our education system in New Brunswick. One of the things that I had no knowledge of when I graduated from high school was First Nations history and the realities of that history, not events, but the hard stuff, I guess is what they say. I can share with you that my experience in government started to open my eyes, and working with chiefs and elders across the country through the various roles I’ve played in government, it has been the beginning of an education. We’ve had different witnesses talk about how and who should be educating. I’m not sure what the answer is, but I fear that if we count on education systems, it may fall short. My question really is the following: What role can First Nation elders, for example, leaders, play in helping to educate that generation that’s coming up? That’s where we have to begin to have the young people understand the important rights that are inherent for First Nations people. How do we go about that? What role do First Nations play in being proactive to cause some of that to begin to happen?
Ms. Levi: Thank you for the question. Thank you for the acknowledgement.
I don’t know if it’s First Nations’ responsibility. I think it’s all New Brunswickers’ and all Canadians’ responsibility and wanting to learn about Indigenous culture. As an organization under MAWIW, we represent the three largest communities. Just to give you an example of what we do to be proactive around educating the general public, on National Aboriginal Day, on our treaty days, on Truth and Reconciliation Day and on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, we work with our local towns that are close to First Nations communities and we host events. We do it multiculturally. On Truth and Reconciliation Day, when Premier Higgs would not recognize that day, our mayor, Adam Lordon, was the first mayor in the province of New Brunswick to acknowledge that. We work diligently with City Hall to prepare information packages, to set up information booths, to hold talking circles, to share our culture. This wasn’t one-sided. It was non-Indigenous folks coming to us and getting us to help them. I found, in Miramichi, that the local schools included us in a lot of the education part.
We don’t know what you want to learn, and sometimes what we want to teach is not necessarily the right things to teach. We feel that it is important for the non-Indigenous communities to reach out and to work with us. I don’t view it as our responsibility, but we will do it in shared compassion and decision-making. That’s how I feel, and I don’t know if Chief Sock would like to add to that, but it’s on both parts.
Mr. Sock: Well, you said it perfectly. The only thing I can add to that is, essentially, we’re ready, we’re capable, and we do have resources in — well, I shouldn’t say a developed curriculum, but it is something that we are working on in our education systems. Definitely, we can begin that process together, yes.
Senator Quinn: Thank you very much for that. You’re right that it’s incumbent upon Canadians to want to learn and want to understand, but I think the first step is for them to become aware of an issue so they can then open their eyes to needing to learn more.
In New Brunswick, I know there are some more private sector type of arrangements. I look at the Port of Belledune and the work they did. I thought what they did with the First Nations was terrific. I think of some of the work that the Port of Saint John did with the Wolastoqey and the Keltic Lodge, and maybe there are ways to leverage those partnerships to make it better known. It really does come down to awareness, because the average person in New Brunswick or any other community in Canada is merely going about their day, and they don’t even think about this stuff. They don’t realize the inherent rights that First Nations have in the fishery. That was the nature of our report. When you talk about rights versus privilege, they kind of haze over, and they don’t understand. It is really a challenge in terms of how we can educate and get people to open their eyes to learn. I’m wondering if there is a way to take advantage of the relationships that you folks have established and others have established with other entities in our province as a first step, because our province relations are probably not what they should be.
Ms. Levi: Absolutely. If we could get our collaborative management plan funded, there is a whole component on communication and education, especially in the fisheries.
When we deal with the non-Native commercial fishermen, we want them to understand what our treaty rights are and that it is totally different from what they have, but also to educate the port authorities, because a lot of times they feel that we are getting things for nothing, but they don’t understand the process that we have to go through, and that we’re not adding to the resource. We’re retiring licences. When one licence is retired, we’re replacing them, so it’s no addition. I came from a former background with DFO, so I kind of know.
What we realized at that time — and I’m very fortunate that I had that experience because I’m coming here with my communities and helping them, preparing them to go into the fisheries — is that the lack of communication between DFO and their port authorities and with their local fishermen’s union — they don’t educate them. Do you know what I mean? So when we started Marshall 20 years ago, we were retiring all these fleets, and all these Indigenous fleets were coming in. Elsipogtog had 40 vessels coming into the Richibucto Harbour. They were all upset, and what they didn’t understand was that there was no additional effort on the resource. We were replacing and bringing them back on.
So where was the lack of talks happening? The department should have been prepared and sending a letter to harbour authorities saying, “Elsipogtog is getting four vessels. These are the licences that were retired. That’s why they’re going in.” Instead, it creates animosity. It is not at the fault of the Indigenous communities; it was the department’s fault in not educating or letting the proper authorities know what was happening.
It is a learning curve. As part of our RRA, our Rights Reconciliation Agreement, our collaborative management, we plan on working on that. We’re planning on educating, going out to the harbour authorities and going out to these Indigenous communities. Esgenoôpetitj actually held a session to bring together their wharf in Tabusintac and their fishers to talk prior to the opening of the fishery. Talks are happening and changes are coming. I find this generation, moving forward, are open-minded and they want to learn.
Senator Quinn: That’s so encouraging for me. Just for my colleagues, I want to make the distinction that the ports I referred to are Canadian Port Authorities, they’re the big ports, and I believe the ports you’re referring to are the small-craft harbour ports.
Ms. Levi: Yes.
Senator Quinn: I wanted to make sure that distinction is drawn. Thank you.
Senator Cordy: Thank you all for being here today, to all of you. It’s always a great chance to have these discussions in small groups.
I was also struck by your comments that both Indigenous communities and communities around Indigenous communities must reach out and educate one another. I grew up in Sydney in Nova Scotia with Membertou. When I was growing up, Membertou had one road in and the same road to get back out. Now, Membertou is the economic driver for the whole region. Its population is growing. They are bringing in industries. I met the chief on the plane one time. They own some land on the other side of the highway. He kept getting calls. “Is Costco coming? Is Membertou building a new Costco?” In fact, the president of Costco phoned the chief to say, “All those rumours that I’m hearing — we’re not bringing a Costco to Cape Breton, at least not yet.” But if Chief Paul has anything to do with it, they will be bringing one in. Anyway, that was a good point that you raised.
We’ve heard, certainly, from all the witnesses when we were preparing our report that the government talks about nation‑to‑nation discussions. We heard from our witnesses that, in fact, it’s not nation to nation. It’s the Indigenous peoples, and it’s the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and that is not nation to nation. That’s nation to department. Would you agree with the need for more nation-to-nation discussions?
Mr. Sock: One hundred per cent.
Senator Cordy: Any comments on it the importance of it?
Ms. Levi: I think it’s very important because we’ve never surrendered our land, and we’re ruled under the Indian Act, a separate legislation that does not govern all other Canadians. Once you entered into that, that’s a nation-to-nation relationship. Right? I firmly believe that we need to be at that level. We need to have shared decision-making with our people. We were the first people here, and if the Government of Canada thought it was important enough to have a separate legislation to govern the Indigenous people, that needs to happen.
Senator Cordy: Thank you. We’ve heard that, so I just wanted to confirm it with you.
I’m also struck by your comments about decisions being made with government. They’re supposed to be by consensus. The reality is that there might be a few talks, but it isn’t consensus. Would you go along with that? Certainly, when you look at where many of the reserves are, whether in northern New Brunswick or rural areas in Nova Scotia, the fishers know best whether or not it’s safe to go on the water. That would be one prime example of decisions with no consensus. I know, Chief Sock, you spoke about it earlier. Is there anything else you wanted to add relating to that?
Mr. Sock: I can add a little bit and then defer to Tara.
I can give you an example of what it would look like in terms of a shared or equal decision-making process. A lot of times, decisions are based on conservation issues, sustainability issues and that sort of thing. When DFO decides to make decisions that are paternalistically based, it’s always on that basis.
Now, in the last 20 years, Elsipogtog started with, let’s say, 20 vessels. I can’t remember the number off the top of my head. It was perceived that it was an additional 20 vessels in the fishery of the area. When we did enter into the fishery, the general misconception out there was that we were putting a strain on the fishery.
Fast-forward to today, it’s now 23 years later, and we now have approximately 80 vessels in the water, and the stocks, the fishery, still seem to be rising. The population is still rising. I don’t have a DFO background or any marine biology background, but I do have a background in Mi’kmaq culture. The most important aspect in Mi’kmaq culture is Netukulimk — you don’t take any more than you need. You just do what you need to do to survive or to live a better life. That is the basis, the crux, of the Mi’kma’ki way.
I don’t know. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I can’t see the rationale behind Canada’s decision not to enter into an equal and meaningful nation-to-nation decision-making process but to stay where it is more paternalistic. I think it’s because — coming from their way of thinking, which is non-Indigenous — they think let’s just fish as much as we can and make as much money as we can until it’s gone. That’s not Mi’kma’ki. That’s far from it. I think that’s where they’re coming from, and we need to come to a point where we understand each other. Mi’kmaq are never, ever going to wipe out any fishery, as opposed to non-Mi’kmaq or non-Indigenous. That’s where we need to come together.
Senator Cordy: That’s a really good way of phrasing it.
This was not in our report, but it has to do with fishing. I’ve been reading a lot lately about the tensions related to the catching of elvers or the baby eels. Do you have any comments on that and what’s going on?
Mr. Sock: Yes, I can comment a little bit. Again, it’s one of those things where it wouldn’t have been an issue if there was an equal and meaningful relationship. Right now, people are entering into that fishery based on frustration. Essentially, “Let’s force the government’s hand,” is the mindset now. I think that could have been avoided, and we could have entered into the fishery in a far more responsible manner.
Senator Cordy: So more communications? Nation-to-nation discussions and —
Ms. Levi: [Technical difficulties] — back to the moderate livelihood.
Senator Cordy: Exactly. Which is the Marshall decision, yes?
Ms. Levi: Yes. If DFO had come and talked to our chiefs, they would know that their philosophy is all the same as Chief Sock said. Under Mi’kma’ki law, we do not rape and pillage our resources. We’ve been doing it for years, and we’re still here. Right? If our goal was to do that, it would have happened. We do have our own ways, our traditional ways, of stocking our resources, and we need to be brought to the table. Maybe we could be teaching somebody a few lessons.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much. Thank you both for being here.
Sean Triska, Fisheries Manager, MAWIW Council Inc.: Just to partake a little bit in the conversation about elvers, in Canada’s response, there was a note that the minister said that they allowed entry into the elvers fishery by diluting the commercial stock, per se, to make room for First Nations to partake in that. That only opened up a lot of windows in that other First Nations saw that and wanted to partake in that as well, which weren’t really acknowledged or followed up, to my knowledge. I’m not too knowledgeable on that. But at the same time, when it goes to those First Nations that did receive a commercial allocation for elvers for this year and part of last year, when the minister did decide to close the fishery, I highly doubt there was any full, meaningful consultation done with those First Nations that received the allocation last year. That just goes back to the nation-to-nation talks, et cetera, that need to be ensured for future generations and on First Nations as well.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you for being here.
I need some guidance from you with the question I would like to ask. I want to begin by adding my condolences for your loss. I wonder if you would consider telling us what that situation should have looked like. If section 4.1 was being implemented, what would have happened? What was the kind of communication that would have happened? What are the kinds of decision-making that would have happened? How should it have been so that you did not lose your brother?
Mr. Sock: I would have to defer that to our technical experts because of the fact that we had mandated them to come up with those details, and they did, in fact, have a really good plan.
Ms. Levi: If true, shared decision-making had happened that day, the fishery should not have been opened. The snow crab fishery traditionally opens around April 20, but due to the whales and due to the bigger boats, they can get out earlier. It was not safe for the Coast Guard to go out, so what made the department think it was safe for fishers to go out is beyond me, because there were ice chunks. I don’t want to consider it lucky, but two people died that day, and it could have been several more.
True, shared decision-making is not only with the big non-native vessels, the big trawlers; it’s all our smaller fishermen who are going out there to support their families to bring a livelihood home. There is nothing that should supersede that. There needs to be a human aspect to decision-making, and that shared decision-making should have happened and they should have listened. It wasn’t just the Indigenous people who were asking for a delay in the opening of the fishery; it was the smaller vessels as well. I get that protecting the whales is important, but our people have way more importance over a fish.
Senator McPhedran: How much of the communication was in writing? Is that something that can be shared with this committee as an example of what actually happened in comparison to what you argue should have happened?
Ms. Levi: We’ve been trying to get information on that day, even today. We’ve been getting the runaround. We’ve talked to Transport Canada. I didn’t know there was Transport Canada and then there’s something like Canada transport. There are two different branches of how things evolve. The Coast Guard has been somewhat helpful, and the department has also been somewhat helpful.
But as far as decision-making goes, from what I understand, that’s a call that’s made with the department and with some of the fishermen, like the Maritime Fishermen’s Union and other organizations, to call regarding whether the fishery opens. Maybe, Sean, I should divert this to you, because you participate on those calls, so you could perhaps speak to what exactly happens on those days. We have one seat, so it is one voice. I would prefer Sean answering this question in regard to the opening of a season.
Mr. Triska: In regard to the opening of the fishery, I’m sure you all know how the ice committee calls are that happen at the beginning of each snow crab season. There is an ice committee that meets, and in that committee are stakeholders, First Nations people, as well as industry and other fishing unions. They all partake in that call.
For that particular opening of that year, I wasn’t part of MAWIW. I was part of Elsipogtog commercial fisheries. I was the assistant coordinator at that time. Prior to that meeting, I sent the chair actual photos of the wharves where we were looking to land our catch. Those ports were still fully iced. No boats were out. A couple of the ports were fully iced. DFO said, “You guys can offload at this other port in the meantime while these things are still iced up.” Prior to the meeting, I sent pictures to the organizer of the meeting. It might not be the chair. I can dig up those emails.
Plus, at the meeting itself — it was done through Zoom. I don’t know at that point if they did record it. Normally, all the ice committees are recorded. This spring it was. But if DFO had a recording of that meeting, my boss, my coordinator at the time, did make a comment in requesting a delay in the opening in that meeting, which didn’t happen.
So from our standpoint, those are the only avenues that we have a voice to actually say something. If it gets kind of downgraded versus other people’s voices and them wanting to go out with the size of their fleets or the amount of industry involvement they have, then it’s almost like a moot point at that point.
That’s all I have to comment on, unless there are further questions.
Mr. Sock: Essentially, the group with the biggest constituency is the group that gets heard the most. That’s the bottom line.
Senator McPhedran: Thank you. To be clear, the committee would appreciate anything in writing that would help us understand what happened that led to those deaths.
To go back to my question about the section 4.1 agreement, what would have been different if your agreement was in place and if it was being honoured? Maybe we’ll start with the call that Sean described and perhaps any written communication that you would be making if, indeed, there was a section 4.1 agreement in place. How would that look to you as being the way it should operate?
Mr. Sock: I would have to begin by saying that we do see ourselves as a nation and, as such, in my role, I’m not directly involved in those types of processes, so I would have to divert to Sean, Tara and the technical team again.
Ms. Levi: Caitlin, can you take this one?
Ms. Stockwell: Absolutely. Thank you, Tara, and thank you for the question, senator.
If a section 4.1 agreement were in place that recognized an equal partnership on a nation-to-nation basis, as Chief Sock and Tara and Sean have been making submissions today, then Canada would have approached the nations as decision makers on the issue of when to open fisheries and would have consulted on that decision on a consensus basis. There would have been a discussion about what factors should be considered when a fishery is open. The nations would have had an opportunity to raise those concerns directly and attempt to reach a consensus with Canada on that issue. It would have been hard to have reached a consensus before making that decision on opening the fishery with the knowledge that the nations had about the amount of ice on the waters that day. If an agreement were in place that recognized true consensus decision-making, there would be an equal partnership where the nation’s voice would have been heard as directly as the government’s.
The Chair: That was a good question, Senator McPhedran. If we had a situation where it was a nation-to-nation discussion under section 4.1 and if a true consensus was not reached, what happens then? If that were in place, what would happen if you could not reach a consensus?
Ms. Stockwell: Thank you, senator, for the question.
Many of these consensus decision-making agreements that Canada has in place with other nations have really thorough dispute-resolution mechanisms. We have heard from Chief Sock today about how important consensus decision-making has been to the Mi’kmaq nations’ traditions and culture generally and the experience they have with working through dispute resolution mechanisms and reaching consensus. In a situation where consensus wasn’t reached, there would generally be a process that we would go through where the decision would escalate to different levels, where people would need to sit down together, and it would continue to elevate to different levels of leadership to reach a consensus.
Mr. Sock: You have heard the legal side of things. In Mi’kma’ki, consensus is exactly that. If you were DFO and we were in a nation-to-nation discussion today, we’re not leaving this room until we both have come to an agreement. That is the traditional Mi’kmaq way of coming to a consensus. We will debate as long as it takes and then, finally, we would come to a decision. That would be the cultural side of things.
Senator Francis: Earlier I asked you about the RRAs, the rights and reconciliation agreements. Could you clarify whether you have received the funding DFO promised when you signed onto this agreement? The second part of that would be, can you expand on how exactly you have funded the Guardian program without having access to the funds promised by the department?
Ms. Levi: No, we haven’t received our full monies under the RRA. We’re on the collaborative management part. We did get some of our TRM monies, which is the overarching little pot that we have on the side, but to run our collaborative management, we have yet to do that. That is the $9 million and change that we are supposed to be getting.
Senator Francis: How long have you been waiting for that?
Ms. Levi: We have been waiting four years.
Right now, how we are running our programs is that we are applying for funding through other government agencies to develop and continue developing our Guardian programs. We feel that, after what happened with Jumbo and the snow crab fishery, we needed to have our Guardians there to help patrol and protect our fishers so that something like this doesn’t happen again. That has been a priority for our chiefs and that has given us the mandate. Mr. Triska and I have been very resourceful. He is honing his proposal skills in getting that funding. We are training them better than DFO fishery officers. We are continuing on our road to self-government, especially on the waters and protecting our people.
Senator Francis: Thank you.
The Chair: Four years of interest on $9 million would add up to a fair amount of money. If it were reversed, you would owe the government $9 million plus interest after four years, so maybe when you receive your funding you will you get your interest on top of it.
Folks, I want to thank you for your appearance here this morning and for a great discussion. We presented this report with the best intentions in trying to deal with a very serious situation. We believe that our report was a step in that direction. We had consensus around this table with our report. I certainly hope that the department will move forward with some of our recommendations. We intend, at least in our place here, to keep their feet to the fire, and hopefully we will see some movement in the near future.
With that, I would like to say thank you again for your appearance here today. I will leave the last word to Chief Sock.
Mr. Sock: First of all, I want to thank the honourable senators in this room today for taking the time to hear our concerns. We realize that you don’t have magic wands. In a perfect world, you would just wave that magic wand and make this all disappear. We really appreciate the fact that you are all going to go up to bat and take this one and drive it home for us.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. I remind our steering committee members that we will have a steering committee meeting immediately after this meeting.
(The committee adjourned.)