Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 39
Larry Johnson
View Larry Johnson Profile
Larry Johnson
2021-05-10 15:39
Thank you.
My name is Larry Johnson, and I am the president of Nuu-chah-nulth Seafood Limited Partnership. Our shareholders are the Ditidaht First Nation, the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, the Kyuquot and Checleseht First Nations, the Uchucklesaht Tribe government, and the Ucluelet First Nation.
NSLP is a commercial fishing enterprise that offers fisheries management support to the shareholding nations, their fishers and entrepreneurs in various aspects of fisheries development. I want to focus today on saying that there are nations that support sustainable salmon farming. They believe that marine salmon farming and wild salmon can coexist and be mutually beneficial.
The state of the Pacific salmon is, in fact, in deep trouble for many reasons.
My story here today about fish farms goes back to 1995. I started off as a councillor for my nation. Fish farms were a bad word back in those days when I got involved in the mid-nineties. As a matter of fact, I led our hereditary chiefs on a declaration to the kick fish farms out of our traditional territory.
We had concerns like everyone else. I didn’t actually have my own mind made up. I kind of toed the line, much like a lot of people in this province. We took it upon ourselves to ask about what the concerns were. Our chiefs talked about a lot of things that others are talking about, like what happens to the bottom of these farms after the farms are gone. What happens if they escape? What happens about sea lice? What about chemicals that are used? What about safety plans? There were all kinds of questions.
As a councillor, I embarked on communications. We got answers, and I relayed the answers to our chiefs. In our nation, we have eight chiefs. I still recall that even though we answered the questions, they were still skeptical. One of the chiefs spoke up and asked about 50 years from now. What if we actually find out that we were wrong and we missed the boat? What's next?
I think it's really hard for fish farms to work in B.C. because there's fear in B.C. There are not enough treaties and there is not enough certainty for industry and first nations in B.C.
I participated on the indigenous and multi-stakeholder advisory body and technical working groups through the aboriginal coordinating committee that is hosted by FNFC so that I could participate and make sure that treaty nation voices were heard. We did our homework. We separated business from politics in our treaty nations by creating business arms that focus on straight business. It has to follow the strategic plan of the nation, of course, in building sustainable business and in our access to the ocean resources. We wanted it to be diversified with aquaculture.
I think aquaculture is a great opportunity for our nations economically. It provides jobs, revenue and profits to the nation, so that the nation can do what it likes and create services for its people. It helps the region. It boosts our local economy while contributing to the greater economy. It also supports a blue economy through aquaculture development.
How do we do this? We do it through partnerships. My company has done a lot of good work in partnerships. As a matter fact, we won the Business Partnership of the Year award through aboriginal achievement.
I want to talk a little bit about partnerships from my nation's perspective, because forestry is good example of building relationships. It takes a long time to build relationships. It takes a long time to build trust, but once you get those foundational things, then economic reconciliation is achievable. I think it's not something that you do and just let go. You have to keep a relationship going. It's a pathway forward. It does leave a path for others to follow.
That's the goal of our company. We have two nations working in shellfish aquaculture, kelp aquaculture and finfish aquaculture. Four of our five shareholder nations are modern-day treaty nations and have self-governing rights and law-making authorities. They'll decide what kind of economic opportunities they have within their traditional territories.
They're focused on building their nation and building an economy so they can draw their people back to their homelands. They want to enhance salmon. I think we can do a better job on production and survival rates so that we can carry on with enhanced salmon. We participate in commercial fisheries, aquaculture, including shellfish, kelp and salmon farming.
I think the one big thing that's totally missing from everyone's plan is predator management, and I think we really need to deal with that.
Again, I just want to re-emphasize that there are nations that support sustainable salmon farming because they believe that marine salmon farming and wild salmon can coexist and be mutually beneficial. I am pretty sure that this has been happening for several decades already.
I have a bit of an ask here that—
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
With regard to the mandate, does your department support a self-governing Mi'kmaq treaty fishery governed in accordance with Mi'kmaq law?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
These are all discussions we are having with the Mi'kmaq right now. Minister Bennett is extremely engaged in this file. We are going to continue to have those discussions. We know there are section 35 rights involved. These are all things we are talking about when we are meeting with first nations communities.
View John Williamson Profile
CPC (NB)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister Jordan, for being here today.
In testimony before this committee, first nations leaders who we've heard from, along with lawyers and academics, believe indigenous communities can regulate and oversee an indigenous fishery outside of DFO control.
What do you think of that view we're hearing repeatedly at committee?
View Bernadette Jordan Profile
Lib. (NS)
I would say that DFO has a responsibility to make sure that the fishery is sustainable for the long term. However, I would also say that I think it's important that we work with the first nations communities to make sure, as they implement their right, that we have the same goals and objectives. We need to work together to implement that right in a way that is going to make sure they are able to have their moderate livelihood but also in a way we are convinced is not a conservation challenge. These are all things we are having ongoing discussions about, and I would say that it's extremely important that we continue to work together to find the right path forward.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
When you talk about co-management—and I really appreciate that—and when we look at monitoring and enforcement of treaty fisheries, does DFO have that mandate if the nations have actually asserted their governance by passing their own regulations within their treaty fisheries management law? How does everyone move forward there in terms of with the department?
Naiomi Metallic
View Naiomi Metallic Profile
Naiomi Metallic
2020-11-16 16:35
Well, I think by getting out of the mentality of one government enforces and the other one is not really a government and doesn't have any say in it. I think it's about working together to address mutual issues of concern.
There are some examples of this. Monsieur Rodon already gave some. I'm from the Listuguj Mi'gmaq First Nation, and we have had our own fisheries law since about the mid-nineties. We have our own Rangers program, so we have our own enforcement officers who go out in the water. This is not new. There are models out there to look at. That's what I would say.
George Ginnish
View George Ginnish Profile
George Ginnish
2020-11-16 16:59
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good evening. My name is Chief George Ginnish. I am the chief of the Natoaganeg First Nation and I co-chair Mi'gmawe'l Tplu'taqnn, which is the organization of our Mi'kmaq first nations in New Brunswick. I have been the chief of my community since 1996 and I am speaking to you today from Mi'kma'ki, the unceded and unsurrendered territory of the Mi'kmaq people.
Mi'kmaq are signatories to peace and friendship treaties with the British Crown, of which Canada is now a beneficiary. Our ancestors negotiated treaties in which they were promised that we would be allowed to continue to hunt and fish, as we had for thousands of years, and to trade in these goods. Signing these agreements was intended to bring a peaceful relationship between our people and yours. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. DFO rules have expressly been designed to systemically exclude us from the fishery.
We had hoped that the Marshall decision would usher in a new era of peace and prosperity for our communities. We hoped that we would be able to work together to implement our right to a moderate livelihood in a way that was respectful of our rights as a self-governing people and in accordance with Mi'kmaq laws. Again, this has not been the case. Instead of working to implement the treaties, the federal government chose a policy response to a court decision, known as the Marshall response initiative.
Under the Marshall agreements, instead of implementing a treaty-based fishery, DFO offered funding to bands to purchase licences, vessels and gear from existing fishers so that we could participate in the existing commercial fishery under DFO's rules. This was designed to appease non-indigenous fishers, not implement Mi'kmaq rights. While some Mi'kmaq communities refused to sign, many communities, impoverished and long denied any access to fisheries, felt compelled to sign these one-sided agreements.
There were significant inequities in the funding and in the distribution of access to various fisheries. My community was specifically excluded from access to the lucrative snow crab fishery, access that all of our neighbouring Mi'kmaq communities in northern New Brunswick enjoy. Some communities also received much higher levels of funding per capita than others.
We were told that these were interim measures, that the inequalities would be rectified, and that our rights would be implemented through a trilateral negotiation tables. A table was established in New Brunswick in 2007-08. For the next decade we made little progress as DFO refused to negotiate. This was supposed to change in 2017 when the federal government came to our table with a new fisheries mandate and a new negotiator.
When our chiefs first met with the newly appointed federal negotiator, Jim Jones, in December 2017 we made clear that we did not want this negotiation process to be a repeat of the Marshall response initiative. We wanted DFO to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq as a collective and respect our need to implement our treaty rights in a way that was respectful of our right to self-determination and of our nation-to-nation relationship. Specifically, we wanted to work together to define and implement a moderate livelihood, to recognize the fact that a rights-based Mi'kmaq fishery must be self-governing and to provide access on a priority basis for our communities that have long been denied their rights.
Unfortunately, again this has not been the case. DFO came to the table with a mandate that they unilaterally developed. The mandate is to provide funding to purchase more commercial access and not to define and implement a true livelihood fishery. DFO has again sought to undermine and divide us as a collective and to negotiate agreements with individual bands.
Although they acknowledge that purchasing commercial access is inadequate to address a moderate livelihood, they refuse to explore other possible solutions. Everything the Mi'kmaq have put forward as a potential solution to the impasse has been rejected by DFO as being outside their mandate.
We have tried to express these concerns to a series of ministers, but they have fallen on deaf ears. Despite repeated requests, we have been unable to get a meeting with Minister Bernadette Jordan. In the responses that we do receive, she merely reiterates the same inflexible position that has already been heard at the table.
This needs to change. In collaboration with the Mi'kmaq, the Government of Canada needs to revisit and revise DFO's negotiation mandate. The mandate must recognize our right to self-determination, and it must recognize that a rights-based fishery must be self-governing in accordance with Mi'kmaq laws.
I thank you for listening and welcome any questions you may have later.
Wela'lin. Thank you.
Darlene Bernard
View Darlene Bernard Profile
Darlene Bernard
2020-11-16 17:54
They should release the RRA envelopes to the first nations so that money could be used for us to do our engagement. We need to be supported in our engagements. We need the minister, whichever one is going to be responsible, to come to our communities and to talk to us. We need that. We need treaty education. We need that support.
DFO can support us in a lot of ways by helping to develop our guardian program, so that we can develop really strong enforcement processes and capacity. This is what we are trying to do, but there's no support for that from the department, and there should be support for that.
Wilbert Marshall
View Wilbert Marshall Profile
Wilbert Marshall
2020-10-29 18:43
Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, fellow witnesses and guests.
My name is Chief Wilbert Marshall. I represent Potlotek First Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss what's been taking place in Nova Scotia in regard to a fishing for a moderate livelihood.
For months we have worked, highly motivated, on our fisheries in Potlotek and our community. Our community demonstrated support of the assembly statement of standards, and we have developed a netukulimk livelihood fishery management plan which involves initial species and specific conditions for fishing lobster for our local LFAs. We were transparent in our work. We engaged with our community members and we successfully came to a consensus on a netukulimk livelihood fisheries plan.
We have shared our work with the federal government and local fishing associations. In fact, we posted our plan publicly so everyone could see and access our rules on conservation, safety and harvesting. We have tried to work nation to nation, but we have been met with DFO slamming doors in our face. It has become clear that DFO seems to think the only way forward is their way. This isn't a meaningful dialogue. This isn't reconciliation. This is the top-down approach, one that meets the needs of only one party.
The Mi'kmaq of Nova Scotia want to realize the vision that the late Donald Marshall Jr. had with respect to our inherent treaty right to a fishery surrounding Mi'kma'ki. We have the right to fish for our livelihood. As Mi'kmaq, we have the responsibility to protect this right. We are trying to demonstrate responsible leadership and governance of our fishery. Our people want to better their lives by earning a moderate livelihood in an honourable way, one that has been part of our whole way of living since time immemorial.
Canada's approach has continued to fail us. We expect better and we demand better. DFO continues to look at a treaty right to a moderate livelihood through a colonial lens. They have continued to maintain their position that we should fish under their rules, using their licences and their reasons. We have the right to self-govern, and that includes the right to govern our fisheries and to develop our own sustainable livelihood fisheries, separate from the commercial fisheries.
Wela'lioq . Thank you.
View Gord Johns Profile
NDP (BC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, all, for your testimony.
Mr. Connors, do you support the Sipekne’katik's assertion of their section 35 constitutional rights to self-govern themselves with their rights implementation lobster fishery management plan?
Peter Connors
View Peter Connors Profile
Peter Connors
2020-10-29 20:11
Well, I think that in the statement I just made, I recognized the authority of the federal government to manage the fishery.
Shelley Denny
View Shelley Denny Profile
Shelley Denny
2020-10-21 18:58
Good evening, and thank you for the invitation to stand in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as you undertake your study on the implementation of Mi'kmaq fishing rights to support a moderate livelihood.
I'm Mi'kmaq myself, a member of the Potlotek First Nation, but I have lived in Eskasoni for some time now. I am a doctoral student in the marine affairs program at Dalhousie University, seeking solutions to the same issues facing the committee: How can we successfully implement Mi'kmaq inherent and treaty fisheries in Nova Scotia?
I was fortunate enough to be part of a participatory research project, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, known as Fish-WIKS, which is an acronym for “fisheries western and indigenous knowledge systems”. Here, our goal is to use both knowledge systems to seek solutions to improve fisheries governance on all three of Canada's coasts. My role as a doctoral researcher in the Atlantic region was to identify and conduct research for this need to solve a current fisheries governance issue facing indigenous communities and also to explore solutions through the lens of both knowledge systems, referred to as “two-eyed seeing”. In two-eyed seeing, knowledge is viewed as a system in which knowledge is not only what is known but rather how it is known.
A knowledge system, whether it is western or indigenous, comprises many things. What we know, how we practise our knowledge, how we adapt to it and how we transmit and share it are the elements most people are familiar with. But the values and underlying beliefs that underpin these elements and actually distinguish one knowledge system from another are often ignored. This is problematic, because often the values and beliefs underpinning one system are at odds with another, potentially creating a barrier to collaboration.
However, our research in the Fish-WIKS project has shown that there are also similarities that can be used to start building bridges across knowledge systems and to help develop a greater understanding of the differences. This means that it's critical that those coming from different knowledge systems understand the values and beliefs driving each system, and that all parties involved in finding solutions take these into consideration when developing a path forward. While much of the research has shown that deep core beliefs are non-negotiable, many values, for example fairness, tend to be shared across knowledge systems and as such are more easily understood in the efforts to resolve conflicts.
Today I would like to share some of my research outcomes that can help enhance your understanding of the situation. It's unfortunate that the “what” of moderate livelihood takes over discussions, because it is “how” Mi'kmaq treaty-based fisheries can be implemented that is the crux of the issue.
Between 2018 and 2019, I conducted 48 interviews with 52 individuals experienced in fisheries governance, history, fishing and law. Today I would like to share the key challenges uncovered during my research. I'm sure the challenges will sound familiar, but they are supported through research. It is no surprise that conflicting relations are at the core of the current tensions. Reasons underpinning conflicting relations include continued antagonistic behaviour towards Mi'kmaq fishers, a lack of trust externally and internally, the lack of understanding of the Mi'kmaq context, and competition for resources.
There are numerous gaps contributing to the situation we have today. For example, there is no federal policy to address livelihood fisheries. Furthermore, the government needs to better develop its capacity to address Mi'kmaq rights, which is currently inadequate, being more reactive than proactive. Also, in general, things move slowly in government. The industry values rules and is concerned about how industry rules don't apply to indigenous fishing and fisheries and perceive indigenous fishers to be operating in a legal vacuum. Mi'kmaq want to support their families through livelihood fishing, but there are no avenues to do so. Negotiations are nation to nation but mostly without the inclusion of the fishers who are affected. While all Mi'kmaq have rights, not all Mi'kmaq are interested in pursuing livelihood fishing. Identifying those who want to fish is part of the process. Governance gaps exist at the community level as well and are of concern to DFO.
Conflicting views of authority to manage fisheries are evident. These are related to perceptions of legitimacy of the governing systems. Legitimacy is how a political action is perceived as right and just by the various people who are involved, interested or affected by it. There are challenges on both sides with respect to perception and acceptance of the governing processes employed. Mi'kmaq fishers value the continuation of their cultural practices and the connection of the exercise of Mi'kmaq rights to their identity and recognition of the treaties. In their eyes, they don't need a licence to fish. They have their treaties, and their authorization comes from their birthright.
Governing based on cultural teachings passed down through families doesn't fit DFO's top-down, highly regulated approach to fisheries. However, there is a shared perspective that an alternative to current fisheries governance is lacking. The Mi'kmaq are aware that there are challenges regarding the exercise of rights, including the abuse of rights, and there is a need for ways to address them that are culturally appropriate, since they involve ethical issues that cannot be addressed by DFO or the Canadian legal system. It is a necessity for the Mi'kmaq to develop fishery and fishing rules.
Moving forward, we need to recognize that this is not only an operational nightmare for DFO. This is a governance issue that requires making room for the Mi'kmaq through the principle of sharing. The industry needs to make room for Mi'kmaq livelihood fisheries by sharing access to resources. DFO needs to make room for an alternate governance model that is consistent with the treaty and Canadian law by sharing authority and decision-making and ultimately facilitating a legal framework to allow for the persistence of an alternative fisheries governance model.
It is evident that DFO's capacity to govern Mi'kmaq fisheries is limited, given the protection of aboriginal treaty rights in Canada's Constitution, but the important point and the opportunity that is overlooked is the willingness and desire of the Mi'kmaq to contribute to fisheries governance. Let's take the opportunity through shared values of governance to explore how they can coexist and employ innovation to address values that are unique to each perspective.
Now that we understand the underlying reasons for conflicting relations, we need to be aware that our actions must build trust through good governance principles, encourage treaty education and minimize competition between fishers and fisheries.
Thank you. Wela’lioq.
View Jaime Battiste Profile
Lib. (NS)
Okay.
Can you give us a sense of what Mi'kmaq indigenous knowledge teaches us about conservation?
Shelley Denny
View Shelley Denny Profile
Shelley Denny
2020-10-21 19:23
Yes, definitely.
Allison mentioned netukulimk. It's a way of life the Mi'kmaq people have. When you're trying to operationalize netukulimk.... There are certain things I've learned over the years, not just through research, but also through my position here at UINR. It's a “take what you need” thing, so there is a self-limiting element to netukulimk. There's also the ability to prevent waste. There are also the spiritual and ceremonial components, such as making sure that you're able to share and to give back. There is the inclusion of ceremony in that concept.
Results: 1 - 15 of 39 | Page: 1 of 3

1
2
3
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data