:
Honourable members of Parliament...[
Witness speaks in Salish].
Leaders, friends, my name is Sru-ets-lan-ough. I come from Cheam and I thank you for having us here today. On behalf of the council of the Cheam First Nation, I also would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
We would also like to acknowledge the Algonquin people of this area, in whose traditional territory we meet today.
For over 20 years, Cheam has struggled to gain real and effective recognition of our aboriginal rights and title. The struggle has been focused largely on the fishery, where we have faced political and legal fights to see real change. The basic change that we have fought for in recent years and have begun to see is the real respect being given to our people and their desire to make a better life for themselves while continuing to carry on their aboriginal way of life. This struggle has involved all levels of society and has taken place in the boardrooms of DFO, the courtrooms of British Columbia, and on the waters of the Fraser River.
Our people have paid a steep price in these struggles. We have incurred significant costs, and in some cases our people have faced serious legal consequences, in trying to advance the cause of the recognition of our rights and way of life. But if you ask our people, they will tell you that the fight was worth it.
What we want you to hear and understand, as the most important part of our message today, is that because of this hard work, change is now happening where it can do the most good for both Canada and for Cheam, as well as the other Stó:lõ people.
Where before we saw our mutual issues being fought out exclusively in the courtrooms, in recent years we have finally found DFO to be a willing partner, ready to come to the table to work out issues in the spirit of cooperation. We have been able to work through difficult issues through give and take on both sides to find agreed-upon solutions to our long-standing problems. These solutions have not been unprincipled or thoughtless. These solutions have taken into account not only the needs of Cheam, but also the needs of other sectors, including the commercial and the recreational fisheries.
Most importantly, we have worked with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to develop solutions to our common problems on the Fraser that protect the fish and advance the cause of conservation, and even the regrowth of the stocks.
What we hope to do today is dispel some of the myths about Cheam and present to you a clear picture of how Cheam, the other Stó:lõ nations, DFO, and truly representative industry groups have been working together to create a Fraser River fishery that works for everyone and preserves the stocks for future generations.
What we ask is that this committee support the efforts being made by the minister and his officials, Cheam, the Stó:lõ, and the industry to move away from confrontation and litigation as the means for working out the rules for the Fraser River, towards a more cooperative, respectful relationship.
I would like to take a few minutes to give you a picture of how relations between Cheam and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have changed in recent years. One area of serious contention for many years was the question of whether or not it was appropriate for Cheam members to use drift nets to harvest salmon. This has become as issue as accretion and sediment build-up in our river has rendered many traditional harvesting areas unusable. And our opportunities to harvest in other parts of the river have been limited by increased commercial and recreational use of the river.
For many years, certain special groups campaigned against the use of drift nets, making all sorts of unfounded claims against both Cheam and the equipment. Over the last few years, Cheam has worked with the department to create a regulated and monitored drift net fishery, which is being subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny by DFO scientists. Cheam is working closely with DFO to make sure these scientific studies are carried out effectively and that the results are used to ensure a science-based approach to the management of our traditional fishery.
So far the results of these efforts have been positive. Our members have had a chance to fish, the department has achieved a meaningful level of cooperation in regulatory and monitoring activities, and a true scientific program has been put in place to protect the fish.
Another area where we have worked closely with the department to change what had been a poor history is in the area of enforcement. Historically relations between Cheam and the department around enforcement issues can be best described as strained. The department's actions were viewed as heavy-handed and unfair, and the department viewed the whole Cheam community as being opposed to it. This led to an unsatisfactory situation for everyone. Cheam members were being needlessly arrested and charged, resulting often in acquittals, while the department was not getting the cooperation from the community and the council, which is essential to effective enforcement and management.
In recent years, Cheam and the department have entered into enforcement agreements that have focused on enhancing communication between the parties on a range of issues. These agreements have allowed the department and Cheam to develop approaches to enforcement that do not pit the department against the community or inflame innocent bystanders. Instead we now see situations where the department is able to respect and protect lawful Cheam fishers, while Cheam is actually able to assist in controlling persons, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal, who are acting outside of the law.
Where a few years ago the presence of a department officials on the Cheam beach would be an act of incitement, for the last few summers department officials have been working on our beach and in our community to monitor salmon harvests, protect lawful fishers, and work to enforce the law against individuals working outside of the rules.
Another development that has been critical to this improvement of relations is the efforts that the Cheam and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans put into developing a fishing plan. Each year, Cheam has attempted to work with the department, subject to limits placed on the local officials by Ottawa, to develop a fishing plan for Cheam. This plan was designed to let both Cheam members and the department know and understand which fisheries are sanctioned by the band and which ones are not. The reality of the fisheries in the modern context is that without close cooperation between DFO and the first nations, neither side knows the rules of the water.
Just as there are cases where Cheam members have been found guilty of fishing unlawfully, so too have there been cases where DFO has been found to have breached its constitutional obligations and to have acted unlawfully in managing the fisheries.
The only way these kinds of problems will be avoided is for DFO and Cheam to work together to develop plans and management regimes that work for everyone. In the end, we ask this committee to encourage and support efforts to create a cooperative and local approach to the management of the fishery. We ask you to help an approach that values the input of local people and local officials, and that is not driven by bureaucrats in Ottawa.
We ask particularly that you not allow your agenda to be driven by special interest groups that promote racial division by throwing around false and misleading labels. We are not here asking for race-based or segregated fisheries. What we are here asking for are fisheries that recognize the uniqueness of aboriginal communities and our legal system and history. We are asking for fisheries management that is sensitive to the complex local needs of both aboriginal and non-aboriginal fisheries.
What we have to leave you with is this. Cheam and the Stó:lõ people are committed to protecting and restoring our communities and way of life. There is much that cannot be recovered, that is lost beneath Chilliwack, Vancouver, Surrey farms, and highways—things that have made the non-aboriginal communities rich. We need to know that in the Government of Canada we will have a willing partner that will stand up for and defend our rights, and that will work with us to develop new, modern solutions to age-old problems in the fisheries. Without that partner, we will all face the old ways of confrontation and judicial intervention. Is it not better for us to choose a new and better path?
Thank you.
:
If I could just add a little bit to that, it's very important to understand that there are a number of layers to this question. One question is whether there should be gravel removal, and undoubtedly the aggregate business has a role in that. Behind that, it's actually the fact that aggregate is needed for construction, and there's a real shortage of aggregate in the Lower Mainland.
But the bigger question for Cheam, on a day-to-day basis in dealing with DFO and what used to be called Land & Water B.C., is where particular operations should be carried out at particular times. Frankly, that is driven as much as anything by the flood considerations.
In other words, from Cheam's perspective, it would prefer one of two things: either that the aggregate removal happen closer to Powerline Island, closer to its reserves, where there has been historical gravel removal, but where the government doesn't see the same benefits in terms of flood protection; or that there be less gravel removal, because frankly, it creates a large-scale competitor for its dryland aggregate business.
I just want to get across that the Cheam aggregate business is not driving this process. The real issue is that for Chilliwack and other communities in the gravel reach of the Fraser River, there is a real flood control issue. It comes down to either lowering the bottom of the river, raising the top of the dykes, or doing a bit of both. Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans then has a raft of habitat issues attached to it.
I was counsel in their long gravel case in which Lincoln Douglas was charged with respect to a gravel removal operation and acquitted of any charges of destruction of fish habitat. I was involved in that case, and I can tell you that the amount of paper generated around the management of gravel removal and balancing these flooding issues is immense.
:
, perhaps I can just add a few little points here, because I get a lot of the frustrations expressed to me as their regular legal counsel.
On a practical level, there are two things that constantly come up. One is that even when there are particular government officials who reach out and say they'd like to do something, it requires accommodating a right, and they're not going to do so unless a court tells them to do it first. This happened around the issue of enforcement, for example, and an accord was reached on certain matters. I think it was embodied in the protocol agreement.
And then there are communications that come down from higher up, saying that this is contrary to some sort of overarching policy and they don't want any deviation from policy. At a policy level, then, there's this problem of trying to fit everybody into one box.
One thing that systematically could change—and this is what we were trying to say at the opening—is allowing more flexibility at the local level to accommodate. They're really unique problems that you get almost along each reach of the Fraser River.
The other thing to remember is that, frankly, some of these things are personal. I have to say that if you look at the court cases—and I know they're too dry for you to actually look at—you'll get the clear message that some of this boils down to the fact that there are fingers to be pointed both ways. I'll point in the direction my client would prefer to point, though.
You can find cases in which judges are extremely critical of officials in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans who really—I'll put it bluntly—are not with the plan. They just do not accept the idea that there has to be accommodation of first nations and they're somewhat contemptuous of them. The gravel case is a prime example of that. The judge threw out vast quantities of the Crown's evidence, saying that the investigating officer in that case just basically ran over Cheam's rights, just ignored them. He just didn't bother to listen to them, didn't bother to listen to what they said, didn't bother to tell them what DFO was considering doing. That officer just assumed that this was the way it was going to be.
The thing is that those personal issues actually have improved. There are people in the Cheam community who are not happy with what the council is doing. I'm sure there are people inside of DFO who are not happy with what the people who are reaching out to Cheam are doing. But it's the policy issues that I think are the bigger problems now, and they're the ones that I think are going to cause those obstacles, along with the inability to say there can be flexibility to deal with Cheam's unique situation, their unique rights, their unique problems.
:
Thank you, Mr. Douglas.
Thank you, .
I apologize to Chief Douglas and our committee members. Unfortunately, I have to leave early to go back to Nova Scotia. Our vice-chair, , will take over the committee. Before I leave, I just have a couple of quick questions that I would like to ask if I have time and the committee is in agreement with that.
Thank you.
We will then go on to our next questioner, which will be .
First of all, for the record, I would like to make it clear that the whole salmon fishery on the Fraser River, the greater British Columbia area, the aboriginal fishery, the commercial fishery, and the recreational fishery have been studied and discussed at this committee for some time. I will therefore speak on behalf of this committee and other committees. I think we've tried to be fair and non-discriminatory in our deliberations, and we've tried to come down on the side of the resource.
As someone who has been on the river and understands the river and the resource, you can appreciate the fact that with all the individuals, all the first nations, all the commercial fisheries, all the recreational fisheries, and all the users of the salmon on the Fraser River, we find ourselves constantly challenged to try to make recommendations to government on the resource and how it should be divided up. But I don't think the committee has ever been challenged on the issue that all the stakeholders deserve a fair portion of the resource, and certainly you have a strong traditional claim.
After that prelude, I really want to ask if any members of the Cheam Band or other bands of the Stó:lõ people—and the Cheam are part of the Stó:lõ people, as I understand it—participate in the commercial fishery or in the recreational fishery.
:
There may be a bit of talking at cross-purposes about the monitors. I can be corrected on this if I'm wrong, but the monitors don't really act as overall enforcement agents. They primarily function during the authorized openings. They are more landing monitors, because the openings—and I was corrected on this just this morning when we were doing a bit of preparation—don't say they can catch so many fish. They are openings that say there will be an opening from this hour to this hour, starting this day and continuing to this day.
The monitors aren't armed monitors. They're not peace officers. They're nothing like that. They're not expected to be out on the water patrolling for out-of-bounds fishing. Their role is really more in assisting DFO and creating parallel databases for the fish that are being landed during the authorized fishery.
It would be kind of surprising if the monitors were in fact having a role at out-of-bounds times, because that's not really their job. That's not what DFO expects them to do and that's not what they're paid to do. Chances are that they're at home in bed if something like that's going on.
The idea of the Cheam monitor is not to create a parallel police force or a parallel enforcement branch to DFO. It's more to assist in the scientific program that's ongoing to find out, look, if we have these openings this long with this kind of equipment, how many fish are being brought in? What is the catch per unit effort? It's that sort of role rather than being focused on whether some members decide to disobey the rules and fish at some other time, without the sanction of the council and without the sanction of DFO, and then going out and catching those individuals.
That's why I think we're talking a little bit at cross-purposes, because that's not really the role of the Cheam monitors as DFO or Cheam envisages them. The more important message that Cheam is going to send is that it's the message that's being sent to the community.
I'll tell you, they get a lot of political heat from the community. These folks are political actors just as you are, because they're saying to members that they're not guaranteeing to those members that they're going to be sending legal counsel to defend them if the play outside the rules.
:
Good day and welcome to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.
I represent the Quebec region, more specifically the North Shore of the St. Lawrence. My riding is home to several Montagnais aboriginal communities.
You've stated on more than one occasion that the aboriginal community that you represent and DFO are at odds over several issues. Dialogue between the parties is more or less good. According to a letter that you sent to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans last June, you'd like to restore relations and work out a sound agreement.
The community and DFO are therefore locked in a dispute. DFO is mainly responsible for managing the resource and ensuring regulatory compliance. However, you've stated on several occasions that you would like DFO to show more flexibility.
Flexibility is hard to assess, because it's not clear where it begins, or where it ends. Can one be too flexible or not flexible enough? How will flexibility affect resource management? How will DFO enforce regulations if it demonstrates flexibility?
What exactly do you mean when you call for greater flexibility on the part of DFO?
:
It's helpful to understand who and exactly where you are in there. We have gravel issues that are going by, and of course the fishery issue is important to this committee, as is maintaining stocks.
I think we all recognize that we're facing some significant challenges with those stocks. There's evidence that with climate change, those fish are coming back stressed. They're having trouble getting up to the spawning grounds. They're not waiting to gather strength at the mouth of the river. A whole range of issues is challenging those stocks today.
I was glad to hear you use language like “protection”, “conservation”, and “harvest objectives”. Collaboration is also part of the language you're working with here. Ultimately, we recognize and I think you recognize that you have neighbours who have an interest as well. This resource is being challenged by a whole range of issues, so if we're going to be successful for long-term management, we have to collaborate and work together.
From where I sit, we have a number of treaty tables that are moving ahead. I'm trying to work closely with our first nations communities on Vancouver Island, where I'm from. That's incumbent upon us, because I think the province wants to see things move ahead treaty-wise. Federally, I think we certainly would like to see some long-term solutions found.
We're actually dealing with a delicate issue here that's obviously a sore point for you people, but if we're going to move ahead successfully, we all have to look for a way to grab hold of something that's going to work successfully for the future. I would hope that out of the dialogue and the new relationship you're developing with DFO, we recognize that we're going to have to collaborate for the protection of the resource and for a long-term solution.
So here's one of the questions that I have. When you're talking about food, social, and ceremonial purposes, those are constitutional rights. People accept that your people have a right to those fish for those purposes. But when we're talking about commercial fisheries, there's a delicate balance here. If you're going to have a commercial fishery as part of a treaty right at some point in the future, and if it is recognized legally— people aren't doing things that are considered illegal and selling fish off the back of a pickup truck—would you be willing to consider doing something you used to do in time past? If you're taking fish for food, social, and ceremonial purposes, would you be willing to somehow mark those fish so that you can determine a commercially caught fish from a fish that's taken for some other means?
There obviously has to be some way of quantifying and assuring the numbers that are actually taken so that we can regulate this fishery for everybody's management sake. Is that something you would be willing to consider?
:
I know, and this is the problem.
You saw a large approval process that identified certain critical areas and general approaches. There was then a series of steps that started probably around 1998 and identified areas that were of more concern for fish reasons, and there was some consultation around that. There were areas where they would have liked to see gravel taken up, and there was less consultation about that.
With respect to Big Bar, essentially the province came—and I was involved in those talks, as were Lincoln and the chief—and it said these were the projects it was doing this year. DFO came and said it was doing a CEAA assessment and wanted to hear about Big Bar, and then there was some back-and-forth with the province.
That back-and-forth was not about whether it was going to happen or not. The province's view was that unless DFO blocked it, it was going to happen. However, there were issues about whether there were economic opportunities for Cheam, whether there could be Cheam work involved in it. There was a list of issues like that, but it was more of the nature that it was going to happen and what you had to say about it in terms of potentially getting involved.
One of the issues this year that DFO and the province have both actually said they will try to fix is that it came in very quickly. It came in in a matter of a couple of weeks, really, or maybe more like a couple of months.
:
If I could just clarify my position, my proposal or amendment is neither meant to be a stalling tactic nor designed in such a way as to have the motion on the table set aside.
I support this motion. There have already been enough delays on this issue. Matters have been up in the air for several years. I think we can easily vote in favour of the main motion and I invite my Conservative party colleagues to do just that.
I simply thought that we could take advantage of the situation, go one step further and examine other cases. Should we be looking at other situations to understand what's really happening here? For instance, I'm thinking about the St. Lawrence with which I'm more familiar. I think we need to look at other cases.
Let me say again that I'm in favour of the main motion. We could have another discussion about the possibility of doing an in-depth study, or not, or talk about the study's terms of reference, and so forth. I don't have a problem with that. To facilitate matters and for the sake of expediency, I'm willing to withdraw my amendment. In any event, I don't think I'll have to do that because my amendment is not in order.
The Chair is therefore at liberty to call for debate on the main motion, since my amendment is out of order.
I am a little troubled by the motion. Perhaps the problem is mine as much as it is anybody else's.
To be quite honest, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the Canadian Coast Guard's cost recovery policy is with respect to the north. We've had a couple of weeks to investigate that; perhaps I should have, but I haven't. I don't know how those costs would compare to the costs elsewhere in the country either. I simply don't know what they entail.
There may be some at the table who can fill me in on this, and I'd be happy if they were to do it now, because I certainly don't have the information. But I can't vote in favour of something when I don't know what I'm voting for or what I'm voting against.
There is the issue of what these costs are, how they compare to the rest of the country, and if these costs that are imposed in this respect are somehow compensated for elsewhere. I don't know that. The issue deserves a better look before we have the vote on it.
:
and both raise a very valid point. I have a problem with part of the substance of this motion, and I want to comment on that in just a moment.
We know that industry is part of a broader framework in looking at marine services fees across the country. I've spoken to the person who is chairing that effort. He realizes that, within this broad framework, there will be six or seven areas that need to be addressed, anomalies within that, and this would be one of them.
But it seems odd to me that, as a committee, we would launch out here and make a pronouncement without knowing how this would fit into the overall broad picture. And to suggest that the committee should go ahead and do some sort of study on marine services fees while having already made a decision on what we think part of that answer should be, without knowing all of the information; what the implications of this are, say, on the rest of the country; what the coast guard's position is on this and the rationale that they have for that position, seems very odd and somewhat irresponsible to me. I therefore wouldn't be in a position to support this.
That being said, on the substance of this motion, on number three, for example, maybe somebody could interpret—maybe , whose motion it is—what this means: “Whereas the Marine Service Fees collected by the Canadian Coast Guard on the provision of sealift services to the Eastern Arctic is not consistent with the current exemption...”. What current exemption are we talking about here? I think the motion is calling for an exemption, so what is this “current exemption based on the socio-economic conditions of the North”? And then it goes on. I'm a bit confused by that. Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand what that means.
As a newcomer to this committee and as a temporary substitute, this motion is incoherent to me because of the fact that the whereases are at the wrong place. I don't know whether we want to amend that or not.
Basically, if you read the thing, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 leave you hanging. Always when you say “Whereas”, you conclude by saying, therefore, we recommend this, or we do this. In this particular case, the whereases comes at the end and there's really no conclusion to them.
This is a technical point, but I think the whereases should be one, two, and three, and then there should be the words, “Therefore, the committee recommends that the government not apply”. It's just a technical thing, but it's incoherent in its present form.