Evidence of meeting #15 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was dfo.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Councillor, Cheam First Nation
Four tribes are considered Stó:lõ. The Tait, the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk, the Pilalt, and the Sumas are all part of the Stó:lõ. For ease of relationships, they're all dealt with collectively as a nation.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
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?
12:30 p.m.
Cheam First Nation
There was a time when we were actually sanctioned to mark our fish as native fish. That was fought in the courts and it was found to be unconstitutional for our people to mark our fish while nobody else marked their fish.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
It's just about time. You have time for a very quick one, because a couple of other people want to ask questions.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
James Lunney Conservative Nanaimo—Alberni, BC
I appreciate that we're looking for a way to manage this thing. If you want to find a way to move into a commercial fishery successfully, there has to be a way to quantify, to measure, and to be accountable. That's ultimately something none of us can escape. We're all being held accountable. You're politicians and we're politicians at the table.
Counting and measuring are things that are going to be necessary. I'm wondering if you have some suggestions on how you can meet those objectives to be able to quantify and to work with DFO and other officials to make sure we're not exploiting the resource.
12:30 p.m.
Councillor, Cheam First Nation
Personally, I have an issue with the term “food, social, and ceremonial”. I find that to be a colonial term that was forced upon us. We were forced to accept it because of pressure from other sectors of the fishery that wanted to take more away from us than they already had. We had to fight in the courts to protect a bit of it.
But as I said at the start of this, in no way, shape, or form is our fishery defined yet. Once every treaty is signed and every t is crossed and every i is dotted, then everybody will know where we are with this. Until then, though, it's up in the air.
I don't think I can really qualify your question as to marking the FSC fish, as they call them, or not marking the commercially caught fish. I just don't see any reason for qualifying or quantifying them.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
I want to get back to the gravel extraction part again. I know you don't have a crystal ball, but do you see that there remains a risk of flooding currently? Would the Cheam territory be at risk of flooding? Are there lands there that would be at risk?
12:30 p.m.
Cheam First Nation
We have two parcels of land. One's on the north side of the river and one's on the south side of the river. We actually did build a pony dyke to protect the north side of the river, because it's left in the flood plain. When we did that, we built it on our own in 1972. We bought from some of the neighbouring communities because they said they wanted to save that land for flood purposes. They didn't want us to protect our land because if the river came up, at least it would flood the reserve but not the municipality of Kent.
We do have flood problems in some of our other communities. First nations communities have been left outside of the dykes on the Fraser River.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Are you comfortable with where DFO is? Are you included in any planning that goes forward, with any type of remediation that might be proposed? Are you guys an integral part of that planning process?
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
The answer is that there's an invitation for Cheam to participate. There's a huge process that goes on, and there are issues about where the priorities are. Lincoln can expand that, but one of the issues is with respect to IR #2, for example.
There is a concern that gravel extraction is now being allowed there, increasing the risk of flooding on IR #2. Because the priorities are placed elsewhere, that's a political decision that's being made. Cheam is invited to comment on that, but I don't think it's happy about how its comments are treated, but such is life.
Maybe Lincoln can expand a bit more on that, but that's my understanding of where things stand. There is a flooding issue.
12:35 p.m.
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
There's definitely a flooding issue. Along with its neighbouring communities such as Chilliwack and Agassiz, Cheam doesn't have the representation that those communities have with the province and the federal government. The Department of Indian Affairs doesn't come and assist us in flood protection issues that well, whereas the city of Chilliwack has the province. The province actually does most of the engineering and modelling of what should be done, and then it's reviewed later through a CEAA process by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
On our properties, we're kind of left out in the whole evaluation system. I've been directly involved with the province in discussions like that in the past, when I was on the council for our band.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Thank you, Mr. Cuzner.
Mr. Blais, I understand you have a quick question. In the interest of time, we do have other committee business to do after we've heard our witnesses. We're pretty close to time, so if you could, please make it quick.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the second round of questioning, I'd like to get a better understanding of your relationship not only with DFO but with the province of British Columbia as well. I had mentioned that one of the problems was that negotiations were not strictly between you and DFO. However, work was approved.
I'm curious as to the timeline in the instance. Which departments approved this work? What was the extent of your involvement? Were you consulted by British Columbia? Which department consulted with you? Were you consulted on more than one occasion? I'm interested in the chronology of events in order to gain a better understanding of how the province acted on, or responded to, this issue.
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
To fully answer your question about the chronology would take a good two hours, because the chronology really starts back in the mid-nineties. There was a very large process put in place through the province, the Fraser Basin Council—
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
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.
12:35 p.m.
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
Big Bar was actually fast-tracked from February 20 onward, in order to meet a deadline of March 15.
12:35 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
So there were those meetings, and then it was implemented.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Therefore, you were faced with a fait accompli, in that you took part in discussions about work that would eventually be carried out. But it really was a fait accompli, and there was little more you could do.
Was that in fact the case?
12:40 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
In terms of the work being done, yes, it was a fait accompli, and the reality was that it was going to be done by Cheam. Ultimately, if Cheam opted not to do it, it was going to be done by Jakes Contracting or Lafarge or somebody. It was going to be done unless DFO said there was too much of a fishery issue. Fundamentally, however, that was unlikely to happen.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
Thank you very much, gentlemen.
Mr. Stoffer, do you have a two-second question? We can then get a two-second answer.