Mr. Chair, as a fellow British Columbian, this is a really important and meaningful aspect. The amendments to the Fisheries Act are not conservation-oriented. Merely protecting aboriginal fisheries from “serious harm” is not adequate to ensure continued access to sustainable healthy fish stocks. Serious harm, as is understood in this case, only prevents permanent damage, and it's unclear what we're speaking about when we talk about permanent damage.
I think a related issue is exactly to a point like this and the question that's been raised: the lack of proper funding for engagement in consultation. The Assembly of First Nations agrees with DFO's 2012-13 report on plans and priorities, where it's stated that the department “may not be able to adequately maintain public trust and confidence, and subsequently its reputation”, when it comes to the full and formal engagement of first nations. Both the question as well as the reference, in my view, suggest the need for giving effect to Sparrow, Marshall, and most recently the Ahousaht case—and I was a claimant in that case—where our rights are upheld and are in addition to the constitutionally recognized and protected aboriginal title and right, as well as the rights identified in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
In this case, it feels very much, Mr. Kamp, as though we're being treated as an afterthought. The entire intent of the crown-first nations gathering was to say that we've got 50 years of jurisprudence, constitutional recognition, a UN declaration, and treaties going back 267 years, and it's time we put this relationship back on a foundation of mutual respect and recognition so that we can develop a shared vision for fisheries, fish habitat, and we can arrive at a shared notion of what constitutes serious harm.