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.
Mike Staley Biologist, Cheam Fishing Authority, Cheam First Nation
A monitoring program has been in place for the last couple of years. Each of the fishers is observed on the water, and a large sample of them are interviewed as they offload the fish.
Biologist, Cheam Fishing Authority, Cheam First Nation
By Cheam members of the fisheries program.
Last year, there were DFO staff on site probably at least half the time, if not more. They were associated with the study we've been doing on the relative effectiveness of drift nets versus set nets. So there have been DFO staff on site, on the beach, observing and assisting in these monitoring programs.
There's a large amount of cooperation between the Cheam staff and DFO staff. My discussions with both sides have indicated that a working relationship, trust and understanding, and trying to do the best job to produce the best information are what both sides are after.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Sir, would it be possible for your organization to send to the committee the number of fish, either in pieces or pounds, that have been caught by the Cheam in the last two years, so that we can have those records for ourselves? Obviously, I assume someone's keeping records of these.
Biologist, Cheam Fishing Authority, Cheam First Nation
DFO keeps those records, and the Cheam staff have those records.
NDP
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Thank you, sir.
Also, sir, you talked about cooperation with other groups. Someone once told me that there are over ninety first nations along the Fraser River. Is that correct?
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
I'm just throwing this out there, but if all ninety wanted to have an agreement with DFO on sharing of the fish stocks, do you think that would even be feasible to do, to have ninety different plans?
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Sorry, but the reason I say this is that I have a lot of discussions with the Native Brotherhood on the coast. They're quite concerned about what's going on within the river.
So I have a two-part question. First, is it at all feasible? If you want to have a plan or a dialogue with DFO to set up some sort of arrangement for yourselves, would that not then say that each and every first nations group along the river would be able to say, “Well, me too”, in that sense?
Also, the Native Brotherhood operates mostly on the coast. Have you had discussions or arrangements with them to discuss their issues as well?
Councillor, Cheam First Nation
When you talk about the, I think, 97 individual bands that are located in the Fraser River reach, those 97 individual bands belong to probably eight tribal groups. They would generally come to agreements within their tribal groups, so you would only look at probably eight agreements along the reach.
If you want to know the history, there are four tribal groups right in the Chilliwack area, the Stó:lõ territory. Cheam are the survivors of the Pilalt tribe. There's the Tait tribe above us, the Chilliwack tribe, and the Sumas Tribe. That's the reason we feel we have our own distinct needs and requirements, as opposed to the Tait or the Ch-ihl-kway-uhk.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bill Matthews
I have to stop you, Mr. Stoffer. Your time is up. We'll have time to get back to you again.
On the information that Mr. Stoffer has requested, could you please forward it to the clerk of the committee so we all get it, please?
We now switch to the government side, and Mr. Kamp, for ten minutes.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Chief Douglas and gentlemen, for coming. I appreciate your taking the time.
I need to start with some clarification on the gravel issue, but I don't want to spend much time there.
You seem to be saying that although you've had a contract to be involved in the gravel removal, you weren't involved this year. My understanding was that the Cheam Band was still the overall contractor, although they didn't do the actual work. Of the gravel that was removed from Big Bar, for example, was the Cheam Band not involved in that in any way? Did it not receive any compensation for that gravel?
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
There were actually three permits this year that were issued to Cheam for two other gravel bars, Gill East, Gill Central, and Big Bar. They were issued over a three-year term, with discussions with the province to try to achieve at least two of them. The band did that. We did Gill East, we did Gill Central, and they were successful. There were good reports from there.
However, as I said, on the third one, the province did initiate an idea that they had to make Big Bar go. The band, as Peter said, saw it as just too risky for us to do the project. The province said they would look after it by going to the city, where they found some money. That's basically how it transpired. The money was never transferred to the band to do the causeway; it basically went right to the non-aboriginal contractor. So there were a bunch of complications that happened there.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
As I understand it, there was an arrangement with respect to the issue of royalties to be paid on the gravel that was removed. As a purely financial matter, those did flow to Cheam because they were part of a larger accommodation arrangement. But in terms of the operational issues, in terms of doing the engineering, building the causeway, doing the digging, doing the timing, Cheam really did have nothing to do with those things.
In fairness to everyone, the thing you have to understand is that the province is feeling very driven around the issue of flood protection. When Cheam says they're just not going to do it, the province says it's not going to leave Chilliwack submerged, so it wants someone to go in there.
I think it's fair to say that these arrangements get worked out more or less on the fly, but that's what happened. It's unfortunate that Cheam got plastered with that, but the reality is that if Cheam had had its way, it wouldn't have happened.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
I appreciate that clarification, because there is some confusion surrounding that.
How do you assess the flooding risk? You spend a lot of time on the river and live near the river. Do you think it's a problem and that the gravel removal program is going to have a significant impact on that risk?
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
I think we both have something to say about that.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
There are a few studies indicating that the bed of the river is aggrading and that there is an increased flood risk. Certainly, at Cheam itself, on its second reserve, it has encountered exactly that problem. Some of the channels have filled up and their second reserve has been threatened with flooding.
I don't think there's a dispute that there's a flooding issue and that something is going to have to be done about it. It's a question of how it gets managed and the choices that are made between dyke raising, the timing of certain gravel extractions, and such like that.
Conservative
Randy Kamp Conservative Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC
Do you have the same perspective, Mr. Douglas?
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
I would say that the amount of gravel isn't going to significantly do anything for the river. It's the ways and areas in which you extract it that have the ability to control flood issues. That's what the engineers have all worked on—along with the Department of Fisheries with regard to the protection of habitat—to try to achieve the areas that they feel are most attractive to that concept.
Conservative
K and L Contracting, Cheam First Nation
The amount of gravel that's coming out wouldn't significantly lower the river. It's where they take it out that helps in the effect of water not breaching the banks of the river.