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.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Which particular area is the source of the conflict, or confrontation, although perhaps that's not the right word I should be using? In your opinion, what's stopping the whole process from moving forward? How could the impasse be broken?
Cheam First Nation
There have been a few steps over the last couple of years. We have been working with the department.
One of the biggest issues that our people used to face is the fact that our people would be closed to our fishery, yet our neighbouring sectors, recreational and commercial, were allowed to target it. Other first nations outside of our area were also allowed to target the same fish that we were not.
Over the years, you can go back and look at how many times the Stó:lõ people were closed off to the fishery, yet all the fisheries around them remained in operation. That started to create a lot of confrontation, because our people were getting frustrated at being blocked out of the waters and not being able to access our food and fish to sustain our people.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
Monsieur Blais, 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.
Bloc
Raynald Blais Bloc Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
In light of the gravel issue, regarding this flexibility, do you feel the impasse is likely to drag on if no agreement is reached between your band council and DFO? Otherwise, you're likely to proceed with legal action or some such thing. Is resolving the gravel issue the key?
Cheam First Nation
One of the things on the gravel issue is that it's not only the Department of Fisheries that's involved. You have the Province of B.C. and also the local communities, the municipalities, the City of Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley Regional District. They're all involved in the gravel business in one way or another as well.
Looking at the gravel within the river, a majority of what they call the gravel reach of the Fraser is within the Pilalt traditional territories. We feel those resource are a part of us because they're within our traditional territory.
We have gone to court once already. I guess we're not afraid to do it again if need be.
I think Chester has a few words to say.
Councillor, Cheam First Nation
On your original question on the source of confrontation over the gravel removal, by no means do I or a lot of members of our community and other communities within our nation feel our rightful place has been achieved within the fishery and within the other resources of B.C. The gravel is a prime example.
The types of arrangements that we've been making over the last few years with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and with the other ministries, the RCMP, and everybody else we've been trying to come to arrangements with and develop working relationships with can only get better. At some point, we hope to achieve our rightful position within the fishery. A lot of people may not like it, but they have to get used to it. I am optimistic that it will prevail, and then we can get on with developing better programs and means of protection and conservation.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you, Mr. Douglas.
Thank you, Monsieur Blais.
I apologize to Chief Douglas and our committee members. Unfortunately, I have to leave early to go back to Nova Scotia. Our vice-chair, Mr. Matthews, 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 Mr. Stoffer.
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.
Cheam First Nation
I'm not too sure if any of them do. We used to have people participating in the commercial industry probably twenty or thirty years ago, but not today. In the recreational fishery, I don't think there are too many. There might be one or two members who participate in it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
The reason I ask is that you made the comment that other stakeholders on the river were participating in the fishery and the Cheam Band had been restricted. That's where I'm headed with my question. Has the Cheam Band tried in the past to get a commercial licence or participate in the recreational fishery, or was this a legal matter because you have not signed a treaty and were using that as leverage?
My clear question is whether you have ever been prevented from participating in the commercial fishery if you desired to. And I do realize that's separate from your aboriginal right. I am not mixing the two up.
Legal Counsel, Cheam First Nation
Aside from certain aboriginal economic opportunities, there is no commercial fishery above the Mission Bridge, which is where Cheam is. The practical reality would be to say, have you engaged in fishing elsewhere? Who knows where it is, but the reality is that there isn't a commercial fishery upstream, so for them that isn't a practical reality. It's to say to go out to the ocean, which is a different thing from trying to accommodate their traditional way of life.
Obviously that brings up all kinds of issues of capitalization for individuals and such things like that. The reality, though, is that the economics just wouldn't work for likely all but one or two members of the band if those individuals were inclined to move away from Cheam. That's the practical issue around the commercial fishery.
I stand to be corrected, but I gather that except for the economic opportunity at Yale, there really isn't anything upstream of the Mission Bridge. Back in the fifties or maybe even the thirties, there might have been something above the Mission Bridge, but not in modern times.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gerald Keddy
Thank you very much, Mr. Janes.
Again, I'd just like to thank our witnesses before I leave. It has certainly been a very interesting discussion. I can frankly tell you that it's encouraging to hear that it has moved along in a more progressive and non-confrontational manner. That takes some goodwill and some motivation from both sides. One person can't do it all and one group can't do it all. It's a matter of give and take.
I now ask Mr. Matthews to take over the chair.
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Gentlemen, thank you for coming before us today.
Chief Douglas, how many people do you represent?
Cheam First Nation
Our community right now has a membership of just under 500. About 60% live off reserve.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
You have under 500.
Do you now have a recognized right to fish food, social, and ceremonial purposes?
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
Is that done on a yearly basis? Do you do it three or four times a year? How does that process work?
Cheam First Nation
Most of our fishermen would probably fish eight to ten months of the year.
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
And how many people would actually do the fishing, including crews, hands, or whatever?
Cheam First Nation
It's up to the individual members. We don't designate any individuals to do the fishing for everybody.
NDP
NDP
Peter Stoffer NDP Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS
And for food, social, or ceremonial purposes, do you have any records to show how much fish was caught, either by pieces or by pounds, say, over the last couple of years? If you don't have those figures now, perhaps you could send them to us.
The question would be on the figures that you would produce in the future. Have they been peer-reviewed or have they been looked at by an outside source like DFO, for example? For example, when a Cheam fisherman goes out and brings fish back into the community, is there someone else who looks at that catch to determine the amount of fish or the weight of the fish that were caught?
