Fisheries Committee on Oct. 21st, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Good evening, everybody. I now call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number three of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. The committee is meeting to hear from witnesses. Today's meeting is taking place in a a hybrid format.

I would like to start the meeting by providing you with some information on the motion that was adopted in the House on Wednesday, September 23, 2020.

The committee is now sitting in a hybrid format, meaning that members can participate either in person or by video conference. Witnesses must appear by video conference. All members, regardless of their method of participation, will be counted for the purpose of quorum. The committee’s power to sit is limited by the priority use of House resources, which is determined by the whips.

All questions must be decided by a recorded vote, unless the committee disposes of them with unanimous consent or on division. Finally, the committee may deliberate in camera, provided that it takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent to such deliberations with remote participants. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.

To ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules for everyone to follow.

For those participating virtually, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your own mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference for other speakers.

As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time for questions, they should activate their mike and state that they have a point of order. If a member wishes to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function. This will signal to the chair your interest to speak and create a speakers list. In order to do so, you should click on “participants” at the bottom of your screen. When the list pops up, you will see, next to your name, that you can click “raise hand”.

When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom microphone is mandatory for everyone participating remotely. Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.

For those participating in person.... I don't think we have anyone this evening, so I won't read out those rules.

With regard to a speakers list, the committee clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the first session of our meeting this evening. In the first panel, we have Shelley Denny, appearing as an individual; and we have Allison Bernard, wildlife lead with Mi'kmaq Rights Initiative.

We have reached out to others this evening to get a full slate of witnesses, but it was on short notice and we wanted to get this study started.

We will now proceed with opening remarks.

Ms. Denny, we'll go to you first, for six minutes or less, please.

[Shelley Denny, As an Individual]

Good evening, and thank you for the invitation to stand in front of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans as you undertake your study on the implementation of Mi'kmaq fishing rights to support a moderate livelihood.

I'm Mi'kmaq myself, a member of the Potlotek First Nation, but I have lived in Eskasoni for some time now. I am a doctoral student in the marine affairs program at Dalhousie University, seeking solutions to the same issues facing the committee: How can we successfully implement Mi'kmaq inherent and treaty fisheries in Nova Scotia?

I was fortunate enough to be part of a participatory research project, funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, known as Fish-WIKS, which is an acronym for “fisheries western and indigenous knowledge systems”. Here, our goal is to use both knowledge systems to seek solutions to improve fisheries governance on all three of Canada's coasts. My role as a doctoral researcher in the Atlantic region was to identify and conduct research for this need to solve a current fisheries governance issue facing indigenous communities and also to explore solutions through the lens of both knowledge systems, referred to as “two-eyed seeing”. In two-eyed seeing, knowledge is viewed as a system in which knowledge is not only what is known but rather how it is known.

A knowledge system, whether it is western or indigenous, comprises many things. What we know, how we practise our knowledge, how we adapt to it and how we transmit and share it are the elements most people are familiar with. But the values and underlying beliefs that underpin these elements and actually distinguish one knowledge system from another are often ignored. This is problematic, because often the values and beliefs underpinning one system are at odds with another, potentially creating a barrier to collaboration.

However, our research in the Fish-WIKS project has shown that there are also similarities that can be used to start building bridges across knowledge systems and to help develop a greater understanding of the differences. This means that it's critical that those coming from different knowledge systems understand the values and beliefs driving each system, and that all parties involved in finding solutions take these into consideration when developing a path forward. While much of the research has shown that deep core beliefs are non-negotiable, many values, for example fairness, tend to be shared across knowledge systems and as such are more easily understood in the efforts to resolve conflicts.

Today I would like to share some of my research outcomes that can help enhance your understanding of the situation. It's unfortunate that the “what” of moderate livelihood takes over discussions, because it is “how” Mi'kmaq treaty-based fisheries can be implemented that is the crux of the issue.

Between 2018 and 2019, I conducted 48 interviews with 52 individuals experienced in fisheries governance, history, fishing and law. Today I would like to share the key challenges uncovered during my research. I'm sure the challenges will sound familiar, but they are supported through research. It is no surprise that conflicting relations are at the core of the current tensions. Reasons underpinning conflicting relations include continued antagonistic behaviour towards Mi'kmaq fishers, a lack of trust externally and internally, the lack of understanding of the Mi'kmaq context, and competition for resources.

There are numerous gaps contributing to the situation we have today. For example, there is no federal policy to address livelihood fisheries. Furthermore, the government needs to better develop its capacity to address Mi'kmaq rights, which is currently inadequate, being more reactive than proactive. Also, in general, things move slowly in government. The industry values rules and is concerned about how industry rules don't apply to indigenous fishing and fisheries and perceive indigenous fishers to be operating in a legal vacuum. Mi'kmaq want to support their families through livelihood fishing, but there are no avenues to do so. Negotiations are nation to nation but mostly without the inclusion of the fishers who are affected. While all Mi'kmaq have rights, not all Mi'kmaq are interested in pursuing livelihood fishing. Identifying those who want to fish is part of the process. Governance gaps exist at the community level as well and are of concern to DFO.

Conflicting views of authority to manage fisheries are evident. These are related to perceptions of legitimacy of the governing systems. Legitimacy is how a political action is perceived as right and just by the various people who are involved, interested or affected by it. There are challenges on both sides with respect to perception and acceptance of the governing processes employed. Mi'kmaq fishers value the continuation of their cultural practices and the connection of the exercise of Mi'kmaq rights to their identity and recognition of the treaties. In their eyes, they don't need a licence to fish. They have their treaties, and their authorization comes from their birthright.

Governing based on cultural teachings passed down through families doesn't fit DFO's top-down, highly regulated approach to fisheries. However, there is a shared perspective that an alternative to current fisheries governance is lacking. The Mi'kmaq are aware that there are challenges regarding the exercise of rights, including the abuse of rights, and there is a need for ways to address them that are culturally appropriate, since they involve ethical issues that cannot be addressed by DFO or the Canadian legal system. It is a necessity for the Mi'kmaq to develop fishery and fishing rules.

Moving forward, we need to recognize that this is not only an operational nightmare for DFO. This is a governance issue that requires making room for the Mi'kmaq through the principle of sharing. The industry needs to make room for Mi'kmaq livelihood fisheries by sharing access to resources. DFO needs to make room for an alternate governance model that is consistent with the treaty and Canadian law by sharing authority and decision-making and ultimately facilitating a legal framework to allow for the persistence of an alternative fisheries governance model.

It is evident that DFO's capacity to govern Mi'kmaq fisheries is limited, given the protection of aboriginal treaty rights in Canada's Constitution, but the important point and the opportunity that is overlooked is the willingness and desire of the Mi'kmaq to contribute to fisheries governance. Let's take the opportunity through shared values of governance to explore how they can coexist and employ innovation to address values that are unique to each perspective.

Now that we understand the underlying reasons for conflicting relations, we need to be aware that our actions must build trust through good governance principles, encourage treaty education and minimize competition between fishers and fisheries.

Thank you. Wela’lioq.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you for that.

We'll now go to Mr. Bernard for five minutes or less, please.

[Allison Bernard, Wildlife Lead, Kwilmu’kw Maw-klusuaqn Negotiation Office, Mi’kmaq Rights initiative]

Hi. My name is Allison Bernard. I'm employed with the Mi’kmaq Rights Initiative. I've been involved on the fisheries file for the last 10 years, really. I've seen a lot of ups and downs, and I've seen two different governments try to pursue this.

My experience with this has been somewhat concerning a lot of times. I see that the Mi’kmaq never really get a chance to move ahead, even though we've had this treaty right or this Marshall decision since 1999, which is 21 years. It certainly brings a heartfelt feeling, because my father was the chief for our community when this came through. Everybody thought that they would go out there fishing and go on with their lives, but, in any case, that didn't happen.

There's been a lot of talk on both sides between the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi’kmaq Chiefs and government, DFO, right up to the minister's office. It is steady, but progress hasn't really been made.

This is somewhat like the third-generation movement into the Marshall decision. My father, as I said, was the initial person. I'm the second generation. I was a band councillor for about 10 years. Now my son is out there fishing and he's having a really hard time, because there's inconsistency with whatever is happening out there.

Our people are told by our own that we have a right—and the courts recognize that right—but being part of this whole scenario, what's been unfolding in the last many weeks.... I was in the dead centre of Saulnierville, southwest Nova Scotia, where all the protests were happening between the Acadian fishermen, or the area fishermen and the Mi’kmaq. It's really hard to look at your own people, especially the youth—who were so excited going out there—and industry coming in and destroying traps, cutting gear, taking traps and chasing boats out of the water. As an ex-police officer, knowing what's going on out there, there should have been measures and activities by either DFO or the RCMP to prevent such distasteful activities by angry mobs and fishermen.

We practise our livelihood fishery, and we have been practising for thousands of years under the concept of netukulimk. Netukulimk is a very strong word in our culture. It limits activities, and it certainly puts you to a point where you respect everything in the ocean and everything around you, including plants, birds, air, water—everything around you. We don't disrupt anything.

In any case, I was really happy that I was invited tonight. I've seen a lot in my days. I think there needs to be something done between the consistency of DFO also, when it comes to the relation of C&P and the regular management of DFO. They're not collaborating, in my opinion, in terms of what's going on region to region. As I said, there have been more seizures of traps in St. Peter’s Bay over the last few days, and the RCMP has actually said that. They haven't had any word from Ottawa or the minister's office that they should not seize any gear. The only gear that's left out there is for our food fishery, and that's food, social and ceremonial stuff.

As I said, I was part of a lot of the actions that are taking place right now. Everything is moving along well. There was a quiet protest today by the Mi’kmaq fishery—fishery committee, I guess—the people who support our youth fishers who are out there. When I say “youth”, I have to say youth because this is, again, the third generation of people. I'm not able to go fishing, so it's my sons who are out there.

The inconsistency, in my opinion, is by DFO and how they convene and conduct themselves, whether it's C&P or whether it's the minister's office. That has to change.

As I said, I've been involved in the moderate livelihood issue over the last many years, but I've also been involved in the consultation side of everything, so I see how everything is connected, whether it's conservation, food, social or industry. It's really disheartening that a group of people, all Nova Scotians, don't seem to be able to get along and find answers to a situation, when clearly there are smart enough people within industry and in the Mi'kmaq and the Mi'kmaq government system.

We have to be recognized. When we assert our rights, we do have a governance structure. We are the third level of government in Nova Scotia. We have the provincial level, we have the Mi'kmaq and we have the federal department.

The Mi'kmaq hereditary rights to implement their own governance structure have been ignored over the last many years, and it took the last month, when the Mi'kmaq said enough is enough.... We have to do what's right for our people, and we have to go fishing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Bernard, we're out of time for the opening statement. Anything you haven't had a chance to get out hopefully will come out in the questioning, or you can certainly submit your speaking notes to the clerk of the committee.

We'll go now to our questioning. First on our list, for six minutes or less, we have Mr. Bragdon.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both Ms. Denny and Mr. Bernard for taking the time, being here this evening on such short notice and discussing this very important situation that is before us right now. I want to simply express our appreciation to you for taking the time to come before committee and thank you for that. We appreciate your insights and look forward to hearing more from you as we work through this.

Obviously we've arrived at this situation; I don't think this is something that happened overnight. It seems like a situation that has been percolating for some time, and most recently it seems to have escalated to where we are in the current circumstance.

I think it's so important for all Canadians and for all of us to make sure that we get this right and that we do it right. It is without question and very well established the indigenous rights to fish and to have a fishery, and we want to make sure those rights are upheld and certainly are able to be carried out.

We also understand that for both indigenous and non-indigenous fisheries the conservation of the species is very important for all sectors, because we want there to be lots of lobster and fish and species and stock in the oceans for all future generations, both indigenous and non-indigenous, to enjoy and to make a livelihood from.

I appreciate your being here at the table this evening. I'd like to start off by asking both of you this. As you've seen this situation unfold most recently and build to where it's at, it appears very much that there has been, in large part, inaction on the part of the government and on the part of the minister as it relates to this situation in Nova Scotia. I would ask both of you what your thoughts would be towards what the government's response has been—and the minister's response in particular—to this situation thus far.

[Allison Bernard]

I find it really disheartening, because as I looked at and participated in stuff in Saulnierville.... I went there as somewhat of a peacekeeper, really, because I knew tensions would rise. The fact that DFO is not going out there in the water and doing what it is supposed to do resonates with the Mi'kmaq people, who feel that DFO doesn't really care about the Mi'kmaq and the government doesn't really care about the Mi'kmaq.

I've witnessed the minister make statements over the last couple of months as industry has rallied and protested in front of her office. I know it's not an easy task to take, and I certainly feel for her. I am a former politician myself and having being involved in politics all my life, I know that you can't please everybody.

But, one thing you have to be careful about when you talk about infringing on aboriginal rights and what we have in treaties is that they should be protected under law by any government agency, whether it be DFO, RCMP or any other agency that's out there. That just didn't happen.

Instead, industry got its way and it was very, very disheartening and really frightening, in my opinion—as I said, I am an ex-police officer—to witness all the injustices taking place in the water. It was like a war zone and we were all praying that nobody would get hurt, but the boats came really close to ramming individual Mi'kmaq boats, which were much smaller in comparison to the other vessels that were out there.

The minister, in my opinion, didn't act properly. She should have made a bold statement there. Instead, the statements were made after the riots and stuff took place.

That could very easily have led to a confrontation. Actually, a couple of times when the two nations got together—the Mi'kmaq and the non-native fishermen—I had to stand in between, along with an ex-police officer from the area, from Sipekne'katik, and we had to convince our people not to take things into their own hands. A couple of times we prevented a lot of violence from happening.

When you look at it, it hurts you as an individual when you know you're doing what you're supposed to be doing, when you have the treaty right to do that and you should be protected. As I said, as an officer, you have sworn to protect the Constitution of Canada under whatever regulations, whether it's the RCMP Act or the Fisheries Act. At the end of the day, the Constitution is the Constitution and that's where all of the country's rights lie. For a government not to act upon what it sees is really hurtful, and I'm just glad nobody got killed over there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bernard.

The questioning time allotted for Mr. Bragdon has expired.

We'll now go to Mr. Battiste for six minutes or less.

Go ahead, please.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

My question is for Shelley Denny.

There has been a lot of discussion about conservation and about how there are seasons for a reason and about how, because of that, there's no room for the Mi'kmaq in the lobster fishery. Can you tell me what your thoughts are on that and some of the solutions that you came up with in your editorial in The Chronicle Herald?

[Shelley Denny]

Yes, certainly. Thank you, Jaime.

There are reasons for the season, but most of them are around the market conditions. Canada prefers to sell all the hard-shell lobster. There is a reproductive season for lobster as well. It's not a mass spawning event, so there is time needed for lobsters to seek out mates, to protect them and to wait for the molt, which is the shedding of the external skeleton, and also for the shell to harden back up again. That takes a bit of time.

Also, I think a lot has to do with the sea and ice conditions too. Not everyone has the same opportunities to go out all the time, based on sea and ice conditions. The Bay of Fundy is a different place because there are never really any sea ice conditions. The tides are so high that they just come in and back out again.

When they're talking about conservation, it's really hard to justify the seasons for a reason. When you look across Atlantic Canada, and even when you're looking at Nova Scotia, for example, in the gulf there is one lobster fishing area, LFA 25, that actually fishes during August to October. So while fishing was happening in LFA 39, in LFA 25 there was also a commercial fishery happening. It's really hard to justify consistency in seasons when they vary across Nova Scotia and Atlantic Canada.

In making room for Mi'kmaq, you do need to share access. If conservation is an issue, they have opportunities. They're part of an integrated fisheries management plan. They have opportunities to have a larger voice in what happens in the fishery. They can suggest, if they want to, a reduction in traps. They can ask for changes in the season. Actually, I think when COVID happened, they were presented with an alternative to select a different season or to split seasons. It doesn't really make sense to use the reason for the season as a justification for conservation.

I think there are other ways that Mi'kmaq could be in the fishery. You need to be innovative, and I think the industry has a lot of opportunities to make that happen. DFO does, too, but I would like to see it come from the industry, because it's more empowering and it shows a capacity for sharing. It's not a typical top-down approach, whereby people felt that they got their trap numbers cut or anything like that. It's about recognizing their belief that conservation was targeted but also to be able to provide some avenues for solutions.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Can you expand on some of the simple solutions you put in your article on how you feel the Mi'kmaq could be accommodated in their rights within the current seasons?

[Shelley Denny]

That's something that was coming from the Marshall decisions, the second one. It's unfortunate that as Mi'kmaq people you're limited to what you can make in the industry, but at the same time, you can achieve those goals by fishing differently, fishing fewer traps. There are other ways to look at it. You don't have to fish exactly one licence.

I think there are a lot of misconceptions about how many Mi'kmaq fishers are actually out there, so our communities need to find out how many people are interested. Right now, if we're starting to count the traps, I honestly don't have a number at the moment, but I think there would be room if every lobster fisher gave up 1%. That would actually go into a pot of some sort that has flexibility in how access is measured and determined. I think that's something that's simple and easy. It basically wouldn't cost anything.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

How many traps would that be in total?

[Shelley Denny]

Well, there are over 3,000 licences. Actually, I had somebody correct me and tell me that there are over 9,000 licences in Nova Scotia. I'm not sure how that number got calculated, but from my calculations, in the Maritimes region alone there are over 3,000. That's including New Brunswick as well. There are quite a few. One per cent of 3,000, I think, at two or two and a half to four, depending on where you are, is over 8,000 traps. The equivalent would be.... You know, people aren't really thinking of one licence per one licence. That doesn't work. It doesn't allow for the flexibility of Mi'kmaq people to fish in the Mi'kmaq way, but having that opportunity to have access to something is really important. That's first and foremost, especially when you're considering conservation and ways to protect conservation.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay.

Can you give us a sense of what Mi'kmaq indigenous knowledge teaches us about conservation?

[Shelley Denny]

Yes, definitely.

Allison mentioned netukulimk. It's a way of life the Mi'kmaq people have. When you're trying to operationalize netukulimk.... There are certain things I've learned over the years, not just through research, but also through my position here at UINR. It's a “take what you need” thing, so there is a self-limiting element to netukulimk. There's also the ability to prevent waste. There are also the spiritual and ceremonial components, such as making sure that you're able to share and to give back. There is the inclusion of ceremony in that concept.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

On the last question, with your work for the UINR have you been able to manage any stocks of any species collaboratively with the government?

[Shelley Denny]

Yes. We have worked with DFO on salmon.

That was a bit of a process. It started with consultation. It took a while to really understand that even though we have similar conservation values, there are different ways to get there. A few years into the process, when we started to figure out and map out Mi'kmaw knowledge and DFO knowledge and how we could move forward, we ended up having to agree to disagree. However, we also recognized that if we stayed within a certain limit, a certain rate of exploitation, they were comfortable with it. We felt that we weren't actually harvesting that exploitation level; we weren't anywhere near close to that level...that we were all comfortable in how we could go forward.

However, there are things that we have to do to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Ms. Denny.

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

We now go on to Ms. Gill, for six minutes or less.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to thank both witnesses. I have some questions for them, of course.

Ms. Denny, thank you for the quality of your testimony. I found it very interesting. I have a lot of questions for you, but I'm going to limit myself to a few. You've already talked about conservation, so I'm going to talk to you about something else that we're all interested in, and that is the issue of moderate livelihood. I would like to hear your views on how the authorities should define this concept, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

I'd also like to hear Mr. Bernard on this as well, please.

[Shelley Denny]

I'll go first, Al, if that's okay.

With regard to moderate livelihood, there is a concept; it's not really about a definition. That's unfortunately what takes over discussion. Until you have a process where people can actually work together to drive that concept...I hate to call it a “definition” because a definition is limiting. A livelihood concept is about the ability to support oneself spiritually, culturally, economically, socially. It's more than making money to people.

I think that's something missing in people's concept of what a moderate livelihood is. Sure, you can make money, but there are more things to consider. I think that defining it will limit it. Then once you limit it, we're really not sure how you can achieve it. I think it's more important to figure out how you can work together to govern a livelihood fishery than it is to put a definition to the term “moderate livelihood”.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

I don't know if Mr. Bernard wants to add something or give us his own point of view.

[Allison Bernard]

I heard everything in French, and I really didn't understand it. Did you say, “If it's a moderate livelihood?”

As Shelley was saying, you can't define a moderate livelihood, because it's been our way of life for the last many thousands of years, and times have changed, and so have our responsibilities and the needs of the Mi'kmaq.

As everybody knows, I live in a community with severe poverty rates—up to 75% of our community is poor. We have high suicide rates, a lot of social problems. Basically 75% to 80% of community is on social assistance. When you see youth walking around who really don't have any future in sight or anything they might be able to look forward to, it's really disheartening.

When this came around and we all decided that the Mi'kmaq were going to go fishing, Eskasoni and Chapel Island did their management plans, and so did Sipekne’katik. It was really encouraging to see these youth being happy for once and managing to get some self-respect, because they just didn't have that before. Now that they can look to some sort of a future to make a living and provide for their families, it's truly heart-wrenching when you witness what has happened, because this has been available to them since that treaty was signed as a birthright, and those treaties are sanctified under the Constitution of Canada. What really got me is why DFO and other levels didn't approve them or didn't support them and their agencies. Being able to see that and also seeing the bad side of everything right now, people who can't afford to buy traps had them seized over the last few days, so they're asking what they should do now, because our neighbours in industry are pushing suppliers with bait and licences. And other fish products that we might need to accomplish our fishery are not being sold because industry has placed pressures on them.

The tides are turning. I saw some statements in Montreal and the Halifax area that the restaurants don't want the lobster because of the dispute. Moving forward, I think there is a way. Our lobster fishery gets an extra 25 tags per licence in Nova Scotia, so in south west Nova, they operate 375 traps, but they also get an extra 50 traps per licence-holder, which equates to up to 50,000 traps alone. The Mi'kmaq wouldn't be able to use 50,000 traps in that area, let alone in Nova Scotia. A lot of room can be played with there and could be utilized, but there has to be a little give-and-take, because at the end of the day, we do have a right; we don't have a privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Bernard.

That's all the time for Madame Gill's questioning. We'll now go to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm joining you from the unceded traditional territory of the Hupacasath and Tseshaht people. I want to thank you, Ms. Denny and Mr. Bernard, for your testimony today.

Mr. Bernard, I'm going to ask you a question about the principles of the Sipekne'katik rights implementation lobster fishery management plan that you cited. Earlier, Ms. Denny talked about the traditional Mi'kmaw principle of netukulimk, and that the goal is to achieve adequate standards of community nutrition and economic well-being without jeopardizing the integrity, diversity or productivity of the environment. Do you support Sipekne'katik in its autonomous position to manage its fishery with this conservation principle?