Evidence of meeting #7 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was mi'kmaq.
A video is available from Parliament.
November 16th, 2020 / 4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I would like to ask a question of Professor Bill Wicken.
I've heard arguments that the Mi’kmaq were never part of the lobster fishery. Based on your research and your analysis, is that an accurate statement, or did the Mi’kmaq participate historically in a lobster fishery? Did they trade/sell lobster? Can you let us know what your thoughts are on that?
4:20 p.m.
Professor William Craig Wicken Professor, Department of History, York University, As an Individual
Yes. Thank you for the question. I hope you can hear me.
I presented evidence in the follow-up to Marshall, which was known as R v. Alex MacDonald, and prepared the 246-page report on this. I directly addressed that issue.
We have extensive documentation from the late 18th century on into the 19th century about the involvement of the Mi’kmaq in the lobster fishery. We actually have a picture from 1795 that shows a woman putting a lobster into a lobster pot.
We also know that before the treaties were signed, which was in the 1760s, the Mi’kmaq were involved in the lobster fishery. They used this.... They were a fishing people. They exercised that right communally, collectively. Lobster was one of the many species that they fished and sold to non-indigenous people in Nova Scotia and throughout the Maritimes.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Mr. Wicken, as a follow-up, can you point to when the Mi’kmaq were displaced from this fishery, and can you give me a sense of how come that was?
4:20 p.m.
William Craig Wicken
This was a long process. It occurred from the point of the American Revolution during the 1770s and the Loyalist immigration into Nova Scotia in the 1770s and 1780s.
Most Mi’kmaq people actually live below the Shubenacadie River, in the areas of Queens, Shelburne and Yarmouth, as well as in Kings county. It was a gradual process. They were dispossessed from their coastal areas where they had historically lived. These are a coastal people and they're a fishing people.
Reserves were created beginning in the 1840s, but most of them were inland and very, very small, and as in Bear River and Shubenacadie, which are on swampland, they are not very accessible to coastal areas. So this was a gradual process.
In the 1871 census, we had 22 Mi’kmaq people living on St. Marys Bay. We also had many other people living in coastal areas who were Mi’kmaq and who were fishing up until the early part of the 20th century.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you for that.
My next question is for Professor Metallic.
I've heard a bit of discussion where people have alluded to the fact that the Mi’kmaq have an individual right and a collective right. Is there anything in place in terms of Mi’kmaq law or Mi’kmaq knowledge that would set limitations on an individual right to practise a moderate livelihood?
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
There is this concept in Mi’kmaq called netukulimk. It is a broad concept. We're doing some research on what it fully means. I think there's some more work that can be done on that. The Unama’ki Institute of Natural Resources has some good information on this as well. It's a concept about stewardship and resource use that is intended to provide for people but not to take excessive amounts.
I don't have the exact definition of it, but that could be a very helpful Mi’kmaq law concept that could help in this communal right to manage.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
As a follow-up to that, in your initial speech, you noted there was a time when you acted for the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaw Chiefs when there was no mandate under the fisheries.
Can you give me a sense of when that was, where that litigation was? What was the background behind that litigation, and what ended up happening with it?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
It's on the public record, so I think it's fine for me to talk about.
It was a case in 2013. This was after the assembly had been at their tripartite table for quite some time waiting for the Canadian negotiators to come to the table with a mandate to negotiate fisheries. By that point they had become quite frustrated and wanted to see Canada come to the table with a mandate. That was part of what was driving that litigation.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Did the litigation stop or is that litigation still ongoing?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
It's in abeyance. At first Canada tried to fight the case, but we managed to keep the case going. By the point it was clear they were not going to get a matter struck, negotiators then came to the table and said they had an increased mandate to negotiate, but here we are seven years later.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
In what year was the increased mandate given to negotiators?
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
That was in 2013. It was started in 2013, and we put it in abeyance in that year, too.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Following up on the collective right—and I don't think you're going to be able to talk about that—how do we, as communities, figure out how to balance the collective right versus the individual right? Do your best in 30 seconds to explain how we can do that. I know I didn't give you much time.
4:25 p.m.
Prof. Naiomi Metallic
I think a Mi'kmaw law and a Mi'kmaw lens can help us see that. We were a people who shared with each other. We were a communal society, and so I think our own values can help inform that.
4:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Battiste.
We'll now go to Madam Gill for six minutes or less, please.
4:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Mr. Chair, my thanks to all the witnesses who are back today.
When we parted a few weeks ago, I had been speaking with Mr. Rodon. We had mentioned how co-management could, to some extent and clearly depending on the circumstances, reduce tensions. It was also a model for certain communities to succeed in managing resources in a responsible way and through compromise.
I would like to hear Mr. Rodon's opinion again on the prerequisites and what it would take for us to establish a co-management formula. We see the tensions in Nova Scotia.
What are we missing right now to be able to set up a co-management formula?
4:25 p.m.
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in sustainable northern development, Université Laval, As an Individual
Thank you for the question.
I will try to answer by first giving you a little context. I have had some contact with Innu fishers on the North Shore, who experienced tension but not to the extent of the tension we experienced with the Mi'kmaq. However, in the case of the Innu, at the beginning of the fishing season for both commercial and subsistence fishing, the processes are exactly the same for commercial fishing—with the licence buyout and the rest—and for the subsistence fishing in the region. There was a lot of friction at the outset, although not to the same extent, meaning that there were no criminal acts, for example.
Furthermore, the Innu fisheries manager at the time told me, during our discussions, that their solution was to become fully involved in the fishermen's associations. As a result, the Innu of the North Shore are part of the Lower North Shore Fishermen's Association, and therefore of all fishermen's associations. There was really a proactive will to be part of those associations in order to have a voice and be able to move forward.
I don't think this is the case in Nova Scotia, where, clearly, there is division and a great deal of tension.
To come back to your question, we see that co-management is sometimes used in times of extremely high tension. It's a way of forcing people to sit around the table and come up with solutions. However, someone has to call them together. I think the federal role could be important in that regard. As we said at the outset, everyone is there for the right reasons. However, everyone is entitled to their share and must be able to enjoy a decent standard of living. I would remind you, though, that the unemployment rate among the Mi'kmaq in the community we are talking about is 20%, double the unemployment rate in Nova Scotia. So it's a question of economic development.
Clearly, we have to find a way to manage the resource in a responsible way. According to my experience of working with the Innu, they have as much, if not more, interest in managing the resource as responsibly as everyone else. Clearly, the indigenous people are not going to move. The Mi'kmaq, who have been around for millennia, are not going to deplete the resource and then move away, as is often the case with other fishers. That is what we are seeing all over the place. I feel that it is not really a valid argument to think that the indigenous fishery is going to destroy everyone's way of life, since no one has any interest in doing that.
Nevertheless, a way must be found to overcome this mistrust. People need to have places where they can talk to each other and show that there is responsible management on both sides. In fact, it's not just the Mi'kmaq who need to demonstrate this, it's the commercial fishers as well. Together, they need to define what can and cannot be fished. We cannot do it any other way, in my humble opinion.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
In other words, we all have the prerequisites right now to be able to meet and discuss, but we lack the will to bring people together. Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could take steps to make it possible for people to meet.
4:30 p.m.
Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in sustainable northern development, Université Laval, As an Individual
Yes, this should be its role, a role that it has actually played on several occasions.
I am a little astonished by its inaction in this conflict. I'm not the only one, in fact, because several people have mentioned that, following the Marshall decision and because of well-established practices, Fisheries and Oceans Canada was much more proactive with the Innu in getting the fishery accepted. But here, it has chosen not to be very present. I do not think that either the fishermen or the Mi'kmaq will be able to resolve this on their own. It's not a matter of going to arbitration, because that's not the issue. But the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility to indigenous peoples on behalf of the Crown. So it would be a matter of taking that responsibility and protecting the right of the Mi'kmaq to have access to the resource, a right that is recognized constitutionally and by treaty, while not allowing tensions to arise in the region. There are ways to do this. In fact, as many have said, it is Fisheries and Oceans Canada's unwillingness to become involved in the region that has created those tensions.
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
It doesn't take long when you're having fun.
Thank you, Madam Gill.
We will now go to Mr. Johns for six minutes or less, please.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming back to this committee to testify. We greatly appreciate your being here.
I'll start with Chancellor Metallic. It has come up several times at this committee that in the course of our study we could be doing more harm than good, given that there are ongoing discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Sipekne'katik.
Could you cite some recommendations this committee could bring to Parliament that would actually support those discussions without undermining their legitimacy?