Thank you, all, for inviting me to speak here today.
I work for Oceans North, an organization that engages on conservation initiatives in Canada's Arctic and Atlantic provinces, in partnership with indigenous communities, as well as non-indigenous fishing entities. We support the implementation of UNDRIP and upholding indigenous rights.
As many of you know, I was very engaged in the modernization of the Fisheries Act, and supported the inclusion of section 35 of the Constitution in the act. At the same time, we were one of the few environmental organizations that also supported the inclusion of owner-operator provisions in the act, because we fully understand their social and economic value in rural communities. We also worked hard to ensure that the Fisheries Act require the rebuilding of depleted fish populations.
My perspective on this issue comes primarily from my role as a biologist and conservation practitioner, but also being keenly aware of the economic value of the fishery to coastal communities, and the relative state of poverty in first nation communities. In my experience, crises emerge, because those with decision-making power fail to make the hard decisions, or tackle the real challenges in a timely, creative and thoughtful manner. As a case in point, we are far from rebuilding the northern cod stock, despite its collapse 30 years ago and concomitant impacts on coastal communities, because we made the wrong decisions at the wrong time, or we avoided making the right decisions at the right time.
The conflicts we see unfolding in our communities, on our wharves, and in the hearts and minds of so many people who are watching what is happening in Atlantic Canada is, in my opinion, the result of failure to address three key issues over the past three decades: ensuring the health of the Atlantic Canadian independent fishery; full implementation of the Marshall decision; and conservation of fish populations. These are not new problems.
I had a chance to go back and look at the Atlantic fisheries policy review, and there has not been full implementation of that review. That started in 1999, the same year as the Marshall decision, and was completed in 2004. I'll just remind you of the vision of the Atlantic fisheries policy review, which said:
The Atlantic fisheries will become a biologically sustainable resource supporting fisheries that: are robust, diverse and self-reliant; effectively involve all interests in appropriate fisheries management processes; are sustainable and economically viable, contributing to the economic base of coastal communities; and provide for the constitutional protection afforded Aboriginal and treaty rights and where Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal resource users work collaboratively.
This is from 15 years ago. It also included commitments to preserving the independence of the inshore fleet.
As you are well aware, independent fishers are the big small business of Atlantic Canada, yet there's been a growing concentration of the resource that leaves many feeling as if their industry does not have a future. Amendments to the Fisheries Act in part addressed this; however, there remains the fear that in any given year, the uncertainty of the fisheries is further exacerbated by the declining labour force, ballooning licensing costs, and an uncertainty about the health of key fish populations.
Fear and uncertainty are significant, but not the only ingredients in the current conflict. The lack of comprehensive, responsible and accountable organization of parts of the inshore fishery also means that they seldom come together on a joint vision for their industry. In my experience, there's been a lack of education by the various fishing associations of their members on the importance and content of the Marshall decision, or how reconciliation can take place proactively. I am pleased to hear there are efforts ongoing right now by the Canadian Independent Fish Harvesters Federation to address this and to improve education.
On moderate livelihoods, the AFPR stated:
An important objective of this policy framework is to provide for Aboriginal participation and involvement in fisheries management decision-making processes so as to promote collaboration between all resource users.
I concur with others who have presented here on the failure of DFO to address the issue of moderate livelihood since the clarification of the Marshall decision. While attempts have been made, these have come at the expense of fisheries governance opportunities. As well, I expect the failure has been in part, because it is impossible to envision the end point. What needs to happen is transformational. It's much more difficult to address an issue in the midst of a conflict, however, conflicts emerge because an issue has not been addressed.
Reconciliation and upholding the Marshall decision and treaty rights was never going to be easy, but avoiding it has made it much more difficult. From listening to others who have presented to you, it is clear that the governance of first nation fisheries is one of the key concerns. The AFPR defines co-management as “the sharing of responsibility and accountability for results between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and resource users, and will eventually also encompass the sharing of authority for fisheries management.” This is what many first nations are asking. Interestingly, a legal commentator in 2001 stated that “The Atlantic Fisheries Policy Review has the potential—though whether it will or not is unclear at this point in time—to fill the regulatory gap that has existed since the 1990 Sparrow decision.”
Finally, my third point is on conservation. In the end, if there are not healthy fish populations, there will be no fishery. The fish do not care who catches them. Lobster has been the saviour of our rural economies, with increasingly valuable exports being realized largely on the backs of the lowest trophic level fisheries.
The lobster fishery requires an incredible amount of bait, of which herring and mackerel have been the species of choice. These are now at historically low levels largely as a result of setting quotas higher than the populations can bear.
As the moderate livelihood fisheries expand to other species and new areas, it's imperative that there be joint data collection protocols, science assessments and consideration of fishery-wide conservation matters to ensure that we are not jeopardizing the future of communities, human and ecological, first nations and non-first nations. Integrating the two-eyed seeing into how we manage fisheries will also be an important step.
Finally, this is just a reminder that Fisheries and Oceans Canada manages the fisheries for the public good, and I would argue that upholding first nations' rights, ensuring the future of coastal communities and rebuilding fish populations are all in the public good.
My final point relating to moderate livelihoods is that the fishery cannot be expected to bear the entire responsibility of bringing first nation communities out of poverty. Much, much more needs to be done to bring jobs and livelihoods to first nation communities across all economic sectors and to make reparations for our centuries of colonial history.
Thank you.
