STATEMENT BY HERB DHALIWAL,
MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Thank you all for coming today.
Before I begin, a number of people have asked questions about Fishery Officer Dominique Benoit, and his condition. As you'll recall, Dominique was injured when he was struck in the face with a rock during an enforcement operation August 22. He suffered a fractured cheekbone and a broken nose in the incident. He was taken by air ambulance to Hospital in Montreal for treatment of a post-incident infection. I am pleased to tell you that he is recovering, and is expected to have reconstructive surgery shortly. He is also in fine spirits, and eager to return to his job. This dedication and commitment is common to all of his colleagues, who routinely face personal risk in the conduct of their duties to ensure we have a sustainable fishery.
Almost a year has passed since the Supreme Court's historic decision in the Marshall case. In that time, we have seen significant changes in the Atlantic fishery - changes for the better. The First Nations affected by the Marshall decision have greater access to the commercial fishery than they did last year. The 27 First Nations who have reached agreements and the two with agreements in principle for this fishing season also have boats, gear, training, and other assistance to maximize their benefits from that increased access. Agreements are not just a matter of signing a piece of paper. They translate into real, tangible economic benefits and opportunities for communities that have been on the sidelines of the fishery for too long. As such, they respect both the letter and the spirit of the Supreme Court decision, and represent an important first step towards addressing its implications. These positive changes have, for the most part, been achieved peacefully thanks to good will and dialogue by all parties.
As important as these changes in the fishery are, they are not the end of the story on the Government of Canada's response to the Marshall decision. Interim agreements for this year are only the beginning of the peaceful process of change to which we have committed ourselves. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada will lead a long-term process to address outstanding questions about Treaty rights and Aboriginal communities' access to natural resources. I myself have publicly committed to work with Aboriginal communities to look at more fundamental changes in the fishery. These discussions will not just deal with more access to the fishery. They will also look at possibilities for new management regimes, and a greater role for the First Nations in managing their own fisheries and sharing in the stewardship of the resource.
In a few cases, however, dialogue and negotiation have not yet produced agreement on fishery access for this year. And in the case of the Burnt Church First Nation, the absence of agreement has been complicated by large-scale unauthorized fishing, confrontation, and direct defiance of the federal government's ability to regulate the fishery in the interest of all Canadians. The result has been an increasingly tense and volatile situation which, in the eyes of many, has degenerated into an impasse.
Almost daily, I am asked questions about the situation at Burnt Church, New Brunswick. Why haven't we reached a negotiated outcome yet? Why do we insist on federal management of the lobster fishery, and other fisheries? Can we really justify our regulations, and our ongoing activity to enforce those regulations? In short, many people are asking, what is the big deal? Isn't peace on the water more important than a few lobsters here and there?
I know this is an issue of growing concern to many Canadians, and I want to take a few moments now to clarify my position.
First, I must tell you that, like so many Canadians, I am eager to see this situation resolved peacefully. I have no desire to see people's safety compromised, and no appetite for confrontation. It is because of my commitment to finding solutions through dialogue that my Department and I have made so many efforts to hold discussions with representatives of the Burnt Church First Nation. I met with community representatives from Burnt Church First Nation in Miramichi last spring. On June 7, we tried to meet again in Miramichi, but the First Nation cancelled our scheduled meeting at the last minute. And most recently, we tried to arrange a meeting on September 1, but were unable to agree on the conditions for the meeting.
My Departmental officials have also actively sought dialogue. On August 18, the Chief Federal Representative, Mr. James MacKenzie met with the Chief and Council for the first time, after numerous failed attempts to meet. Leading up to that meeting, and again in the weeks since then, there have been repeated phone calls, letters, and faxes to the Burnt Church First Nation to keep lines of communication open.
And just this week, my Deputy Minister, Mr. Wayne Wouters met with community representatives to try to agree on a protocol for mediation to help resolve the dispute. No agreement was reached for two reasons. First, the Band would not agree to a "cooling off period," during which my Department would not enforce, and the level of fishing effort permitted would be determined by the mutually agreed mediator. Second, the Band wanted to have two mediators, both unilaterally selected by the Burnt Church First Nation. But, as the Band itself has emphasized, one party cannot impose its will on another if mediation is to work. We have kept the door open to dialogue, even as unauthorized fishing has continued and increased. We have offered compromises, which have been consistently turned down. We have offered mediation, and a willingness to set aside our own proposed mediator in order to make way for a mediator from the Band's own list of candidates. Yet none of these efforts has resulted in a productive discussion. In all of these actions, we have been patient, flexible, and reasonable. We have done everything possible to reach a negotiated outcome.
The door remains open for discussions and negotiations at any time. And I remain optimistic that future discussions will allow us to find common ground to build upon for a peaceful and successful fishery in the future.
Second, there are the linked questions of regulation and enforcement. If I am so committed to peaceful solutions, some ask, why don't I just let the Burnt Church First Nation fish as it pleases without federal interference?
Of course, you have all heard many times about my responsibility and my authority to regulate the fishery. I have cited again and again the passage of the Marshall decision that placed the responsibility for conservation "squarely on the Minister and not on the aboriginal or non-aboriginal users of the resource." And I have repeated again and again the affirmation that the authority to regulate is not limited to conservation, but extends to "other compelling and substantial public objectives which may include economic and regional fairness, and recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-aboriginal groups." It is clear from the Supreme Court decision that I am expected to regulate the fishery.
I've said this time and time again, but some people continue to ask "who cares? Is there a reason behind this insistence on federal regulation, or is this just a question of jurisdiction?" The answer is - both.
Let me tell you a little about the reasons the fishery needs to be regulated. First, the fishery needs to be regulated to ensure conservation. If any group was able to decide how much it wished to harvest, when and under what conditions, conservation would be put in jeopardy. There would be no incentive for any fishermen - Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal - to restrict their catch, because they would know that any lobster left in the water would only be caught by someone else. And where there is no benefit from conservation action, no one making a living from the fishery would want to sacrifice their catch to conserve the resource for others.
Secondly, the fishery needs to be regulated to protect the interests of all users of the resource - both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. The Atlantic fishery continues to be the backbone of the economy for many coastal communities. It provides employment in the harvesting and processing sector, and the prosperity of many families and communities is heavily dependent on access to the resource. I believe this is part of what the Court was talking about when it mentioned "historical reliance upon... the fishery" in the Marshall decision.
Now consider the case of Burnt Church. This Band was offered access to commercial fisheries and other benefits. They participated in this year's commercial fishery, but have unilaterally developed a plan for a separate fishery, which authorizes 5,600 traps to be fished in the fall, when lobsters are much more vulnerable to fishing effort. Catch rates have been demonstrated to be very high during the fall period. In productive areas like Miramichi Bay, catch rates can exceed 10 lbs per trap per day for a period of time. Even this modest number of traps can quickly deplete lobster stocks in the surrounding area and have a major impact on the local abundance of lobster. This level of fishing effort during this time would increase exploitation rates that are already high. It would have a negative impact on the stock, causing conservation concerns over time. And it would have immediate economic consequences for all fishermen in the next lobster season.
Lastly, the fishery must be regulated to ensure orderly management. The Marshall decision opened the door to considerable change in the Atlantic fishery. The process of retiring licenses to provide First Nations with access and fishing capacity has allowed that transformation to happen smoothly in most communities. And that is only one example of the kind of change that can take place in the fishery, affecting thousands of people with different interests. With so many people using, and relying on, the fishery resource, change cannot be piecemeal or haphazard. There needs to be an authority who can watch over the fishery as a whole, balance its many requirements, and maintain a sustainable and predictable system for all users.
There will be no future for the fishery in Atlantic Canada if some groups are subject to government regulation and others are not. This issue is not restricted to Burnt Church First Nation, or to Aboriginal fisheries. It is true for all fishers and fishing communities across Canada. Of course, there is room for co-management. There is room for new and innovative management regimes, and for users of the resource to play an increased role in stewardship. But these regimes must complement one another, forming a rational and effective network. And for that to happen, the Government of Canada needs to play a leading role. To overlook that important fact would devastate the resource and set fishing communities against one another.
So I can only say that, yes, this is a question of jurisdiction. But it is not an arbitrary or petty issue. Instead, it is a question which goes to the viability and sustainability of the resource for all fishermen - Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal. And it is a question of such basic importance to so many people, that I cannot back away from it.
I am committed to a peaceful and prosperous fishery. I am committed to a sustainable fishery. And the only way I can fulfil either of those commitments is by upholding my responsibilities for stewardship of the resource.
Top
