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.

Transcript

Discussions (0)