NUU-CHAH-NULTH COUNCIL OF HA’WIIH FORUM ON FISHERIES

Submission to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans On Bill C-68

Submitted by the Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih

May 8, 2018

P.O. BOX 1383, 5001 MISSION ROAD, , B.C. V9Y 7M2 T: 250.724.5757 F: 250.724.2172

NUU-CHAH-NULTH COUNCIL OF HA’WIIH FORUM ON FISHERIES

May 8, 2018 Via Email Only: [email protected]

Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans Sixth Floor, 131 Queen Street House of Commons Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Attention: Nancy Vohl, Clerk of the Committee

Dear Ms. Vohl:

Re: Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih submission to FOPO on Bill C-68

We wrote to you on February 26, 2018 asking to appear before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans when it considers the proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act. We have not received a reply but assume that the Council will not be invited.

It is with regret and disappointment that we observe that of the 39 witnesses that have appeared before the committee to date, only two spoke on behalf of a single First Nation. Given the centrality of fisheries to coastal throughout Canada, we can only hope that the Committee intends to hear from additional First Nation representatives before it concludes its review of Bill C-68.

In the absence of an opportunity to speak to the Committee in person, please consider the attached written submission.

On behalf of the Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih,

Wahmeesh (Ken Watts) Chair, Council of Ha’wiih

copy: Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and Canadian Coast Guard Gord Johns, Member of Parliament, Courtenay-Alberni First Nations Fisheries Council Council of Ha’wiih

P.O. BOX 1383, 5001 MISSION ROAD, PORT ALBERNI, B.C. V9Y 7M2 T: 250.724.5757 F: 250.724.2172

Submission to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans On Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and other Acts in consequence

Submitted by the Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih Representing 14 Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations on the West Coast of

Who We Are The Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih is comprised of the hereditary Chiefs of the fourteen member First Nations1 of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council. The member First Nations of the Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council are located on the west coast of Vancouver Island from the Brooks Peninsula to China Beach. The Nuu-chah-nulth territory is comprised of almost one half of Vancouver Island. Five of the Nuu-chah-nulth Nations are signatories to the Maa-nulth Treaty2 and the other nine do not have a treaty. The Nuu-chah-nulth people comprise approximately one half of the population on the outer west coast of Vancouver Island. The Nuu-chah-nulth people rely heavily on the fishery resource. Historically almost one hundred percent of Nuu-chah-nulth were fisherpeople. Today, there are a mix of fisheries activities by Nuu-chah-nulth people. Some still take part in the commercial fishery. Many others take part in what is known as the Aboriginal Economic Opportunity fisheries. And still more take part in the food, social and ceremonial fisheries. The fisheries resource is a pillar of Nuu-chah-nulth culture, economy, traditions and sustenance. Almost one hundred percent of Nuu-chah-nulth people rely on seafood for at least some of their diet and for many Nuu-chah- nulth, seafood forms the majority of their diet. The ocean and seafood form an important part of Nuu-chah-nulth culture. For example, many traditional names of Nuu-chah-nulth people reflect the ocean and rivers and various fisheries. Many dances and masks are associated with the ocean and/or fisheries. Fish and seafood are an almost indispensable part of Nuu-chah-nulth cultural celebrations. In the Nuu-chah-nulth fishing case of Regina v. Joseph Andrew Jack, Arnold John and Martin John, the BC Court of Appeal examined the provision of fish for a wedding. In that case the defendants were charged with various fishing offences after they were seen fishing for Mr. Jack’s son’s wedding. The Court said: Mr. Jack, as head of a family group, possesses a hereditary compendium of rights, assets and responsibilities known as his "hahuuhli". His aboriginal right to fish included the right to invite kinsmen to assist him in fishing .... To fail to provide

1 Ahousaht, Ditidaht, Ehattesaht, Hesquiaht, Hupacasath, Huu-ay-aht, Ka:’Yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k’tles7et’h’, Nuchahtlaht, Mowachaht/Muchalaht, Tla-o-quiaht, Toquaht, Tseshaht, Uchucklesaht and Yuulu?il?ath.

2 Huu-ay-aht, Ka:’Yu:’k’t’h’/Che:k’tles7et’h’, Toquaht, Uchucklesaht and Yuulu?il?ath.

1

sufficient salmon from his own hahuuhli would be a source of considerable embarrassment and loss of prestige for a person of Mr. Jack's chiefly rank3 The Nuu-chah-nulth reserves are small. They were almost all established to allow for fishing stations for the First Nations. The Nuu-chah-nulth have been vigilant in defending their right to fish and seafood. They have defended many fishing cases and have been plaintiffs in others. For example, the Ahousaht Indian Band and Nation v. Canada (Attorney General)4 case has been ongoing since 2009. The Tseshaht First Nation successfully defended approximately three hundred fishery charges in the 1980’s. There were no convictions. And there have been others. The Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council and its member First Nations have been active politically in respect of fisheries matters. We have made submissions to Standing Committees, met with the Minister of Fisheries on many occasions, entered into agreements with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, conducted fisheries research, established fisheries programs and otherwise engaged in fisheries matters on a continuous basis. The Nuu-chah-nulth Council of Ha’wiih therefore respectfully submit that, given our background, knowledge of the matter, experience, history and culture, we are in a position to make meaningful submissions to this committee. We wish firstly to say that we support the thrust of the legislation in restoring protection to the fisheries resource and habitat. While we believe there is room for improvement in the legislation, nonetheless we are relieved to see that the legislation remedies some of the harm done by previous amendments to the Act. In an effort to improve the Bill C-68, we respectfully advise the following: 1. The purpose of the Fisheries Act must include Reconciliation with Aboriginal People The previous Act had no purpose as the purposes had been repealed. The proposed Bill C-68 would add the purpose in s. 2.1 of providing a framework for the management and control of fisheries and the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat. There is no reference to Aboriginal People or our unique and important ties to the fishery. The Prime Minister has said: The failure of successive Canadian governments to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples in Canada is our great shame. And for many Indigenous Peoples, this lack of respect for their rights persists to this day…. We now have before us an opportunity to deliver true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation between Canada and First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit peoples….. We are all in this together, and the relationships we build need to reflect this reality. In Canada, this means new

3(1995), 16 B.C.L.R. (3d) 201, 131 D.L.R. (4th) 165 (C.A.). 42018 BCSC 633.

2

relationships between the government of Canada and Indigenous Peoples – relationships based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.5

We submit that “true, meaningful and lasting reconciliation” would include placing reconciliation with Aboriginal people in the purpose section of this legislation. We do not submit that Reconciliation is achieved by the Fisheries Act alone; rather we submit that the Fisheries Act can assist in achieving Reconciliation. As we have illustrated above, seafood, fishing, fish and the oceans and waters are all intimately tied to Nuu-chah-nulth culture, traditions, history and contemporary life. Starting Reconciliation with what is most important to Nuu-chah-nulth we submit, is appropriate.

We would advise leaving the word 'Purposes' after section 2 of the English version of the Act. We would further advise adding the following after the word 'Purposes'

2.1 The purposes of this Act are; (i) to provide a framework for (a) the proper management and control of fisheries; and (b) the conservation and protection of fish and fish habitat, including by preventing pollution. (ii) to assist with the Reconciliation with Canada's Indigenous peoples.

2. Incorporating Respect for Indigenous Law

We respectfully advise that section 2.5 should be amended by adding the following:

the traditional and contemporary laws of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, as provided to the Minister.

Again, for a true spirit of Reconciliation, there must be respect for First Nations laws and history. We took care of our lands, oceans and resources before the coming of the Europeans. We say that we have an important, useful and unique perspective to give in managing and protecting the resources, the oceans and the waters.

The laws of Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations are grounded in our particular knowledge of our traditional territories. That knowledge, we suggest, can only help the Department of Fisheries.

5Excerpt from the remarks of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly, New York, September 21, 2017

3

3. Controlling Ministerial Discretion

Section 2.5, as proposed, states that the Minister “may” consider certain named issues, when making a decision. We recommend,

that the word “may” in section 2.5 be changed to the word “shall”.

The Nuu-chah-nulth people see this legislation moving forward. We remain to be convinced that the government of Canada will always be a government that shares the need to preserve the environment, conserve and manage fish species conservatively, and respect the rights, laws and traditions of Indigenous people.

The changing of the term would have the effect of stating that the Minister must consider the set out issues. It would be akin to a command to the Minister.6

We say that discretion here would lead to an inconsistent application of the law depending on the whim of the Minister of the day. 'May' suggests as much that something will not be done as it does suggest that something will be done. 'Might', after all, is the past of may.7 In protecting Canada's fish stocks and ocean resources, we say that there is no room for speculation, incomplete facts or political considerations. We say that a cautious approach, founded in science, knowledge, history and partnerships is the proper approach.

4. Consistency of Reference to Aboriginal Peoples

It is proposed in the legislation that section 2(1) of the Act be amended by including the term “Indigenous peoples of Canada”.

The Nuu-chah-nulth have been witness to Canada's anguished attempts at coming to terms with who we are. Over the years we have been, and still are in legislation, referred to as “Indians”. The Constitution refers to us as “Aboriginal”. In British Columbia we have been called “First Citizens”. Many refer to us as “First Nations' citizens or members” Many in Canada also refer to us as “Natives”. Our people have been referred to as “Tribes” or “Bands” or “First Nations”. Americans refer to us as “Native Canadians”.

Bill C-68 opts to refer to us as “Indigenous peoples of Canada”. The section 2(1) states that the term will have the same meaning as section 35 in the Constitution. In their submission, the First Nations Fisheries Council states that there should be an intensive consultation with First Nations prior to revising the definition of 'indigenous'. We agree with that submission.

6Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2018 online version

7Merriam-Webster's Dictionary, 2018 online version

4

Any definition of 'indigenous' with respect to Fisheries should reflect on the First Nations rights and history and traditions with respect to the fisheries. In the Ahousaht case there is a mountain of evidence that could assist in that definition.

We therefore recommend that the term “indigenous” be better defined after extensive consultation with First Nations.

5. Restoring Fish Habitat

While we approve of the protections being given to Fisheries habitat, we cannot concede that enough is being done to restore the habitat and repair the damage done by industry, over- fishing or mismanagement. We therefore recommend that the purposes of the Act be amended further by adding the following:

2.1 (c) the restoration of damaged or compromised fisheries and fish habitat

The Nuu-chah-nulth people are keenly aware of how our resources have been mismanaged despite Nuu-chah-nulth calls for conservative management and Nuu-chah-nulth demands for co-management. For example, the herring fishery on the West Coast of Vancouver Island is a shadow of what it once was. The herring fishery is a prized fishery for Nuu-chah-nulth people. The herring are one of the first fish to return after a winter. The roe is an important part of all Nuu-chah-nulth First Nations culture. Now the spawning of the herring and the return of the herring on the West Coast of Vancouver Island is spotty, at best. The fishery has been depleted by over-fishing, habitat degradation and mismanagement. For the herring to return to the numbers they once were, there must be a multi-pronged approach. Over-fishing must be stopped and a conservative approach to harvest implemented. Secondly, management must include local co-management. The voice of those closely connected to the fishery and those whose culture relies on the fishery must be heard. And thirdly, the habitat must be restored for the herring to return. No single prong approach will work.

The time is now for the Federal government to take the lead in habitat restoration. This legislation provides the perfect vehicle to do so.

All of which we respectfully submit.

5