Minister of Fisheries and Oceans

1

STATEMENT BY

HERB DHALIWAL

MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS

Update on fisheries affected by the

Supreme Court’s Marshall decision

August 27, 2001

Over the past year, my Department and I have made every effort to meet with the
Burnt Church First Nation, to bridge the gap that has existed between us since the Marshall decision in 1999. We are well aware of the community’s aspirations in the fishery, and have looked for ways we can work together to address their needs and wishes. Through ongoing dialogue and discussion with the Chief, Council, and various members of Burnt Church, we have actively sought common ground and peaceful solutions.

Last month, we thought we had reached common ground with Burnt Church First Nation. Burnt Church expressed keen interest in engaging an independent scientist to pursue research on lobster in Miramichi Bay, and recommended Dr. John Caddy, an internationally recognized scientist. We agreed with the need for more science, we funded the report in response to Burnt Church’s request, and we released Dr. Caddy’s report on August 20.

Our shared interest in science was not our only common ground. Burnt Church First Nation expressed an interest in finding a peaceful solution for the fall fishery. We made a conditional proposal to Burnt Church relating to their fall fishing activity and the conduct of a science project. The initial proposal we made on August 2nd was flatly rejected, but we continued to have constructive discussions with community representatives. In the week leading up to the election, we respected the process that was taking place in the community and waited for the election results.

Following the election, we were ready and willing to resume our dialogue with
Burnt Church’s elected leadership. However, over the past week, we have seen the dynamics in the community change dramatically. Where we once had constructive and engaging dialogue, we now find that we are left talking to empty chairs.

Beginning the day after the election, senior officials returned to New Brunswick to continue discussions. They let the Chief and Council know they were ready to meet as early as possible to discuss a new proposal for this fall’s fishery. Day after day, their invitations to meet and resume discussions went unanswered. Informal discussion did develop, but the Chief and Council would not or could not agree to meet. Virtually the only response we heard from the Band was through the media. And in the media, it was neither the Chief nor the majority of Council who spoke.

…/2

In the absence of a meeting, 200 copies of a revised conditional proposal were presented to the Burnt Church First Nation on Wednesday, August 22. The proposal was also faxed directly to the Chief and Council on Thursday evening.

This revised proposal responded directly to aspirations expressed by the community, and to concerns with the original conditional proposal that had been made. It responded to the Band’s management plan, and reiterated our interest in discussing the plan with them. It included a small boat fishery that would allow as many members of Burnt Church First Nation as possible to fish in the fall and earn an income. And it included an opportunity to co-operate on science work relating to lobster in Miramichi Bay, an area of shared interest. That work could have provided training and employment for 50 people in the community. This is precisely what the community has told us they are seeking: jobs, science, and an income from a fall fishery.

To date, we have had no response from the Chief and Council. We are well aware that the Pow-Wow in the community, and the demands of a newly elected leadership, have required significant attention and commitment of time. But we have been deeply disappointed that we have had no opportunity to meet. The Chief and Council have not acknowledged our revised conditional proposal, much less responded to it. For whatever reason, all of the constructive dialogue and real progress we had been making has now been replaced by silence from the Chief and Council.

By its very nature, dialogue requires two parties at the table. My Department and I have done everything possible to continue the dialogue we had begun. But we have been forced to admit that the leadership of Burnt Church First Nation is no longer making itself available to dialogue, and that the solutions we were working towards will elude us until they return to the table. Therefore, today I am forced to find a practical solution to the current stalemate.

Since the Sparrow decision in 1990, my Department has provided First Nations – including Burnt Church – with reasonable access to the fishery for their food, social, and ceremonial needs. This access is provided through communal licences issued to First Nations each year, that specify the terms under which they may fish. Last week, my Department issued a short-term communal licence to the Burnt Church First Nation. The licence provided them with access to the lobster fishery for food, social, and ceremonial purposes for a period of one week. As you may be aware, that licence will expire at midnight tonight.

Today, we are issuing a new communal licence, to provide Burnt Church with reasonable fishery access for food, social, and ceremonial purposes from now until October 20. This licence restricts their fishery to a specific zone, adjacent to the community. This zone is reduced in size from that authorized last week. It authorizes a food fishery only, with no opportunity for sale. I should remind you, however, that Burnt Church had access to
17 commercial lobster licences during the spring lobster season, and took advantage of
13 of those licences.

…/3

We will be vigilant in enforcing both the fishing zone and the prohibition on commercial sale. Our enforcement strategy will include continued co-operation with the Province of New Brunswick, who have a responsibility to regulate the processing sector.

It is deeply regrettable that Burnt Church First Nation has now withdrawn itself from dialogue, and I hope this is not a sign that we are returning to another season of conflict. No one wins by ending the dialogue that seemed so promising in the spring.

It must be clear that this is not the way I had hoped to enter the fall season. After the flexibility we’ve offered, it is disappointing to find ourselves once again in a situation where no mutually agreed arrangement exists. Although the conditional proposal we made expires at midnight tonight, our willingness to talk does not. I continue to believe that we can work together for peaceful solutions.

In his report, Dr. Caddy made the observation that “the harmonization of fishing activities should not only be between Burnt Church and DFO but with adjacent fishing communities.” We have talked often with those adjacent communities in recent months, and have appreciated their involvement and their patience every bit as much as we appreciated Burnt Church’s presence at the table.

I know local fishers will be disappointed that no arrangement exists, and may feel some anxiety. Allow me to assure you once again that DFO is committed to protecting the lobster fishery for all who rely on it. We will take appropriate action to uphold that commitment. And I am personally calling on all fishermen to respect our regulations just as they expect others to respect them, and in so doing, lend their own support to a peaceful and sustainable fishery.

At the end of the day, that is really what we all want: a fishery that can be sustained for the long term; a fishery that is peaceful; a fishery that is prosperous. That is what we want for the Burnt Church First Nation, and for all those who rely on the Atlantic fishery.

FRANÇAIS À SUIVRE.

- 30 -

Map attached

For further information, please contact:

Fisheries and Oceans Canada

For additional information on the Marshall decision:

See the DFO home page - – under

“Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Marshall Case.”

…/4