Fisheries committee  I think that's a beautiful summary. Just hearkening back to what Chief Gray has mentioned, when you have Mi'kmaq people out on the water exercising their rights, there's a certain level of responsibility and accountability that exists not only to other fishers but also to the community and also to the creators, to Kisu'lkw and to Sitqamúk, our earth mother.

Fisheries committee  I'm struggling to be succinct on this one, because obviously it provides a recognition for the Mi'kmaq community, subject to the 1760 and 1761 treaties, to operate the fishery in accordance with providing for a moderate livelihood, which is the final upshot, but more importantly, it provides a mechanism by which we can govern how that right is undertaken.

Fisheries committee  I would offer something in relation to that. I think a major role of this committee is to set the agenda for educating your counterparts within government and the constituents that you represent on the nature of what exists with respect to this treaty relationship and the history with respect to our rights.

Fisheries committee  Maybe I can proceed with that. Certainly Mi'kmaq people do not exist in isolated communities. We share common tradition, common culture, common language, and embedded within the language there are traditions like netukulimk that provide a mechanism by which to guide management decisions, operations, and things like that.

Fisheries committee  I think that access and that capacity did help our communities gain at least a preliminary entrance into the fishery. They supported communities. They allowed communities to grow. I think it's also important to note that those agreements that were entered into were entered into on a “without prejudice” basis, a without prejudice basis related to the rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people.

Fisheries committee  Thank you for that. We're talking about a subject matter that involves constitutionally recognized rights that have been affirmed and recognized from the basis of treaty. These are nation-to-nation documents, and they appropriately need to be discussed at that level, on a nation-to-nation basis.

Fisheries committee  I hearken back to my earlier example of my community of Paqtnkek. Donald Marshall was fishing off of our reserve lands here. Paqtnkek didn't sign a Marshall agreement; we didn't sign an AFS agreement. The reason we didn't sign those agreements is that there was no mandate to discuss the right.

Fisheries committee  What I'm thinking is that the concept of reconciliation has to have some real substance. One cannot look at these rights reconciliation agreements that were reasonably put forward in 2007, which are essentially, “Here's some money; you're going to be under our rules, and by the way, your treaty rights are going to be on hold for 10 years.”

Fisheries committee  Perhaps I could begin, Chief Gray. As I mentioned earlier with respect to legal definitions related to “moderate livelihood”, I certainly believe those are beyond the scope of this committee. In order to approach “moderate livelihood”, one has to examine and create a process whereby one actually has a mechanism that actually recognizes the Mi'kmaq treaty right itself.

Fisheries committee  Perhaps I could offer something in that regard. I think one cannot completely get rid of the potential for conflict. Essentially what one hopes to achieve is for government to do the right thing and to recognize that these rights exist—they're a matter of the law of the land—and to figure out a process and mechanism to implement those rights.

Fisheries committee  Getting to the point of nation-to-nation and the winning conditions to allow an environment like that to take place means recognizing the law of this land and the need for reconciliation that exists between laws that relate to treaties and aboriginal people and to laws that exist within Canada.

Fisheries committee  Thank you. Further to what you mentioned on the approaches that don't work, at a basic level, it's negotiation without recognition. That has been the legacy. It's endemic within any government to this point, over the 21 years. In terms of moving forward and what could be an appropriate solution, it's important to consider that many in our communities can't relate to any position on our rights without any consultation as to what we know or believe.

Fisheries committee  No, it hasn't.

Fisheries committee  I guess I'm not completely privy to the specific mandate provided to the special representative. There are ongoing discussions that are taking place between the Mi'kmaq and the federal government, and we're looking forward to a breakthrough in those discussions. With respect to the special representative, I'm sure the federal government has confidence in that individual to conduct the necessary information gathering and discussions to help support these delicate negotiations that are currently taking place with respect to Nova Scotia.

Fisheries committee  I believe that certainly discussions should have taken place with both respective parties, but I would also like to note that the Mi'kmaq are in a different position than other interested parties, for example the industry. We have existing constitutional rights, which set us apart from the commercial fishery or even the non-native fishers.