Debates of Oct. 19th, 2020

Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work on the fisheries committee.

I will say that the Marshall decision was a decision that affirmed the treaty right of the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and the Peskotomuhkati. We recognize this is something that needs to be implemented. We are working diligently right now to make sure that we are implementing that treaty right. We have been very active on this file since we were elected. We have seen agreements signed with some communities, and with others there have been ongoing discussions for quite some time now.

With regard to the Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia, particularly the band in Sipekne'katik, we are working with them diligently right now through the negotiation process to make sure that we implement their treaty right.

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I note the debate is entitled “Fisheries in Nova Scotia”, but, of course, this issue is gripping all of Atlantic Canada. The fisheries are important, not just in one part of Nova Scotia, but throughout the region. All eyes are fixed on this.

The minister talked about law enforcement. Where is DFO? DFO has been virtually absent on this. The minister will say her department is negotiating with first nations, and that is well and good, but what about also negotiating with traditional fishing families who have been fishing in these waters, in some cases since before Canada was founded?

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, DFO has been actively engaged with a number of commercial harvesters and commercial harvester groups. I have met with them directly myself over the past number of weeks, actually over the past number of years since before I was the Minister of Fisheries.

We recognize that the commercial harvesters have had a very challenging season this year. We know that they are concerned with “moderate livelihood”. We want to make sure that we are listening to them, that we are listening to their concerns. That is one of the things we are absolutely very well apprised of, but we recognize also that the negotiations we are having right now with the Mi'kmaq are on a nation-to-nation basis, and that means they are the people at the table.

We will make sure that we continue to discuss with the commercial harvesters what their concerns are. We will make sure that we are listening to all sides in this, but we are looking forward to making sure that we implement the rights that were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada to the Mi'kmaq people.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been three weeks since Chief Sack identified that he did not feel safe, nor did the fishers in his community. There have been assaults and intimidation. They have been calling for more support and it took a lobster pound to burn down and an assault to take place and more and more intimidation. Why is it taking so long for the minister to call on the federal government and Ottawa to get involved and help support the Nova Scotia RCMP? Who is responsible? We are still trying to get clarity.

Andrew Joyce, the public information officer for the RCMP in Nova Scotia, stated that the RCMP is responsible for a presence in the community, but DFO is more appropriate on the water. DFO is saying that it is the RCMP that is responsible for public safety on the water. Will you clarify and give assurance and certainty to the community that they will have protection while they are out on the water exercising their right? They need—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I just want to clarify that when hon. members are posing questions, to ask them through the Speaker and not directly to the member.

The hon. minister in 30 seconds or less, please.

[Bernadette Jordan, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will say we are all very much condemning the violence, intimidation and threats we have seen coming out of south-west Nova Scotia. Nobody wants to see this happening. Nobody wants to feel unsafe as they go to work. That is one of the reasons that we have agreed to increase resources to the province of Nova Scotia in order to make sure there are more resources available to the RCMP so they can bring more members from other provinces to help deal with this situation.

We recognize it needs to be addressed. I will say the DFO has been engaged primarily since the very beginning of this, both on the water and on land. We will continue to—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Resuming debate, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for West Nova who has been thoughtfully raising this issue for months. It could have helped avoid an emergency debate if we had had a government that was more seized with this issue.

Let me be clear off the top about two distinct issues. Burning down buildings is always a crime. Destroying property is always a crime. Whoever commits crimes should be held accountable under the law.

There is a second point I would like to make. The very fact that the government joined an opposition party that was going to raise this emergency debate is a sign. They are calling for an emergency after five years of their own inaction on this issue. It is quite unusual for a government to call for an emergency debate on a domestic issue that it has had carriage of for five years. In fact, we tried to get research done on this point and I think, but I cannot be sure, it has never happened. Usually emergency debates would be called with respect to international issues the government is not able to lead on. However, with the Liberal government, there is rarely leadership.

There are two Marshall decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada, but many Canadians may not know that and many members of this House may not know that. The decisions affirmed the right of first nations communities to earn a moderate livelihood from the fishery, but they also affirmed the Canadian rules related to conservation and the system around regulation were to be respected, as well.

The aboriginal right is paramount. In our Constitution, in our duty to reconciliation, it is critical. In the 21 years since Marshall, there have been governments of many stripes that have not been able to get this right. When fishing is happening out of season or when we do not have a properly regulated season and regulatory process for a fishery, that can deteriorate the stocks and deteriorate the economic potential of the region, non-indigenous and indigenous.

What is interesting right now is that the sides of this debate, the indigenous community and non-indigenous community, both agree on one thing: The inaction of the Liberal government is unacceptable. We have had some suggesting that a peacekeeping operation is needed and that should tell members that the situation is troubling. Everyone involved in this issue deserves the respect and attention of the government and it is the Liberals' inaction on this that has led to escalating tension and violence.

Unfortunately, the tensions in Nova Scotia illustrate the danger of a government that is afraid of making decisions, a government that hopes problems will solve themselves, a government that waits. However, the conflict between the Mi'kmaq community and commercial fishers in Nova Scotia is not new. This conflict will not go away on its own.

This debate calls for the courage to bring both communities to the table because finding a way to compromise is a Canadian value.

Before Parliament even met, before I had the honour of taking my seat as the leader of Canada's founding party, over a month ago, on September 18, I raised this issue personally with the Prime Minister, because for months my colleague from West Nova, other Canadians, indigenous leaders, the commercial fishery, and union leaders have been raising concerns about rising tensions. That is why I raised this directly with the Prime Minister.

I asked the fisheries minister to mediate and exercise political courage. Tonight, she asked for an emergency debate for a dispute that is happening in her own province under her watch that she has done nothing about for a year. No wonder there is frustration in all of Canada, but particularly in Atlantic Canada.

For weeks, members on this side of the House have been sounding notice and caution, asking the Liberal government to act. We have asked questions more than seven times in the House and dozens of times in the media. We had to do that because for months the government has preferred to sit back and wait, hoping the problem might go away by itself. Sadly, much as we are seeing now with the second wave of the pandemic, these things do not go away. They require leadership, and we have a government that prefers photo ops over follow-ups, hashtags over real work. Hoping that problems will go away is not leadership.

The Minister of Fisheries let this situation escalate, and that has led to the tensions we have seen in recent days. Today, her inaction led to a press conference where not one but two of four ministers were present to acknowledge that they let the situation spiral out of control. Rather than getting people to the table, they were agreeing with another opposition party that there is an emergency they helped create, a sad expression of leadership by a government.

As we heard from the Prime Minister tonight, the Liberals have also preferred to brand this dispute as an entirely racial conflict. The truth is that there are some unacceptable examples of racism, but there are also unresolved negotiations because of a personal debate over livelihood: indigenous livelihood and the well-being of those Canadians and their families, and the livelihood of many commercial fishers. As the minister herself said, in her province of Nova Scotia it is part of the culture. She seems to have allowed this to drag on to a point where we are now seeing violence, and Canadians are concerned about that. This is less about the way they are described and more about a failure to mediate and come to an agreement.

That is where leadership is needed. It is hard, but that is what the Conservatives have been asking for months. It is made worse by the fact than in this pandemic, all families, indigenous and non-indigenous, are worried about providing for their family. The government should have known that these tensions were rising. It could have shown leadership, but instead it framed this as tension brought on purely by racial elements. That is not truly the case.

This is a dispute where constitutional fishery rights must be upheld for our indigenous Canadians. However, there is also concern from commercial fishers, their union leaders and their community and civic leaders that if this is not done right and conservation is not respected, then the fishery that has been taking place for centuries, which is, as the minister said, part of the culture, could disappear, along with the well-being and livelihoods of many people.

That is why we need to find a solution. That is why I raised this with the Prime Minister. That is why the member for West Nova has been raising it time and time again. We need both sides to negotiate to find common ground, with a mediated solution and long-term plan for the well-being of all Canadians, indigenous and non-indigenous. Rather than recognizing the impacts of inaction, the minister prefers to throw up her hands and agree with another political party that it is an emergency happening under her watch. The Liberals would rather have a debate here than to have brought people to the table months ago. That is why Nova Scotians are watching, including my own family, which is from Fall River, Nova Scotia. This has gripped the entire region and country.

It is harder to show leadership by showing a path to a mediated long-term outcome, so instead the government prefers more talk, press conferences with ministers and calling this an emergency when it had five years. For four of those years, every single MP in that region was a Liberal MP. Instead of making this a priority, the Liberals were taking away the Atlantic Supreme Court justice, for example, until we stood up to that.

Let us go back in our history. As I have said to the Prime Minister before, who shows condescension every time I raise the issue of reconciliation, all governments in our history have not lived up to what we owe our Constitution and indigenous Canadians. We are here to work on a solution if we can. We need less talk, fewer photo ops and fewer hashtags. We need real leadership that brings all communities together to find a solution.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Leader of the Opposition went to law school and graduated in 2003. I graduated in 2004 from the same law school. While I was there, I was taught that there are three laws in Canada: the English common law, the French civil law and indigenous law.

I have heard some say that there cannot be more than one law in Canada in the fisheries. I am wondering if the Leader of the Opposition believes in legal pluralism or whether there can be more than one law in the fisheries.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that the member for Sydney—Victoria went to Dalhousie law school. I am very proud to have gone there and to be a graduate.

It is interesting that Donald Marshall himself, a victim of a miscarriage of our justice system, was failed by lawyers, judges and the attorney general at the time in Nova Scotia, all of them Dalhousie law graduates. I know the member knows that. It is why we study not only the Marshall wrongful conviction but the two Marshall decisions related afterwards.

Donald Marshall was caught fishing eels, doing so for a moderate livelihood. His case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The first decision of the Supreme Court was with respect to the aboriginal right, a constitutional treaty in origin. It said we must respect that; it is important. The second decision said that the government can regulate for conservation and for regulatory structure. That is why for five years the government could have been finding a solution that would have respected our Constitution, would have respected the indigenous right, would have respected the local community and impact on the long-term viability on the fishery, and would have respected the legacy of Donald Marshall, which all Atlantic Canadians and all Dalhousie law graduates certainly know and remember.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not remind the hon. leader of the official opposition that the Marshall decision was not handed down five years ago, but 21 years ago. It is worth noting that the Harper government was in office for much of that time.

Approximately 15% of the people in my riding are indigenous. There are also many Innu and Naskapi communities back home, and they are very interested in what is happening at present. They have a host of questions, including one that Martial Pinette of Kawawachikamach and Arnaud Mckenzie Volant of Uashat mak Mani-utenam asked me to answer: Why would the minister want to send the RCMP to Nova Scotia instead of just simply going there and negotiating? The first nations themselves are asking this question. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on this.

[Erin O'Toole, Conservative, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Manicouagan for her question.

Twenty-one years have passed since the Marshall decision was handed down. As I stated in my speech, a number of Liberal and Conservative government made mistakes in the past. Now, five years later, we still do not have a solution to offer to the indigenous peoples and rural communities of Nova Scotia.

We must show leadership to find a solution and present a plan for the indigenous and non-indigenous communities of Nova Scotia. Five years have passed and we are still waiting. That is also the case for all the important issues. The government still waits, and that is unacceptable.

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by denouncing the violence happening in my region, in southwestern Nova Scotia, in the Clare and St. Marys Bay areas.

Everything we have been seeing to date is happening in the riding of West Nova. I wish I were not here talking about this tonight. I wish there were a solution at hand that was brought forward days, months or years ago to solve the issue of moderate livelihood for indigenous people. During that process, I would have thought there would have been some consultation along the way with the people of West Nova whose lobster fishery is being affected by this.

This has been happening for weeks. This has been happening for months. At least two months ago, I wrote my first letter to the minister underlining the issue that is before us. I have asked questions in the House. I brought it up in my debate to the address in reply.

Finally, now that these threats have been thrown around and the violence has become too much, people seem interested in what is happening in West Nova. Where were the other MPs? One would have thought that at some point I would have received a phone call from someone asking what the situation really means.

What is causing the problem we are seeing in West Nova? I can tell the House that the people I represent are scared and worried about what is happening in their communities. They are wondering what is going to happen next in their communities.

Before I get to the current situation, I want to ask the minister and the people who are speaking here today to please not paint my area as racist. There are probably a few, as in many of our ridings. It is true there is systemic racism in Canada, but my area is not racist by default. That does not represent the majority of my citizens.

Let us talk about where this starts. I know I do not have enough time to talk about all the things I really want to talk about regarding where the current situation is going, but the concern of an illegal fishery in St. Marys Bay has been known by the DFO for many years, with some natives and non-natives involved.

We just need to look at the recent case of Sheng Ren Zheng of China, who was charged in Nova Scotia back in August for selling indigenous lobsters. Residents in the community of Clare tell me that this is still going on. The DFO and the RCMP need to continue these investigations and make public the information from them.

That extra illegal activity has been affecting the local lobster stock by about 60%. The people of Clare are very worried about retaliation. To date they have been very quiet about this, but it is one of many points of discussion that is not about the current situation of moderate livelihood.

The Marshall decision and the treaty rights are accepted by local fishers in the area, but, as it will affect their livelihood, they should be consulted, and it should be discussed with them at the base. Marshall 2 and subsequent fisheries committee, the FOPO committee, led by the member for Malpeque at the time, was very expressive in including all participants in discussions to define what a moderate livelihood fishery actually is.

I guess the DFO needs to learn that consultation requires listening, not just talking, which is all it seems to do. I have heard it from the minister a number of times already. I have talked to fishers. She has made a couple of phone calls. She does not really understand what their concerns are, or at least it has not been shown that she knows what the core of this discussion really is.

I made a number of points in my letter about the Marshall decision, what the Marshall decision is and what it is not. I thought I raised probably the one point that is in here, but the letter is available on my website. First and foremost, the court claims that it did not hold that the Mi'kmaq treaty right could not be regulated, nor that the Mi'kmaq were guaranteed an open season in the fisheries. That is paragraph two of the Marshall decision. The court emphasized that the treaty right had always been subject to regulation, and the government's power to regulate the treaty right had been repeatedly affirmed in the September 17, 1999, majority judgment. That is paragraph 24 of the Marshall decision.

There are a number of suggestions of what the Marshall decision is and what it is not. Most fishers and most associations that I have talked to accept the decision of Marshall 2. They look forward to negotiation, discussion and consultation when it comes to this issue.

I also hear from the minister about the nation-to-nation negotiation, and that there is no seat for commercial fishers at the table. I am okay with that. Commercial fishermen are okay with that as well, but in most negotiations there is always a second consultation table where experts sit so they can go back and confirm what they are thinking and what they are not thinking. As a matter of fact, in the recent negotiation with the United States, nation-to-nation, on NAFTA, we know that Jerry Dias was sitting at the table with the negotiators representing workers.

The workers in the fishing community, which is the base of all of our economic activity in West Nova, just want to be able to sit at the table, to be part of that negotiation and to be able to provide a moderate livelihood for their families as well.

There are tensions on all sides. Not everyone is subject to this, but I have seen threats from all sides. Tensions need to be brought down. I spend my days talking to fishermen and telling them to stand down while negotiations are ongoing, and quite honestly, I am getting very tired of it. I ask for everyone's help to continue to bring down this pressure.

This morning at a rally in Barrington, the previous minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia Sterling Belliveau said something important that worries me. He said, “If you're not at the table, you're probably on the menu” and today my fishers are really worried that, because they are not being consulted and they are not at the table talking about things, their industry is on the menu.

I am looking forward to getting calls from all my colleagues wondering what is going on in the fishery in Nova Scotia, but I need the minister to step up. I need her to be here on the ground. I need her to meet with fishermen, both indigenous and non-indigenous as well. As a matter of fact, I have a truck and I am more than happy to pick her up, drive her down and keep her safe while we have these discussions.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, before I get to my question, I want to highlight the fact that, although we would never condone what we have seen in terms of the violence, I would join those who have already condemned that type of behaviour. I do not think it is reflective of the entire industry, and those were important remarks to be made.

The member opposite referenced an illegal fishery. As parliamentarians may know, I represent the community of Sipekne'katik, the first nation at the heart of this issue. I do not see this as an illegal fishery. It may be unauthorized, but the Supreme Court says that the right exists. Will the member from West Nova acknowledge that the fishing activities that Sipekne'katik is conducting right now is not illegal?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that it is an unauthorized fishery that is going on with Sipekne'katik, but there is an illegal fishery going on in St. Mary's Bay. In the background, underneath the ocean, there are thousands of traps. There are lots of lobsters being sold for cash. This is a well-known issue in the area of Clare, and something that DFO needs to seriously look into and rectify. The community, I think, would be more at ease if it knew that was being taken care of.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from West Nova for his speech.

I have a question for him. He spoke about the notion of moderate livelihood a number of times. I must admit that I was surprised to hear him mention it, not because this is not at the very heart of what is going on right now in Nova Scotia, at the heart of all of this tension that needs to be defused and resolved. I was surprised because, as I mentioned, today I attended a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. We try not to play politics and say that Fisheries and Oceans Canada should have defined the notion of “moderate livelihood” 21 years ago, or even back in 1761. Fisheries and Oceans Canada did not exist in 1761, and neither did Canada.

People claim to want to talk about it now, but when I moved a motion on this topic, no one agreed. No one would even tell me who was responsible. If it is not up to the Supreme Court, legislators, the government or committees, then who is responsible?

I would like to hear my hon. colleague's thoughts on why they voted against my motion? Who is supposed to define “moderate livelihood”?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

As I was not at the committee meeting, I cannot answer on behalf of my colleagues who were there. It is the government that has to negotiate and define “moderate livelihood”. A Fisheries and Oceans Canada negotiator is already working on that. Mr. Jim Jones is responsible for negotiations. The government has to define this concept.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in a statement issued on October 17, a Conservative called on the Prime Minister to keep all Nova Scotians safe and to “include commercial fish harvesters in discussions” regarding their livelihoods. This sounds like all lives matter logic, and it is unacceptable. Let us also be clear that the negotiations are between the Mi'kmaq fishers and the federal government. The federal government has a role to play in protecting their constitutional and treaty right.

Will the member not agree that the first step to ending racially motivated violence is to call out the racism that is driving it and to defend the indigenous community that is the target of this violence?

[Chris d'Entremont, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite the member to come visit West Nova, to visit the beautiful Acadian communities that have existed since coming back from deportation when the British kicked them out of Nova Scotia.

Does the member want to talk about racism? Let us talk about some of those very things. They are not a racist people. They are very concerned about the livelihoods of their families. Shame on her for calling them racists.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to this emergency debate on the escalating violence against indigenous fishers. I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

I cannot begin my speech without first strongly condemning the criminal acts that have been committed in Nova Scotia, and the hatred and racism levelled at the Mi'kmaq people that we have seen lately. Absolutely nothing justifies this.

On September 17, as we already know, indigenous fishers launched their lobster fishing season in St. Mary's Bay, Nova Scotia. Ever since, there has been a growing number of confrontations, acts of vandalism, assaults, fires and much more.

Fishers from the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet nations have treaty rights that were confirmed by a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in 1999. The Marshall decision recognized the right of indigenous peoples to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood, while abiding by federal regulations. However, the Supreme Court never defined the limits of livelihood fishing, which continues to be a source of contention with non-indigenous fishers to this day.

It is rather unfortunate that this government's and its predecessors' negligence has caused the situation to deteriorate to the point of the present crisis. If governments had not dragged their heels on this matter, things would not have gotten this bad and we would not be here talking about it. It is deplorable that one fisheries and oceans minister after another, including the current one, has failed to act on the Marshall decision by implementing a regulatory framework negotiated nation to nation that respects constitutional treaty rights and the need to conserve the resource.

In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court recognized the Mi'kmaq people's commercial fishing rights arising from a 1760 treaty with the British. Previous rulings affirmed that this right terminated in the 1780s, but the Supreme Court determined that the Mi'kmaq right to subsistence fishing remained a treaty right within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

In its second decision, which was rendered in November 1999, the Supreme Court set out the terms of its first decision and found that the federal and provincial governments have the authority, within their respective legislative fields, to regulate the exercise of a treaty right where justified on conservation or other grounds.

The Marshall judgment referred to the Supreme Court's principal pronouncements on the various grounds on which the exercise of treaty rights may be regulated. The paramount regulatory objective is the conservation of the resource, and responsibility for it is placed squarely on the minister responsible and not on the indigenous or non-indigenous users of the resource. The regulatory authority extends to other compelling public objectives, which may include economic and regional fairness, and recognition of the historical reliance upon, and participation in, the fishery by non-indigenous groups.

Indigenous people are entitled to be consulted about limitations on the exercise of treaty and indigenous rights. In other words, it is up to the federal government, more specifically the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, to implement regulations to ensure the prosperity and conservation of the resource in consultation with indigenous peoples.

The Liberals have now been in power for five years, not counting the other years they have been in power since 1999, of course. Why have they not yet created regulations? That is their responsibility. As a result of the government's inaction, we now find ourselves once again faced with a conflict between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Despite a Supreme Court of Canada decision, the federal government has been unable to come up with a framework for implementing it in the more than 20 years since it was handed down.

I read an interesting Radio-Canada article this morning that quoted Martin Papillon, director of the Research Centre on Public Policy and Social Development at the University of Montreal. He corroborated what I just said when he stated:

Although the Supreme Court established the key principles, it cannot tell us what to do every time. It is up to the government, with indigenous nations, to find common ground for the implementation of the Marshall decision.

He added:

The implementation of indigenous rights will not happen on its own, as if by magic. Governments must intervene [and] negotiate in good faith with indigenous nations to find solutions.

This is not the only issue on which the federal government is dragging its feet. We also saw this with the rail blockades, for instance, just before the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than coming up with a comprehensive, long-term strategy, the government has a habit of not intervening until tensions peak. This results in the kind of unfortunate events we have seen.

The article I cited earlier also quotes Jean Leclair, a professor at the University of Montreal's faculty of law, who said:

Once again, the government failed to take any action that would have prevented this kind of explosion. It always takes a piecemeal approach, acting only when a crisis erupts. Of course this was fertile ground for violence and racism.

It is important to establish a structure for the negotiations, rather than proceeding on a case-by-case basis. As we all know, every issue that sets the government and first nations at odds has its own unique features. We need to adopt some general principles to govern the negotiations.

I know that I will be repeating myself, but it is important to do so. I strongly condemn the crimes committed in Nova Scotia, as well as the hatred and racism we have seen against the Mi'kmaq people.

It is unfortunate that Fisheries and Oceans Canada, successive governments and the current government have been unable to uphold the Marshall decision and create a regulatory framework through nation-to-nation negotiations, while respecting constitutional treaty rights and conservation of the resource.

Why did Fisheries and Oceans Canada wait until 2017, 18 years after the Marshall decision, to start negotiations with the various Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces? Why has this crisis gone on for two months? What has the Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard done throughout this crisis to ease tensions and resolve the situation?

A number of representatives from the Mi'kmaq community have even expressed doubts about whether the RCMP truly wants to protect them. How will the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness work to maintain the trust of the public, especially indigenous people, in the police?

Earlier today, the Minister of Indigenous Services stated that Mi'kmaq fishers were only operating in indigenous fisheries, which represent a mere fraction of the fisheries sector. Is he correct? If he is, why is it so difficult to come to an agreement with the Mi'kmaq communities? Is the government afraid of sowing discontent in the commercial fishery?

I condemn the inaction of successive governments, including this one, which has led to the deterioration of the situation and resulted in this current crisis. All of this could have been prevented by taking action a long time ago. The government must do its job and stop dragging its feet on this file and on many others.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over two decades ago, the Mi'kmaq people fought in court, and the courts ruled that they have the constitutionally upheld right to fish for a moderate livelihood. However, this is not only about their right to fish for lobster. It is about their basic human right to be free from violence. It is about justice in the face of violence and systemic racism.

The Liberal government, for all its words, has not fulfilled its obligations to uphold the treaty rights of the Mi'kmaq people. Its inaction has led to this situation, but the government has also failed to address the lack of action from the RCMP and DFO, the lack of action and the lack of justice.

When does the member think the Liberal government will stop paying lip service and actually take action to stand up for the rights of the Mi'kmaq people?

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

It is regrettable that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans under this and previous governments was incapable of implementing the Marshall decision and establishing regulations based on good nation-to-nation relations. I find it really unfortunate that it has taken the violence we are seeing in Nova Scotia to bring about action.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to participate in this emergency debate, I want to thank the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni and others for bringing this to the House.

There are other contextual elements here. One is that, over the last number of years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has given very large monopolistic licences for lobster harvesting to a large harvesting company, Clearwater Seafoods, which has multiple conservation violations, yet we are told that the concern of the fishery is that the indigenous people would hurt conservation. The evidence is to the contrary.

We are also told that the RCMP stood by and watched the violence, but there are other credible reports that the RCMP aided and abetted in violence. I would like to ask the hon. member if we should investigate both of these aspects.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member. Let's negotiate and let's stop the repression. That is important. When we were talking about nation to nation earlier, we were talking about equality, but that is not the case here. Inequality is still a reality for indigenous peoples across Quebec and Canada. We must act. This government needs to do something.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her speech, which I listened to very carefully.

At the end of the day, from one debate to the next, from one emergency debate to the next—because we always need to have emergency debates with this government—it has become clear that this government is good at apologizing 50 or 100 years too late. It never seems to do the right thing at the right time.

At the end of the day, listening to my hon. colleague, I have to wonder if we are in this situation today because Ottawa dragged its feet on this file for decades.