Debates of Oct. 19th, 2020

Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things we often hear in questioning is an impugning of the RCMP. I find this a challenge. The RCMP on the ground is working very hard. One of the challenges the RCMP has is how severely undermanned it is. The numbers are in the double digits across the country. I know an officer in my constituency has been waiting five years to transfer into a particular riding.

We have some challenges in the sense that this is federal. I wonder what the member would say to making indigenous police services guaranteed, not yearly ongoing funding but making them an essential service, and not blame the RCMP. It has challenges with respect to a manpower shortage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the issue of the RCMP. One of the findings that could come out of the public inquiry in Nova Scotia would be some of the challenges with respect to staffing and resource levels for the RCMP and police services in rural communities. Chief Sack spoke to me last week about his concern on the issue. I spoke to Minister Mark Furey, the attorney general of Nova Scotia, about measures that could be taken. I know he has confirmed with our federal Minister of Public Safety and additional resources are being provided.

It is a very nuanced situation. I do not pretend to understand the operational complexities of the policing on the ground, but I know those additional resources are available. I will continue to work with Chief Sack to ensure those measures are in place.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He and I have already talked about the situation in both his riding and mine. I commend him for his courage in speaking out for the communities that he represents, despite his government's inaction to date.

Earlier, I said that the government has not bothered to clearly define livelihood fishing and so the communities have come up with their own definition. I know that my colleague has a background in law.

I would like to know whether, from what he understands, he believes that it is legitimate for the communities to legislate on the issue under the law and the Marshall decision since the government has failed to clearly define the rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have mentioned before in the House, sometimes the words that are used are that this is an illegal fisher or that it is unauthorized. The fact is that the court has established the right exists.

The Sipekne'katik in moving forward with its fishing rights is not doing anything unlawful. The parameters or any type of limitation had never been set by the Government of Canada. I am not suggesting that necessarily should happen, but we do need a framework to create certainty so the indigenous communities that I represent have the ability and understanding of how they go about exercising their right and, at the same time, commercial fishermen understand how that right coexists within the existing system.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague and I would like a very straightforward answer if I could.

Will the Liberal government approach to the reconciliation of Mi'kmaq rights-based fishery be recognized as an indigenous regulated self-governance system that is parallel with the Government of Canada system?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prejudice the work of the minister in terms of her negotiations with Mi'kmaq communities. I know the conversations have been beneficial and positive from what I have heard from the indigenous leaders in my riding. Right now, all options are on the table on the best way to move forward. I know indigenous communities have developed their own self-management plans.

I do not have a fishing management background and I do not have the benefit of DFO providing context. However, I do know our government is open to find a pathway forward to create the certainty that everyone is seeking.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Kings—Hants said that he would support a side table for the commercial fishermen to have their say, and I agree with that.

I will give a bit of history. Previously, when we were talking about commercial allocations under Marshall, the commercial fishermen were at the table and they broke the impasse by suggesting one in and one out; in other words, buy a licence to give a licence in the fishery.

Does the member see that as a possibility moving forward to find solutions, whether it is a side table but at least involving the commercial fishermen?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have said before in my remarks that it is important that commercial fishers have some role in trying to not only bring down the tension that we have seen, but also to be constructive with respect to partners collectively in the fishery on how we move forward. We do not want them to be isolated and it is important they have the ability to at least provide input.

The negotiation has to be direct between the Government of Canada and indigenous communities, but there is room for other collaboration outside of that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate. Many of my colleagues who had the opportunity to visit Atlantic Canada, in particular, New Brunswick Southwest, know of our traditional fishing communities. All members from my region, even those who represent ridings that do not border the ocean, understand that at the core of Atlantic Canada is a sustainable fishing industry. Quotas, licences, zones and enforcement form a complex set of rules and regulations that ensure our waters can be fished for another generation and another generation after that, long into the future.

This emergency debate is entitled “Fisheries in Nova Scotia”, but in fact it impacts all of Atlantic Canada. Therefore, what is being contested here in Parliament and down east? It is not the Supreme Court of Canada's rulings. I do not believe I have heard anyone back home dispute the legitimacy of the Marshall decisions. The violence Canadians have witnessed is to be condemned. That too is agreed.

However, make no mistake, the ongoing pressure cooker we are witnessing on our east coast could have been de-escalated by Canada's fisheries minister and the federal government, specifically by adhering to the Marshall decisions and bringing affected fishing families to the table. This did not happen. Instead, fishing is happening out of season.

Fishing seasons are normally rigorously enforced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. However, not now, just as the regulated season is set to begin. People are confused and worried.

I do not condone the destruction of property and indigenous communities have the constitutional rights that have been spelled out by the courts. Moreover, they have the right to live safely like every other Canadian in the country, which is why we can understand both how indigenous peoples are anxious to exercise rights and how non-indigenous fisheries throughout Atlantic Canada are asking how decisions, made in a faraway capital, could impact them, their communities and their way of life. They have not received a reply.

Economist and social theorist, Thomas Sowell, once said, “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it.” As we know, the first lesson of politics is too often to disregard the first lesson of economics.

Too many fishing communities worry the federal government is biased against them and their way of life and will make them pay the bill for Canada's neglect of indigenous peoples.

Canada's opposition leader raised the deteriorating situation with the Prime Minister on September 18 and urged the federal government to de-escalate tensions and find a solution.

Maritime MPs could hear and see what was happening. This was true in Nova Scotia, this was true in P.E.I. and it was true in New Brunswick. Many of us raised these concerns in our caucuses and in the House, but time and time again the federal fisheries minister failed to respond.

Today, after violence, confusion and uncertainty, we have this emergency debate. This is a record of failure, not leadership.

What must we do moving forward? My Liberal colleague from Malpeque touched on this.

A necessary first step is for all members to understand the two Marshall decisions, those rights as well as responsibilities. The Supreme Court of Canada was clear that treaty rights were subject to federal regulations. The court stressed the priority of conservation and the responsibility to administer them belonged to the minister, not on indigenous or non-indigenous fishing communities.

Nova Scotia Liberal premier Stephen McNeil is also calling on the federal government to do its job. He said, “The quickest way and the best way to reduce tension is to have the federal minister and the department at the table with both sides at the same time.” He is correct.

First nations are entitled to be consulted about management on the exercise of their treaty rights, as laid out in Marshall. Similarly, Canada's fisheries minister should be discussing her vision with Canadians, including our fishing communities.

The fisheries minister said that she is in discussion with fishing associations. I do not believe that this is true, unless she thinks that one-way communication is dialogue, but that is not real dialogue, and it is not fair play. The minister has hired a retired DFO employee as a negotiator with 34 indigenous bands, yet no similar outreach has been made with commercial fishers.

Importantly, Canada's fisheries minister must stop relinquishing her duty of enforcement. DFO officers are highly trained and capable peace officers. The RCMP is no replacement. In fact, I believe once disputes are off the water and on the land, we have already missed the boat on solving the problem peacefully.

Atlantic Canada needs unbiased federal leadership. The government must offer that leadership while still recognizing the obligation that Canada has toward the two groups. These groups are different. Their expectations are different, but they both need to be respected.

Finally, I want to close my remarks by identifying a clear point to the government: Indigenous communities are already a part of Canada's traditionally regulated fishing communities. It started small. It is growing, but it is happening. They hold licences. They adhere to DFO guidelines, and they follow the rules. When the government works in silos to change the rules of the game, it is working to undermine the progress that has already been made.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his very important speech and the insight he has provided as an Atlantic Canadian to tonight's discourse.

What does the member think the minister of fisheries and oceans could do right now to get over the severe lack of leadership and the sad debate we are forced to have in this House of Commons tonight when she should be meeting with the people already?

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

Mr. Speaker, the most important thing the federal fisheries minister could do would be to reach out and sit down with the fishing communities throughout Atlantic Canada. It is as simple as that. Many of these families invest considerable amounts of their savings every year into the fishing industry. Those seasons are set to open, yet they are not sure how the season is going to operate

The minister should sit down with individuals and families to assure them that the federal government has their welfare as its focus as well as that of first nations.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying how wonderful it is to also have as part of this debate my colleague from Sydney—Victoria, who spoke earlier and is, of course, a member of the Mi'kmaq community. How important it is to have a member of the Mi'kmaq community as part of the House, expressing the views of his people.

I do have a question for my hon. colleague, who just gave a very eloquent speech. He alluded to the fact that several indigenous fishermen are using licences, and I wonder if he is implying that, because of this, we should not be respecting the treaty rights the Supreme Court has recognized.

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

Mr. Speaker, no, not at all. In fact, it was the Prime Minister who earlier tonight pointed out that the steps taken by previous governments were in line with the Marshall decision. In fact, in the Marshall decision, the second ruling from the courts stipulated that the federal government, when it came to a moderate living, had an obligation to be involved to set the parameters, particularly on conservation.

The member can ask the member for Malpeque about this. He did a report on it in the 1990s about the federal government having a duty to be involved to safeguard the industry, and the Supreme Court upheld that duty in the Marshall decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, for decades we have seen Supreme Court decisions that favour indigenous rights, and we see the government ignore these rights-based decisions in the courts, which are enshrined in the constitution, or they take years to implement. As soon as a nation loses in court or its right gets diminished, there is a regulation or policy in place in weeks, but when it is a nation that wins, the government drags its feet.

Does my colleague not see this as a problem? The Conservatives spent millions of dollars fighting indigenous fishing rights. In the Ahousaht case, it was tens of millions of dollars. Does he not respect that indigenous fishing rights are different, that they are an inherent right and privilege, and they are not the same as commercial fishing rights? I hope he will recognize that.

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

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I do recognize that, but I have also read both Marshall decisions, and I recognize there are limitations set on both parties. Neither side has a carte blanche to behave or to act as they would wish. It has to be done through negotiations.

I cannot speak to what has happened on the west coast, but I can speak to what has happened on the east coast, and the federal government has spent millions of dollars to bring first nations into the regulated fishing industry. It has not been easy, but that is the work that has been done, and today we see fishing families from different communities working side by side under the rules every year.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, in looking at the lobster fishery, which, of course, is a very significant industry for the region, that the large monopolistic holdings by Clearwater are a giant against a very small mouse of what first nations are allowed to fish.

I know some of the fishing is in partnership between Clearwater and Mi'kmaq fishers, but the question is this. Of the clear violation of conservation rules, the largest violations ignoring DFO restrictions to protect the lobster fishery have been those of Clearwater, and I do not see non-indigenous fishermen protesting Clearwater. I only see them protesting indigenous fishermen.

I wonder if my friend from New Brunswick Southwest has any comments on how this is allowed and how this has developed, because I know most non-indigenous fishermen are welcoming to indigenous fishermen. They want to work in partnership.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree that there is room for a lot of partnership. I do take exception that the non-indigenous fishing communities want the rules maintained on owner-operator, which means the owner of the licence is the person who fishes, and this runs against the idea of a large corporate fishery.

I would urge the member to come out, after our bubble opens up, and visit us. We will take her around to meet some of the traditional fisheries from the communities. They want to hold those licences and fish them. They do not want to give them up to commercial interests.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the reports of and the video showing conflict, including the burning of trucks and buildings, coming from Nova Scotia are indeed very disturbing. First nations people across Canada are justifiably angry at the actions or inaction from the Liberal government and its lack of leadership in directing the RCMP.

Let me be clear. While the government has, without question, failed to handle this crisis appropriately, violence, vandalism, assault, threats and intimidation tactics are wrong and are never justified. The safety of all Canadians must be the government's top priority. The Prime Minister and his government are not taking the concrete actions necessary to keep all Nova Scotians safe in their communities and to peacefully resolve this situation.

Senator Murray Sinclair, the former chair of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, had this to say yesterday, “I'm disheartened by the fact that the government's leadership—the leadership of this country—is not stepping up to the plate.”

A month ago, the Leader of the Opposition raised this situation directly with the Prime Minister. He told us about that again tonight. He asked the Prime Minister to step in and de-escalate tensions, and find a solution. Chief Sack, who himself has been assaulted during these demonstrations, released a statement that the arson “illustrates the need for greater police presence in the region....I do believe with the proper police presence, however, this could have been avoided”.

During Oral Questions earlier today, my colleague from Lakeland, the shadow minister for public safety, asked the minister why it took him so long to act and to ensure the safety of the Mi'kmaq people. Why did it take a very serious act of arson for the government to act? This sort of after-the-fact crisis management seems to be the only way the government deals with issues. Why is it that almost all affected groups can agree that the path forward is open and honest dialogue, yet it is the path that the government seems unwilling to take?

I agree that this situation is in fact an emergency, but the fact that the ministers in the government have requested an emergency debate perfectly sums up the government's preference for symbolic measures rather than actions. In my meetings and discussions with indigenous people I deal with, what I am hearing is that they are tired of the government's talk. They need action. Instead of debating this in Ottawa today, participating in press conferences and repeating talking points here in the House, these ministers should be on the ground in Nova Scotia, talking to the people there.

Many people have compared this situation to others earlier in the year, however, the similarities begin and end with the lack of proactive leadership. These issues have been allowed to simmer over a long period of time, with groups from all sides calling for action and leadership from the government. Instead of early actions, what consistently happens is that these simmering issues become full-blown fires that result in political talking points, finger-pointing and crisis management, rather than respectful dialogue and peaceful negotiations.

What do we see in Nova Scotia at the moment? I know I am a long ways away, but here is what I am seeing. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard, who lives in the same province that this emergency is taking place, is now holding press conferences and calling for late-night debates in an attempt to distract from the fact that she and her government have mishandled this issue for months.

Canadians are tired of this, and they are not buying it anymore. This is not a new issue. The Liberals have now sat on the government benches for five years. As a result of their failures, we now have seen people injured, property damaged and livelihoods challenged. Tensions between indigenous and non-indigenous fishermen are at an all-time high in this region.

I would never pretend to speak for first nations people, however, my experience growing up in northern Saskatchewan showed me that relationship-building is important and valued. It is something that I think all Canadians could learn from. That is why it is counterproductive for the Liberal ministers to be here in Ottawa debating this issue, rather than meeting with people on the ground, and developing real and authentic relationships, working towards actual solutions. The last thing this issue needs is more political debate. It needs actions.

In both Marshall decisions in 1999, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly affirmed the right of the Mi'kmaq to hunt, fish and gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood arising out of the peace and friendship treaties of 1760 and 1761 with Britain. However, there were restrictions outlined by the court, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was to regulate.

First, this is where the term “moderate livelihood” is first introduced. In the Marshall decision, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote:

Catch limits that could reasonably be expected to produce a moderate livelihood for individual Mi’kmaq families at present-day standards can be established by regulation and enforced without violating the treaty right.

The Premier of Nova Scotia has now joined the call of many others for the government to seek a definition of present-day standards of “moderate livelihood”, and to give guidance to all of the parties. Premier McNeil stated, “This is only getting more entrenched...they need to be in the same room so everyone knows what each other is saying”. Instead of seeking this clarity, the government has decided to hold press conferences and late-night debates. Again, there is talk but little action.

Second, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the responsibility of ensuring proper conservation. I quote:

The regulatory device of a closed season is at least in part directed at conservation of the resource. Conservation has always been recognized to be a justification of paramount importance to limit the exercise of treaty and aboriginal rights in the decisions of this Court cited in the majority decision of September 17, 1999, including Sparrow, supra, and Badger, supra. As acknowledged by the Native Council of Nova Scotia in opposition to the Coalition’s motion, “[c]onservation is clearly a first priority and the Aboriginal peoples accept this”.

The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard could have requested that her department undertake a study to determine whether the out-of-season fishing endangers lobster stocks and could have made those results public, but instead she and her colleagues chose to hold press conferences and late-night debates. Again, there is talk but little action.

Let me be clear. As I said when I began my comments tonight, while the government has, without question, failed to handle this crisis, violence, vandalism, assault, threats and intimidation tactics are always wrong and they are never justified. The safety of all Canadians must be the government's top priority. The Prime Minister and his government must take the concrete steps necessary to keep everybody in Nova Scotia safe in their communities and to resolve this situation in a peaceful manner.

Pitting groups against each other has only led to the current situation. This issue is not about indigenous versus non-indigenous. All Nova Scotians are being let down by a federal government that has failed to take action and has ignored the issue for five years, and now refuses to meet with all of the parties to come to a peaceful resolution. Make no mistake, the Liberal minister's request for an emergency debate is, as Toronto journalist Chris Selley put it, “jaw-droppingly cynical”. It is purely political and, as they have with all of their failures, all criticism by opposition parties will be labelled as petty partisanship.

In closing, I would hope that members on all sides of the House can agree that it is time the current Liberal government started showing leadership on this issue. It is time that the Liberals move on from the platitudes and empty promises and do the work that Canadians elected them to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk from the Conservatives tonight about the inaction over 21 years, but they forget that they were in power for 11 of those years. In 2013, I was not in Parliament. I was just one of the other protestors on the street with the Idle No More movement, protesting Stephen Harper.

I am wondering if the member can talk about what, during those 11 years, the Conservatives can point to where there was action by their party that they can be proud of and that moved things forward on the high-level treaty negotiations that Stephen Harper promised back then.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, earlier tonight, the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo eloquently stated that there is a history of failure on behalf of many governments on some of these issues, and I think she took ownership of that.

Let me point out for the member that it was under the Harper government that the apology for residential schools was enacted. It was under the Harper government that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was founded. The calls to action that come from that, which are now being addressed and being implemented by many governments, are because of that initiative.

Let me also just say that we can continue to point to the failures of governments from the past, but the current government has been in power for five years. For the Liberals to simply keep pointing the finger at somebody prior to them is no longer a good excuse.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I completely agree with him that, while the government is good at putting on a show, making grand gestures and holding emergency debates, it never really takes concrete action.

I sincerely hope that the government will pay heed to everything parliamentarians have said this evening. Even Liberal members have been saying what the government should do, which is pretty ironic.

I will echo the question the member for Manicouagan asked the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations earlier.

In my colleague's opinion, what timeline or short-term agenda should the government, and, in particular, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, aim for on this file?

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I obviously agree on a number of elements around this issue.

As I think I verbalized quite clearly in my comments, we need to see the ministers on the ground in Nova Scotia talking to people and being part of the solution. My colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo commented earlier on the value of face-to-face discussions, rather than having a Zoom meeting or that kind of thing. The value of those face-to-face discussions is immeasurable.

A number of times today members talked about having a side table, including a couple of my Liberal colleagues. This side table would allow the nation-to-nation discussions that need to go on between the government and the first nations communities to go forward. It would also create an opportunity for other parties that are being affected by this issue to be part of the discussion and part of the solution. Out of that we get win-wins rather than win-losses.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the truth of the matter is that successive governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed indigenous peoples. This matter has been on the books for a long time. It is 21 years in the making, since the Marshall decision, with violations of the basic human rights of indigenous peoples. Our history has shown us what has happened to date. So far, previous governments have either taken an incremental approach to addressing the rights of indigenous peoples or taken no action at all. That is on the Conservatives and that is on the Liberals.

Here we are today. If action had been taken following the Marshall decision, back in 1999, I do not believe we would be having this conversation. If all previous governments had honoured the rights of indigenous peoples, we would not be having this discussion today.

Will the member support unequivocally the rights of indigenous people as outlined in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples? Moving forward, let us have no more incrementalism—

[The Deputy Speaker, Bruce Stanton]

We are out of time now.

The hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I spent a number of moments tonight talking about actions versus words. I will take no lessons from the member of the New Democratic Party. For the brief time the New Democratic Party had some power in the history of government, which it believed to be the balance of power, it chose to prop up the Liberal government. Not once have I seen, in any negotiation, the NDP stand up for indigenous people on any matters. All we have seen is rhetoric and talk. It comes back to the same thing: actions and words.