Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to join all my colleagues here today to discuss what is a very important topic for all Canadians but indeed for my constituents in Kings—Hants. I have said it before but I will say it again. I have the privilege of representing three indigenous communities in Kings—Hants: Sipekne'katik, the community at the heart of the issue we are discussing here tonight, in Saulnierville, but also Annapolis Valley First Nation and Glooscap First Nation.
Before I get too deep into my remarks, I want to start by giving some context to my colleagues, and indeed all Canadians, about my relationship and my history with the community of Sipekne'katik. I grew up in Lantz, which is about 10 minutes down the road. I know Chief Mike Sack personally. I coached his son in hockey. We had a lot of very successful years with the East Hants Penguins hockey association. I grew up with members from the Sipekne'katik community going to Hants East Rural High.
I have seen the challenges, having been to the community a number of times, on socio-economic grounds, and I know the moderate livelihood treaty right is something that is very important to this community. That is obviously well demonstrated in our conversations here tonight, but also Chief Sack and council explained to me early in my mandate of last year that this was something they wanted to be able to move forward on.
I will go next to joining those who have already condemned the violence, destruction of property, intimidation and frankly the racism we have seen. The member for West Nova, in his remarks this evening, really wanted to highlight that his community as a whole is not represented in those actions. That is an important point to make.
I had conversations with Chief Mike Sack. I had conversations with commercial fishers in my community. Many exist of course in West Nova, but I do have a commercial fishery in my riding as well. It is important to note the actions of the individuals in question do not represent the whole industry; they do not speak for the industry. It is important we focus on and denounce those who have been part of that, but also recognize that it is not necessarily indicative of the entire industry or the communities they represent.
I want to begin by also highlighting the history of where we find ourselves and why we are here tonight. It has been well canvassed of course, but the Marshall decision of September 1999 from the Supreme Court of Canada established the moderate livelihood treaty right. It said it was communal in nature but that it was provided to Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities. Two months later, as the member for Sydney—Victoria explained, the court not only reaffirmed the moderate livelihood treaty right but provided a clarification that the Government of Canada has the ability to introduce a minimally impairing regulatory framework. Of course that has not yet been done 21 years later, and I would assert that this is at least a contributing factor to some of the tensions we have seen over the past two decades.
The aspect around minimally impairing goes back to the Badger case. The Supreme Court of Canada established in the mid-1990s that if the Government of Canada even considered impugning a constitutionally protected treaty right, it had to be minimally impairing in nature. It had to be proportional to the substantive public policy objective being achieved. The court provided conservation as one example, but left the door open for other substantive public policy objectives that the government saw as important.
After that decision, the governments from Chrétien and Martin really focused on ensuring Mi'kmaq communities had access to the commercial fishery. It is well established that there were hundreds of millions of dollars spent. I think at one point in 1999 the value of the commercial fishery for Mi'kmaq communities was about $3 million. It now is well over $150 million because of that initiative.
The commercial licences that were provided to Mi'kmaq communities did not impugn or infringe any of the existing treaty rights, so the moderate livelihood issue was not resolved or dealt with in those initiatives. We had the Harper government from 2006 to 2015, which had a program to provide additional capital to indigenous communities. We are partisan in the House, but I think it is objective to say that this was not a priority for that government.
From 2015 to now, we have had a government that has been very focused on trying to make reconciliation a pillar of its work. There is more to be done, as has been mentioned by other members in this House tonight.
In speaking with Chief Sack this morning, I would like to highlight the fact that, although there were Marshall initiative commercial licences provided to many Mi'kmaq communities across Atlantic Canada, Sipekne'katik had not signed on to those. Also, they were not part of any subsequent commercial funding to help support their community.
The question is not whether or not the moderate livelihood right exists. The key reason we are here tonight is to ask and examine how we go about implementing that right. We are 21 years past the Marshall decision and, despite the work I mentioned that has advanced the interests of indigenous communities as it relates to the fishery, we have not come any closer to understanding the clarity and context needed for indigenous communities to go about exercising that right.
I have put public statements out to try to address this issue, given the fact that indigenous communities I represent are involved in this. The clarity we are seeking is not only important for indigenous leaders in my riding of Kings—Hants, and indeed across Atlantic Canada. It is also important for commercial fishers who are trying to understand how the moderate livelihood right is going to be exercised, what types of parameters will be set and how that co-exists with the current commercial fishing industry. That clarity is important for all those involved. When we get to that point, it is going to help reduce the tensions.
There has been a lot of context and conversations about having commercial fishers at the table. I would reiterate and support the position our government has taken that this is the Government of Canada dealing directly with indigenous communities, and that those negotiations have to be direct in nature. However, I would support the idea, and I think it is important, to make sure we have commercial fishers and their representatives in the industry able to have a side table or another aspect for dialogue, to make sure we can bring parties together to try to reduce the tension we are seeing.
Simply put, last week was ugly. It was terrible to see and I know it drew the attention of Nova Scotians and Canadians, but we need to be able to find dialogue to bring down that tension. Certainly, some members in the House have discussed that tonight. That is extremely important.
The member for Sydney—Victoria also talked about options or solutions. I will highlight some of the ones I have heard, by first talking about the indigenous communities I have had the chance to speak to. I spoke to Chief Mike Sack, Chief Sid Peters and Chief Gerald Toney in the three indigenous communities I represent. There is clearly a desire to want to implement this right by using the commercial plans the communities have developed in terms of self-management plans. They have made it clear to me that this is something they desire. They understand there has to be co-operation with DFO and oversight, so the word “codevelopment” has been mentioned.
Other individuals have mentioned the ability to provide commercial licences to Mi'kmaq communities but to have those commercial licences with an autonomy for indigenous communities to sublicense those how they see fit to their community members, so that they would have the autonomy of how that resource is shared within the community. If it got to the point that the community could justify that there are more members who need the ability to access their moderate livelihood right, additional commercial licences could be provided. We heard from two Mi'kmaq senators and the member for Sydney—Victoria about the aspect of creating a separate indigenous fishing authority. That is also another option that the government could look at.
At the end of the day, the Government of Canada does have the ability to implement a regulatory framework that is minimally impairing, and I would agree with the members who have already said we do not want to promote a top-down approach. In fact, the court in Marshall made it very clear that collaboration and negotiation is the preferred approach. However, I have been asked my position on this outside of the House and the important piece is that 21 years from now, we do not want to still be discussing this issue. We need to find a framework to move forward. If that means, worst-case scenario, that the Government of Canada was to introduce a minimally impairing regulatory framework in order to be able to implement that right, that is something I support. I want to make sure that is on the record.
I am hopeful. Although this has been 21 years in the making, at the end of the day, I believe this is the watershed moment where the attention is on this issue. We have a government that is focused on wanting to implement the right and make something very positive happen. I know that will take dialogue.
I have heard a lot of comments in the House that this work needs to begin. This work has been ongoing. Sometimes it is not always visible in the public, but I know our minister has been working—