Debates of Oct. 19th, 2020

Lobster Fishery Dispute in Nova Scotia

[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, Conservative, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the House, (a) affirm the treaty and inherent rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people affirmed in the 1752 treaty and the subsequent treaties of 1760 and 1761, confirmed in the Canadian Constitution and in the Supreme Court of Canada ruling in the 1999 Marshall case; (b) recognize the Mi'kmaq Nation deserves full and equal protection by the law from the violence and intimidation of domestic tourism; and (c) recognize the failure of the federal government to respect its nation-to-nation relationship to negotiate with the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people to accommodate the moderate livelihood fishery that has led to the crisis we are facing today.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This being a hybrid sitting of the House, I will ask only whether any members are opposed to the motion for unanimous consent proposed by the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Any member saying nay, please do so now.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We do not have unanimous consent.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour.

Canadians are saddened by the violence, the threats and racism we have witnessed over the last couple of weeks in my home province of Nova Scotia. I can assure Canadians and the House that this government is focused on this issue and will continue to work with first nations to implement their constitutional treaty right to fish for a moderate livelihood and ensure there is security and safety on the ground.

We understand the importance of collaborative dialogue and that is why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in regular communication with the first nations and industry leadership to find a path forward. The only way to do that is through de-escalation and continued dialogue, and we are hearing a lot of that tonight.

Recent events surrounding Nova Scotia's fisheries have brought this issue to the forefront. However, let me be clear that our government's priority remains and will always remain the safety of everyone involved. We need and want to lower all the tensions for a calm, productive resolution to this impasse. There is room for everyone's voices to be heard and we can build a safe, productive and sustainable lobster fishery for all harvesters.

I, like all Canadians, especially those in my province of Nova Scotia, am saddened by the events in Digby county and West Pubnico. This government condemns the actions of every single individual who destroyed property, committed violence or uttered threats. There is no place for this kind of violence or intimidation in Canada, and I know Canadians across the country share the same feeling.

It is especially disturbing to hear reports of racist comments by some and actions made toward first nations people. This is unacceptable. We all have a responsibility, and I believe somebody else said it tonight, to call this kind of behaviour out, and the language. I would be remiss to say that the actions of some of the fishers in West Nova is not reflective of the community I have come to know. They are good people, caring people, industrious people, but the actions by those individuals need to be taken into account.

We are committed, as a government, to building nation-to-nation, government-to-government relationships based on the principles of respect, partnership and recognition of rights.

Also, this government takes its commitment to reconciliation seriously and acknowledges what we are hearing tonight, that past systems, approaches and methods have not worked.

Canada has started on the path to right these wrongs in partnership with indigenous people, provincial governments, territorial governments and all Canadians. We are currently working in collaboration with first nations to implement their treaty rights to fish in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. Since the landmark Supreme Court of Canada Marshall decision of 1999, which affirmed these rights, the path toward implementation has had its successes and its setbacks.

Over the years, the department has launched several programs and has made investments to address the rights of the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet communities in Atlantic Canada and Quebec, beginning with the Marshall response initiative. Then we have subsequent programs like the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative that continues today to provide funding and support to Marshall communities to build the capacity of the commercial fishing enterprises and strengthen community economic self-sufficiency.

We have been negotiating with Marshall groups since 2017 to collaborate on the articulation of their rights to the rights of reconciliation agreements. Last year we signed rights and reconciliation agreements with three first nations communities.

This does not mean we are done. We are not done by a long shot. There are still challenges we must work together to address and further implement the treaty.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about the hard-working women and men who make up our fisheries. Their work helps rural and coastal communities like mine and their catches end up on the tables across Canada, providing Canadians with high-quality sustainable seafood year-round.

In my riding of Cape Breton—Canso, I think of commercial fishers like Bobby, Herbie, Jeannie, Carla, James, Leonard, Brian, Mike, Gordon, Rocky, Glen and Dwayne. They have been strong leaders in the local fishery and had mentored me about the fishing sector, especially in the past year. These fishers want to be a part of the solution. I think of my extended family, who are fishers as well. They too want to be a part of the solution.

I am especially proud of the LFAs in Cape Breton—Canso that have not resorted to violence, but, rather, have been open to listening and learning about how we can all come together and follow a collective path forward. I thank them for their leadership.

Yes, I have been in contact with commercial fishers in my riding and they have been clear. They want to be heard and to be part of the conversation about the future of the fishery. This is the case with commercial harvesters across my entire province. I would like to note that the minister is committed to appointing a ministerial special representative to help foster dialogue and co-operation and this appointment will be informed by consultations with both first nations and industry representatives.

I also know that in my travels throughout my riding, many voiced concerns over conservation. I want them and everyone to know that we are listening. Conservation is a priority shared by everyone: DFO, first nations and industry. Every party wants to see this resource conserved for generations to come and I believe we have that in common. I want to assure everyone that DFO will continue to monitor stocks and will only move forward with a plan that ensures the health of the fishery.

I think we can all agree that reconciliation is an imperative for Canada. That is why it is important to work in the spirit of respect. We all have a role to play. What is currently happening in Nova Scotia does not advance this goal, nor does it support the implementation of first nations treaty rights or a productive or orderly fishery. Frankly, it is not helping any party involved. More importantly, I know that this is not a true reflection of Nova Scotia, my home province and my home. This is not what it means to be Nova Scotia strong.

The current issues surrounding the fishery are long-standing and deeply personal to all involved. The only way to resolve it is through respectful and collaborative dialogue and we must continue to work together, nation to nation, government to government, but also along with industry to support a viable and sustainable fishery for years to come.

I appreciate this time to speak on such an important matter, not just for my riding, but for my province and my country.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that after four-plus hours into this emergency debate tonight, I am somewhat confused. I am somewhat confused over process because it is my assumption that the purpose of an emergency debate that was called for by four ministers is to draw sufficient attention to a matter. Therefore, I would ask the member opposite whose attention we are trying to get this evening.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, good governments, when they are looking at a situation like that we are facing today, want to bring the country together, not to just create awareness about a particular problem, but also to look within as a government for solutions and look to other parties for ideas, suggestions, recommendations and potential solutions that are going to help a problem that, as we heard tonight, is not a five-year issue or a 21-year issue, but an issue that has been going on for centuries and centuries.

I would say that in the spirit of the discussion I just brought up, it is important to collaborate, co-operate and get insight from wherever we can get it. We have heard so many great ideas here tonight. That is what good governments do: they listen and they act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rather fascinated by what I just heard: We listen, we collaborate and, when the other parties give us advice, we follow it.

That is ironic because during the rail crisis with the Wet'suwet'en in January, we said for weeks that the minister and the Prime Minister should go on site and negotiate instead of sending the RCMP. They did not listen to us. It took weeks and, in the end, they went on site and that is how the crisis was resolved.

We are currently experiencing the same thing. They let the situation deteriorate and today we find ourselves having an emergency debate to resolve it. I agree with my colleague that they should listen to us more often. When they do, it works.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question: What other situation will have to get out of hand before they take the opposition's advice?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the premise of the member's question. This government has been working diligently on this file with first nations chiefs in Nova Scotia, and not making just one or two calls to fishing associations, but working hand in glove to find a collaborative solution to this issue. It is one we are going to continue to work on.

Do we look toward suggestions from other parties? Beyond the fact it is a minority government, it is the Canadian thing to do to look and see where other solutions and ideas come from. That is what makes this government different from past governments. We are listening and working with others to try to make good things—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was given a name by the Tsuu T'ina people in Alberta, Gumistiyi, meaning “the one who tries”. I know some people in my province are watching this debate. They are telling me that the Prime Minister and government need to try harder.

How can they stand in this House during an emergency debate and say that reconciliation is the most important thing they have, say that they really want to solve this problem and then vote against a unanimous consent motion asking them to support the people of Nova Scotia?

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Cape Breton—Canso, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been unequivocal, along with the cabinet and party, in terms of the importance placed on truth and reconciliation, but also making key investments in areas such as education, health and housing. Just over the past year working in my first nations communities, the three I represent proudly, we have made some strategic investments around water, wastewater and housing that have been instrumental and important for first nations communities. We have done that through collaboration and co-operation.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by acknowledging that I am here in Mi’kma’ki, on the unceded territory of the Mi'kmaq peoples. I am not far from the Shubenacadie waterway that has been used by the Mi'kmaq for thousands of years.

Although I know that issues surrounding the Nova Scotia fishery are deeply personal to all involved, I want to be very clear when I say that I am disgusted by the incidents of racism and violence in southwest Nova Scotia. I am deeply ashamed of the perpetrators and those who support racism and violence against the Mi'kmaq people. The violence and the racism must stop.

I have received an incredible volume of correspondence and outreach from my constituents in Dartmouth—Cole Harbour on this issue, passionate, thoughtful emails, and so many that I will not be able to respond to everyone individually. Nova Scotians want to know that the Mi'kmaq will be protected from racism and violence, and that their treaty rights will be respected and implemented. I have been just as concerned throughout this unrest. From my many conversations with ministers in our government, I know that they share this concern. I know those are not empty words because they are acting on them.

The Mi'kmaq fishermen and the first nations communities have been let down by those whose job it is to protect them. I can tell colleagues that my constituents do not want to hear what jurisdiction is in charge of what. They want to know that all orders of government are working together to keep all people safe.

I am grateful that our government approved a request for assistance from the Province of Nova Scotia to enhance the presence of RCMP officers as needed. These disgusting acts of violence must be thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators must be held to account. I am glad to see that the RCMP have laid charges, including for the assault against Chief Sack, but I want to make it very clear that more needs to be done. Tensions need to be lowered.

In Nova Scotia we are all treaty people. The peace and friendship treaties of 1760 and 1761 are solemn, special agreements and lasting commitments. They affirm a treaty right to hunt, to fish and to gather in pursuit of a moderate livelihood. The Supreme Court of Canada's September 17, 1999, decision in the Donald Marshall case affirmed this treaty right, and we affirm this treaty right. The decision affected 34 Mi'kmaq and Maliseet first nations in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and the Gaspé region of Quebec.

From listening to my Mi'kmaq parliamentary colleagues on this issue, such as my friend, the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria, I have learned that this would be the first treaty ruling that would allow indigenous people not just to survive but to thrive financially in Canada.

Through the Minister of Fisheries I have learned that, following the Marshall decision, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans launched a series of initiatives and programs to help implement this treaty right. We now know that although some of these initiatives and programs were successful, others were not. Some programs included the Marshall response initiative, which provided first nation communities with licences, vessels and gear in order to increase the diversity of their participation in the commercial fisheries and contribute to the pursuit of a moderate livelihood for first nations members.

This was followed by the Atlantic integrated commercial fisheries initiative in 2007, which provided funding and support to Marshall communities to build the capacity of their communal commercial fishing enterprises and to strengthen their communities' economic self-sufficiency.

In 2017, DFO began to negotiate time-limited rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries with Mi'kmaq and Maliseet first nations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and the Gaspé region of Quebec.

In 2019, Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed two rights reconciliation agreements on fisheries.

However, it is not lost on me that the Marshall decision was made over 20 years ago. We are a government that believes and that knows there is no relationship more important to Canada than our relationship with indigenous peoples, a government that believes in the journey of reconciliation and in the self-determination of indigenous peoples, yet today we struggle to implement this treaty right.

We know that first nation members across the Atlantic region have grown frustrated with the progress of negotiations and some communities have launched their own moderate livelihood fisheries and submitted fishery plans to DFO for consideration and discussion. However, the unacceptable acts of violence on water and land only serve to prevent the important constructive dialogue from happening.

I have reached out to the Minister of Fisheries on behalf of my constituents and she has assured me that conversations with first nations to implement their treaty rights are ongoing. I know that our government stands ready to work with first nations on a collaborative path forward.

The minister has had several conversations with Chief Sack and the Assembly of Nova Scotia Mi'kmaq Chiefs to ensure that we continue to work collaboratively with their communities to fully implement their treaty rights as well as to ensure their safety.

We know that throughout history, and today, indigenous peoples have experienced continuous systemic racism. Colonial institutions like the RCMP or other federal departments were designed with the cards stacked against indigenous peoples. However, it does not have to remain this way. In the true spirit of reconciliation, we know that we must reform these institutions. We must put in the hard work to implement this treaty right. We must remain committed to a nation-to-nation approach moving forward.

All eyes are on Mi’kma’ki.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his enthusiastic and passionate speech.

One sentence really struck me. He said that his government believes in the self-determination of indigenous peoples. When I hear the term “self-determination” come out of the mouth of any member of the Liberal Party, I always have my doubts. Nevertheless, I would like my colleague to explain exactly what action the Liberal Party has taken to follow through on this belief in the self-determination of indigenous peoples. In his opinion, what must we do if we are serious about recognizing the political autonomy of indigenous peoples?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Cape Breton—Canso spoke before me. He said something that strikes home with me on a regular basis. He said that we had come a long way. We had accomplished a lot. We have probably accomplished more.

The member for Sydney—Victoria, who is a Mi'kmaq parliamentarian, said that we had done more for reconciliation than any other government, ever. The member from Cape Breton—Canso asked if we were there yet. Not by a long shot. We have got a long way to go. This is a destination and a journey. We are on that road to reconciliation and there is a long way to go.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for speaking about his disdain for what is going on.

We just presented a unanimous consent motion affirming the treaty and, in terms of his disdain, recognizing that the Mi'kmaq nation deserves the full and equal protection of the law from violence, intimidation and domestic terrorism, but his party did not vote for it to get the unanimous consent.

Does the member opposite believe that what is happening in Mi'kmaq territory can be classified, as many legal experts have, as domestic terrorism?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard hours and hours of debate tonight. We take very important comments like that from this particular member and we have to see them side by side with comments all night long from opposition members saying that our government is bad and they are good, or they have done well and we have not done well. What we have not had tonight, in my opinion, is the collaborative spirit that Canadians expect of us in the House. This very important issue that we are talking about tonight demands more.

One Conservative member said earlier that we would call it partisan tactics or partisan sniping, but we need to get past this. If we are ever going to truly get on a road to reconciliation, we must all work together in the House, and I have not seen that tonight, I am sad to say.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. It is definitely worth staying up until 11:37 at night to hear them and his candour on systemic racism.

I want to ask the member about the impact of COVID, because that has come up tonight on economic insecurity. I appreciate that economic insecurity is real, particularly during a pandemic, but when it descends into violence and intimidation, that is never valid or to be condoned, and he spoke forcefully about that.

Where does that leave us with respect to indigenous self-determination on other aspects, such as what was raised by the member for Sydney—Victoria when he talked about indigenous control of education and this idea of indigenous control of policing? If policing needs to be there to ensure law and order, can indigenous police, and seeing more of them, be a remedy to that particular situation that is affecting Nova Scotia?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, as always, there is a lot packed into the member's questions.

I will touch on COVID.

Canadians are scared, and when Canadians are scared, they respond differently. A lot has been said tonight about the speech and the comments made by the member for Sydney—Victoria. Who better to quote often in a debate like this than a Mi'kmaq parliamentarian from Nova Scotia? The member talked about how indigenous communities would go to Maine to pick blueberries for their livelihood, and that was not an option this year. This is just one of the many contributing factors to some of the tensions in Nova Scotia right now.

I want to thank the member for Sydney—Victoria for everything that he has taught this MP in the last few months he has been talking about this issue in our caucus.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank everyone who participated in this debate tonight. Before I begin, let me state what I do not know. I do not know the Marshall decisions, although I read them. I do not know the member for Sydney—Victoria, the only Mi'kmaq member of the House of Commons. I do not think I have been in the traditional territory of the Mi'kmaq people. I am acknowledging tonight where I am at as an individual and not trying to say things that are beyond my comprehension of this very delicate indigenous-Crown issue that we are seeing happen in Nova Scotia.

Second, before I begin, I am very confused because standing here tonight I was reading The Globe and Mail and I saw an article from the Liberal House leader quoted about tomorrow, about facing a confidence vote over the WE Charity. I am confused. Why would the government call an emergency debate if it is calling the bluff on Parliament about whether or not we are going to have a federal election? Do the Liberals care about reconciliation and do they care about all of the thoughtful words that were said tonight, or are they going to throw us into a federal election, shove this issue under the carpet and let it all go away while they seek a majority government? I would like some answers from the Liberal government on that point.

Now, getting to why we are here tonight in the first place. Unfortunately, it is a direct result of the actions and inactions of the federal government. One of the most important aspects of being a government, of leadership, is accountability, peace and order. What we have seen here tonight is a sad expression of leadership as aptly stated by the member for Durham in his remarks.

In my short time here as an MP, the Liberals have shut down debate, they have filibustered, they tried to hide documents and, if all that failed, we heard a lot tonight that it is Stephen Harper's fault. The government has been in power for five years, in fact, tonight it is celebrating five years of the government. Instead of actually taking action on this crisis, the Liberals have decided to hold an emergency debate 1,000 kilometres away from where it is actually happening.

The Liberal minister who requested this debate already had the power to resolve this. The Liberals can protect the Mi'kmaq people and they can protect the sustainability of the fisheries at the same time. That is their job. I am going to ask the Library of Parliament tomorrow whether we have ever had an emergency debate called by four ministers who also acknowledged that they were part of the problem, that the Government of Canada was part of the problem. This might be a new precedent in parliamentary history.

On this side of the House we have been asking the government to de-escalate the Nova Scotia fisheries crisis for over a month. The member for West Nova implored the minister this evening that he would get in his truck, pick her up and bring her in good faith to negotiate to find a solution. The indigenous services minister said police are being overwhelmed, but still no action, just tweets. The public safety minister said it was the province's problem. Things literally burned to the ground before the government looked into sending additional police resources to Nova Scotia.

Chief Mike Sack said to the government, “Do your job. Protect [us].... Don't just tweet about it.” Colin Sproul of the Fundy Inshore Fishermen's Association said the Liberal government is “hiding under a desk”. Here we are, more tweets, more inaction and the Liberals trying to make it look like they are doing something by holding this emergency debate where neither side of the dispute is actually happening and neither where the real work needs to happen as well.

Last week, more than 200 people overwhelmed police. Vehicles and boats were lit on fire as early as the week before. This situation did not just suddenly spiral out of control. It has been going on for a while.

As the member for Lakeland mentioned in the House earlier today, livelihoods and decades of relationship building literally went up in flames. The Minister of Public Safety hid behind prepared statements, and the Minister of Fisheries was nowhere to be seen.

It seems like the government waits for the situation to get out of control before acknowledging the problem. That is what it did with the rail blockades earlier in the year, and what it did when it came to calling a public inquiry into the Nova Scotia mass shooting. That is what it is doing here today.

The government should have anticipated this. Across Canada, rural crime has been a growing issue. It is something we have been talking about for a long time in this House. There is a significant lack of police resources in remote and rural communities.

In Lillooet, a community I represent, there are Facebook groups talking about vigilante groups. The mayor implored me to get the provincial minister of public safety to do something, because they only have three RCMP officers for a region the size of a small European country. They just did not know what to do, and they did not know how to respond.

Thankfully, to the credit to the St'át'imc people and first nations police forces in my riding, they were able to pick up some of the slack. Thank god they are there. Hopefully Lillooet, tribal council and their police force can serve as good example of what could take place in Nova Scotia, because some of the indigenous police forces are doing really great work.

Front-line officers do their best in the RCMP, but they are stretched thin. By not ensuring there are adequate RCMP resources in rural Nova Scotia and across Canada, the Minister of Public Safety is putting these communities, and the people who live within them, at risk. He is putting front-line officers at risk. We have seen these risks escalating, including acts of violence and arson. The indigenous people are also at risk because we do not have enough RCMP officers. It goes both ways, and it is just a bad situation.

I cannot help but draw some similarities to my own riding. I represent Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. It is 22,000 square kilometres of rugged British Columbia. The Fraser River runs through my riding from the south end all the way to the north. One thing we have in common with Nova Scotia is that many of the indigenous people I represent, and many of the non-indigenous people I represent, are totally dependent upon a fishery.

If one talks to the recreational fishermen, the tour guides and some of the commercial people, they will say they acknowledge the Marshall decision. They may not be happy with it all the time, but they acknowledge it and want to work with it. They say they have frustrations too with some of the indigenous people over some of their fishing techniques, including gillnets, for example.

Then, in talking to the indigenous people, I learn they have frustrations with the commercial fishermen and recreational fishermen for not respecting enough of their rights. They wonder why they are not getting a fair deal, and in many cases, they are correct. They are not getting a fair deal. That needs to be worked out.

If we talk to both sides, the one thing they have in common, and often they do not even understand this, is that both point to the lack of competency of the department of fisheries and oceans to take meaningful action to resolve these deep-seated disputes between indigenous and non-indigenous fishers.

What is happening in Nova Scotia is a broader reflection of what is happening across Canada. We are seeing civil strife. There is a real and clear lack of trust in our institutions. There is growing frustration that, as a member of Parliament, I do not have an answer to. Like I said in the beginning, I have never read the Marshall decisions, and I acknowledge that. However, there is growing animosity.

[An hon. member]

There is a smile on your face though.

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

The smile on my face is there because I am trying to reflect the mood. It is not in any way a reflection of—