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.