Madam Chair, today I rise during committee of the whole to speak and ask questions. I would like to speak for about nine minutes and then ask some questions to the minister for about six minutes.
I have been listening to the discussion tonight and a lot of it focuses around the Marshall decision when we are talking about moderate livelihoods. Some will talk about it as Marshall one or Marshall two. To many MPs and people around Canada, it is just a name on a piece of paper or the title of a case, nothing more, nothing less.
However, as the only Mi'kmaq who has ever sat in the House, I think it is important to give context on who Donald Marshall Jr. was. To the Mi'kmaq, there is much more to this. We know the man. I can think of his smile right now and his moustache and the bell cap he usually wore out and about in Cape Breton. He was known as “Junior” to most of the Mi'kmaq because his father was the grand chief of the Mi'kmaq nation for 27 years, until his peaceful death in 1991.
I remember as a young child listening to Donald Marshall Jr. when he went to classrooms to talk about his fight to change the justice system, after spending 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Donald Marshall Jr. spoke to Mi'kmaq youth at youth conferences about his personal views of justice and what he endured. He taught about resilience and that each one of us has a responsibility to fight for justice, whether in a courtroom, at home or even in jail.
I remember watching a movie at a very young age called Justice Denied that talked about his story and his fight for justice. We often ask in Nova Scotia how this could happen.
It was the focus of a provincial commission, the “Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr. Prosecution”, which found, on page 1, “The criminal justice system failed Donald Marshall Jr. at...every turn from his arrest and his wrongful conviction” in 1971. It called it a “miscarriage of justice”. It stated that the reason was, at least in part, because Donald Marshall Jr. was indigenous.
Despite all he had gone through, just four years after his commission, Junior was fighting for justice again, but this time on behalf of a nation. After years of litigation, the Mi'kmaq who had validated their treaties at the Supreme Court case in 1985 now turned to Donald Marshall Jr. for the most important litigation the nation had ever been a part of. Unlike any other case, it was not about surviving but thriving as a nation. It was a court case about a Mi'kmaq person being able to move from poverty to a moderate or modest living.
Elder Kerry Prosper, a chief then, described it as a win for our nation. It was the first time many chiefs felt a collective win as a nation. Unfortunately, the jubilation for the Mi'kmaq and Junior was brief. Only two months later, our Supreme Court of Canada, based on political and economic pressures, decided to clarify this decision.
As far as I know in my academic career and legal knowledge, I can point to no other Supreme Court of Canada case that has ever needed clarification. I can only imagine what Donald Marshall Jr. went through and what it must have felt like to hear his victory on behalf of the nation required an unprecedented clarification.
In both cases the facts were the same and the verdict was the same, which was that Donald Marshall Jr. caught and sold eels out of season and was protected by a Mi'kmaq treaty right to do so.
Donald Marshall Jr. passed away a hero in 2009, a hero to his nation. I felt it was important to give this context to the legacy we are dealing with when we speak of the Marshall decision. I am only sad that Junior died before seeing his home community of Membertou become one of the owners of the largest fisheries company in this country. I congratulate his home community, Chief Terry Paul of Membertou and its council for making sure Junior's legacy will always be a positive one.
I have heard people speak about the Marshall decision over the past few months. Many quote the case as if the Mi'kmaq lost this case, as if they did not have this right. Unfortunately, understanding the Marshall decision requires understanding indigenous case law from 1929 until today.
Understanding the Marshall decision requires understanding the Constitution of Canada, specifically section 35, which recognizes and affirms all existing aboriginal and treaty rights, as well as section 52, which states: “The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with...the Constitution is...of no force or effect.”
I wanted to give that context because I thought it was important for the Mi'kmaq, and for the House of Commons, to understand that when Marshall decisions 1 or 2 are talked about, it means a lot to the Mi'kmaq people because he was one of our heroes. I miss him. Many of us do today.
I will now pivot my questions to the minister. I would like to start off by thanking her for her valuable work during the early stages of COVID. I acknowledge her for the many conversations that we had about some of the difficult situations that were going on within the fisheries in the early months in the spring and her success in advocating for the fish harvester benefit and grant.
I ask the minister if she could give us the numbers of how many fishermen we helped in Nova Scotia during these difficult times.
