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.