Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

I can clarify. I think this would be agreeable to everyone and we can move forward. We are looking at the original portion of that amendment. I will read it because I will get Mr. Calkins' on that as well: “that the Committee call witnesses including senior officials from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, First Nations including Mi'kmaq and Maliseet, fisheries associations, both non-indigenous and indigenous, scientists, indigenous knowledge holders and interested stakeholder groups to testify”.

I believe that encompasses everything. I hope it's agreeable to everyone that we can do this by consensus. I think it's a thing that all parties—

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Jaime, did you miss “local authorities” or did you have it included?

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

That was part of DFO, but yes, for “local authorities”, I think I must have missed that. It wasn't intentional.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yes, that was part of my amendment. Where it goes on the list doesn't matter to me as long as it's in there.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Nancy, can we get some direction, please, as to what we are voting on first?

[The Clerk]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

This modification from Mr. Calkins is a subamendment.

Has everybody heard the terms of the subamendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm seeing a nodding of heads.

[The Clerk]

Thank you very much.

Pursuant to the motion adopted by the House on September 23, we will vote on the subamendment by Mr. Calkins.

(Subamendment agreed to: yeas, 11; nays 0)

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

We got that subamendment out of the way.

Now we'll go to the amendment proposed by Mr. Battiste.

[The Clerk]

If there is no more debate, the vote would be on the amendment from Mr. Battiste.

(Amendment as amended agreed to: yeas, 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Now we will vote on the motion as amended.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, there might be other amendments to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

All right.

Is there any further discussion on the motion as amended?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Yes. If I may, Mr. Chair, do I have the floor?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, colleagues.

If it would be considered worthwhile by colleagues at the table, I would simply suggest that we also add this. After the words “current Rights and Reconciliation Agreement process”, put in a comma and then add this text: “identify better ways to engage interested parties in order to improve communication, reduce tensions and prioritize conservation”.

If somebody would like me to speak to that proposed amendment, I'd be happy to do so, but I think it pretty much speaks for itself. I don't think it necessarily changes any of the intent of the mover of the motion, but I do think it's important that as members of the fisheries and oceans committee we take a look at conservation. This is very consistent with the language that a multitude of ministers used today in their press conferences in talking about this particular issue. I think it adds to the value of the text of the motion and doesn't substantively change it in any way that is contrary to the intent of the mover of the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Battiste.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

To be honest, I don't feel that the subamendment adds anything more. We have DFO and scientists who will speak to conservation. I just don't think there's a need to muddy up what we've already agreed to, so I'm going to say no. Let's just get this over with.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Chair, if I may, I don't know why somebody would suggest that conservation of a natural resource is muddying the water. As I said, I think the whole thing is a breakdown in communications. There are frustrations. There's tension in the communities.

I would think that our amendment to the motion would be a welcome change: to “identify better ways to engage interested parties”. Who would vote against engaging interested parties, improving communication? Who would possibly want to vote against improving communication of the interested parties? What about reducing tension? Is that not a goal of why we're doing this in the first place—and prioritizing conservation? If those are not goals or they're not consistent with the intent of this motion, then I would have to question what the intent of the motion was in the first place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Hearing no further discussion—

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I believe Madame Gill wants to speak here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I want to continue along the same lines.

I'm very interested in the conservation aspect, of course. We also spoke about communication. However, once again, according to the Marshall decision, the way in which rights are limited or defined reflects a desire for management and conservation, which I find worthwhile.

Of course, we spoke about senior officials. However, we could have included scientists, for example, who are involved in stock management and conservation.