Evidence of meeting #2 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Madame Gill.
Seeing no further intervention, we'll vote on the amendment as proposed by Mr. Calkins.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, maybe I could ask Mr. Calkins to provide the full text again. I have the beginning but not the end.
Could you repeat the full sentence, please?
5:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
Certainly. I'll just say the whole thing, because I don't know where you were.
After the words “Rights and Reconciliation Agreement process”, I would insert a comma and say, “identify better ways to engage interested parties in order to improve communication, reduce tensions and prioritize conservation”, and then return to the text of the motion that goes “and identify issues” and so on.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Thank you, Mr. Calkins.
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay, we've all heard the text of the proposed amendment.
Seeing no further interventions, Nancy will go to a vote on the amendment.
5:20 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, before I do that, can I have a quick communication with you?
5:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay, we're back.
Nancy, when you're ready, you can do the taking of the vote, please.
5:25 p.m.
The Clerk
Pursuant to the order of the House, the recorded vote would be on the new amendment from Mr. Calkins.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Now we'll go on to the vote on the motion as amended, if there are no further amendments.
Proceed when you're ready, Nancy.
5:25 p.m.
The Clerk
I see Madame Gill here.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I apologize, Madame Gill. I depend on Nancy to let me know when people intervene.
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I apologize for unintentionally cutting you off earlier, Mr. Chair.
I have an amendment that I find very important, given the situation that still persists to this day, unfortunately. Here it is:
That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “path forward”, the words “that the Committee use this broad study as an opportunity to propose a definition of moderate livelihood.”
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Okay. We heard the context of the amendment. I'm hearing no discussion and seeing no sign of intervention.
Nancy, could we go to a vote on that proposed amendment, please?
5:25 p.m.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, could we just have it one more time? It was just read out once. Could we have the amendment read a second time?
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Of course.
That the motion be amended by adding, after the words “path forward”, the words “that the Committee use this broad study as an opportunity to propose a definition of moderate livelihood.”
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
NDP
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I don't think it's this committee's role to define “moderate livelihood”. I think this is something that is for the nation to define, with the Crown. They're defining it right now. It's something that the Crown needs to accommodate. I don't believe this is the committee to do it.
I just wanted to add that. I'll be voting against it.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
Terry Beech Liberal Burnaby North—Seymour, BC
No, I think it was very well articulated by our colleague.
5:25 p.m.
Liberal
5:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
If it isn't the role of the committee, it also isn't the role of the Supreme Court, which is asking legislators to fill this legal and semantic void. There will need to be some discussion on this topic. Since the Marshall decision in 1999, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is supposed to have been dealing with this. The current situation concerns the concept of a moderate livelihood. I don't think that we can remove from the discussion the core issue with regard to the current tensions.
If it isn't the Supreme Court's job, then whose job is it? I'm asking Mr. Beech and Mr. Johns.
5:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Mr. Chair, you're muted.
