Fisheries Committee on Oct. 19th, 2020

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

Mr. Chair, if I may make an intervention, as Conservatives, we also will be moving an amendment once this particular amendment has been dealt with.

I'm concerned that in the depth and breadth of what the committee is being asked to do here, it is trying to have this boiled down to something that's very simple when in fact it's not simple. This motion is asking the committee to undergo basically an examination of not just this particular instance, because this challenge and the situation unfolding in Atlantic Canada right now likely will be setting the first steps in the definition of a “moderate livelihood”.

As such, I believe the committee has a responsibility if we're going to adopt this motion, and I suggest to you that there's no reason to think the committee wouldn't adopt it. I think we would have before us a significant task in order to provide some type of clarity and in order for all parties to have a venue or an avenue to be heard.

I'll be moving an amendment after this that would broaden the number of people this committee would invite to talk to this—

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

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

—particular issue, because it involves a lot of people.

While I respect what Madame Gill is putting forward, I don't think that in its entirety it's going to be enough to make everybody feel that they've had a chance to be heard in this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Calkins.

Hearing no further discussion on the amendment—

[The Clerk]

Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm in an uncomfortable position. I believe Ms. Gill has a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I thought that we were moving an amendment without discussing the previous amendment.

Perhaps Mr. Battiste can enlighten me. I thought that the purpose of the motion was to discuss the current case, in particular the issue concerning the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq in Nova Scotia. However, my colleague Mr. Calkins said that the discussion should be broader. I want to know where things stand. I don't see how we could have just five two-hour committee meetings to discuss such a broad topic with all the first nations.

I'm a bit surprised. I don't think that we should meet with all the first nations. However, at the same time, everything is negotiated between the first nations and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Mr. Battiste, I want to know the purpose of your motion. We can then clarify it one way or another. I maintain that your motion is very important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Battiste.

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

I think it's very clear that there are a lot of stakeholders involved in what we're talking about. The key ones we need in order to define moving forward on this.... We need to speak to the Mi’kmaq themselves, as well as the fisheries associations that are part of this, as well as the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, scientists and interested stakeholders. I wanted to keep it pretty broad, but I think five meetings would be enough to bring in the leadership from the Mi’kmaq and Maliseet communities and to hear from the different associations, the scientists and DFO, as well as any other interested stakeholders we can put together in a list. I feel that this is the way forward. We should be able to vote quickly on this and stop the delays. There are lives at stake.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Go ahead, Mr. Cormier.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I want to add to what Mr. Battiste and Ms. Gill just said.

The motion refers to first nations, in the plural form. I suppose that several other first nations are included, for example the Maliseet, whom we can certainly invite to take part in these discussions. Mr. Battiste also moved his motion with this in mind.

Whether we're talking about one or several groups, the words “first nations”—

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I cannot hear the translation over top of the original. I can't hear the translation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Make sure you have your computer or iPhone, or whatever, set on the language that you're speaking.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I do, Mr. Chair. The original sound was coming through louder than the interpretation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

I'm actually talking to Mr. Cormier, as he was the person you could not hear.

Sometimes if you're not on the right translation, it will come through louder than what we're hearing from the interpreters.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I'm on the French channel, Mr. Chair. Can people hear the interpretation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I want to shed some light on Ms. Gill's concern regarding the inclusion of the Maliseet nation. The text of the motion refers to inviting the first nations, in the plural form. This includes other groups. As Mr. Battiste said earlier, we can still invite other nations to take part in the committee's discussions. The words “first nations” include other nations, and not only the Mi'kmaq.

Ms. Gill, I think that this sheds some light on the issue that you raised.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

May I respond?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Yes, go ahead, Madame Gill.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I want to point out to everyone that there are 634 first nations in Canada. I move that we amend the amendment to ensure that we ask the committee to specifically invite the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet nations. We can also make another amendment. You know that the term notamment means “among others”, so the term isn't restrictive. There may be others. However, at the same time, we're making sure that the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet nations will be invited. As Mr. Battiste so aptly put it, this is a troubling and urgent situation involving these communities, which are affected by the Marshall decision. As Mr. Cormier so aptly put it, we're obviously talking about first nations with an s, but particularly the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq nations.

That said, we're talking about the fact that I'm naming these communities. However, the amendment also included an important component concerning traditional knowledge. I believe that one of the recommendations in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report is to always take into account this traditional knowledge, which I may not be aware of as a member of this committee. If I could hear from these people, I may be able to make more informed recommendations.

Although I don't want to make any assumptions, I imagine that the same is true for several of my colleagues, who may not be familiar with the culture and history of the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq nations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you.

Mr. Johns is next.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate my colleague at the committee bringing forward this motion. Clearly this is a topic we all want to have a conversation about, and we want to make sure we're getting expert opinion.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what outcome he's looking for. Is he looking for an idea of where things have been at? Is he looking at what the government has been doing through their government officials to deliver the mandate to accommodate the right that clearly is protected under the Constitution—and these are treaty rights—so they can exercise their right, which they are doing now in the moderate living—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Mr. Johns, we're dealing with the amendment.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

No, I am. I'm going to go there.

Madame Gill brings forward a very good point. Whether we look at the Maliseet or the Nuu-chah-nulth, where I live, or the four big decisions that have protected rights inherent in our Constitution, whether it be the Gladstone, Sparrow, Ahousaht et al v. Canada, or Marshall decisions, they are relative. I think it's important that we get an idea of where Canada is at in terms of supporting and accommodating those court decisions that have been clearly in support of the nations exercising their rights, whether it be a moderate livelihood or their right to catch and sell fish. The government hasn't been sending their negotiators to the table with a mandate to accommodate the exercising of those rights.

I am in support of expanding it, but if we do expand it, I think we should have a narrow focus for a few meetings, and then expand it in separate meetings. I too believe that the Nuu-chah-nulth would like to be part of this conversation, and I think it's warranted, given the situation.

Where he's going and what he wants, I believe, and what she wants, are actually intertwined. They intersect. I think there's an opportunity, but we also want to mitigate any sort of conflict in the future in those other communities where they're also looking at implementing their own fisheries plans because of the lack of consultation with the government and the lack of resources provided to the regions to actually negotiate fairly. They want to earn a livelihood and participate in exercising their rights, but the government has failed to accommodate in every court case. The amount of money the government is spending in fighting these nations would also be of interest to this committee, I believe.

I think it's very important that this study take place and I support Madame Gill's push, but I'd like to further expand that. I hope she's willing to be open and amenable to a friendly amendment to modify her amendment to broaden the scope of this study. I believe it's warranted.