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.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
We agree that the Marshall decision concerns both the Maliseet and the Mi'kmaq. This is exactly what I've just done. I've expanded the motion by adding the word notamment, which means “among others” and which isn't exclusive. I completely agree that there are other first nations. However, at the same time, I didn't want us to be naive about the scope of the committee's work, given that there are 634 first nations. In five committee meetings, I don't think that we'll resolve all future cases, unfortunately. This isn't cynicism. This is plain realism.
I move that we amend the amendment by saying “including the Maliseet and Mi'kmaq First Nations”, but that of course we keep the idea of talking about their culture, history and traditional knowledge.
I haven't repeated the amendment verbatim, but I could do so while making this change. I know [Technical difficulty—Editor] my amendment, but I can move a subamendment.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I have to be very clear here that when we talk about the Mi’kmaq right to a moderate livelihood, it's based on the Marshall decision. The Marshall decision is based on a treaty right. That is a specific treaty right of 1760 and 1761. If we include indigenous nations from all across Canada, we muddy the waters a bit on inherent right versus treaty right versus a specific treaty right.
I am in favour of saying that we include notamment the Mi'kmaq and the Maliseet. The Passamaquoddy are part of that, but they're not recognized in Canada as having a band there, so it's the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet. As well, if you want to include indigenous knowledge as part of this, I have scientists whom I'm looking to call who have that indigenous knowledge. They have both science and indigenous knowledge. I have no problem with the amendment saying that it's the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet, and adding additional indigenous knowledge stakeholders to the amendment if that's agreeable.
If we get into other first nations and other treaties that are outside of the realm of the moderate livelihood, we do a disservice to the current urgency that's going on and that we need answers to. In the long term, what I'm looking to get from this is a study that hears from the different stakeholders and for us to move forward on this in such a way that they feel heard and they get a chance to say their piece in the fisheries committee.
I would hope that's agreeable to Madame Gill and MP Johns.
Bloc
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Actually, Mr. Arnold had his hand up, I guess to speak to the amendment.
Go ahead, Mr. Arnold.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Through all of this, I'm still not really certain what Mr. Battiste is looking to garner out of the motion. The motion has in it things that need to be addressed—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Perhaps, Mr. Arnold, we can deal with that after we deal with the amendment. Then we'll go to the main motion as amended. It'll be open for discussion.
Conservative
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair, but I think it pertains to how we may consider this amendment. I'm just looking for clarification from Mr. Battiste. Is he hoping that the committee may come up with a definition of “moderate livelihood” to help resolve this issue, or is he looking at how we should change the consultation process or...?
What is the original motion aimed at achieving?
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I don't want to presuppose the destination before we have the journey of having the conversation. I'd like to be able to hear from the various stakeholders. “Moderate livelihood” is bound to come up, and we will report back our findings.
I believe that's what this motion gives us the opportunity to do. I think it's broad enough to include all those who want to be a part of this discussion in a way that doesn't keep this committee from having an urgent study that moves recommendations forward. That's important. I think I've left it broad enough to attempt to capture all those who want to be a part of this discussion, but the focus has to be around the Marshall decision, the moderate livelihood and the two nations that are part of this.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I'm seeing no other hands raised for an intervention on this. I'll ask for the call of the vote on the amendment to the original motion.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
It's not your fault. We're getting used to things. Sorry, Mr. Chair. It's difficult on this side of the screen as well.
I don't think that my proposal limits the motion in any way. Rather, it ensures that everyone will be heard. Mr. Battiste was asking for this. My proposal will also enable them to share their traditional knowledge. I'm asking for a clarification that doesn't exclude other possibilities. The proposal only provides some assurance with regard to the topics that will be addressed, such as the issue of a moderate livelihood. This issue could be clarified, as Mr. Arnold was saying, although I don't want to put words in his mouth.
I'm proposing a clarification that keeps all the options open. I don't see how the amendment could be rejected, since we want to make sure that these people will be heard from.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
If there are going to be no other interventions or no other subamendments to this amendment, would it be possible to have the English version of the text as it would appear should the amendment pass, so that I know exactly what I'm voting for?
Liberal
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I know that Madame Gill cannot amend her own amendment, so I'm asking for people to look at the original motion, and when it says “first nations”, put “including the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet”, and right before “stakeholders”, say “associations, scientists and indigenous knowledge holders”. I think that captures the two things that she was asking for in an amendment. It's clear so that everyone knows what they're voting for.
Is that agreeable to Madame Gill?