Evidence of meeting #149 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was line.
A video is available from Parliament.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
That brings us to NDP-16, which I have been told is inadmissible. We'd like unanimous consent to make it admissible.
I've been told by the legislative clerk that it's inadmissible, so I'm ruling it inadmissible. The proper way to do this is for someone to appeal my decision, and you can have a vote on that.
Go for it.
9:05 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Can I appeal your decision, because according to me
it's quite clear. During the study, I often told you how surprised I was to see us confronted with the emotions and experiences of First Nations, Innu and Métis people. I never imagined that a language bill would lead us to such a profound place. That's why we want to replace line 3 on page 2 with the following:
forced assimilation, forced relocation
—which is already in the text—
during the Sixties Scoop and residential
I think that it's important to specify this. I believe that the legislator originally wanted a connection with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I put that to a vote as to who agrees with him that my decision should be appealed.
Should the decision of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair overturned)
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Now we can go on, and thank you for putting in your reasons. I do want to flag that if NDP-16 is adopted, LIB-12.6. cannot be moved due to a line conflict.
Mr. Nantel explained why NDP-16 is important.
LIB-12.6 cannot be moved if NDP-16 carries.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
That the preamble be amended by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following: “assimilation, forced relocation, the Sixties Scoop and residential”.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
We're discussing that subamendment made by Mr. Hogg to NDP-16.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to NDP-16 as a whole. All in favour of NDP-16, as amended?
9:10 p.m.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
Is it the understanding of the committee that in the subamendment to Mr. Nantel's NDP-16, the subamendment ends things at paragraph (a), and there's no paragraph (b)?
9:10 p.m.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
But that's the amendment. The amendment did not say paragraph (b); it ended, full stop, at “residential”. That needs to be clear for the record.
9:10 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
You're right, Mr. Boissonnault. It's a useful clarification. In the English version, we want to replace line 6 on page 2 with the following:
languages and the destruction of Indigenous culture;
Once again, these are the things that we've heard. I think that everyone here makes many concessions to move things forward. A number of people, including me, have wanted to pull the plug. However, we're ultimately making efforts to move things forward. Anything that can be done to ensure a better response to the bill is welcome.
I remember being told that “you just need to help us rebuild what you destroyed.” I think that the words “the erosion of those languages and the destruction of Indigenous culture” must be included in the preamble. This makes it even more likely to meet the objective of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay. Seeing no further debate, all in favour of NDP-16 as amended?
9:10 p.m.
Edmonton Centre, Lib.
To clarify the amendment to NDP-16, it should read as follows: that Bill C-91, in the preamble, be amended
(a) by replacing line 3 on page 2 with the following:
assimilation, forced relocation, the Sixties Scoop and residential
Period.
9:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay. I just want to be clear, though. The subamendment that was actually passed did not delete paragraph (b). I've just checked with our legislative clerk to double-check. What was voted upon was an amendment to paragraph (a) as a subamendment. The subamendment did not erase paragraph (b). That is open to be moved, but I just want it to be clear that this was not what was voted upon.