Yes.
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.
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.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I would like to see sign language included within the framework of this.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
How would you word that, if you may?
I'd like to know the specific wording of the subamendment so that we can begin to discuss it.
Yes, Mr. Hogg.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
It's replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following: “guages, including Indigenous sign languages”.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
You would remove all the words following “languages”, and replace them with....
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I would like to seek clarification. If it's an add-on.... Maybe the legislative clerk could assist us with this. Amendment NDP-2 seeks to add “regardless of how the users of those languages communicate”, and then this would be in addition to that, if I'm not mistaken.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay. That wasn't what I understood when I heard it, so I just want to clarify.
The motion is, then.... NDP-2 is “guages, regardless of how the users of those languages communicate”, and the subamendment would be to add after that “including Indigenous sign languages”.
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Thank you. That makes it clearer.
Is there any discussion on this subamendment?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
LIB-01 is no longer needed, because that effectively is included in the subamendment.
We move to NDP-3.
Monsieur Nantel.
4:45 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
We move that Bill C-91, in Clause 5, be amended by replacing line 19 on page 4 with the following:
"guages, regardless of how the users of those languages communicate;"
4:45 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I'd like to seek some clarification with respect to both languages. If I'm not mistaken, the French version appears to be different from the stated English version in the current form.
I'm just wondering if Mr. Nantel's amendment would be redundant if the French version and the English version were consistent.
4:45 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
I think there seems to be a bit of a distinction between the two. The phrase “la situation distincte des langues autochtones” is actually not very clear; “status of Indigenous languages” may be a little clearer in the sense that it says in which state they are in currently.
What we don't have in either amendment is the status of how it's.... Is it about proficiency, or is it about how many people are using it or speaking it? In a way, the amendment in both languages is not really clear, but I think it's even less clear in French.
4:45 p.m.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC
On top of 30-plus late or table-dropped amendments from the Liberals, we have here a piece of legislation that the government and the different organizations—at least the MNC and the AFN—took great pride in co-developing. However, we're making significant changes through these amendments. I wonder what that does to the whole issue of respecting a co-development process with intent in mind. We are making what I would suggest are significant changes, and it might perhaps not be a very respectful process.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Thank you.
Is there any other discussion on NDP-3?
Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Thank you, all of you. When we all work together on bills, we make fewer mistakes. I don't know why, but SNC-Lavalin comes to mind.
It says “assess the status of indigenous languages”, but in the French version, we could replace the word “situation” by “statut”, and “distincte” with “distinct”, and say “évaluer le statut distinct des langues autochtones”. That seems to me like an excellent translation of the English version. Please excuse the poor quality of the translation.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Okay, sorry, I was just getting some clarification. In fact, you cannot subamend your own motion or your own amendment.
4:50 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Fine.
Let's not get caught up in the rules. If you like, I can withdraw it and reintroduce it once it has been amended. Let's not let details trip us up.