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.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I wonder if the deputy minister could give us a suggestion in terms of how that language should read.
4:50 p.m.
Deputy Minister, Department of Canadian Heritage
It may sound like wordsmithing, but it would actually be a little clearer if we could say in English “assess the status of distinct indigenous languages”.
The French would say « évaluer le statut distinct des langues autochtones », as was suggested.
It's going to be hard to know exactly what it means, but I think it would be clearer because it would actually single out each of the languages on its own and provide for the possibility of an assessment of that.
However, once again, that's the limit of what I can say on this amendment.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I move what she just said. That made eminent sense to me.
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Well, it hasn't been accepted yet, because everyone has to vote, but I'm glad it's showing promise.
Let's make sure we have it properly—
4:50 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
I'm just going to read what the final version would look like. In English, it would be “assess the status of distinct indigenous languages”.
The French would read: « évaluer le statut distinct des langues autochtones ».
4:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
All right.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
That brings us to PV-2. I'm going to note that if PV-2 is adopted, NDP-5 and LIB-2 cannot be moved due to line conflicts.
Ms. May.
4:55 p.m.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
This amendment covers quite a few spots within clause 5. They amend the bill to more accurately reflect some of the really excellent testimony from those involved in indigenous education—the First Peoples' Cultural Council and the evidence of Dr. Onowa McIvor from the University of Victoria.
I'll just try to summarize them by saying that in the first line, “by replacing line 24 on page 4”, that's dealing with the evidence we have before us that the word “fluency” isn't as acceptable or as accurate in indigenous education, as it is evolving. Dr. McIvor did note that some people still use “fluency”, but there is a shift in the field of indigenous language revitalization to use language like “proficiency” and “restoring”, which is the effect of the first subpart of my amendment.
The other part of my amendment would replace some of the language here that speaks to supporting learning and education, to be more accurately reflecting...“to create new speakers, including language nests, immersion programs, schools and mentor-apprentice programs”.
Just to digress for just half a tick, I know that a lot of you around this table don't have the same experience in your own ridings, but it is so exciting for me that in our community on Tsartlip First Nation there is Sencoten immersion education. The kids are so turned on and so excited to be able to sing songs and play with each other exclusively speaking Sencoten. These kinds of things should be recognized as this important legislation goes forward.
Lastly, I've included, at the encouragement of Dr. McIvor's testimony, the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by speaking specifically to articles 13 and 14. Although I can't move it myself, if anyone felt like helping me out here, I really should have included article 16, based on the evidence that article 16 of UNDRIP gives indigenous peoples the right to establish media in their own languages. I know I can't amend my own amendment.
That's the substance, in brief, of my second amendment.
4:55 p.m.
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
We fully support Ms. May's proposal and the subamendent she wishes to make to her amendment.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
That means that we'd be debating the subamendment first, which is to add to “by replacing line 19 on page 5 with the following”, and it would say “implement Articles 13, 14 and 16 of the”. It's adding the number 16.
Is there any debate on the subamendment?
Mr. Anandasangaree.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I'm sorry, Madam Chair, can I speak to all of the amendment, or does it have to be specifically—
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Okay.
(Subamendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Can I offer a subamendment as well?
Under clause 5, lines 35 and 36 on page 4, following “cultural activities”, I'm proposing that it read “including language nest, mentorship and immersion programs—to increase the number of new speakers of Indigenous languages.”
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
The legislative clerk is going to read how the amendment reads with the subamendment, so everyone can have the proper wording.
4:55 p.m.
Legislative Clerk
It would be in paragraph (b) of amendment PV-2, replacing lines 35 and 36 on page 4 with the following: “tural activities—including language nest, mentorship and immersion programs—to increase the number of new speakers of indigenous languages, to create new speakers, including”—
Oh, it's already there.
5 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
“Language nest” is already there, and it ends with “Indigenous languages”.
5 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Just to clarify, does that mean that you're removing “schools and mentor-apprentice programs” in that subamendment?