Canadian Heritage Committee on March 18th, 2019

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Just to clarify, with respect to UNDRIP, I think specifying articles 13 and 14 is insufficient. The wording that we see in paragraph 5(g) in its current form is a little convoluted, but I think it's addressed later on. I don't know if we want to specify just the clauses relating to indigenous languages.

The wording as is reads “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages”, and it's broad enough to capture all the different components of UNDRIP that specifically deal with language. We don't want to specifically narrow down which parts of UNDRIP need to be adhered to here.

I think it's broad enough, Ms. May, so that it does allow for a much broader interpretation of what UNDRIP stands for with respect to languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're voting on the subamendment to strike (a) and (c).

(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

This brings us to PV-2 as a whole, which is (b) as amended.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

That brings us to NDP-4.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I apologize, but this is going to be a bit complex, in both English and French, because our amendment corrects the wording in both languages, but in a different way.

In the English version of the current bill, line 25 says “maintaining fluency in Indigenous languages”. My colleagues and I would prefer to see: “maintaining fluency and proficiency in Indigenous languages”.

In line 21 of the French version of the bill, on the same page, it says “se réapproprier les langues autochtones”. We would like to remove the word “autochtones” and have the line say: “se réapproprier les langues et la compétence danscelles-ci”, which would be followed with the existing wording in line 22.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Is there any discussion?

Mr. Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm wondering if we can get a perspective from our deputy minister on this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Absolutely.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

On the issue of fluency and proficiency, in our discussion and consultation it's pretty clear that there are measurements for fluency and there is a body of work around that. In terms of the word “proficiency”, it doesn't add a lot, but there's not really any measurement that is known. The reason we maintain what we put there, “fluency” alone, is really that it captures things that are known. These are things that came through in our consultation.

I have to say that on the second amendment, because it's a different amendment, I am not clear. I don't think I understand it, so I don't think I can really speak to it. The amendment that is in French, I'm not sure I understand what it does, really. I'm being just very candid here. They are not the same thing. Maintaining fluency in indigenous languages and the second correlation to line 21 in French are different. I'm hard-pressed to understand what we're trying to achieve with that one. My apologies, Monsieur Nantel.

This isn't clear to me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You are right, it doesn't say exactly the same thing. However, the topic is the same. Even though we are correcting two aspects of the same thing, this is the amendment we wanted to introduce. Also, we realize that the line numbers differ in the two versions, regarding the same topic.

Correct me if I am mistaken--you are certainly much more competent than I am--but the terms “proficiency” and “compétence” are somewhat equivalent. It is the word “fluency”, present in the English version, that is missing in the French version, as well as in the amendment we submitted. At line 21 of the French version, we added the word “compétence” to the word “langues”. However, we also need to add the closest French equivalent to the word “fluency”, and I propose « courante », « vivante » or « usuelle ». So you are right when you say that there is something missing in the French wording we are proposing. We would like to add a French equivalent to the word “fluency”.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

Madame Chair, if you'll allow me....

The concept of “fluency” is found a few lines below, in paragraph 5(b)(ii), where the French version refers to “activités permettant de retrouver et de conserver la maîtrise” of indigenous languages. The word “maîtrise” corresponds to the English word “fluency”. That is why I did not understand what you were trying to do with the French.

That's as I understand it.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

You are right.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

I'm trying to understand the relationship between the two.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Boissonnault, you have the floor.

[Randy Boissonnault]

Mr. Nantel, I'm trying to understand the purpose of your adding the word “proficiency” to the English version. What are you trying to do? I'm not against this in principle, but the deputy minister said that the concept of “fluency” was measurable; is that the case with “proficiency”? What is your understanding of that term, for which I am looking for an equivalent French term? We can certainly find a French word to correspond to the concept of “fluency” but I will vote against this amendment if it contains the term “proficiency”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Please do not vote against it.

The closest translation for the word “proficiency” would be the word “compétence”, if I am not mistaken.

You are correct, Ms. Laurendeau. We made a mistake in the French version of our amendment. In the English version we think it is relevant to add the word “proficiency”. However, the French version seems fine as is it and we apologize for having tried to be too literal.

[Hélène Laurendeau]

No problem.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

To conclude, I would like to change my amendment NDP-4 by withdrawing the French part, but by keeping the addition of the word “proficiency” in the English version of the bill, which is rendered in French by the word “compétence”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

It's the same rule about making subamendments to your amendments, but it's out there as a friendly if somebody feels like grabbing it and running with it as a subamendment. Otherwise, it stays.

Ms. Jolibois.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

With all due respect, from the indigenous perspective, the wording is really important. I'm not saying anything other than what I'm going to say. The English language, from my understanding, the English interpretation.... I think I've heard witnesses talk about the fluency. For an indigenous person, the word "fluency" means something entirely different. I think what I'm hearing the government and others saying.... Again, the interpretation is not aligned with what I understand it to be. I've heard, not here but in other places, the word "proficient" and the importance of the French language.

It is an official language, so whatever language is being used will be used across Canada. I think, regardless of the English version and the French version, it will mean differently to indigenous people. I just want to clarify that. I just want to point that out because obviously, going line by line, indigenous people's interpretation of what we want in our language bill isn't exactly what is being proposed here, so I'm trying to understand this piece right here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Okay. We'll vote on NDP-4.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

LIB-02 and NDP-5 cannot proceed because of previous amendments, which brings us to IND-1.

Welcome, Mr. Tootoo.

I'm just going to make a comment, if I may, at the beginning, that this amendment is actually a consequential amendment to your later amendment, which is IND-2, so in fact what we need to do is to suspend IND-1 so that everyone can consider IND-2 properly before going back to deciding the consequential one, if that makes sense.

So I am suspending IND-1, if everyone will hop along with us to IND-2, which is on page 21.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

According to the order, shouldn't NDP-5 come before that one?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

No, NDP-5 cannot proceed because of PV-2.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

As I'm skipping along to IND-2, I am actually postponing clause 5 as a whole because we are now moving to proposed clause 9.1. It's a new clause.

(Clause 5 allowed to stand)

Can I have everyone jump to page 21, please, and look at IND-2 to consider proposed clause 9.1? In the amendments submitted by Mr. Tootoo, there's IND-2 at page 21 of your amendments list.

Mr. Tootoo, would you like to speak to your amendment?