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.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
We're using “mentorship and immersion programs”, which are included in the subamendment, as well as “to increase the number of new speakers of Indigenous languages”.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
I am clarifying one more time. I can read it as what the LIB-02 reads, which would be that at that line you would say, “tural activities—including language nest, mentorship and immersion programs—to increase the number of new speakers of Indigenous languages”. Is that how that clause would read?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
We are also removing words, if that's the way it would read. I just want to be clear that that's the wording.
That is the subamendment we are debating right now, which is that in replacing lines 35 and 36, that would be changed to read, as I said, “tural activities—including language nest, mentorship and immersion programs—to increase the number of new speakers of Indigenous languages”.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just want to say that, in terms of committee protocol, as a non-member of the committee, I can have no view on this, as my amendments are deemed to have been moved, but if I were a member, I'd find this a friendly amendment.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
With all due respect, I don't share the same mentality as my colleague to my left. In fact, I find this very offensive.
Are you guys listening on the other end? Because this is very important.
In my riding...indigenous people across Canada, first nations, Métis and Inuit...how we view our languages to thrive, to survive and become very strong is different from your view. I hear the grand chiefs. I hear the chiefs, and I hear the leaders from across the sectors speak about one very important thing, important to us as indigenous people across Canada. We were taught.... We lived it. I lived it. I grew up with this. My family and friends, and the indigenous people across Canada still practise it, but now we're not mentioning that here.
That's why it's not friendly. I don't see the words here. In fact, I find this a little more offensive than the first one, now that we're going to have a commissioner who is non-indigenous and who can lead and can revive languages, for languages to survive, to thrive and to do well. That's one offensive thing.
The second offensive thing.... This is really crucial to indigenous people across Canada—first nations, Métis and Inuit, from coast to coast to coast. I hear consistently from everyone at these levels about the importance of land-based teachings, traditionally and historically. I don't even know what a language nest is. That is some terminology created by the government that is so out of touch with indigenous people. If this is very important—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
If I may, I just wanted to clarify that this is actually Ms. May's amendment—“language nest” is in Ms. May's amendment.
NDP
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
That's what I'm looking at, the bill. LIB-02E is what I'm looking at.
Again, speaking of mentorship, if we have a commissioner who is non-indigenous, who may not speak the language and who wants to be a mentor, who's going to mentor here? Is it going to be the elder mentoring the commissioner because he or she doesn't understand thoroughly the importance of the language? Immersion, the importance of immersion...but again, elders, young people, leaders, communities across Canada, and this is where the government fails again. There's no mention of land-based, no mention.
I'm not thinking cultural activities, because probably the interpretation from the government's perspective about cultural activities is attending a powwow or a jigging contest or playing music somewhere. I'm talking about the identity of people, of children, of youth, of our families that you speak to about first nations, Métis and Inuit, yet the approach that you are taking is colonialistic. Attending a cultural event is not the same thing as going to specific land-based initiatives or being in the classroom listening to the elders, or listening to the youth speak their languages.
This is so disheartening. This is really upsetting.
Thank you.
Liberal
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, if I may just clarify, with respect to Ms. May's amendment, there are three different sections to it. Is it going to be voted on as one, or as separate units? Is it going to be (a), (b) and (c), or is it going to be...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
It is voted on as one amendment, but we are still debating Mr. Hogg's subamendment to the amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
When we get to the full amendment, it is going to be one amendment.
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I appreciate the tolerance of the chair in letting me have the floor again. I wanted to clarify some of the language around language nests and mentor-apprenticeship programs, just to remind the committee that this was language that came from the First Nations Summit. Of course, it was Chief Ed John who testified, but he testified here on this bill on behalf of the First Nations Summit, so there was quite a lot of indigenous—
With all due respect to my friend Georgina, I can't speak as an indigenous person, obviously—I'm a settler-culture Canadian—but in looking at this evidence, there certainly was a very substantial indigenous component to the language that Gordie has brought forward.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
We're voting on the subamendment brought by Mr. Hogg.
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We are now back to PV-2, the full amendment.
Mr. Anandasangaree.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, would it be possible to have separate votes on the three components of it, or does it need to be one?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
The advice I have from the legislative clerk is that if there's something you don't like in the large amendment, you can bring a subamendment to remove it from the full amendment, and that's how we carry forward.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I think there may have been a little bit of confusion. Mr. Hogg's amendment, if I'm not mistaken—