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
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
The subamendment, essentially, is a separate amendment on its own, so in fact, it will be voted.... My understanding is that we vote on Ms. May's amendment, all three components, and then vote on Mr. Hogg's amendment.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Clarification, Madam Chair. As it stands now, with the subamendment by Mr. Hogg, PV-2 has an (a), (b) and (c) components to it. Is that correct?
NDP
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
If I understand correctly, Mr. Hogg's subamendment is very similar to Liberal amendment LIB-02.
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Just for clarification, we have voted on the subamendment. Now, we will vote on or debate the motion that has been amended. That's what we're doing.
Liberal
Conservative
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
It's not breaking it into three. We're voting on the motion that's been amended, period.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Yes. What I said was that the only way not to vote on it as full is if someone brought a subamendment.
Liberal
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to move an amendment to PV-2 that would strike (a) and (c), leaving (b).
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
All right. Is there any debate on Mr. Boissonnault's subamendment to strike (a) and (c) in PV-2, leaving (b) as amended?
Ms. May.
Green
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
I just want to understand the rationale. I think “proficiency” is better than “fluency”, but not a great deal hangs on it in terms of how the bill operates. However, a great deal hangs on the recognition of articles 13 and 14 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Maybe Randy could give us some rationale for why (c) is unacceptable. I think (b) as amended still carries some good changes within it, but without articles 13 and 14 of United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I think the whole amendment is very weakened.
Liberal
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you for that, Madam Chair, and to my honourable colleague.
I think the reason we have concerns about (a) and (c) in PV-2 is that we heard clearly from the community that they want to decide how best to support their languages. They don't want top-down government direction. We heard that repeatedly. That needs to come back.
As you heard us say, we're supportive of (b). We just suggested some different wording there about increasing the number of speakers. Listing schools is very specific. Schools are important, but not directly connected to languages, and other things on the list are specific to a language focus.
Our entire point of doing this work is to respect not only the TRC but the principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.