Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 11th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

One of the other committees, yesterday, if you were in the House, actually made a report—it was on foreign policy in the Arctic—in four aboriginal languages. They made a mistake in not saying which ones in the report, but I propose to our committee that we actually get the report that we did on aboriginal languages translated into....

They picked the languages here by picking the languages of the witnesses. Any witnesses who were aboriginal or who spoke an aboriginal language, they picked those languages.

I might suggest that we minimally do that and maybe use the three languages most popularly used in Canada, which would be Inuktitut, Cree and Ojibwa. Mr. Reid, do you have any thoughts on that?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That sounds good. We're getting our report translated.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I was chatting about the point of order, and as a result, I didn't hear what you had to say. If it's the same thing that you said to me earlier, that's a good thought.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

The only question I have procedurally is if it matters that it's already been tabled and adopted by the House.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I will raise one concern, Mr. Chair.

This report, if I'm not mistaken, dealt with the north. Am I correct? The indigenous languages that were chosen are effectively the languages of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

—of the witnesses.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

That's right. The issue we have is in choosing which indigenous languages to use and which not to use. I have no idea how to resolve that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I just made a proposal on that while you were talking.

I said that, first of all, we use any of the aboriginal languages spoken by the witnesses before us, plus perhaps the three most prevalent ones in Canada: Inuktitut, Cree and Ojibwa. Some of them are covered by witnesses anyway.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

I have no objection to this. Does anybody else...?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I would like to hear Mr. Cullen's thoughts on this, if that's all right.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

All those languages stop at the Rockies, which would be one thing.

I very much echo the sentiments of the witnesses about having their languages put down properly, but the committee arbitrarily picking three just by volume of speakers, I understand the logic but it does feel a bit arbitrary, especially with something as sensitive as how something is going to be expressed. As good a report as this is, I would maybe give the committee some time to contemplate and maybe even consult with indigenous language speakers as to how to go about it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Would the committee be in agreement with translating it into the languages of the witnesses who were proposed to us on this study?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll leave it up to you to find the money, Mr. Clerk.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I know you're about to go to another notice of motion and engage in a debate. I'd just like the opportunity to formally submit a notice of motion, not to be debated today, but also to underscore that I'm just the vehicle for this. This is the work of a number of respected veteran parliamentarians who are looking for changes. Mr. Reid is among them. Hopefully we'll be able to give them an opportunity to have their thoughts aired. That's what this is about.

For now, it's just a technicality. It's in both languages and it won't come up again until the next meeting.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, strictly speaking, points of order take priority, so I guess I'd be able to have priority over Ms. Kusie's motion, but that is not my objective.

My objective was to say this. We had agreed, in sort of a gentlemen's agreement—or a gentle people's agreement, to be politically correct—that we would deal with the point of order after we return. Given the amount of time we're going to have left, however, may I suggest that we all know what the point of order is about. The section has been mentioned, so I suggest that we leave it and return to it at our next meeting, which would be after the break. That would give people a chance to look over the procedural questions and we'll have a more informed debate. We won't all have to come back with five minutes remaining.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sure. We'll do it at the next meeting where we have space.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Yes, that's right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Ms. Kusie, you want a vote on your motion, you basically said.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I raise a point of order on that, which is that we had a notice of motion for Ms. Kusie on a motion on that topic but not on that motion. I've never seen that motion before. Therefore, it would be procedurally invalid at this point, but it could be brought in as a notice.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Clerk, you can use the microphone.

[The Clerk]

The committee's routine motion allows members to move motions when they're relevant to the subject being studied.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Okay, that's what I was going to say.

Pardon me. Continue, Clerk.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Can I have it in French?