Evidence of meeting #134 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A video is available from Parliament.
Acting Director, Legislation, Engagement and Regulations, Department of Indigenous Services
We are looking for the answer, but we don't have it off the top of our head right now.
Senior Counsel, Legal Services, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Department of Indigenous Services, Department of Justice
Yes. Just to answer, the National Council for Reconciliation used a similar model. It would be created under the Canada Business Corporations Act.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Okay, I just want to try to come back to this for a minute. I'll try to summarize it as clearly as I understand it.
Mr. Lemire, quite understandably, wants to ensure that there is no limitation on indigenous languages but that the language of French is included in the work and the publications of the commission. That's the first thing.
The second is that, as our witnesses have told us, because of the way the commission is to be created, it does not fall under the laws that would subject it to the Official Languages Act. Therefore, what we are doing by agreeing with Mr. Lemire is to simply effectively apply what the Official Languages Act cannot do because this would not be a Crown corporation.
My question for Ms. Idlout would be.... If we could go back in time and if we would have voted “yes” on BQ-32, then it's moot. There's nothing that anybody disagrees on here. I'm not sure where my Conservative colleagues stand. Nonetheless, if Mr. Lemire puts forward BQ-37, let's call it, with essentially the same language and if he has the support of the government side and his own support, then it's going to find success.
I'm just not sure that I understand what the opposition is to it. The witnesses have now satisfied the question that there isn't a legal protection built in because it's not a Crown corporation, so we're inserting legal protection through the language that Mr. Lemire has put forward. We're agreeable to that. He's agreeable to that.
I'm just not sure that I understand what Ms. Idlout's opposition to it is. If the NDP supports the Official Languages Act, then how could the NDP not support effectively applying the Official Languages Act to this? I don't understand.
Before I turn over the floor, I'll say this: It doesn't take anything away from the inclusion of indigenous languages. It simply adds French. I understand why that matters to Mr. Lemire and why it would matter to indigenous communities in Quebec. For many of them, the language that they live in is French. It would make sense that we would not take away the language that first nations in Quebec use on a daily basis as part of something that is contributing to their rights through this act.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
The way I understand this bill is that a first nation whose main language is French is not prevented from publicizing anything in French. There's nothing that prevents it from doing that.
What I need to finish saying is that Canada, as a colonial country that still forces first nations, Métis and Inuit to speak or write in either English or French.... For this bill to still want to do that with the first nations water commission is a problem for me, because it will be another form of oppression of indigenous languages. Ensuring that the commission, when there doesn't need to be that legislation.... We've already agreed, as a committee, not to pass that amendment.
For example, if there is a first nation in Quebec, it is not prevented from publicizing or incorporating French in its documents. This bill does not create any barriers for it to do what it needs to do in French. That is what I'm saying.
I supported the second BQ amendment, on the annual reports, because it creates an opportunity for indigenous languages to also be publicized. What we need to understand is that when we're talking about first nations that are still going to be forced to live in these colonial systems, we shouldn't be enforcing language barriers that they struggle with already.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.
Next, I'm going to Mr. Battiste, and then to Mr. Carr.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
I'm hearing that accommodating indigenous languages and the French language is an important thing to my colleagues. I've listened to that.
I don't believe that accommodating and supporting the French language in any way takes away from what we're trying to do here. I would hate for us not to be able to move forward in the future on unanimous consent because we didn't respect the French language.
I'm willing to put a subamendment forward. Actually, I don't know if we can amend the current thing. The Bloc had to amend their current amendment. However, I'm willing to put a subamendment forward that speaks to exactly what Mr. Lemire would like to see as a new amendment, if that helps the committee get to a vote on this, which we would support—the official languages.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Before I give the floor to Mr. Carr, I'm going to go to Mr. Lemire, because I think that deserves an answer.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Could we distribute the amendment I sent as amendment BQ‑37, please, and consider it as an independent version?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
We can do that, but just before we do, I just want to confirm that you want the text of the amendment to begin after line 13 on page 18.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Yes, that's correct. It would be after subsection 39(1).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
That amendment will be distributed. In the meantime, I'll turn it over to Mr. Carr to start. Then we'll suspend for a few minutes.
Liberal
Ben Carr Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thanks, Chair.
I want to briefly respond to Ms. Idlout, or perhaps try to understand.
I completely appreciate the commentary about the imposition of the languages as colonial. The lack of understanding I have is that, if you have a first nations community in Quebec that speaks French—which there are—we're not forcing anything on them. We're simply saying, “If you want to use the French language, you could.” The piece I don't get here is this. If that's our argument, we shouldn't use English, either. I'm trying to understand that. If the argument is that we can't provide French services because it's a colonial language, we shouldn't be able to provide English services. What would this mean for communities that only speak English?
This is not about opposition to understanding the colonial piece. I completely agree. It's about providing communities that want to operate in their language—whether that's an indigenous language, the French language or the English language—with the ability to do that.
That's perhaps where I'm not clear, Mr. Chair.
I have nothing further to add.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Carr.
I see the new amendment has been circulated by email, so you should all have it in your inboxes.
Given that it's there, I don't know if we need to suspend at this point.
I would like to give the floor to Mr. Lemire so that he can present his amendment.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment BQ‑37 proposes adding, at the end of subclause 39(1), in other words at the end of line 13 on page 18, that the corporation must provide its services in both official languages and in any indigenous language it considers necessary.
The objective is to ensure that all the participants in the commission, whether they speak French, English or an indigenous language, as a mother tongue or not, can sit on this commission, be fully effective, debate and play their role. Language must not be a source of discrimination that prevents anyone from participating in the commission.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you, Mr. Lemire.
This amendment has been moved. I want to open it up for debate, if any members would like to speak to it at this point.
Ms. Idlout, the floor is yours.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Can I be reminded of the BQ number that the Liberals are changing their minds on? What was that number?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
—this is not BQ-32. This is BQ-37. This is a new amendment that was moved.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I just need to see a comparison of the two different amendments, please.