Evidence of meeting #38 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 move.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Look to the legislative clerks. They will tell you what's acceptable. Somebody will have to translate it too, unless you do it.
You wanted to say something, Mrs. Gill.
The floors yours.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I realize there's some sort of hiccup, but I have to point out that the Conservatives' amendment would remove two components of clause 12, the beginning and another part—the part Mr. Battiste wants to keep in. I wanted to mention it because it wasn't clear to me. Even if we see the amended wording, it's important to keep in mind that the amendment seeks to remove two components from the clause.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
We will now resume. As I understand it, the subamendment proposed by Monsieur Battiste has been sent to all of the members, and I'll remind everybody that this is reinstating the words “to the extent possible”.
Is there any desire to debate the subamendment?
I see none. Shall the subamendment to the amendment CPC-8 carry?
(Subamendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Does the subamendment have a number?
Shall amendment CPC-8, as amended by Mr. Battiste's subamendment, carry?
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We'll now go to amendment NDP-4.
Ms. Idlout, would you like to move amendment NDP-4 and explain it?
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq.
I move that reference number 12026959 be considered. The purpose of this amendment is to add indigenous elders and survivors of the discriminatory and assimilationist policies of the Government of Canada to the list of representatives.
Liberal
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Bloc Québécois is, of course, in favour of this amendment, which would ensure elders and survivors are represented, but I do have a question for Ms. Idlout.
We heard from witnesses that they weren't all that comfortable with the term “survivors”. I don't have anything else to suggest, but I did want to bring it up.
I think I know what the member will say, but since I don't want to assume anything, could Ms. Idlout tell us whether the “discriminatory and assimilationist policies” referred to go beyond the residential school system.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
Thank you, Mrs. Gill.
Ms. Idlout, would you like to comment on Madame Gill's questions?
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Yes. I'm unfortunately always the one having to ask their questions twice.
First, I just made a comment about the use of the term “survivors”. In the course of meeting with witnesses, we heard that they didn't feel the term represented them. Some are okay with it, but not others. That said, I don't have an alternative in mind. I just wanted to point that out.
Second, I asked a question about the reference to “discriminatory and assimilationist policies”. In general, the witnesses talked about residential schools, but the term doesn't refer solely to that. I wanted to know which other policies Ms. Idlout was referring to in proposed subsection (a.2) of her amendment.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
Thank you, Madame Gill, for clarifying.
The important thing for me is that we don't limit survivors only to residential schools. There are other survivors. There are the sixties scoop survivors as well as survivors of other government policies like those relocated from the high Arctic and northern Quebec to Resolute. They are survivors of these policies as well.
The discriminatory policies substantiate what I'm saying about not limiting survivors to only residential schools. Those other examples of those policies are well known, and I didn't want to limit what those kinds of policies are by saying just that we are talking about government policies to take the Indian out of the child. Those kinds of things continue to impact indigenous peoples in Canada.
I hope that responds to your question.
Liberal
Bloc
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Yes, perhaps for greater clarity.... There have been a lot of assimilationist policies by the Government of Canada towards people other than indigenous people. I think for greater clarity in this bill, maybe “indigenous survivors” could clarify the scope a little more, in that that we're talking about survivors of residential schools and day schools. Those are the major ones that come to mind, but not limiting that.... I think what's meant here is for those indigenous survivors, so are we okay with amending that or are we agreeable to that?
Hopefully, I don't have to put that in handwriting again, but please let me know, Mr. Chair, if I do.
Liberal
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I am amenable to amendment, and I agree that adding “indigenous” in front of “survivors” would help to clarify that.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
I don't have a question on what Jaime said. I just have a general question for Ms. Idlout. Are we done with that before I—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Marc Garneau
No, we're not quite done with that.
You may move to add the word “indigenous”, but we want to understand before we accept it what.... Let's agree on the French wording as well.
In French, it would read “survivants autochtones”.
Are we all agreed on that? I see agreement there.
Essentially, you are ready to put the word “indigenous” in front of “survivors”.
Go ahead, Mr. Schmale, on your point.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
My question is for Lori.
Could I have your thoughts or your comments on potentially adding the word “descendants”, rather than just “survivors”? Could it be “survivors and descendants”?