Bill C-91 (Historical)

Indigenous Languages Act

An Act respecting Indigenous languages

This enactment provides, among other things, that
(a) the Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages;
(b) the Minister of Canadian Heritage may enter into different types of agreements or arrangements in respect of Indigenous languages with Indigenous governments or other Indigenous governing bodies or Indigenous organizations, taking into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous groups, communities and peoples; and
(c) federal institutions may cause documents to be translated into an Indigenous language or provide interpretation services to facilitate the use of an Indigenous language.
The enactment also establishes the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages and sets out its composition. The Office’s mandate and powers, duties and functions include
(a) supporting the efforts of Indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen Indigenous languages;
(b) promoting public awareness of, among other things, the richness and diversity of Indigenous languages;
(c) undertaking research or studies in respect of the provision of funding for the purposes of supporting Indigenous languages and in respect of the use of Indigenous languages in Canada;
(d) providing services, including mediation or other culturally appropriate services, to facilitate the resolution of disputes; and
(e) submitting to the Minister of Canadian Heritage an annual report on, among other things, the use and vitality of Indigenous languages in Canada and the adequacy of funding provided by the Government of Canada for initiatives related to Indigenous languages.

[Wayne Long, Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.]

Good morning to my colleagues.

Good morning to our witnesses, and thank you very much.

Ms. Wickham, you mentioned, and it stuck with me because I've heard it in previous testimony, making sure that minority children are captured in this, or looked after. Obviously, some of the indigenous territories, communities, are vast, as I think all three witnesses mentioned. How does this bill get to those children who aren't in a community that would have the infrastructure, the government, that kind of thing? Can you elaborate on how you see Bill C-91 capturing and covering them?

[Jennifer Wickham, Executive Director, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society]

Hadih. I am Jennifer Wickham. I am from the Gidimt'en clan and am the executive director of the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society.

I would like to start by acknowledging that I am an uninvited guest here in Anishinabe territory.

We thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill C-91.

I am here with Hagwilnekhlh Ron Mitchell, house chief of the Likhsilyu clan, as represented by the Office of the Wet'suwet'en. We are here on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation.

Our territory spans 22,000 square kilometres, as Ron was saying, from Burns Lake to west of Witset, formerly known as Moricetown, in British Columbia.

In our nation, our Witsuwit'en language is reaching a critical point. Only 3% of our population currently speak our language fluently. The average age of speakers is 70 years old.

Bill C-91 is a significant step toward helping us revitalize our language, but it must have measures that will empower our nation to lead the language revitalization work and research for generations to come. This means having guaranteed funding to build our own capacity to create immersion programs for Wet'suwet'en living within and outside our territory.

After consulting with some members of our Wet'suwet'en leadership, language champions and community members, we have the following feedback regarding the legislation.

First is an inclusive definition of indigenous governments and organizations. In the interpretation section, section 8 and section 5, which is purposes of act, we want to ensure that the definition of “indigenous governing body” includes traditional hereditary governance systems that are not defined by the Indian Act, like our own Wet'suwet'en house and clan system.

If the spirit of the act is truly to respect indigenous self-determination, an inclusive definition is required for meaningful nation-to-nation negotiations regarding funding. We want to ensure that indigenous organizations include nation-based, non-profit societies like the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society.

In the past, we have been denied federal funding because we were not considered a “national organization” based on the Canadian state's definition of “nation”.

We suggest the following changes: “Indigenous governing body means a council, government or other entity—including a traditional hereditary government of unceded lands, not defined under the Indian Act—that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group...” and “...Indigenous organisations, including non-profit societies, or other entities....”

Second, we would like to address guaranteed long-term funding for generations to come. Clause 7 needs to demonstrate that guaranteed long-term funding, secure from changes in government, will be available to indigenous nations and communities for what we foresee as the three phases that our language will undergo, which are as follows:

The first is language revitalization: research, mobilization of resources and communities, human and technical capacity-building, implementation of revitalization strategies and programs, and health and wellness strategies.

The next would be language stabilization: production of new generations of fluent speakers, growth and stabilization of programs and human resources that meet their growing needs.

The third is extension of language programs and services to the broader, non-indigenous community. To support the self-determination of any indigenous nation and promote co-operation within our territory, financial means and infrastructure need to be in place.

These phases all require significant, long-term financial commitments that will span many generations. The Wet'suwet'en people should be the ones leading these endeavours. Section 5(e) should facilitate nation-to-nation agreements. Should a provincial body be considered as the means to negotiate agreements and disburse funding, this should be done with the political support of the indigenous nations of that province.

Since education funding flows from Indigenous Services Canada, the bill needs a clear statement facilitating coordination and co-operation among all levels of government to guarantee that language revitalization funding will increase our capacity to achieve full immersion in our schools, and that one funding source will not offset another.

British Columbia is home to the majority of indigenous languages, all of which are endangered. Language funding needs to reflect this reality. Equal division of funding among provinces will only lead to inequality and create competition and division where needs are high.

On official language status and legal protection, for an indigenous nation to attain full self-determination, it needs the ability to assert itself through its language. An indigenous nation's language is intrinsically tied to its territory. The ongoing colonization and alienation of indigenous peoples and languages from their lands are unacceptable. For the UNDRIP to become meaningful, this needs to be addressed. Indigenous languages need official language status equivalent to French and English. This is essential to nation-building.

In the “Purposes of Act” section, this should be included as follows: “...facilitate and legally protect the ability of Indigenous nations or governments to declare their unique languages as the official languages of their traditional territories and implement their use in the public domain (i.e. the reclamation of traditional place names on maps and signage) and public education.”

Next I will address minority language rights of indigenous children. A large proportion of Wet'suwet'en children receive their education through the public school system. Bill C-91 must include a declaration protecting the right of indigenous children in minority situations, within and outside their home territories, to receive an education in their language, similar to article 23 of the Constitution relating to French and English minorities. Without legal protection of that right, there is no real means to implement indigenous language education in the public school system, and our ability to start immersion programs or schools outside of our territory is limited.

Also, on the selection of the indigenous languages commissioner and directors, we want Bill C-91 to ensure that the people selected are qualified and recognized as competent representatives of indigenous peoples. We suggest that the commissioner and directors selected be indigenous language champions with demonstrated experience and expertise working in indigenous language revitalization within indigenous communities. As to the location of the language commissioner's office, since British Columbia has the highest concentration of indigenous languages, we think the commissioner's office should be located in that province.

On indigenous languages and intellectual property, we consider all Witsuwit'en language research materials and documentation to be the intellectual property of the Wet'suwet'en nation. We are in opposition to clause 24, which would give Statistics Canada and Library and Archives Canada any authority to conduct research and store indigenous language content. The only role we see for Statistics Canada and Library and Archives Canada is to facilitate access to information and resources on language and culture in their existing collections and databases. We are entirely capable of collecting our own statistics and archiving our language. This legislation should be empowering all indigenous nations to build their own capacity, not delegating this work to federal institutions.

In closing, if Canada is truly committed to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, then the recommendations that we bring forward to you—and have throughout the regional consultations—should be reflected in Bill C-91. Wet'suwet'en people and other indigenous nations have been fighting to keep our languages alive since colonization began hundreds of years ago. We expect this government to live up to its promises and begin addressing the injustices that continue to harm indigenous peoples in this country today. This legislation must reflect a new way of thinking that is not founded on paternalism, tokenism and archaic colonial structures.

We appreciate the opportunity to have our voices heard, and we'll be watching carefully to see how well this government is listening.

Wiggus.

Much respect.

Awet zeh.

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Greetings. Ublaami. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As the chair has mentioned, my name is Duane Ningagsiq Smith, and I am the chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. It's in the very far northwest portion of Canada but still in the country. I represent almost one million square kilometres of Canada within my region.

My Inuvialuit name was given to me by my grandparents. It's a custom process in our system.

In regard to the language issues, when you understand it so well that it is in your heart and your mind, it is not only a means to convey information and obtain things; it is a source of strength, pride and belonging. It is the caretaker of our history and our culture.

I do want to say thank you for this opportunity as well. It's taken us 151 years for me to sit down here in front of you, and I hope we can develop that much more quickly in regard to reconciliation.

I wish I could share more of my language with you. I wish I could help my extraordinary heritage become our extraordinary heritage as Canadians. When I say that I wish that I could, I am the third generation of assimilation within this country, where we were not allowed to speak our language. If we did try to, then we were either beaten, etc., or put into certain conditions where we would learn not to speak our language. I am the third generation of that. I grew up in the wake of Canada's mission to make us all the same, and I have lost something fundamental because of those policies and the laws that entrenched them.

I'll now give you a quick description of our region and the state of our language. In the Inuvialuit settlement region, ISR, the Inuvialuit are the Inuit of the western Arctic. It's nine hours by jet, but like I said, it's still in the same country. I welcome you to come to visit us sometime.

The ISR is one of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat, our homeland. There are six communities located in the ISR, and we have over 6,000 Inuvialuit registered and enrolled with us.

In response to Canada's accelerating development agenda and assimilation policies in the Arctic, the Inuvialuit negotiated the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed and brought into effect in 1984. One of the three principal objectives of both Canada and the Inuvialuit under the IFA is to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society. When I say “both”, we're both signatories to this treaty, so we're both obligated to make sure it's implemented to the greatest extent that we can together.

Regarding the state of our language, later today you will hear the president of ITK, Natan Obed, talk about Inuktut, which is the language of Inuit Nunangat. For clarity, Inuvialuktun is the name we give to Inuktut in our region. We have three dialects within the Inuvialuktun: Sallirmiutun, Uummarmiutun and Kangiryuarmiutun The speakers of Inuvialuktun are able to converse with Inuktut speakers right across Inuit Nunangat as well as into Alaska and Greenland. We have been tied together by our language and culture for millennia.

A long period of contact along with Canada's past assimilation policies and inequitable funding for language have extensively corroded the vitality of Inuktut in the western Arctic. Compared to the high percentage of individuals able to speak Inuktut in Nunavik and Nunavut, only 22% of Inuvialuit have conversational ability in our language. We still have a small window of opportunity to see Inuktut preserved where it continues to thrive and to see it rehabilitated in our region.

I will now turn to the bill.

In terms of comments on Bill C-91, my fellow Inuit presenters will discuss the process in which we were engaged on this bill as well as the draft text that our working group has proposed in support of this process. I will not repeat these comments due to the time constraints. My intention today is to identify those aspects of Bill C-91 that are of particular importance for our regions where the vitality of Inuktut is more severely diminished.

Bill C-91 is a positive start. The bill includes Canada's acknowledgement that the rights of indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include rights related to indigenous languages. This is absolutely correct and reflective of Canada's existing obligations under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Bill C-91 sets as a main purpose to support the efforts of indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages. Related to this, the bill sets out the purpose of the act to establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages. These measures are absolutely necessary.

It is our view, however, that to achieve these purposes for Inuvialuit we will need to continue working together to refine the legislation.

First, it will be necessary to acknowledge that Inuit Nunangat is a distinct linguistic region within existing laws that recognize Inuktut as an official language. This would allow for sophisticated measures that have a real chance of success to be implemented.

Second, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the creation of the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages and its role in jurisdictions like the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which already have a similar office.

Third, it will be necessary to impose a requirement to enter into bilateral agreements with our organizations to further the purposes of the act rather than leaving this as a mere option. As we have observed over the last few decades in my territory, funding that has flowed through the territorial government is not distributed in an equitable or even a logical fashion. It tends to go where the voting populations are greater and where the chance of success is weak.

Due to the time lag, I'll stop my comments and I will entertain your questions as we proceed.

With that, quyanainni, quyanuq.

Thank you for your attention.

I'll be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will bring everyone to the table, this is our 145th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are continuing with our study of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today, from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Duane Smith.

We have with us, from the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society, Ron Mitchell and Jennifer Wickham.

We will go in the order that you appear on the agenda, and we will begin with Mr. Smith, please.

[Wayne Long]

Is it safe to say that without Bill C-91, without an investment from government, that would continue to decline? Do you think that it would drop right off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Welcome to the 144th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today, we are continuing the study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

To begin, we have present with us Blaire Gould, Director of Programs and Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. By video conference, we have Onowa McIvor, Associate Professor of Indigenous Education, from the University of Victoria.

Perhaps we can begin with the video conference first, just in case we run into technical difficulties.

We will begin with you, Ms. McIvor. Go ahead, please.

[Richard Marceau]

To build on the collaborative co-development process of the legislation, the bill recognizes that “Indigenous peoples are best placed to take the leading role in reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening Indigenous languages”. Indeed, they are the only ones who can do so.

It is a sentiment that is echoed in other places in the bill, such as: subsection 5(b), section 7, subsection 23(b) and section 25. The bill compels the Government of Canada to support approaches developed and driven by indigenous peoples. This must remain central to the implementation of the bill.

Indeed, while this process will rightly be developed and led by indigenous communities, the federal government has a vital supporting role to play, which is why passing Bill C-91 without delay is critical. Once the legislation is passed, sufficient, sustainable and long-term funding must be ensured, as committed to in the 14th whereas. We have to put the same amount of effort into protecting and revitalizing indigenous languages as Canada put into trying to eradicate them.

Our hope, Madam Chair, is that the adoption of Bill C-91 will pave the way for a comprehensive set of language immersion and cultural programs across the country, developed and led by indigenous communities. Canada's Jewish community stands ready to support this historic initiative in any way possible. We urge you as parliamentarians, from all parties, to support the rapid passage of Bill C-91.

Merci.

[Allyson Grant]

This cause is all the more urgent given evidence of the disappearance of indigenous languages in Canada and around the world. UNESCO notes that nearly half of the world's 6,000 languages are endangered. The organization's list of vulnerable languages includes 87 indigenous languages in Canada, 32 are designated as critically endangered.

According to Statistics Canada, the proportion of the indigenous population able to converse in an indigenous language dropped from 21% to 15% in just 10 short years, between 2006 and 2016. This must be reversed and Bill C-91 is an important step in that direction. This historic bill was co-developed by the Assembly of First Nations, with whom CIJA is honoured to work with in support of this vital initiative. Immense credit is owed to the AFN for its years of hard work and persistence in advancing this cause, culminating in Bill C-91.

[Richard Marceau]

Recently, the issue of indigenous language revitalization in the TRC report resonated with us. As Jews, we know the importance of language. A language is not only a means of communication. It carries with it history, culture and identity: past, present and future.

Dr. Pamela Serota Cote, whose doctoral research at the University of San Francisco focused on Breton language and identity, once noted:

Because language discloses cultural and historical meaning, the loss of language is a loss of that link to the past. Without a link to the past, people in a culture lose a sense of place, purpose and path; one must know where one came from to know where one is going.

Like indigenous people, the Jewish people know first-hand the truth of that statement. A little over a century ago, Hebrew, the indigenous language of the Jewish people, was considered by the world to be dormant, if not dead, confined to the religious texts and spoken prayers of the synagogue.

In 1890, the Jewish community, living in what is now Israel, took the bold step of establishing a Hebrew language committee. Its mandate was to prepare the Hebrew language for use as a spoken language in all facets of life—in the home, school, public life, business, industry, fine arts, and in the sciences.

The committee concluded that the indigenous language of the Jewish people, Hebrew, should be restored in the indigenous land of the Jewish people. It launched an intensive program to transform Hebrew from a language of religious text and ritual into one of daily life. By the time Israel was established in 1948, the broad renaissance the committee envisioned had come to fruition. Whereas biblical Hebrew consists of roughly 7,000 words, modern Hebrew now encompasses about 33,000 words.

As Hebrew writer Yehuda Burla observed: “The very foundation of each and every nation is its national tongue.” For Israelis, the revitalization of Hebrew was pivotal to the rebirth of the Jewish nation. For the diaspora—including the Canadian Jewish community—the restoration of Hebrew to the centre of the Jewish experience has dramatically enriched the identity of Jews worldwide. Today, it is not only in our religious services where one hears Hebrew—even in Canada. Jews around the world are connecting to their roots by studying Hebrew as a key to accessing the vibrant world of modern Jewish culture.

The entire planet now has access to it. Some of the best shows on Netflix are in Hebrew. If you want suggestions, come and talk to me after. I'll give you some.

The revitalization of Hebrew has permanently changed the global Jewish experience. While the situation of indigenous languages in Canada is somewhat different from that of Hebrew, we believe similar consequences can follow from the adoption of Bill C-91.

[Richard Marceau, Vice-President, External Affairs and General Counsel, Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good evening.

My colleague Allyson Grant and I are happy to have been invited to testify today on Bill C-91 for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which is the advocacy agent of the Jewish Federations of Canada. We are a national, non-partisan, non-profit organization representing the perspectives of 150,000 Canadian Jews affiliated through local federations.

[Professor Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University of Saskatchewan, As an Individual]

Good evening. My name is Dwight Newman. I am a professor of law and Canada research chair in indigenous rights in constitutional and international law at the University of Saskatchewan.

I carry on a broad-based program of research on indigenous rights, constitutional law and international law. I serve in a variety of related policy roles, including as a Munk senior fellow of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and as a member of the International Law Association's committee on the implementation of the rights of indigenous peoples.

I appear before the committee as an individual, in response to an invitation I received last week, and I am pleased to assist the committee in whatever ways I can as it considers Bill C-91.

In my introductory remarks, I will do two things. One, I want to highlight the importance of supporting indigenous languages and why the goals of this bill should attract support from all sides; and two, I want to highlight a number of specific sections in the bill to think about or ask further questions about, in order to try to enact the best bill feasible.

First, then, I want to highlight that the scholarly literature on language rights generally references many factors that make initiatives on this subject an urgent matter. Language is not just a means of communication, important though that is, but it is also a vehicle of culture and cultural survival, a support for social solidarity and self-worth of different communities, and a means of conserving concepts and values highlighted within different world views that bring a variety of perspectives on our shared quest for meaning in human life.

Supporting indigenous languages is about supporting human communities, kinship networks, families and individuals. In the Canadian context, it is also a vital response to tragic errors of the past insofar as the residential school system tore apart families and communities and caused severe damage to indigenous cultures and languages.

The 2008 Canadian government apology for residential schools was a vital moment in reconciliation, but apologies must carry through to action and, in this case, action that seeks to restore families, communities and cultures. Supporting indigenous languages is an urgent policy initiative.

Second, I want to turn to this specific bill and highlight a number of questions the committee may wish to consider. This legislation has come to Parliament at a particular stage in time, and there are some resulting dangers in the kind of quick consideration it could end up getting, but we must all do the best we can in giving this bill the close attention it deserves in the limited time available.

I am going to highlight a number of questions I think the committee might wish to consider, very specific questions about sections of the bill, but I hope that will be helpful from a legal perspective.

The definitions section in clause 2 of the bill does not define the term “Indigenous languages”, but that term is used elsewhere in the bill, quite obviously. Also, I would raise the question of whether there should be a provision for a schedule of indigenous languages adopted via regulation, so that there can be clarity on which languages the commissioner is to be focused upon, which could be developed, obviously, in conjunction with the commissioner and in consultation on an ongoing basis with indigenous peoples in Canada.

Several other terms that appear elsewhere in the act are also undefined in clause 2. The terms “Indigenous peoples”, “Indigenous governing body” and “Indigenous organization” are all defined in clause 2. However, other terms used in the bill—“Indigenous groups”, “Indigenous community” and “Indigenous governments”—are used elsewhere in the bill but are not defined in clause 2. I would just invite the committee to think of whether any difficulties could arise from that.

Jumping ahead to a related piece of the bill in clause 25, I do want to highlight that the bill says that the commissioner can provide funding to indigenous communities, indigenous governments or indigenous governing bodies—those specific terms. Given the terminology of the bill, there is an implicit but clear exclusion of indigenous organizations, another term appearing in the bill. Indigenous organizations would include bodies that operate in urban areas. The question here, simply, is whether Parliament is clear that it intends to exclude urban indigenous organizations from the possibility of receiving funding directly from the office. That's just a question to be clear upon.

Returning to earlier in the bill, clause 6 includes a legislative recognition of what is included in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. I am personally on record as agreeing with the substantive view expressed in clause 6 as to what's in section 35, and I personally would also defend the role of legislatures in constitutional interpretation, but my view on the latter point is certainly not shared by all.

I would urge the committee to think carefully on Parliament's view of whether a sort of clause like clause 6 is appropriate as part of a legislative enactment as a clause rather than as part of a preamble, for example. I cannot find a precedent like clause 6 in other legislation. Someone may be able to point to one, but using search terms to try to identify one, I've not found one.

You may wish to consider whether there is a separation of powers issue on the legislature pronouncing on the interpretation of a section of the Constitution in place of the courts doing so. You may also wish to consider if there is a federalism issue in the federal Parliament pronouncing on a constitutional matter that also ultimately affects the provinces and trying to do that through federal legislation.

In clause 7, I would highlight that the English and French versions of the bill do not seem entirely consistent, at least as compared with other indigenous rights-related documents from the Government of Canada and the terms used in those documents to express the same meanings in English and in French. The French term, “en vue de”, as found in the French version of this bill, is elsewhere found alongside an English term, “with the aim of”. The English version here, “in order that”, is usually found alongside a French term, “afin de”. The terms at issue can have different legal meanings, and the English version of clause 7 of this bill uses language that some, in other contexts, end up arguing implies the achievement of the substantive result that follows the term. I know I'm being technical here, but this legislation is going to be a statute.

I do not entirely agree with the view that it has that implication, but it can be argued, and if the bill is passed as is, there may end up being credible litigation that argues that the English version of clause 7 implies a funding obligation, although the French version is much less supportive of that result. I know people have a variety of views on what the clause 7 obligation should be, but it's appropriate that there be consistency achieved between the English and French versions and that Parliament understand clearly what it is or is not committing to with the terminology ultimately adopted in clause 7.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Again, this was co-developed. The co-development and partnership will not stop with the passing of this Bill C-91. We hope the co-development of regulations and the implementation process will continue so that we can address exactly what you're saying. What's the most effective and efficient way to get these out and have a real impact locally, regionally and even nationally? We have to look at that.

You also have to respect parliamentary privilege. There's a budgeting cycle every year. Within this bill, however, in three places are references to funding. That's unheard of in any kind of legislation. So it's strong. It can be strengthened, no question, but you have to respect the process. There's a federal budget every year—every year—and we want to make sure these resources get out for exactly what we talked about earlier on, which is the teacher training, the master apprentice model, the digitization and the capturing of it. It will be local, regional and national in some cases, with a flexible approach in each territory and province.

So it will vary, but I think that will be co-developed in the implementation piece. This is just the first step. Get the legislative drafting piece done. The regulations and the implementation work will continue after, in co-development.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

That's just a little bit in Cree. I am very happy to be here.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I am thanking you all, as relatives and friends, and acknowledging the Algonquin people for their ancestral lands on which we gather. The presentation is about seven or eight minutes long. I know that some bells will ring, so I'm going to get right into it.

I want to thank the members of the committee and thank you all for inviting me here today to speak to you about Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

You have heard about the importance of our languages to our cultures and to our people. First nations languages, we say, are national treasures. They are essential to who we are as indigenous people, first nations people. Our culture, our identity and our overall well-being comes from our languages. They are unique to these lands and to these territories which is why we always say they are Canada's national treasures.

I would like to address you by speaking today on why we are calling for the support of this bill. We have four months left before June, so timing is of the essence.

Number one, the proposed bill answers first nations' calls for the government to recognize, affirm and meaningfully support and provide funding for first nations' languages. We want our languages to be our living languages, sourced from our lands, expressing our creation stories and alive in our ceremonies and daily lives. Our languages are essential to our very identity as indigenous people.

The legislation recognizes that our languages are essential to the transmission of our cultures and traditional knowledge for future generations including our values, histories and world views.

Bill C-91 acknowledges that discriminatory government policies and practices were detrimental to our languages and were key in the erosion of indigenous languages.

Bill C-91 also marks the first time that Canada has upheld indigenous language rights as existing aboriginal treaty rights as recognized in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982. Through this act, it's like we're filling up section 35 and the language rights there in section 35.

To have a full discussion regarding the pre-existing aboriginal treaty rights, indigenous perspectives and case law must be considered. Cases such as Sparrow, Van der Peet, and Delgamuukw provide clear direction in that regard. Here's a quote from Van der Peet:

Courts must take into account the perspective of aboriginal peoples themselves. In assessing a claim for the existence of an aboriginal right, a court must take into account the perspective of the aboriginal people claiming the right.

The proposed legislation is consistent with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, both of which are supported by first nations and both of which Canada has pledged to honour and impalement. Here I refer to TRC calls to action numbers 13 to 15, and the UN declaration's articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 11 to 16, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25 to 27, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40 and 42 to 46. We did encourage the elaboration of these articles in the body of the legislation. They are not yet included, but there are references to the UN declaration.

Indigenous people's languages qualify us for the right to self-determination, as upheld in the UN declaration, and language is a defining characteristic for our nationhood.

I've always said it this way: Five elements are needed for the inherent right to self-determination to be recognized not only within the nation state called Canada, but globally. Your own languages, your own lands, your own laws, your own people and your own identifiable forms of government.

Language is one of those five. It's fundamental to our existence.

This legislation commits the government to providing sufficient sustainable and long-term funding toward the revitalization of our languages.

This legislation includes provisions to ensure that the government consults with indigenous governments and governing bodies to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of our languages.

The purpose of this legislation responds to the need for multi-faceted approaches. We need schools on the reserve, as well as in rural and urban settings to create and implement effective bilingual and immersion education programs, beginning with preschool-age children.

We need programs that inspire all of our people to speak our languages—regardless of age—to renew the vibrancy of our communities as our cultural places. These approaches must be developed and driven by first nations peoples.

The level of financial investment will be substantial and the need is immediate, including seeing the federal investment for language revitalization and related activities in this year's federal budget.

Number two is that passing this legislation is important for indigenous peoples and for all Canadians.

According to a 2017 Nanos research survey, 74% of Canadians were already found to be supportive of the development of an indigenous languages act, so this is good politics for the Conservatives, for the NDP and for the Liberals. Canadians want this and see the need for this. It's good for everyone. You talk about this word, “reconciliation”. This is it in action, so it's good. Everybody is supporting this.

We say that Canada must revisit its vision as a multicultural, multilingual country in a way that includes the original peoples of this land. Canada as a nation was in part formed through nation-to-nation treaties. Indigenous languages were used in the making of these treaties. We can only fully understand our shared history with our ancestral indigenous languages.

We have met with francophonie representative organizations and they understand the importance of the recognition and affirmation of our language rights. This legislation will not displace the rights of other language groups. It is part of recognizing indigenous language rights, because all languages matter.

The health and socio-economic benefits of knowing one's language and culture expand beyond the individual, to building strong communities, stronger first nations, and a stronger Canada. People who acquire fluency at a young age are more successful in school and, therefore, more successful in life. Studies have shown that. You know who you are and where you've come from. You're more successful in school.

Think of this as the business case. You're investing in the fastest-growing segment of Canada's population, which is young first nations men and women, and you're going to have huge returns on investment in the future. This is the business case that can be made if people can't get their head around fundamental human rights or inherent rights, aboriginal rights or treaty rights. It makes sense.

A culturally appropriate implementation of this legislation can help first nations and Canadians heal from our shared history of residential schools. It's time to begin to reverse the damage of harmful policies and to reverse language loss. A healthier and stronger Canadian society embraces peace, diversity, respect and inclusiveness. It's a society where everyone lives in freedom and dignity, and our strength lies in upholding these fundamental principles.

The United Nations proclaimed 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages. Let's let Canada be an example of what it means to not only celebrate but actively support indigenous languages by passing this legislation and furthermore, by supporting an international decade of indigenous languages.

Action is needed now because no indigenous language in Canada is safe. The urgency of language revitalization cannot be understated and we cannot stall. I acknowledge that there are some limitations to legislation, so how do we make sure we can move forward as soon as possible, considering the urgency of language revitalization?

We can address improvements to the act through this committee process. We always say that nothing is perfect. Let's find ways to make things better. For example, the AFN advocated for an elaboration of the United Nations declaration section in full. The language of the provision of “adequate, sustainable and long-term funding” could also be strengthened.

The matter of the delivery of federal government services in indigenous languages is an expectation and a right.

The possible requirement for translation of documents and interpretation services, where requested, in relation to federal institutions, would benefit from more clarity and strengthening as well.

Canadian intellectual property law does not currently acknowledge and protect indigenous languages as traditional knowledge and afford intellectual property rights. Participants in the national engagement sessions highlighted a need for this protection in the legislation. We need to make sure that we look after that information ourselves and that it's not copyrighted by other institutions, whether they be academic or any other.

First nations are dedicated to our languages. A growing number of second-language learners shows us that our young people care about their languages. Indigenous peoples and organizations will take the lead in reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening our languages.

Working on a co-development basis does not end here. Legislation could also clarify that first nations need to be involved in the implementation both before and following the entry into force of this act. We must continue to work together in implementing the indigenous languages act in a good way.

To conclude, this legislation is a stepping stone for us all. This legislation is enabling. It is a means to meaningfully support and fund indigenous initiatives led by indigenous peoples to bring our languages back. It's a means to regain a pride in our languages, regaining fluency, and make first nations languages living languages by bringing them back into our homes, communities and daily lives.

As a demonstration of good faith, we must put the same time and energy into revitalizing first nations languages as Canada put into trying to eradicate them. The implementation of this legislation will be a major legacy for our children who will be able to grow up learning and speaking their languages. Our languages, the original languages of this land, can and should once again be heard throughout Canada. To ensure this legacy we are also pressing that 2019 not only be the International Year of Indigenous Languages but that the United Nations also adopt an international decade of indigenous languages in a timely manner.

Kinanaskomitin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

It is 6 p.m. We will begin our meeting. We don't have much time, as we have to go to the House to vote soon.

Welcome to the 142nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are continuing our consideration of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

I am very happy to have with us today National Chief Perry Bellegarde, and Roger Jones, special adviser to the national chief, languages act, from the Assembly of First of Nations.

I am going to warn you that the bells will ring for a vote. I will be seeking unanimous consent to continue through them.

We will begin with your presentation, please.

Second reading

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour today to rise to speak to this important piece of legislation. I have been able to rise a couple of times throughout the debate and my feelings towards the importance of the legislation are widely known. The importance of this piece of legislation cannot be understated, but as I said in my earlier question, it is incredible that once again we are seeing time allocation put on a piece of legislation that is so important.

It is interesting to note that we get the same talking points from those on the government side about how the government needs to rush this through, but I want to offer a valuable piece of insight into why it is important that we have a fulsome debate here in the House.

The member of Parliament for Nunavut said that he wished he had a chance to speak to the importance of the legislation to his area but he was not given the opportunity to do so because of time allocation. Regardless of how much the Liberals say this is an important piece of legislation, which we all agree, they are forcing time allocation on it and shutting down debate, which is another failed campaign promise of the Prime Minister.

Our language is a window into our past. It is a window into who we are here today. It is a window into who we may be moving forward.

I will bring members back to the comments made about residential schools and the estimated 150,000 first nations children that were ripped from their families, their clans and their communities and sent to these schools with the full intent of driving the Indian out of them.

Talking about residential schools, and I have shared this in the House at various times, just down the road from where my mom was living was St. Joseph's Mission in Williams Lake. St. Joseph's Mission is the birthplace of Orange Shirt Day. Phyllis Webstad, on her very first day of school, wore a brand new orange shirt that her grandmother had bought for her. When she stepped off the bus at St. Joseph's Mission that shirt and any semblance of her first nations background was ripped from her. First nations children were forced to wear the uniform of that school and were not allowed to speak their traditional language. They were punished if they did.

We are really only now beginning to understand what horrors took place in some of those institutions. I have also said that I was ashamed that I lived in the same community as did friends of mine. We lived just down the road from this school but we had no idea of the horrors that were taking place in our own community.

In 1966, Mary Carpenter, a 23-year-old Inuk from Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories, started to shine the light on the atrocities that took place in our residential schools. She did so before a television audience as a guest on The Pierre Berton Show. She wept as she spoke of the physical and mental abuse she suffered. It was a shock for the thousands of viewers who had for generations been fed the lie that forced assimilation was the answer to our “Indian question”.

There are 634 first nations across our beautiful country. There are 50 distinct first nations languages and many different dialects. In British Columbia, we have 34 unique first nations languages and over 93 dialects.

Two weeks ago, I talked about elder Mary Gouchie, who was at every event in my community of Prince George. She did whatever she could as a keeper of the dialect and language. Earlier I said she was one of four. However, she was one of three. She passed away three weeks ago, taking with her the knowledge and background of that culture and language. That is a huge cultural loss to our community.

Prior to being elected, I was fortunate enough to be part of the 2015 Canada Winter Games. I raised the money for those games. The Canada Games are taking place in Red Deer as we speak. Because they are about legacy, as an executive host society, we not only chose to leave a legacy of sport but also one of culture in our community. Therefore, we were the first host society to adopt a host first nation, which was Lheidli T'enneh.

I forgot to start by saying hadih. That is how we say hello in Lheidli.

As a host society, we endeavoured not to make our games bilingual but to make them trilingual. However, the major challenge with that was trying to find elders or those in the community who could help us translate simple wayfinding signs, or getting people around the table to figure out how to welcome the nation to our community. I am happy to say that we have an amazing relationship with Lheidli T'enneh all across our community now, which is our host first nation. Chief Domo is a great leader in our community. That host first nation flag still flies at city hall, as well as at many of our major government buildings.

In 2007, National Geographic said that B.C. was a hotbed for losing first nations languages at a staggering rate. It said we were at risk of language extinction, with many aboriginal dialects classed as endangered or moribund, meaning that most fluent speakers were over 60. Indeed, we now know that over 52% of the fluent speakers of our British Columbia first nations languages and dialects are over 60, which means we are losing that knowledge.

I have also talked about the importance of the first nations languages to my family, as my son, daughter and wife are first nations and they are not connected to their community. They do not know the language. They do not know the culture. Although we have tried to be a part of the community, the languages are difficult to learn, as members can imagine.

Bill C-91 is an important piece of legislation. In the minute I have left, I want to say that I wish all of our colleagues had the opportunity to speak on this important piece of legislation. It is important because our language is a window into our past, it is a window into who we are today and it is a window into our future. There is a lost generation out there because its language and culture were driven from it. Therefore, we need to get such an important piece of legislation right.

With that, I humbly cede the floor. To my colleagues across the way I say this. This is not a piece of legislation we should be rushing. Rather, we should be spending the time and making sure that first nations communities from coast to coast to coast are represented in this study.