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.

Second reading

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know that three-quarters of approximately 90 indigenous languages are in serious threat of disappearing completely.

I understand that we have an innate sense of wanting to be hyper-partisan in this room. I get it. I am one of those people. I do that. However, this is an opportunity to genuinely come together and not try to suggest that all of a sudden we need more time, which is what I am hearing from both opposition parties.

The reality of the situation is that they are trying, through the legislative process, to slow this down. This is a great opportunity to actually come together in a non-partisan way to support an issue that does not deserve the partisan politics that we so often get into in this room. I put myself in that category as being someone who does that, but this is an opportunity to get behind something. It is possible for all parties, all members in the room to actually believe in something together without trying to score political points on its back.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for his intervention and his passionate speech.

The government has undertaken extensive consultations with respect to the proposed legislation. Over 1,200 individuals and groups were consulted across the country. As well, there was a process of co-development, which really brought in the three national indigenous organizations.

This bill is unprecedented in the sense of its being a co-developed piece of legislation. Could the member give us a sense of how important that is in terms of advancing reconciliation, and how that has informed our government's decision relating to the bill?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member's question highlights the importance of this particular piece as it relates to reconciliation.

As we have heard, and as I have mentioned in my speech, languages of indigenous people are the core basis to much of what they do and their cultural identity. This is the starting point. This is what everything else can build on.

I am absolutely proud to stand in support of the bill. I know that all members in the House will be supportive of it. I truly hope that this will be looked at in the future, not as a Liberal win or a Liberal day, but as a day for Canada, a day that we did something right and started on a path of true reconciliation.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to reiterate how significant this step is for all indigenous people, all first nations, Métis and Inuit people, from coast to coast to coast.

However, I do have concerns. Both the first nations and Métis people in my constituency are asking a valid question about funding, which is very significant. They want to make sure that not only first nations but municipalities and Métis communities have access to sufficient funding where there are Métis students, non-status students and first nations students.

Is the government willing to give us some idea as to how much funding it is looking at?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity of my colleague's question.

This is a fundamental first step to establishing the framework. Once we have the framework in place, we can then start to look at what the funding is going to be to ensure that the positions and the various structures that are established within the framework have what they need in order to be viable moving into the future.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, my concern with the government's comments and supposed plan for supporting indigenous languages is that it is not walking the walk and definitely not talking the talk. I will given an example.

Wawatay Radio, which serves communities across the far north in Cree, Oji-Cree and Ojibwa, is a vital service. This is a service that keeps language alive in communities like Pikangikum and Kashechewan. However, under the current government, the funding has steadily been cut to Wawatay Radio.

How is it possible for the government to make all of these wonderful promises when the one radio station that guarantees that people can talk in their own language is being undermined by this very government? If the government is willing to fund the stations that exist properly, we might believe it. However, as it stands now, it is undermining the languages of the north.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to think that I have come to a place where we can genuinely collaborate on this together when the member opposite starts off by saying it is a “supposed” attempt. I would argue that this is a real attempt, which a lot of people have supported, that has come forward to the House.

As it relates to his specific concern, this is the exact framework that the legislation proposes to set up so that we can determine where the funds are going to go in order to support the various programs that we have throughout the country to support indigenous languages.

[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.

[Kim Rudd, Liberal, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague reiterated a number of things my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands said, including the importance of this bill. It sounds to me as though we all agree on that.

One thing my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said was that for decades and decades, successive governments have not moved this forward. If we all agree on the importance of this, if this bill has the flexibility to deal with the uniqueness of indigenous languages, if it includes an office of a commissioner of indigenous languages, and if B.C., in 2007, as you mentioned, was in jeopardy of losing its indigenous languages, I would ask my colleague across the aisle, with due respect, if not now, when?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address her question to the Chair. She said “you mentioned”, and I did not mention.

The hon. member for Cariboo—Prince George.

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

Madam Speaker, Prime Minister Harper, in his historic apology on June 11, 2008, recognized that our first nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools. He acknowledged the wrongs that were done in the past. He even said the following in his statement:

The government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.

To our hon. colleagues across the way who had an opportunity to speak, I offer this. There are 338 members of Parliament in this House. Madam Speaker, this House does not belong to you, and it does not belong to me. There are members of Parliament on this side of the House, such as the a former fisheries minister, the member for Nunavut, who wish to speak to this. There are colleagues on the New Democrat benches as well who wish to speak to this. However, shamefully, the government has forced time allocation.

I will offer this as well. It was the Prime Minister, then the member for Papineau, who, on day 10 of the 2015 election campaign, said that he would not resort to parliamentary tricks such as time allocation to force legislation through. That is just another broken campaign promise.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.]

Madam Speaker, through you, I want to thank my friend from Cariboo—Prince George for his passionate speech on this issue. I do not doubt his sincerity with respect to supporting this legislation and the preservation of indigenous languages.

I was in his riding last month and heard quite a bit about Elder Gouchie, who was one of the last five speakers of the Lheidli T'enneh's dialect. It could be three, but certainly it is a number that puts a language group in very real danger of extinction. We know the urgency. The urgency has existed for decades. This government has worked for the last two years consistently, through collaboration with indigenous organizations and through over 1,200 consultations, to come up with this bill.

My advice is that we get on with it and get this bill passed. A lot of work can be done in committee. I would invite the member to committee to advance the issues he has on this issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the government likes to talk about its consultations, yet we still have first nations saying that they have not had the opportunity to be consulted. We know that committees do great work. However, these first nation communities have to try to convey that in 10 minutes. Only through full debate can we bring their voices to Parliament, and that is what we are here to do. Some things just should not be rushed. We need to get it right. It is so important.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues who are here, and in particular, I want to thank my colleague who just spoke, the member for Cariboo—Prince George. I also want to thank my colleague from Nunavut for being here. Some of the comments I will be making today relate to the Inuktut language and may be of interest to him. If he gets the chance to ask a question or raise a comment, it would be nice if all of us would extend him a little extra time, given the importance of the language and that he personally represents the majority of its speakers in this country.

The goal of a language law, or any law, ought to be twofold. It is always to remediate a wrong. It ought to open-hearted in its approach, and we ought to go in with open eyes as to a clear setting of achievable, realistic goals. To fail to be open-hearted is to, quite frankly, be self-serving, even sinister. To fail to go in with open eyes as to the practicalities one is dealing with ensures one's own defeat.

This legislation, on the whole, is good, but it is imperfect on both those measures. I want to talk a little about this, with particular reference to the problem of the Inuktitut language and the fact that there is not complete support in the Inuktitut-speaking community for this legislation. This indicates that while good in many respects, the legislation is imperfect. It is imperfect because it targets one problem, where speakers of Inuktitut have a separate problem that is not being addressed in the legislation. I turn now to that discussion.

The problem of the decline of indigenous languages in Canada is not a new problem. It was identified a very long time ago and has been addressed by StatsCan in a number of interesting surveys over the years. I am looking at a document from 2007 that points out that the number of people speaking an indigenous language as their first language was in decline. It was quite a rapid decline. Between 1996 and 2001, the percentage of the indigenous population able to conduct a conversation in an indigenous language went from 29% to 24%. The number of people having an indigenous language as their mother tongue among people who were of indigenous ancestry dropped from 26% to 21%.

However, StatsCan noticed one encouraging trend, and it is the trend I think this legislation is designed to further, and that is the acquisition of an indigenous language as a second language or as a language spoken in parallel with one of the official languages, or for those who are fortunate enough, perhaps as one of their mother tongues.

The StatsCan report states:

Learning an Aboriginal language as a second language cannot be considered a substitute for learning it as a first language. Nevertheless, increasing the number of second language speakers is part of the process of language revitalization, and may go some way towards preventing, or at least slowing, the rapid erosion and possible extinction of endangered languages.

That is a salutary goal, as expressed by the author of this report for Statistics Canada 12 years ago, and it is a salutary goal as expressed in the preamble to this piece of legislation. However, it addresses the issue of languages that are in decline. It is a reasonable goal, but it is not necessarily going to succeed in all cases.

By way of example, I cite what happened in Ireland, where there was a widespread consensus when Ireland achieved independence, just under 100 years ago, that Irish Gaelic ought to be saved, ought to be preserved and ought to become a language of daily use. A nationwide consensus on this point, and a number of quite heroic measures, in some cases, caused the Irish language to become the only official language of the country. Money and postage stamps were printed in Irish alone. It was necessary to speak Irish to get a job in the public service, and so on. Areas called Gaeltacht, which were areas of Irish language use, were set up and made official language areas. Nonetheless, use of the Irish language, as both a percentage of language spoken in Ireland and in absolute numbers, continued to decline.

This is a very tough battle to fight. It is worth fighting, but I think we have to recognize that experience suggests that it is a very difficult battle indeed.

This is also a battle that is largely irrelevant to the speakers of a small number of very robust indigenous languages. This includes, in particular, Inuktut. It is on this basis that the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami put forward a position paper on language legislation and also critiqued this bill. What it said in its critique, which came out on February 5, is quite interesting:

Our efforts to revitalize, maintain, and promote Inuktut are often blunted by inequitable federal funding policies that task us with doing much more with far fewer resources than what French and English speakers receive. At the same time, our people do not have the right to access federal services in Inuktut, relegating it to a status beneath English and French.

That is important for a very significant reason, a reason that would not be true for people who were picking up an indigenous language as a second language, for example, or who were fluent speakers of an indigenous language as well as one of the official languages. That is because there are many people who are unilingual speakers of the Inuktut language or who struggle in one of the other official languages, usually English, but not always.

To give an idea of just how robust the language is, I want to cite the number of Inuit speakers in different areas of northern Canada. In Nunavut, there are 26,800 speakers. That is 89% of the residents of the Nunavut region, including people of all backgrounds. In Nunavik, which is the northern part of Quebec, 99% of the population is capable of speaking Inuktut. In Nunatsiavut, an area in northern Labrador, it is a much smaller percentage, 21%, and in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, which is in part of the Northwest Territories, it is 22%.

To get numbers of 89% and 99%, one is talking about a base in which many of those people speak only that language. Making sure that they can receive all government services and have access to everything, such as health care, education, tax forms and anything else the government offers, so they can operate as unilingual speakers of their language is absolutely critical. That is, frankly, absent from this legislation, because this legislation is addressing another problem, the problem of languages that do not have that many unilingual speakers, or perhaps no unilingual speakers. They are languages that are being forgotten. I cannot say enough how important that issue is. It is, however, a distinct problem.

To give colleagues an idea of just how distinct the situation of the Inuktut language is from other languages, I am turning now to some 2011 census data. We see that 95.3% of lnnu, or Montagnais, speakers have a very robust language. They use their language at home, which is the best way of determining whether it is the language in which they are most comfortable. That is very impressive, but it is based on 10,100 people. Among Atikamekw, 97% use their language at home. Again, that is out of a base of fewer than 6,000 people. By contrast, 95% of Inuktut speakers use their language at home, out of 36,000 people. That is a very large number, and many of those people do not speak a language competently other than Inuktut. Those people need to have their ability to function as full members of Canadian society taken into account.

I encourage the government to think about that very carefully, either with this legislation, as it says it is open to amendment, or else in a parallel piece of legislation.

I have to stop now due to considerations of time, but I would love to answer any questions anyone has.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Madam Speaker, I thank everyone who spoke to this and I want to make it very clear that I support the concept and the idea behind the legislation. However, in its current form, I do not believe I can support it. I know the president of ITK, Natan Obed, said that the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages outlined under the legislation was little more than a new title for an existing aboriginal languages initiative program, a federal office that had largely failed so far to halt the decline of indigenous languages despite having a mission to improve it.

He said that unlike provincial and territorial languages commissioners, this national indigenous language commissioner would basically be a powerless advocacy group controlled by the federal government and that there was no obligation under the legislation on the part of the federal government to fund indigenous languages. He also said that in no way was the bill co-developed with Inuit.

I am an Inuk and I have lost my language. I have lost what I am very proud to see in Nunavut right now. People are showing an interest in learning and regaining their languages. In fact, in 2008, we passed our own Nunavut indigenous languages protection act and pieces of the education act that would force the government to offer bilingual education in Inuktitut. Sadly—