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.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I hope nobody's indifferent to doing it this way.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of this committee, for the opportunity to speak in support of the amendments I proposed to the draft indigenous languages act.

Before I continue, I just want to note that I'm Inuk. I think everyone here knows that, but I do not speak my language, the language of my forefathers and ancestors, due to the history of discriminatory government policies referred to in the preamble of Bill C-91.

I believe that this bill, as currently drafted, is incomplete. It fails to take into account the unique geographic and linguistic situation of Inuit. The Inuit languages and dialects that make up Inuktitut were spoken on this continent long before the arrival of French or English, whose languages are now recognized as Canada's two official languages.

This year Canada celebrates the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act and intends to review and modernize it. It is entirely fitting, in my view, that this committee take the very important step of acknowledging the irony of excluding Inuktitut—the majority language in the vast northern Inuit regions known as Inuit Nunangat, which is probably close to a quarter of this country—from enjoying enhanced legal status similar to that of the two majority languages in southern Canada. The amendment I am proposing in clause 9.1 would lay the groundwork to begin addressing this exclusion.

The intent of the amendment is to allow, but not commit, the minister to go beyond the matters referred to in clause 9, which are restricted to negotiating indigenous language programs and service delivery, subject to as yet unknown terms and conditions. Under my proposed clause 9.1, the minister would be able to enter into an arrangement or agreement with provincial or territorial governments, indigenous governments or other indigenous governing bodies that goes beyond program and service delivery.

Clause 9.1 would allow the minister to further the promotion and the use of indigenous languages in light of the distinctiveness, the aspirations and the circumstances of indigenous people in a designated region or territory. This would encompass a large territory like Nunavut, where 84% of the population speaks Inuktitut, or a large region like Inuit Nunangat. Clause 9.1 would make it possible for the minister to negotiate the status in Canadian law of an indigenous language in such a region or territory. It would also be possible for the minister to do so incrementally.

Importantly, if adopted, this amendment would allow the minister to keep the dialogue open with our national Inuit organization, ITK, whose current views about the shortcomings of Bill C-91 are quite clearly on the record for this committee. In fact, I understand that the government members have been told to vote against an amendment that is being brought forward by Mr. Nantel, which reflects changes that would make Bill C-91 amenable to ITK. I can't underline enough the importance of continuing dialogue with ITK on the matter of protecting our Inuit language.

It was mentioned that this was co-developed. I think ITK and NTI have made it very clear that this piece of legislation was in no way co-developed with Inuit. ITK said it was negotiated in bad faith. In developing my amendment, I tried to find a way to put an olive branch out there, or a sign of good faith, for ongoing negotiations, which I understand is where the government wants to go.

I think that all committee members are very capable, as we've heard over the last few weeks, of making their own decisions. I look forward to that. I would encourage you all to do the right thing—support Inuit, support this amendment. I think that would show that this government is serious about what they're saying.

I also urge all committee members to consider carefully what I'm proposing and the consequences of moving forward with a bill that excludes Canada's oldest languages.

With that, Madam Chair, I'm prepared to respond to any questions that any committee members may have.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Okay, I understand you're asking to adjourn this meeting. That's not debatable, so that will go to a vote.

(Motion negatived)

All right, so we are going ahead.

We are now looking at the clause-by-clause for Bill C-91.

(On clause 2)

The first amendment we have is NDP-1.

Mr. Nantel, do you want to present your amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Seeing no further discussion on the budget for the study of Bill C-91, I will call it to a vote.

Seeing none opposed, it passes.

I'm going to take one more moment to consult with the clerks. I'm going to suspend for five minutes to allow the clerks to continue to look at this question, rather than having us sit. Please don't go far.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Welcome to this 149th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today we begin our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-91.

Indigenous Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, language is at the core of who we are, but indigenous languages across the country are endangered and are disappearing. This is a direct consequence of governments' past actions that were meant to destroy indigenous languages. It is time to take action.

That is why our government introduced Bill C-91, with support from all parties. We hope that this bill will become law before the end of June.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That's the end of your time period as well.

This has been our final panel on Bill C-91. I want to thank all of you for your contributions. Today we've had a lot of really helpful testimony as we wrap up our study of the bill.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild]

I'll still say they're compatible, because one supports the other. By that I mean that the UN declaration supports Bill C-91, and so do the TRC calls to action support or actually respond to the TRC calls.

I'm criticized sometimes for saying this, but it's like a braid of sweetgrass. There are three strands in a braid of sweetgrass. One is the UN declaration. One is the TRC report calls to action, and now we have Bill C-91. They're actually a braid, the same braid.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

The TRC report calls to action and the UN declaration on the one hand, and Bill C-91 on the other hand. Are there any incompatibilities that you see there?

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I don't mean between the UN declaration and the TRC report; I'm talking about those two documents vis-à-vis Bill C-91.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

Maybe I want to start with you, Mr. Littlechild, with a general question.

A lot of what we have to do in Ottawa now has to be based on solid foundations for the future. One of those things is the TRC report and the calls to action in that report. The other part is the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

You have read Bill C-91. Do you see any incompatibilities between Bill C-91 and those two important foundational documents?

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild]

Yes. Thank you very much. I'll be very brief.

There is mention of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but I think there are two other pieces of legislation that we should look at to guide our discussion or further drafting of Bill C-91.

The first one is the declaration by the Organization of American States, OAS, on the rights of indigenous peoples. In that declaration there are two very specific articles that really speak to the bill.

The second instrument I would refer to is the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, comment number 11 talks about indigenous children and their rights to language.

Those two international references should be considered as well as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The second point I was going to make was to propose another “whereas” clause, or indeed an operative article. Let me read it very quickly: “Whereas treaty stories, songs, ceremonies, traditions and beliefs are carried in indigenous languages, indigenous history, oral testimony and language must take paramountcy in interpretation of rights and responsibilities, according to the original spirit and intent and as understood by indigenous peoples.”

Lastly, I would say it's important to.... I'll give you a list. There are about nine specific places where I believe you could insert “treaty” to strengthen Bill C-91, from our perspective. Right now treaties are only very minimally mentioned in two places.

[Grand Chief Abel Bosum, Grand Chief, Cree Nation Government]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members.

[Witness spoke in Cree ]

[English]

I just wanted to give thanks to our creator for the gift of our language in Cree, and the ability to speak it. My name is Grand Chief Abel Bosum, and on behalf of the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, I am pleased to appear before you today. I am accompanied by Dr. Sarah Pashagumskum, chairperson of the Cree School Board and CEO of Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute; Dorothy Stewart, Cree language coordinator, social and cultural department; Tina Petawabano, responsible for indigenous relations with the Cree Nation Government; and Paul Joffe, legal counsel.

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee includes more than 18,000 Eeyou Istchee, or Cree, occupying our traditional territory of Eeyou Istchee. This territory covers around 400,000 square kilometres and is located mainly to the east and south of James Bay and Hudson Bay, with additional territories in Ontario.

The social and cultural department is responsible for the Cree nation's language program and policy. Aanischaaukamikw Cree Cultural Institute is a museum, archive, library and research and education centre. The Cree School Board, over the past decades, has played a large role in Cree language research and program development as a primary instrument for Cree language maintenance in our territory.

From the outset, we wish to acknowledge the potentially far-reaching significance of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. At the same time, we fully recognize the important challenges associated with reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages. Clearly, there must be adequate space and flexibility to accommodate the perspectives and priorities of each indigenous people or nation.

It is important to note that according to the General Assembly of the UN, sustainable development includes language and cultural development. Also, there is a consensus that no one must be left behind. This explicitly includes indigenous peoples.

In our experience, implementation and enforcement of legislation are always a challenge. In particular, adequate resources are urgently required to carry out the programs and other initiatives for language development and preservation at all stages. At this crucial point, we need more clarity in regard to the specific global amounts that the federal government is setting aside for at least the next five years. This will help our ongoing planning and other activities under Bill C-91.

Fluency in languages is recognized globally as the most important standard. We are pleased that Bill C-91 consistently refers to fluency as a key standard and objective. In addition, we wish to underline the critical importance of the bill in linking indigenous peoples' languages to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

At the same time, it's important to underline here that as indigenous people with the right of self-determination, we view our rights in a holistic manner. All of our inherent and pre-existing rights are interrelated, and interdependent. Our rights to language and culture cannot be separated from other inherent rights, especially our rights to lands, territories and resources. With respect to Cree language and culture, the words we speak derive from our relationship with the land. The words, thoughts and world views that we pass on to our children are connected to the land.

These essential interrelationships are explicitly affirmed in the UN Declaration, in its seventh preambular paragraph:

Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources.

Therefore, it's important to highlight the pressing need for umbrella legislation under the UN declaration. Such legislation, namely Bill C-262, has already been passed by the House of Commons and is currently at second reading in the Senate. We are proud that Romeo Saganash, a member of our Cree nation, sponsored Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples act. This bill will advance the human rights of indigenous people in Canada. It will also set an important precedent for indigenous peoples in other countries worldwide.

As underlined in call to action number 43, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls on the federal government and all levels of government to implement the UN declaration as a framework for reconciliation. Therefore, implementation of the declaration is inseparable from the TRC call to action. Any member of Parliament who fails to support the UN declaration is also undermining Canada's national reconciliation initiative.

As highlighted in the preamble of Bill C-91:

...2019 has been proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations as the International Year of Indigenous Languages to, among other things, draw attention to the critical loss of Indigenous languages and the urgent need to maintain, revitalize and promote Indigenous languages;

Such loss or severe impairment of indigenous languages—whether through residential schools; dispossession of lands, territories and resources; forced assimilations; destruction of culture; or other acts of colonization—must be redressed in authentic ways. Such ways must respect our ability to determine ourselves how we will maintain our languages and the vehicles that we will utilize to do so.

We look forward to working harmoniously with the federal government and others to achieve the critical objectives of Bill C-91.

Meegwetch. Kinanâskomitin.

[Chief Gerald Antoine]

Okay. I just wanted to skip that part because I made my point.

This is really significant, and I point out here that one only needs to examine the Northwest Territories Official Languages Act in comparison to Bill C-91 to see striking similarities. This is alarming to me. Bill C-91 presents an updated version of the NWT Official Languages Act, with some language around reconciliation and indigenous rights sprinkled over it, but the actual clauses do not provide any guarantees of capacity funding.

If you look at the treaty relationship, there were specific understandings and guarantees, and that has not been fulfilled. In all the different things that have been going on with any legislation, that's what's been happening. Yesterday, you heard things about corruption. You could look at this in that context too, because there's something not right.

My sister earlier on talked about crumbs. The other thing is that we're on the side. There are some things going on. When you're travelling around together, there are people in front of you who see everything and this is where you are. We're in the back, and you're yelling at us, saying, “What do you want? What can you see?”

We can't see anything. We don't know what we want because we're not there. We need to be there. The treaty relationship says that it's going to be coexistent, so we need to be there. We need to look at how we need to do that.

That's a point that I wanted to make, because the process—this is the point I'm making—is the process. Yes, we need capacity. The other thing is that there is a jurisdiction. There's the Crown's jurisdiction and there's Dene jurisdiction. It's coexistent. We need to work together. That's how we need to move forward.

That's how I feel, and that's how we need to move forward.

[Witness spoke in Dene Zhati]

[Chief Gerald Antoine]

Two sounds come from the word Dene. “De” makes reference to the river and “ne” makes reference to the land. You are of the land and of the water: That's what a Dene person is.

Another thing is that our land is really big. Liidlii Kue is a functional area. It's a place name for the confluence of Dehcho and Nachahdeh, which newcomers call the Mackenzie and Liard rivers. This is a place Pope John Paul visited in 1987. I was the chief at the time. Today I'm also the chief, but it doesn't mean I was chief all the time.

I went on a walkabout to just across there, to the Canadian Museum of Civilization, where I was an intern. I had a chance to visit some of our belongings and some of our relatives there.

It's a special gathering place. You'll notice that the spirit of our language, the Dene language and other indigenous languages whose voices have been shared here, illustrates who we are and the relationship we have with all living things in our home territory. We have lived through our functions and our responsibilities with the land since time immemorial, and we will continue to live this way of life. As we move forward, we will also continue to look for meaningful ways, as we have, of putting food on the table.

We are part of a large linguistic family that spans from Alaska and the Northwest Territories through southern Alberta to the northern territories of Mexico. I'm here to speak with you from my position as chief regarding this process and to express three points of consideration. These are specific to jurisdiction, capacity and process. I will conclude by offering the committee some solutions to the problems that will be identified in this presentation.

As you'll notice from the medallion, two years from now we'll be commemorating 100 years of a relationship. This relationship is an international relationship. This is Treaty No. 11. My great-grandfathers, Ehthilo and Nakehgon, were two of the leaders who engaged the representatives of the Crown in right of Great Britain. This agreement was inherited by Canada. By entering into this international arrangement, the Dene and the Crown recognized one another as nations and agreed to coexist in peace and friendship.

At the time, in preparation for this relationship, Dene Zhati, or the Dene language, was used to communicate with the Crown, making it a medium for our treaty relationship and a treaty right. The Dene language is the basis for understanding the spirit and the intent of this relationship of coexistence. This was recognized by the Canadian courts in the Paulette case—and within the international community to this day.

Dene Zhati expresses who we are and is our spiritual database. It is a cornerstone of our nationhood, transferred to us by our ancestors through countless generations of experiences and observations of the land and all living things. Today I think people refer to this as “traditional knowledge”. However, from my context, it's a lot more than that.

Who we are is expressed through our language. This is the reason we did not cede anything when the Crown entered into a treaty with us. We insisted that your people would peacefully coexist with us. We did not give up any of our inherent rights or title. We retained our jurisdiction over ourselves and our inherent right to self-determination in all matters. It is from this foundation that I speak to you today.

My second point is in regard to the context of Bill C-91 and the lack of an assurance that capacity will be made available for the revitalization and sustainability of Dene. This has occurred once before, when the Government of the Northwest Territories enacted its Official Languages Act in 1984, recognizing the indigenous languages in our territory. This included Dene Zhati.

Although this act has been in place for 35 years, there are problems. The reason that the Dene originally supported the act is that we thought it would help revitalize and protect our languages. There was help mandated by the Dene to ensure this legislation would work, but since then, capacity has been removed from the existing legislation.

How much time do I have left?

[Chief Gerald Antoine, Liidlii Kue First Nation, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Dene Zhati]

[English]

I would like to thank the people here for giving me this time to share with you some of the things you're deliberating on with regard to Bill C-91. I come from a community called Liidlii Kue.

Margo passed out the medallion. I'd like you to look at that, because it's something that will tell you about our existence and about a relationship that we have. First, I'm a Dene person. “Dene” is a four-letter word. Earlier on, one of the committees wanted to use a four-letter word. I'm going to use a four-letter word, but not a swear word.