This bill was last introduced in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session, which ended in September 2019.
Pablo Rodriguez Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question of the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
Pablo Rodriguez LiberalMinister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism
moved that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, as amended, be concurred in.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)
The Speaker Geoff Regan
I declare the motion carried.
When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
Mélanie Joly Liberal Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC
moved that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the third time and passed.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.
I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the unceded ancestral lands of the Algonquin people.
Before getting into the details of the bill, I would like thank our colleagues, particularly the members of the heritage committee, who worked very diligently to get this bill through the committee stage, as well as those who are not committee members, such as our friends from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, for their dedication and hard work in supporting this bill.
I am also pleased to speak about the need for Bill C-91. As members are aware, Bill C-91 has been co-developed by three national indigenous organizations, namely the ITK, the AFN and the Métis National Council. It is in direct response to a number of very important things that have happened both in Canada and internationally.
First and foremost, it is in direct response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report's calls to action 13, 14 and 15. I will elaborate on that later.
It is also a direct result of our commitments to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As members are aware, Bill C-262 is now in front of the other House. It was adopted by this House and is something our government and the Prime Minister have committed to implementing.
There are many ways to look at languages, but however we look at them, they are one of the most important elements of our lives, one of the most important aspects of connection to the people, the land and their way of life.
In Canada, there are currently 90 indigenous languages. As we mark UNESCO's International Year of Indigenous Languages, we have to understand that, sadly, 75% of those 90 languages are on the verge of extinction. That is quite shocking. For some languages only one or two speakers are alive. I was recently in London, Ontario, and met with some elders from the Oneida Nation. They have 48 speakers of their language. Sadly, those 48 speakers are all over the age of 65. Not a lot of young people are speaking the Oneida language. That language is probably at risk of becoming extinct within the next generation. It is something that is quite urgent. Given the history of failure on the part of successive governments to protect languages, I think it is long overdue that we entrench this into law once and for all.
When we speak about how we got here, it was through a process of colonization on the part of the government in the last 152 years formally as a country, but since settlers first came to North America. We know that over the decades, languages were eroded, primarily I would argue because of programs put together by the government. Of course, one of the most important aspects of it is the effects of residential schools on generation after generation of indigenous people who have lost their language. We know that residential schools played such an important role in that.
I want to quote from the Prime Minister's speech at the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs Assembly on December 6, 2016, where he stated:
We know all too well how residential schools and other decisions by governments were used as a deliberate tool to eliminate Indigenous languages and cultures. If we are to truly advance reconciliation, we must undo the lasting damage that resulted.
I just want to walk colleagues through an experience I had this past month.
I went to Moosonee and met with Tony, who is a residential school survivor. He is in his sixties and is originally from the Moosonee area. When he was about five, he was taken to the St. Anne's Indian Residential School, along with his siblings. They were there for about 10 years. During that time, the entire way of life he was used to was taken away from him. He basically lost his language and lost his spiritual connection to his people. He was unable to reconnect with his family, because his sisters and brothers were separated in separate dorms. He was simply unable to connect with his family when he got back. He went through a very difficult process in establishing himself. He is now a very successful businessman. He has four children. He was trying to tell us how important language is to him, but sadly, he is unable to speak the language and pass it on to the next generation. I think that is the critical moment we are facing today.
Another comment was from a Tlicho elder and language specialist, Mary Siemens. She talked about the connection between indigenous languages and cultural identity. She said:
Our culture depends on our language, because it contains the unique words that describe our way of life. It describes name-places for every part of our land that our ancestors traveled on. We have specific words to describe the seasonal activities, the social gatherings, and kin relations.
That is a profound quote that describes the connection she has to the language and culture.
I want to walk through some of the major elements of this legislation. First and foremost, this would be a framework. It would be a living document. We have been putting together a framework that would look at indigenous languages in a holistic way. It would be dynamic and would allow for a distinctions-based approach to the protection of indigenous languages. It would not be an Ottawa-based solution to the challenges of indigenous languages. It would be a framework that would allow indigenous communities, based on the notion of self-determination and respect for each of the nations and language groups, to define what was important to them and define how those languages would be protected. The bill would be required to be reviewed every five years in this House as well as outside. It would adapt as languages grew and as situations changed so that support would continue as we continue the reconciliation journey together with indigenous peoples.
Just to put it in context, when we have a language like Oneida, where we have only 48 language speakers, and we have languages like Cree, which has many more speakers, the needs and the ways to protect these languages are different. What may be important for one group may not be the same for others. I think the framework we have put together really contemplates that. It would allow for this level of flexibility to ensure that it was distinction-based and that it enabled each and every community to establish an action plan for themselves.
I want to talk about one of the other major aspects of this bill. That is the establishment of a national commissioner of indigenous languages. This is something that is very important.
For the first time, we would entrench in legislation a commissioner who would oversee indigenous languages. The commissioner would be supported by three directors, and together they would work with indigenous communities and nations to develop programs and processes that would allow communities to advance their requirements.
When we look at the framework for the indigenous languages commissioner, we have a concrete plan that would be a starting point. It would not be an end point; it would be a starting point that would turn the tide on the loss of these languages.
From that, there would be support from the federal government, which, as we can see in budget 2019, would be a significant investment in the right direction. We would invest $333 million over the next five years to support this initiative. This is currently being debated as part of the budget implementation act. As we know, it would be a significant change from the $89 million over three years we currently have, which is roughly $30 million a year, for the aboriginal languages initiative. This significant change in funding would accelerate the protection of indigenous languages.
It is very important that we protect indigenous languages. I bring it back to my personal experience, which I have spoken about previously in the House. I know that the Minister of Canadian Heritage has also spoken many times about languages. For both of us, the primary language we speak at home is neither English nor French. We both came to Canada at a relatively young age. My family speaks Tamil. At home, it is the primary language. Over the last 35 years, there has been a serious conflict in Sri Lanka over one language and the ability of people to use that language and access services in that language. Over 100,000 people have died as a result of it.
The language I speak at home is foundational to my life. It has defined virtually every aspect of who I am, how I live my life and what I do and do not do. If I did not have that connection to the language, I would be a different person today. The struggle I have is that I have two young daughters, who are eight and 10, and I struggle with how to pass it on to them and make sure they speak the language fluently and have the opportunity to learn and understand the culture and the context the way I was able to understand. Regrettably, I actually do not read or write the language, but even then, I am able to understand it and live in that world. It is a struggle I face.
Relatively speaking, this is a language that has incredible international support. It is institutionalized in many universities. It is the official language in countries like Singapore, Malaysia and elsewhere, so it is protected. When we compare that language with indigenous languages, it is a completely different situation. We have failed to support, revitalize, protect and expand indigenous languages, and that is why time is so critical. That is one of the reasons our friends opposite, in both the Conservative Party and the NDP, worked very closely with us in getting this legislation through the committee process as well as through this House.
The urgency of implementing this legislation now cannot be understated. I have visited communities in the last several months that have gone from having six language speakers to five. There are many like that around the country. My colleagues probably have a good sense of that as well.
This cannot wait until the next Parliament. We cannot defer this to the next generation, because sadly, there will not be a next generation that can speak the language or protect and preserve it.
A couple of months ago, I was in Victoria at the Royal British Columbia Museum. It has an indigenous languages exhibit that really speaks to how languages are looked at right now. We are at a point where certain languages are only available in museums. The last speakers were recorded by academics, and they are preserved, but there is really no process or plan to revive and revitalize those languages. That is the primary reason for the urgency of the legislation before us.
Finally, on the overall aspect of reconciliation, Canada has played an important role in keeping these languages in the state they are in today. This did not happen because of indigenous people. This happened because of government policies. Government policies need to change to support this process of revitalization, and that is a major responsibility of the federal government. It is the other impetus for us to support the bill and push it forward.
Our commitment to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is critical. It is something that the government and the Prime Minister have accepted, and we are in the process of implementing it. Implementing this legislation is an important step and milestone as we look at actually entrenching the principles of UNDRIP in law.
This loss of languages is dire. It is critical that we revive them and support them through revitalization. It is also important to recognize that over the years, language has been a form of resistance. Even though they lost these languages, we know that some people, late in their lives, even with their last breath, were speaking their language, were speaking their mother tongue, and that was important, because it was a form of resistance.
We need to acknowledge all the language keepers, all the people over the years who have struggled to keep these languages alive: the languages nests, the elders, the communities and the schools where languages are taught. We need to thank them for the enormous amount of work they have done to support these languages to keep them alive. It is an appropriate way to close, because it is their strength and their commitment that will allow indigenous languages to be revived and revitalized and used in daily life. I hope that one day we can celebrate the survival of all these indigenous languages.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the goodwill that went into making the bill, but I think we need to recognize that it is far from perfect.
My colleague talked about the co-development process. It is important to note that one national organization is opposed to the bill. I wonder if the member could speak to that particular issue. To me, co-development, when presenting something to Parliament, should mean taking a consensus approach.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend for her hard work in support of the bill.
This legislation was, indeed, co-developed with three national indigenous organizations. The member is right. At this point we still do not have full consensus from all three organizations. However, we are very hopeful. We continue to have conversations in order for that to materialize.
The urgency of time is important. Over the last two years, we have consulted with over 1,200 individuals and organizations, and at this stage, we really do need to get this done.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, I was glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned fluency and the danger presented by the fact that many of these languages are on the verge of extinction in Canada. Those languages are at the core of culture and reconciliation.
In my riding in the Okanagan Valley, the territory of the Syilx people, the language spoken is Nsyilxcen. There are fewer than 50 fluent Nsyilxcen speakers left in Canada. One program in Canada, of very few, is teaching people to be fluent in it. It is trying to bring the language back from the edge of extinction. I think the only other two programs like this in Canada teach Mohawk and Squamish.
These programs take a lot of effort, time and money. I do not see any significant funding earmarked through the bill or in the government's budget for programs like these. We have left this to the very end, and we need serious funding to do this across the country.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, across the country there are some very important programs like the one my friend mentioned. There are some very unique experiences, and work is being done by communities to preserve language.
With respect to the budget question, $335 million has been allocated in budget 2019 over a five-year period. This is a significant improvement from the $89 million over three years that our government put in place, and a vast improvement from the $5 million a year provided by the previous government to support indigenous languages.
This is a step in the right direction, and as the framework develops and unfolds, the government will provide significant support to advance languages.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, it is interesting to reflect on some of the comments my colleague made about how government policies or cultures from the past that tried to impose one language have affected both indigenous Canadians and new immigrant communities.
He talked about the importance of language for culture. Sometimes there are ideas, sentiments and experiences that do not translate very well. They can be explained in one culture and in one language, but it is very difficult to put those ideas together in a different language.
Just to develop that, I wonder if my colleague can share examples of that from his own experience as a Tamil speaker to help us understand that with respect to ideas and experiences, translating words is not simply automatic. There may be something in the original language that is not understandable outside of it.
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, obviously the context in which heritage, multicultural language and education are taken in Canada is quite different from that of the need to protect indigenous languages. It is fair to say that many of the multicultural languages that are here have enormous international strength and receive support from other countries and institutions, whereas indigenous languages simply have not had that, do not benefit from it and, in fact, in terms of the speakers, are quite limited. In that sense, the responsibility to revive a language does not rest with a community of 1,500 or 2,000 for multicultural languages; it rests with 30 million to 50 million people. Therefore, contextually it is different.
However, the struggle, in terms of the emotion of not being able to understand the language and the real fear of losing it, lies with most people who are living in areas dominated by another language and other language groups.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Madam Speaker, can the parliamentary secretary comment on what Canada has actually lost as a result of not having properly preserved indigenous languages throughout the years and, arguably, at times throughout our history worked to oppress them?
What are the benefits of properly preserving these languages going forward, in terms of the cultural identity of Canada?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, we can never imagine what we lost with respect to languages over several generations and spanning over 152 years as a country. The loss of language is also attached to the loss of many people. I think the best way to describe it is with what the former chief justice of the Supreme Court said, which is that what happened in Canada was cultural genocide, and it occurred as a result of federal government policies.
We can never recover from it, and I do not think that many people who have faced this type of struggle and violation could ever recover from it, but it is important that we start the process. That is why, overall, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action are important, and that is why language revival is so essential.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Madam Speaker, as a fluent Dene speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to still do that. I was involved in the committee process, and many witnesses who came forward talked about improvements and the importance of making this the best legislation ever for Canada, yet there are so many disappointments.
I have one important question to ask the government, which I have asked outside of here. The amendments we brought forward were based on the witnesses who came forward wanting to make some amendments to strengthen the legislation. The proposed legislation is just a small step. It does not look at the whole, at the big picture.
Why has the government not taken into consideration the amendments and the hard work the witnesses have done in coming here and speaking to members of Parliament and the committee?
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Speaker, that is not correct. In fact, many amendments that were put forward were adopted and are reflected in the report that came from the committee. The legislation before us, as amended, has come a long way from the initial legislation we put forward.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand and speak to Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act, at third reading.
It is important for people who might be watching to note that we just had a vote at report stage, and there was unanimous support in this House to move this bill forward. That in itself speaks to how important this particular bill is.
Having said that we see it is important to move the bill forward, the expression “The pursuit of perfection often impedes improvement” is very appropriate. This is by no means a perfect bill. There are many things that will still be looked at in more detail in the Senate. I certainly perceive that we will be seeing more amendments coming forward. It was seen as a really important step. It was seen as something that we should all support, at least as a movement in the right direction. It is an improvement, for sure, but does it get us where we need to go? Absolutely not.
I was just talking to my colleague, who was at a dinner last night with the ambassador for New Zealand. There was a delegation here from New Zealand. I understand there was some drumming and a welcome in Cree at this particular dinner. What was more interesting was when he described to me how the entire delegation that came, MPs from all parties, spent over a minute or so talking in Maori. All the people in that delegation had some grasp of the indigenous language of that country.
I thought that was a very interesting story. I know we have a few indigenous language speakers in this Parliament, but we are a significantly long way from anything that resembles what my colleague described. Obviously, with its many languages and their many dialects, Canada is in a very different position.
This bill is important. Many witnesses came to the heritage committee and shared how vital the protection and revitalization of languages was for them. As they spoke, they shared research in terms of the importance of language; they shared lived experiences, and they shared suggestions for how we could make this bill better. I would like to thank them all for taking that time to come to committee to share their thoughts about this bill. We know that some of the suggestions were taken into account. At this time, others would be difficult. This needs to be an evolving process; it needs to be a bit of a living tree, and it is certainly a framework.
To go back a little, in the debate at second reading I shared a personal story. I would like to share another story in terms of what I witnessed back in the 1980s: elders who were very fluent in their language at that time, and how destructive some of the government policies had been, not only in terms of the residential schools and the loss of language.
I can remember visiting an elder who was very fluent in her language and being told that I was not supposed to visit this elder because she was no longer one of them. She had married a white person who had passed away. I thought that was strange, because she was of the community; she spoke the language and she was emblematic of the culture of the community. However, the government had decided she was no longer a status Indian, because she had married a white person who had since passed away. She could not ever retrieve that status.
It was a really unusual circumstance. That was one of the first times I saw the impact of government policies. As a nurse I was not supposed to visit an elder, because at the time I was called “the Indian nurse” and in the communities I was allowed to be responsible only for people who were status Indians. We all ignored those rules, and those rules certainly made no sense.
If we look at all the elders at the time and their fluency in speaking and we compare them with the children who had returned home from the residential schools, who at that time were in their fifties and sixties, we would see that very few of them could converse well with their parents with the language skills they had, and many of the elders were very limited in their English. Imagine how difficult that was for the communities.
To look back, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was part of the 2007 Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which recognized that the school system had a profound, lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language. At that time, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper and the previous Conservative government acknowledged these harms and delivered a formal apology in the House of Commons to the former students and their families and communities for Canada's role in the operation of these schools.
Again, this was a time when Parliament came together. We were government and we delivered the apology, but I remember NDP members were instrumental in that and I also know that the Liberals welcomed that particular day.
At the time, he said:
The Government of Canada built an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes and often taken far away from their communities.
Many were inadequately fed, clothed and housed. All were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities.
First nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.
Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools, and others never returned home.
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.
As we all know, the commission did its work across this country and delivered its calls to action. Calls to action Nos. 13, 14 and 15 specifically looked at the issue of language, and that is part of the reason we are seeing unanimous consensus in the House to move forward with this bill.
This is an important bill. We have said it is not perfect. I am going to talk about some of the challenges and concerns that I continue to have about the technical pieces of the bill, as opposed to the more aspirational component.
My number one concern is about something I have never seen before in all my time as a parliamentarian. Committees hear from witnesses, who make suggestions. Then we have the opportunity propose amendments to the legislation to improve it or to fix errors. Amendments typically are introduced in time for all members of the committee to reflect on them and make decisions about whether these amendments make sense, where they are supportable, or whether they might have other implications.
We went through that process. Many amendments were submitted. They were submitted from independent members as well, and there was a good opportunity to reflect on what those amendments would mean in the context of the whole bill. Then there was clause-by-clause consideration, when we looked at the clauses as they existed and the amendments that were proposed.
The current government table-dropped 23 amendments. In all of my time as a parliamentarian, in considering many bills in clause-by-clause study, I have seen independents table-drop amendments and other parties have table-dropped amendments, but I have never, ever seen a government having to drop 23 amendments to its own bill with no time for consideration. Essentially, we had to make a decision on the spot, on the fly, in terms of the ramifications of these amendments.
That is what I consider to be an incredibly sloppy practice, and it is a serious concern. As the Senate looks at this amended bill, I am hoping that it will be able to catch any challenges that were left there as a result.
The other thing that is particularly interesting about the bill is something that Canadians might not be as aware of. There are two bills before this Parliament that are in some ways partner bills. One is the bill we are talking about today, and the other is Bill C-92, which is the indigenous child welfare legislation. In both these bills—and for the first time ever, as was confirmed by Ms. Laurie Sargent from the Department of Justice—Parliament has decided to speak to the recognition of section 35 rights in legislation, as opposed to going through a court system.
As Conservatives, we have often said that we should be the ones legislating and the courts should be interpreting. To some degree it is very appropriate that in consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples in this country, we try to do some work in relation to section 35 rights.
The unanswered question is still about our Constitution, which is absolutely a work that includes our provinces and territories. For the federal government to be addressing section 35 in a language bill makes sense, because it is not going to impose on the provinces; however, in Bill C-92, the child welfare bill, the government is again defining some section 35 rights but is also going to be asserting to the provinces some paramountcy. It has been unwilling, so far, to talk to the provinces about that. When we are talking about putting some definition to some issues in the Constitution, not having conversations with the provinces is going to lead the government to some real challenges, particularly in the next piece of legislation we are going to be debating. I am very concerned that the government has taken such an approach.
I do not think I have ever seen things so bad in my time as a parliamentarian in terms of provincial-federal relationships. Things seem to have broken down, and I hope we can retrieve the situation. To propose legislation on which conversations have not even been had with the provinces is a challenge we need to deal with.
As I was going back in my notes, I noticed another interesting thing. This bill was originally tabled on February 5. At that time, the Minister of Heritage gave his speech, and I congratulated him on his speech and on this particular piece of legislation. However, February 5 was a very interesting date: it was the day a Globe and Mail article gave the first inkling of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.
I can remember the article had just come out, and I asked the minister a question about that, of course, and for the next two months we never did get satisfactory answers to any of those questions. What we learned in that particular article and in the two months that came afterward was that the government speaks many fine words about its commitment to indigenous relations and reconciliation, but that far too often its actions fall far short of what is expected.
I know that the former attorney general of Canada, who is now sitting as an independent, feels particularly concerned about what the government is doing and where it is going in terms of its commitments and in terms of the indigenous file.
We also saw how willing they were to throw a female who was the first indigenous attorney general in Canada under the bus. How quickly they did that, just two months later, to someone who was well recognized and well respected. We need to call them out on that particular piece.
Bill S-3, a bill about gender equity, is another piece of legislation that was tabled in the House that is related to this file. We had department officials come to our meetings. It sounded as though they had responded to the court decision in a reasonable fashion, yet the first witnesses and then other witnesses were able to point out serious flaws in the bill that the department officials had not noted. The minister had said everything was fine and that the government was taking care of the court decision, but the bill was so bad that they had to pull it and go back to the starting point. Then they had to pass a flawed bill, and we have been hearing recently that there are still concerns that the issues around gender equity have not been resolved.
Those are my particular concerns over the legislation that the current government has tabled. We have Bill S-3, which was flawed and had be to be pulled back. We have Bill C-91, which required 22 amendments to be table-dropped. In the case of Bill C-92, there are only six weeks left in this Parliament. The Liberals made significant commitments that they have not been able to meet, so they are in a rush, and particularly with Bill C-92, the child welfare legislation, they are trying to rush things through.
When I started my speech, I talked about things not being perfect but moving in a good direction. However, there might come a time when, in the Liberals' rush to get things done, things will be so flawed that they will just have to backtrack, as with some of their other bills. Unfortunately, we will have to see if they can get through it in time.
In conclusion, it is heartening to see unanimous consent in this House. It is heartening to see the work that has been done, although it is only a step. I am optimistic that there will be new technologies. One of the witnesses talked about how artificial intelligence can help with some language preservation.
We need to work soon and we need to work hard, so we are very happy to support this bill in terms of moving it to the next step.
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, I want to first reach out to the member across and say that I was equally frustrated by amendments being brought by members at the last minute. I acknowledge that it was in fact a very frustrating part of the process. I understand her frustration about that, and she is correct that members should not be bringing amendments at the last minute. That was very frustrating.
The timing of the process issue was very frustrating, but the substance of many of the amendments did improve the bill, and the amendments were based on the evidence that I thought we had heard from the witnesses.
One amendment that was particularly important was to try to build in a broader vision as to what we consider to be indigenous languages. That responded directly to one witness, who talked to us about indigenous sign language, which is something I was not even aware of. For me, it was one of the most interesting parts of the evidence we heard, and it let us see things in a very different way.
Maybe the member opposite could talk about that part too, about how there was an expanded vision of what we might consider as language and how that was adopted through the amendments, as late as they may have been introduced.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, out of 23 amendments, there were some that were appropriately made, but late to the game. The bigger issue is that, as we know, legislation is complicated and sometimes when a change is made to one section, it has ramifications. There were many amendments at the last minute, and maybe some were good, but the committee was voting for things without being able to look at the full scope of the legislation. I would never say that all of the amendments would not improve the bill, but certainly there were significant concerns. As I indicated in my comments earlier, I would not be at all surprised if this bill comes back from the Senate identifying some of the mistakes that might have been made.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to clarify. This legislation is very important to me, as a Dene speaker, and to the people in my riding and across Canada who fluently speak Dene, Cree, Michif and other languages. I find the committee process frustrating. I will ask the member what she thought when I and my colleague put forward the amendment that the language commissioner should be indigenous, which was voted against by the governing party. What is her feeling on that?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of debate around the office of the commissioner and the role of the commissioner. To me, it makes sense that the indigenous language commissioner would be indigenous. There was also a lot of debate about how many hours the commissioner would work, which seemed beyond the scope, and what role the commissioner would play. I perceive that this might be one area that will be reflected upon as we see what works, what does not work and how the government moves forward with it.
Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC
Mr. Speaker, based on my colleague's experience, it is very important to recognize the fact that first nations are so important for our country and how sensitive it is to work with the first nations people.
As the member mentioned, something very special happened here in the House of Commons a few years ago. On June 8, 2011, for the first time in Canadian history, a first nations chief was able to address the House in response to the apology made by the prime minister at the time, the Right Hon. Stephen Harper.
From my colleague's personal experience, what impact did that apology have on first nations?
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, the residential schools apology, which all parties in this House welcomed, was an absolute historic day in the House and in Canada. Out of that, we have the calls to action, many of which are significant. All Canadians need to look at the apology and reflect on the legacy of the schools.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, this legislation encourages us to recognize the importance of language. Over the last few years, we have consistently talked about reconciliation. There are 94 recommendations or calls to action by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and this is one of those calls to action, just like the foster care legislation, of which I am a very strong supporter, and Bill C-262. There are many calls to action by parliamentarians and it goes far beyond that. We all have a role to play when it comes to reconciliation. Whether it is someone walking down Selkirk Avenue or living in Amber Trails, someone sitting in this chamber, or leaders of indigenous communities and leaders outside of indigenous communities, we all have a role to play, and this piece of legislation is important for many different reasons.
I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts on the importance of this being part of the 94 calls to action in the reconciliation.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, we have 94 calls to action. We believe that many are very significant and important. When the current government, or the leader of the third party at that time, stood up in the House and symbolically adopted all 94, without any analysis of them, that created some concern. However, there are many recommendations we have supported in this House. Of course, there are a couple that we think need more analysis or conversations.
In my speech, I talked about the provinces and how there are times when we cannot leave them out of the conversation. We cannot leave third parties out of the conversation. Therefore, I think there is work to be done, and it is work that is getting done.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to give my hon. colleague an opportunity to say a few words on the government's characterization that we did okay because we passed some amendments. For some of us, some of the amendments that were not passed were extremely important and would have really improved the bill, including making the indigenous commissioner an indigenous person, making sure the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is actually in the text of the bill so it is binding, and being able to refer to the sixties scoop as a detrimental policy for indigenous people. Those were voted down.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, apart from the 23 amendments, there were many other amendments proposed, some by the Conservatives and some by the NDP, that were rejected. I probably need to go back to my first comment, that this is a step in the pursuit of perfection that impedes improvement. I think we need to get to the next step. It will be something that continues to evolve over time.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by recognizing my community for the support they gave me, my parents, my siblings and my cousins, Dean, Debra, Desi and Dallas. I especially want to recognize my late cousin, Danielle Herman, also known as Superstar.
I rise today in a somewhat surprised and spontaneous way to speak once again to Bill C-91, an act respecting the languages of first nations, Métis and Inuit people. As a Dene language speaker and someone who grew up on a trapline, speaking Dene and learning from the land, I know how important this legislation is and how important it is to get it right.
Let me begin by saying that I only found out about 15 hours ago that this bill would be debated this morning. I only found out last night that we would be doing third reading of this bill, well outside the 48-hour time frame that it would take to get a Dene interpreter into the House so that I could speak my language.
When I am speaking with constituents back home, I try as often as I can to speak our language, because it is as much an act of resistance as it is of community. When we speak our language, we share our experience, our histories and our stories. When we speak our language, whether it is Dene or Cree or Michif, we remind ourselves that we survived residential schools and that we keep speaking, even though Canada did not want us to.
To speak here today in a language that I learned for the benefit of others, without enough opportunity to get an interpreter so that a large portion of my constituents can follow a debate on a bill that directly affects the future of their own language, to speak without interpretation is incredibly disappointing and is evidence that, once again, first nations people are expected to do business only on the terms of their colonizers. The government describes this bill as an act of reconciliation, but the actions that go on behind the scenes are the farthest thing from reconciliation.
Throughout the first two readings of this bill and the long committee meetings, I and my fellow members of Parliament repeatedly heard two things about this bill. First, we heard that the bill is not perfect. The Minister of Heritage told us this. The leaders of indigenous organizations told us this. ITK repeatedly said that this bill is not good enough for the unique needs of the Inuit. Language speakers and educators told us that they do not understand what this bill would mean for them. Rather than offering a meaningful response to the very real objections that indigenous language advocates and the NDP put forward, the government has consistently given the second response we heard repeatedly. The answer has been that despite its imperfections, Bill C-91 is an important first step toward the much bigger project that is the protection and restoration of indigenous languages.
We have been told that it is crucial for the government to fulfill the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 13, 14 and 15. We have been told that while the government acknowledges there is much more work that needs to be done, this bill points the government in the right direction.
Let me be clear. We cannot claim victory for only taking the first steps toward good legislation on indigenous languages, just as we cannot say that we are bilingual for being able to count to 10 in a new language and we cannot say that we completed a marathon after only the first kilometre. As an indigenous person who has repeatedly been told that the government is turning the page on indigenous issues, or starting fresh, or taking a new step, or going in a new direction, or whichever euphemism the government is using this week, I think I speak for the vast majority of indigenous people who will not settle for beginning again. We do not want the promise of a better tomorrow if it is not followed by concrete action and funding. We do not want the promise of better legislation tomorrow, because we have no guarantee of a willing partner.
When the Minister of Heritage appeared before committee to present the bill, he told us that he would be open to amendments. Many of the elders, organizations and language educators who consulted on this bill told us that there were conversations had and recommendations that they made that were not reflected or included in the final draft of this bill.
Many of those same elders, organizations and language educators came to committee to share their stories, advice and recommendations. In good faith, and knowing it was the will of those who know better than us, the NDP, the Green Party, the Conservatives and the member of Parliament for Nunavut proposed a number of amendments to improve the bill at committee. They were virtually all rejected.
I want to take some time now to tell this House why the amendments we proposed on behalf of others were so very important. On a number of occasions, the NDP and the member for Nunavut tried to include language that recognized the distinct language needs of the Inuit, based on the recommendations the committee heard from the ITK and its president, Natan Obed. One of the most startling facts we heard was that Nunavut actually has more English-speaking teachers than it does English-speaking students and that the English and French languages receive more funding than Inuit language education programs.
Inuit people wanted a bill that worked for them, and the ITK made a number of thoughtful and balanced amendments, but they were rejected entirely by the government.
The member for Nunavut, with his community in mind, put forward an amendment that would have allowed the government to enter into agreements with provincial and indigenous governments, in regionally specific cases, to further the language needs of those regions. His thoughtful amendment would have opened the door for federal services to be offered in indigenous languages based on a nation-to-nation understanding of what communities need.
In a territory where the large majority of people speak Inuktitut, it is a crucial act of decolonization to have access to government services in the language the people speak. Instead, services are available in French or English, and too many people do not have access. The government, by rejecting this amendment, has failed to meet the needs of the Inuit people.
This amendment was part of an ongoing conversation we have been having about the status of indigenous languages in Canada. As the House well knows by now, decades of oppression by the Canadian government and residential, boarding and day schools have told our language speakers that they and their languages have no place in Canada.
What we are seeing now is a resurgence of our languages, one where we are free to speak them in our homes and communities. We are seeing more and more young people engage with their traditions, learn the languages their elders and parents speak and practise their languages in their schools and on the land. We are seeing our elders step forward to teach their languages, many no longer afraid of what might happen if they are seen sharing their knowledge. We are seeing language speakers start camps and summer programs to teach their language. Along the way, language speakers are told by the government that they are doing good work for their people.
However, governments, both provincially and federally, are not supporting the work of language educators and youth with funding or resources to grow our languages or preserve them on our own terms. In Saskatchewan, for example, the province just announced that high school students will now be able to take classes in Dene and Cree, which sounds like a really good initiative. Unfortunately, language educators know too well that language education needs to be funded throughout childhood. Language education needs to begin in kindergarten. Meaningful education takes place in every grade, in every lesson and throughout one's life.
What we are not seeing is the recognition of the status of our languages. Without the status of our languages, we will not see the right investments made in education. We will not see the right investments made in preservation. We will not see the right investments moving forward.
I understand that there are practical concerns about status the government is concerned about, but to seriously consider those concerns is a profound act of reconciliation and decolonization the government did not want to consider, because claiming success for small steps is easier than being courageous and taking big ones.
I dream of the day when indigenous people in Canada can walk into government services buildings in their own communities and have the ability to speak their language, but that day is yet to come.
One of the other big concerns I have heard from my constituents is about the role of the indigenous languages commissioner. I understand that overseeing the funding, restoration and preservation of indigenous languages requires some bureaucracy, and this legislation would create that bureaucracy, but language educators and indigenous organizations do not know what the language commissioner's powers would be, how they would affect their day-to-day operations or how funding models would be established. All we know so far is that language educators would presumably need to go through an extra layer of government through yet another new application process to get funding.
What we also know is that elders and language educators know what is best for their own communities. The creation of another level of government that educators would have to go through is troublesome for two reasons. First is the more principled reason that the government should be funding language programs directly instead of accepting the high overhead costs of a new government agency. Second is that educators would now be under the direction of a languages commissioner, who may have the ability to say if certain ways of learning and preservation are not good enough, without knowing a particular language or cultural group and its needs.
If we value the input of educators on the ground, we need legislation that would keep the people at the front of the legislation. As it is written, it is unclear to me and to educators what the act respecting indigenous languages would actually do for indigenous language.
Furthermore, we proposed an amendment at the heritage committee that would ensure that the indigenous languages commissioner and the directors of that office would be first nations, Métis or Inuit people. It is so important that the languages commissioner be indigenous. It is only through having the lived experience of an indigenous person, knowing what our communities deal with, the history of our people, the resistance we have put up against the Canadian government and the daily experience of what it is like to live in this country that the indigenous languages commissioner could operate.
We wanted to enshrine that minimum lived experience and understanding in this position, knowing how important it would be. What we were told at committee was that asking as much was unconstitutional but that the government would do everything possible to make sure that an indigenous person would hold the position of commissioner. What I hear from the Liberal government is that it wants to protect the Constitution but act in a way that goes against it. The government wants to uphold a colonial document but use words to say that it is on our side despite it.
My big concern, and the concern I have been hearing from so many of my constituents, is that the position of languages commissioner may become a political appointment for someone who means well but does not fully understand our experiences.
At virtually every committee meeting with the Department of Canadian Heritage, Indigenous Services or Crown-Indigenous Relations, these branches of government are represented by non-indigenous people. While these ministers and professionals are educated and well meaning, there will always be a barrier to full understanding of our communities and what our communities need, because their experiences in life are so profoundly different. We had an opportunity with Bill C-91 to make sure that the barrier would be lifted and that the languages commissioner would be an indigenous person and would have a better understanding of our unique needs, but that opportunity was shut down for a mix of political and colonial reasons.
Last, there is the question of funding. A lot has been said publicly about how this legislation would just be one phase of the Liberal government's plan for indigenous languages and that funding would come later. However, there is a direct correlation between the mandate of an organization, which would be created by this bill, and the funding of an organization, which was noticeably left out.
It is unclear how the government would assist with education funding, and it is on this basis that language educators are confused by the bill. Would funding be given through a projects-based approach? How would that funding work, and on what basis would funding be given? Would existing educators be supported, or would they have to start over? Would priority be given to innovative teaching styles through apps and the Internet, or would our known ways of learning on the land and in small groups be the priority? How would sign languages be included in this funding model? How would this funding work for children who attend public and private schools across the country?
Would the languages commissioner work with provinces to fund educational initiatives from kindergarten to high school graduation? How would that work for communities that have more than one language group, such as in northern Saskatchewan, where Michif, Dene and a few dialects of Cree are all spoken in one community? Would students be forced to choose which language to learn, or would the opportunity exist to learn all languages available to them?
What about residential school survivors, survivors of the 60s scoop and the thousands of survivors and their descendants who have lost their languages at the hands of the government? We tried to include these specific groups through amendments to the preamble of the bill, but they too were rejected. How will their right to their languages be recognized, supported and taught? How will we empower survivors to regain what was taken from them and their families?
If it is not clear at this point, the bill creates a lot more questions than answers. It would be nice, if not expected, to at least know some of those answers before the bill passed through the House so that we could let indigenous people and indigenous language speakers determine for themselves if the bill would be a success.
There is a lot of pressure to support the bill. The government is running out of time to complete its mandate before the election this fall. I know that indigenous leaders are doing their best to make sure that the bill has the support it needs, because it is, at the end of the day, a step forward. However, there is exponentially more pressure to make sure that the bill, which would affect such a large aspect of our way of life, is done correctly.
While the bill would be a step forward, to what goal and to what end are we walking toward? Is the goal one of half measures that would marginally improve indigenous language education in Canada, or is the end goal one of fundamental change to Canadian society that fully respects the needs of indigenous languages, recognizes their place in our culture and creates a generation of indigenous youth who speak the same languages that generations of people before them spoke?
When I think of the bill before us, I do not think about how it will affect the outcome of the next election. I think about people like Marsha Ireland, Kevin Lewis, Graham Andrews, Cheryl Herman, Vince Ahenakew, Cameron Adams, Julius Park and so many others who have worked so hard to teach and ensure their language in northern Saskatchewan.
To conclude, it is the people and culture we have to keep in mind when we think about the bill. When I think about the future of all indigenous languages across Canada, we have to do what is right and not just what is politically convenient.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the contribution the member has made to the debate. What comes to my mind is the recognition that many of the answers the member is looking for could probably be best had after we have seen the legislation pass, because, in good part, it would obligate the government to continue working with indigenous leaders and community members to answer some of those questions. I do not believe that it is just the government that has to provide all the details of those answers.
I would suggest, as the member opposite herself has recognized, that the bill would be a significant step forward. As part of that forward movement, we have to recognize that there is always an ongoing level of discussion with indigenous people and look at ways we can take advantage of the legislation we are attempting to pass.
Would the member not agree that those ongoing discussions are a very important component of what will hopefully be the law?
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, this is very important legislation that affects all indigenous people across Canada. It affects first nations, Métis and Inuit from coast to coast to coast.
We have been told by elders, language educators, leaders and others that it is important for the government to act now. We have done enough talking. We talk, research is done on indigenous people and then more research is done. Recommendations may come forward, but we wait 10 more years.
The government is very good at saying one thing, but when it comes to real action that makes changes to indigenous people's lives, it is playing games, just as it did with respect to this debate. I was not given the chance to have an interpreter here when delivering my speech because I was not given enough time to ask for one. I have the right to use one, but the bureaucracy and the government prevented me from doing so.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to this. She talked about two things on which I want to follow up.
First, usually there is respect in the House and we have the opportunity to prepare for debate. As the member and I know, sometimes we get a notification at 6:30 at night advising us what the House will be presenting the following day in debate. We have something called the Thursday question, which lays out the House's schedule. It allows members the opportunity to prepare their remarks.
Some of my colleagues really wanted to speak to the bill, but calling them at eight o'clock in the morning does not give them time to do what they would like to do to participate in a reasonable and fulsome fashion. That is the first issue to which I would like her to speak.
Second, the process by which the committee dealt with many amendments was very ad hoc and did not provide the opportunity for members to exercise proper due diligence with respect to them.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to yet again clarify things from my perspective as a Dene speaker from northern Saskatchewan who has lived off the land and still practises the language at home on a regular basis.
What I hear from elders not only my community, but throughout my riding and Canada is that they want to be included and they want the opportunity to speak in their languages. Again, the government does not give them that opportunity.
I received notice of debate last night. The government did not give me 48 hours' notice so the translation office could call my interpreter to get here on time so I could deliver my speech. That is not supportive or inclusive, and it does not make changes for indigenous people.
The second piece relates to the amendment I spoke about regarding the language commissioner. It is important for us to support that it be an indigenous person. It is one thing to say that we will talk about this when the times comes, but the experience of indigenous people is that when the time comes, things get changed again. There is no support coming from the government.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise. I really want to say what a privilege it was to work with my colleague during the committee's study of this bill.
As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I came to Ottawa with certain beliefs and goals with respect to various issues. I discovered just how dysfunctional the relationship with indigenous peoples is. Major changes are needed.
I noticed how irritated my colleague was that the government again chose a regrettably paternalistic approach in the lead-up to passing a consequential bill, not to mention the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's calls to action. Parliamentarians must look to the wisdom and experience of this leader and her community, for they are intimately familiar with the reality of these people. That is why I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent opportunity to be a member of Parliament. It is a privilege and an honour. As a member of Parliament, I expected when I came to the House of Commons, that I was an equal to other members of Parliament, the over 300 members. However, because I speak in the indigenous language, I still have to figure out a way for me to speak the language.
I would have thought, and other Canadians would think, that when indigenous people come to the House of Commons, they will have equal time to speak their languages, like the English and French languages, but we do not have that opportunity.
Again, I emphasize the importance of this legislation, but the government has taken the approach of paternalistic and colonization in the way it has gone about it. It is disrespectful to indigenous people that we have to make amendments to accommodate them instead of the other way around. The Liberals have so much to learn.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, that the member was unable to deliver her speech in Dene is unfortunate. I have to underline the irony of talking about legislation on indigenous languages and not allowing indigenous speakers to speak their indigenous languages.
Yesterday, we saw a House that could co-operate, that could set partisanship aside, that allowed me to table a bill on indigenous languages among procedural happenings in the House. We saw the sides come together. I was able to table legislation that included some very important amendments that were brought forward and were not passed by the government.
I wanted to make that point and allow my colleague to comment on those amendments and on the opportunity we have today to not just take a small step, but actually make a difference in the lives of people.
Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Mr. Speaker, language is identity. That is who we are as indigenous people and the government is playing with that. Shame on the Liberals for doing that.
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, miyotôtâkewin tatawaw. That is Cree for “Guests, you're welcome, there's room here”. If my great-grandmother Lucy Brown Eyes, a full-blooded Cree woman, had been able to be elected to this place, she may well have extended the same greeting in the House from the peoples of Treaty 6.
In keeping with indigenous tradition, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabeg. It is a great honour to be here today to rise in support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.
Along the way, we as Canadians forgot the welcome and partnership that indigenous peoples offered to original European settlers. A colonial and superior mindset began to dominate the land and, over time, misguided and discriminatory policies served to turn indigenous peoples into the other.
The official government plan was to assimilate indigenous peoples. Reservations, residential schools, stripping children and elders of their language and separating families became the norm. Intergenerational cycles of grief, trauma, substance abuse, suicide, missing and murdered indigenous women and girls and societal marginalization ensued.
In the 1990s, Canada paused and held the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I spoke with one of my mentors, who was a commissioner of that very royal commission, Dr. Peter Meekison, just last night. Despite many clear recommendations to improve the lives of aboriginal peoples, successive governments were slow to act.
As part of the 2007 Indian residential school settlement, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was formed to listen to survivors and make recommendations to the government and Canadians. The commission met until 2015. I remember the last public meetings, which took place in 2015 in Edmonton. I was moved then and I remain moved today.
The work of the TRC informed this government on our steadfast commitment to reconciliation. Signing on to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, ending boil water advisories on reserve, empowering indigenous families to keep their children in their care, closing the gap on education funding and implementing Jordan's principle are but a few examples of our commitments.
With the indigenous languages act we are debating today, we are responding, in consultation with indigenous peoples, to calls to action 13, 14 and 15 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It appears we do not have quorum in this chamber. The hon. member opposite is giving a wonderful speech and it is a pity his people are not here to hear it.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I am afraid we do not have a quorum. The bells will ring to call some members in.
And the bells having rung:
I believe we have quorum again.
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre may continue.
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, this is a major milestone in our journey of reconciliation.
I am a proud Franco-Albertan, and over the years, I have even learned to speak Spanish.
The dynamic and growing francophone, Francophile and franco-curious community of Edmonton, Alberta, centred around Campus Saint-Jean and La Cité Francophone, fundamentally changed my life. I am here as the member of Parliament for Edmonton Centre in large part due to my ability to live and love both of Canada's official languages.
What members may not know is that despite my French last name, I grew up in a predominantly English-speaking household.
I spoke French with my grandma and grandpa, and with my aunts and uncles too.
However, at home, we spoke English.
As a 15-year-old student, I applied for and was honoured to be chosen to attend the Forum for Young Canadians in Ottawa. My then 15-year-old self was struck by the fact I could not communicate with fully 40% of the delegates, interesting and dynamic students from Quebec and New Brunswick. They assumed, by hearing my last name, that I could speak French.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Again, I do not think we have quorum; I call for quorum.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
We do not have a quorum. We will have to ring the bells.
And the bells having rung:
We now have a quorum.
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre may continue.
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that people looked at my name badge, saw my name, and assumed I could speak French. I could not. I could not even string five sentences together.
I was so struck that it sent me on a journey of identity and a lifelong journey of acknowledging and shaping that identity. I resolved that summer to double down on learning French. I chose later to study at Campus Saint-Jean at the University of Alberta to learn, and as I said earlier, love the language. That decision changed my life.
I think of the young indigenous people in my riding, our province and across the country, who are Cree, Dene, Blackfoot or Mohawk and who do not have access to language learning opportunities like I did. They often face the same struggle of identity and the same need to connect to the traditions, teaching and spirituality that the plunge into one's language affords.
The connection to history and the ability to share and pass on teachings in one's ancestral tongue are fundamentally important. In fact, they are a basic human right, yet indigenous languages in Canada are disappearing. Elders are dying, and with them the knowledge of their mother tongue. Our future depends on the survival of our language; so it is for indigenous peoples.
According to UNESCO, at least three-quarters of the 90 indigenous languages spoken in Canada are at risk of disappearing or are vulnerable. While we cannot change the past, we can and must work together for a better future. The time to act is now, and we will do so with the indigenous languages act.
Our government fulfilled the promise that the Prime Minister made to indigenous peoples to introduce a bill that would help them reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen their languages.
This legislation would provide the mechanisms to recognize indigenous language-related rights; support the reclamation, revitalization, strengthening and maintenance of indigenous languages in Canada; support and promote indigenous languages; provide long-term, sustainable funding to reach these goals, and establish an office of commissioner of indigenous languages. It is why, as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage earlier in my time here on Parliament Hill, I was so taken by this work and collaborated with colleagues so that we could see this day arrive.
The legislation before us was co-developed between Canada and national indigenous organizations, and through intensive engagements with indigenous specialists, knowledge keepers and experts. I would like to thank and recognize the extraordinary work done by the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. Their insights into the invaluable role that elders play in language acquisition and preservation is critical. We heard clearly, and agree, with the deep sense of urgency to act, particularly with respect to elders and their role in revitalizing indigenous languages.
The 2005 Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures noted an urgent need for immediate action to stem the loss of languages. It goes without saying that there is a need to provide support to indigenous communities and governments to help them act immediately.
To put this in perspective, in the first nations context, for example, one in three seniors reported having an indigenous mother tongue in 2016. By comparison, about one in 10 first nations children aged 10 to 14 had an indigenous mother tongue. Some languages have few remaining speakers of the grandparents' and great-grandparents' generation.
While no indigenous languages in Canada are considered safe, it is important to state that language vitality across first nations, Inuit and Métis varies broadly. For example, among the Inuit, a higher percentage of seniors also reported having lnuktitut as their mother tongue, compared to younger generations. However, Inuit have the highest percentage of mother tongue speakers across all age groups, compared to first nations and Métis.
Less than 2% of the Métis population reported the ability to speak an indigenous language. A higher percentage of Métis seniors reported an aboriginal mother tongue and the ability to speak an aboriginal language, compared with their younger counterparts.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report stated that communities and educational institutions should be prepared to draw on valuable resources from indigenous communities to facilitate the teaching and transmission of indigenous languages.
This is not to say that indigenous languages are completely gone when there are no speakers left. Languages can be revived through the efforts of documentation and archiving. Even in this case, elders will be the most valuable asset to help build resources for their languages for generations to come.
There is also Bert Crowfoot of the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society, who saw the importance of preserving language 36 years ago when he made the decision to safeguard audio and film content on old reel-to-reel tapes, VCR cassettes and old 16-millimetre film and floppy discs that contain storytelling, interviews and music in the Cree language. Today he is helping to direct a project called Digitizing the Ancestors to create a searchable digitized archive. It will be a resource to help future generations to learn Cree by hearing voices from the past.
Young people, too, are working hard to reclaim and revitalize language and culture. Jeremy Dutcher, a classically trained artist from the Tobique First Nation in New Brunswick, recently won the 2008 Polaris Music Prize and the 2019 Juno Award for indigenous music album of the year. Jeremy's album, Wolastoqiyik Lintuwakonawa, features traditional Maliseet songs, recorded a century ago, obtained from the Canadian Museum of History.
The First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres reiterated the importance of elders in their indigenous languages legislation engagement report, stating that elders guide their work and support their community base and national role as language advocates and language experts.
I am proud to share two examples of reclamation action that are close to my heart.
The Canadian Indigenous Languages and Literacy Development Institute at the University of Alberta aims to stop language extinction through cultural education and expression. This exchange, in turn, often addresses historical traumas, mental and physical health, and both social and academic struggles for indigenous youth as they learn intimately about their history and traditional culture, sometimes for the first time.
In addition, the Royal Alberta Museum in downtown Edmonton, which is dedicated to preserving Alberta's rich history, proudly displays many of its exhibits in several indigenous languages, including Cree, Dene, Blackfoot, Nakota and Michif. Further indigenous stories are interwoven throughout all six human history galleries, and this lets all Canadians learn about deep-rooted history and tradition from Alberta and across Canada.
Today on CBC, I learned that an enterprising music group from Cape Breton took Paul McCartney's song, Blackbird, and is now able to sing it in Mi'kmaq.
This bill would allow for the flexibility required to support the various states of language vitality. In some situations, that may mean supporting elders' participation in language planning, activities and programming. In other situations, enhancing access and an opportunity for elders to learn their language from their cohorts is equally important. This is based on the concept that language revitalization should be multi-faceted, meaning that it may involve more than one approach to address various segments of the community, ranging from early learning to adult immersion.
In closing, I will state that every year, sadly, indigenous communities lose more elders. It is time to act. I envision a near future in which indigenous and non-indigenous people, young and less young, can have the opportunity to learn, explore, promote and protect the languages of the ancestral peoples of this land. Our commitment to reconciliation and our fundamental values of fairness and inclusion demand nothing less of us than to pass and implement the indigenous languages act.
I remember chatting with my great-grandmother, Lucy Brown Eyes, when I was about five. She would have been about 88. She said, “These hands used to skin hides. Now they make apple pies. Some day the land will return to us, and with it, all of our languages.”
We owe it to indigenous peoples and all Canadians to get this right.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I spoke to this at second reading as well. Two things that really help to maintain language are having a community and having a culture. Both of those things have been impacted by our history in Canada in terms of our indigenous peoples.
However, one of the things that has really helped indigenous communities in northern Alberta is their participation in the oil and gas industry, and the wealth it has brought there. When the communities have the wealth, they become communities again; their culture begins to thrive and their languages are able to be maintained.
How does the hon. member across the way view the impacts of the cancellation of the northern gateway project in terms of helping maintain language in northern Alberta?
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his interest in this file. Economic benefit is part of the foundation of anyone's life and livelihood. To be able to be in a safe place to learn one's language, one needs to have a sound economic foundation. We know all too well in my city and in my riding of Edmonton Centre the challenges and triumphs faced by urban indigenous peoples.
I can say that I am proud of the work this government is doing, and not only on indigenous languages. I am proud of the deep consultations and accommodations that are going on to ensure that we are able to build the Trans Mountain pipeline in exactly the right way.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I commented earlier about the irony that we were discussing an indigenous language bill but members were not given the opportunity to give their speeches in indigenous languages. I shared the example that the government and parties in the House yesterday co-operated so we could do something better together, but my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River was unable to give her speech in Dene. That is ironic and hypocritical.
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her steadfast work on this issue.
It is our government and, indeed, this Parliament that authorized and made sure that parliamentarians could speak in indigenous languages. One of my colleagues from Montreal has spoken in the House in Mohawk, and my colleague from Winnipeg has spoken in Cree. We are committed to making sure people are able to speak indigenous languages.
We all understand that the timing in this place is fluid and that we are approaching the end of this Parliament. What is critical is that this indigenous languages act be passed so that it can benefit indigenous people and all Canadians for seven generations and more to come.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock wanted to ask another oil-related question, which is very pertinent to indigenous languages. We appreciate those types of questions.
Indigenous languages are very important, and I hope we will have the opportunity to debate this, perhaps in indigenous languages, in the House at some future date. I hope there can be some concordance among House leaders to ensure that indigenous members can debate the indigenous languages act in an indigenous language, which is very important. I know we are just before an election, there is a bit of fever and people are getting a little excited, but it is symbolic, nonetheless.
I hear a lot of agreement with this bill. I know the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock is very much in favour, as is the member for Edmonton Centre, who has worked very hard on this bill. This is a very symbolic and important moment in Canadian history, because it is the fulfillment of what it means to be Canadian and the fulfillment of our nation as truly one of the greatest nations in the world. However, we still have work to do to get there and ensure that we can all express ourselves in the way we feel most comfortable.
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for his work. Not only is he an impressive drummer, but I aspire to be able to speak Cree as well as he does some day.
There are tears in my eyes, because this is the right thing to do. It should have been done decades ago, but we cannot rewrite the past. What we have control over is now. There is the opportunity for all House leaders to come together, to get a shortened timeline, to see this legislation pass and to go back to our ridings, hold our heads high and say we will work with indigenous peoples to promote, protect and preserve indigenous languages. That is one of the reasons I am in Parliament and one of the reasons I am in favour of this legislation.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, Chief Isaac Laboucan-Avirom from the Woodland Cree First Nation has come out strongly in favour of keeping northern gateway going. His own community has struggled over the last number of years to keep its people employed. He is a Cree speaker himself and says if they cannot make a living in northern Alberta, the entire community falls apart, and with it the culture and language. What does the member have to say about the cancellation of the northern gateway pipeline?
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we have an economy that is built in many sectors. Ten years of Conservative ignorance of the environmental movement and policies put in place by the previous government, verified by the Federal Court, are what quashed northern gateway. If he wants to draw a direct line between indigenous communities and their survival, he needs to look no further than the Harper government.
We are here now to talk about indigenous languages and making sure that indigenous communities can preserve, protect and promote their languages. That was our mandate. That was our mission. That is why we are here today.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, Inuit communities are worried that this bill does not contain anything specific to their people. In Iqaluit, the capital of Nunavut, there is not a single Inuktitut school. This makes it hard for young people to learn their own language.
When I was a kid I did not speak English. My family moved to Ontario and I was able to attend École secondaire Étienne-Brûlé, a francophone high school in Toronto, and to live and learn in my own language. However, my brothers, Michel and Claude, did not have the same opportunity because there was no francophone school in our area for their level of education. There was no francophone school in our area. I fear that Inuit children in Iqaluit will have the same experience my brothers had in Ontario, since the bill does nothing to address this issue.
Why does this bill not contain any provisions specifically for Inuit communities?
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. Obviously, we had similar experiences when it came to learning both official languages.
I can confirm that the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, played a very important role in developing and creating this legislation. The ITK agrees with the 12 fundamental principles.
I should point out that we can always do more to improve life in indigenous communities. Today we are discussing the issue of languages, and everything that follows from this bill will benefit indigenous peoples, including those in Nunavut.
Anju Dhillon Liberal Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his very important work on the heritage committee.
Could the member explain how important it is for indigenous cultures to maintain, preserve and protect languages? We often heard very painful and heart-rending testimony about how when people were cut off from their language, they were cut off from their culture and traditions. Could he please explain to us the importance of protecting one's language?
Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague also for her work on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
This project was co-created with indigenous national organizations and colleagues from all sides of the House.
Language is a bridge to culture. It is a portal into traditions. It is a portal into who we are. It is a fundamental characteristic of identity. Imagine living our entire lives using a second, third or fourth language. Imagine not knowing what our cultural, spiritual or linguistic traditions are because a government agent or a government agency has said that we or our grandparents are not allowed to speak that language.
It is fundamental that we work with indigenous communities so they can make the link back to their spiritual ancestors, to their land and speak the language of their ancestors. We can use this and work together on it as a key pillar of reconciliation with indigenous peoples.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once more to speak to Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. I will share my time today with the member for Peace River—Westlock.
Indigenous languages across Canada are certainly diverse, unique and richly intertwined with our cultural mosaic, which makes our country such an amazing place to call home. The promotion of indigenous languages, and indigenous history and culture more broadly, is something we should all seek to promote as part of our national character.
As I mentioned during my speech at second reading of the bill, support for the promotion and teaching of indigenous languages has rapidly grown in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood and in particular in my city of Saskatoon.
During my nine and a half years as a school board trustee in the city of Saskatoon, the teaching of indigenous languages to new generations of young people was a priority that was taken very seriously by everyone around our board table. I was very proud to take part in the expansion of the indigenous language training program in the Saskatoon Board of Education, which gave more young people the opportunity to study indigenous languages and connect with the rich and vibrant cultures attached to those languages.
The teaching of indigenous languages enriches our education systems and it gives students a valuable and unique learning experience. As I have previously noted, instruction of indigenous languages is growing in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood and in our city of Saskatoon. The expansion of teaching of indigenous languages is certainly enriching the learning experience of more and more young people in our city.
Confederation Park Community School offers language instruction in Cree for about 280 students from pre-K, all the way up to grade 8. They are involved in this learning process. The students benefit from the Nehiyawiwin Cree language and culture program and are able to immerse themselves in the study of the indigenous language as part of their education background.
Additionally, Westmount Community School provides a Metis cultural program that includes Michif language instruction for students there, again from pre-K all the way up to grade 8.
Charles Red Hawk Elementary School offers Cree language instruction from pre-K all the way up to grade 4.
Mount Royal Collegiate, Princess Alexandra School and King George School provide Cree language instruction in our school system.
Saskatoon public schools offer instruction in three indigenous languages: Cree, Michif and Dakota. Furthermore, Dakota language and culture lessons are part of Chief Whitecap School and Charles Red Hawk School.
St. Frances Cree Bilingual School offers Cree education to over 440 students in pre-K to grade 5 and another 150 students in grades 6 to 8. This school has seen tremendous growth in our education system since the launch of its Cree language program, way back in 2009, when, by the way, there was only 133 students enrolled in the program. Look how it has grown since then.
The demand for education in indigenous languages has proved to be incredibly popular. Hundreds more students are now being taught indigenous languages in our schools as a result.
More and more people in Saskatoon are seeking the benefits of indigenous language education and, as a result, St. Frances Cree Bilingual School is now serving students in two different locations, on McPherson Avenue, where they have pre-K all the way up to grade 5, and at Bateman Crescent, where they have grades 6 to 8.
Instruction of indigenous languages is continuing to become available for even greater numbers of students who know the inherent value of indigenous languages for both their learning and for their communities.
At Oskayak High School in my neighbour riding, Cree language instruction is offered in grades 9 to 12, where approximately 70 students are taking Cree language instruction.
Moreover, the Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools division offers core Cree language instruction for some 348 students from pre-K all the way up to grade 8 at St. Mary's Wellness and Education Centre.
These statistics bear repeating, because they show just how important indigenous languages are within our current education system.
Young people and their families recognize that the promotion and the revitalization of indigenous languages is something that is incredibly valuable as a cornerstone of indigenous culture and a vital piece of Canada's multicultural mosaic.
We support Bill C-91. The legislation represents a pragmatic, reasonable and necessary approach toward strengthening and supporting indigenous languages across the country.
The bill responds to three of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action. The promotion and revitalization of indigenous languages is one step in the long path that we all must take toward reconciliation, as we move forward from a dark past.
A former Conservative government created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as part of the 2007 Indian residential school settlement agreement. We recognized the devastation and the terrible harm that was inflicted upon the indigenous peoples of this country. We recognized the profound intergenerational damage that the indigenous language and the cultures suffered as a result of the residential school system. From the dark past, we must grow together in the spirit of reconciliation. The Conservatives know that the preservation of indigenous language and culture is part of the way forward.
On another matter, last night I had the great privilege to see the screening of the movie The Grizzlies. This movie has been talked about in Canada for the last month since it was produced.
I was fortunate to have had the opportunity a couple of years ago to travel up north to Nunavut. However, for those Canadians who do not have opportunity, this movie will give them a snapshot of what life is like for those living in the north and the wonder of the northern landscape.
The movie explores the challenges faced by youth who live in the north. They are straddling the traditional way of life with the modern while dealing with the fallout of colonialism and residential schools. It is an uplifting film about a difficult and sometimes very tragic experience for indigenous communities up north.
Through this film, we experienced how facial expressions, for example, and gestures, traditional storytelling, music, singing and drumming were all vital to traditional language and culture. We are educated by witnessing traditional language and culture in the everyday lives of the characters and we can understand why language and culture are so critical and must be honoured and protected.
I hope each and every MP will take in The Grizzlies. It was shot in Nunavut. It is a story about suicides in Nunavut, which is the highest area of suicides in the country. Sport brought the community together.
However, more than ever, this movie depicts a number of things, such as song and singing. There was an instance where an older brother was singing to a younger brother in their language, putting him to sleep. It is a movie that all Canadians must see. It deals with not only the issue of suicide but language and culture.
A lot of us do not get the opportunity to go to Nunavut. This movie is one that all Canadians should see. It is very moving. I certainly would recommend it.
The movie talks about what we are talking about today: language and about culture. We often do not get a chance to talk about Nunavut in the House, because a lot of us do not have the opportunity to go up there. It is an emotional film. Many members from ITK were in the theatre last night. There was a lot of crying, but at the same time, it brought a great culture to our country, the music and the language.
I am happy to support Bill C-91.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on his speech and interesting stories.
I was at the UN last week with the member and a number of my colleagues at the indigenous peoples forum. The national president for the Métis National Council, Clément Chartier, spoke there. He spoke about how we need to ensure that we save the indigenous languages of Canada. No other government has done more to advance the ideals of reconciliation, and this bill goes a long way. He was talking at a specific session related to indigenous languages.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts on the UN forum and what he heard while he was there as well.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre. He certainly was a guiding light for me at the forum in New York. It was the first time for me to be at the UN and listen to the issues. It was a very informative three days that I had in New York.
We talked to many people in our province. The Métis are starting to get organized. Glen McCallum, as president, and Mr. Chartier have done a lot of work with the Métis in the province of Saskatchewan. They have rich traditions, as the member knows. We often just deal with them once a year in Batoche and then forget about them, but what I heard in New York from the leaders, certainly from the Métis Nation of Saskatchewan and of Canada, as we have gone full circle, is that this bill would help them immensely.
I talked about what we are doing in some of our schools in Saskatchewan, and we fully endorse the bill. I thank the member for bringing up the question here this afternoon.
Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet NDP Hochelaga, QC
Mr. Speaker, at times it feels as though there are two parallel Conservative universes. The member who supports the bill talked about the importance of revitalizing indigenous languages and the profoundly negative consequences of residential schools. On that, I totally agree. However, from 2012 to 2015, Stephen Harper's Conservative government slashed $60 million from indigenous organizations.
To give a specific example, in the previous Parliament my community needed a document translated into Inuktitut to help maintain the health of Inuit women. I personally went to see the health minister at the time, Leona Aglukkaq, and she refused to help me. I am therefore having difficulty reconciling the two images.
I would like the member to explain to me how it is that the former Conservative government could do that, while the Conservatives now appear to think differently.
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Mr. Speaker, we are also looking forward to having the former minister of health back in this House in October 2019. She is our nominated candidate for Nunavut, and we cannot wait to have her back on this side helping the Conservative vision in this country. She certainly has done a lot for the people of Nunavut and Canada on speech, on tradition and on indigenous languages. We cannot wait to have the former minister back again with us.
Let us not forget that, under our previous government in 2007, right here in the old place, Stephen Harper was the one who took the lead on truth and reconciliation. It started there in 2007, so Conservatives have been on board all along.
It is funny that the current government waited until February 5 of this year to table this bill. We are weeks away from adjourning here. Bill C-91 should have been brought to the House two and a half or maybe even three years earlier. The Liberals have done so much for the people that we are here now rushing Bill C-91 and Bill C-92 through the House, because they have done little or nothing in the last two and a half to three years.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, in Canada, the most dangerous words ever spoken are “We are the government and we are here to help.” That is the sentiment that I want to cover today. I do not see anything wrong with the bill, and I am happy to support it.
I want to talk about the underlying premise that the government is here to help. I do not think we should put the federal government in charge of a whole lot of things. In Canada, we have a bit of a crisis with the woodland caribou, which is on the species at risk list. The only places in Alberta where the caribou have gone extinct are Jasper and Banff. Those are two places in Alberta that are entirely the jurisdiction of the federal government. If we want something to be extinct, we should put the federal government in charge of it.
I am concerned when the federal government says not to worry, that it has this under control and it is going to save indigenous languages. This is a step in the right direction, but I am not necessarily convinced that it is the federal government that is going to save indigenous languages. I say that because, over the last number of years, the government has made it more and more difficult, particularly for first nations in northern Alberta, to make a living, to build community, to build families that can survive and to allow people to live in their traditional territory. We see a large influx of people moving to the cities, in great part due to the fact that the economy in northern Alberta is struggling.
In no small part is that due to the fact that the northern gateway pipeline has been cancelled. The member for Edmonton Centre said that it was because the Conservatives did not do this or that right. We definitely had our challenges with the Supreme Court, and every time the Supreme Court said we had not done something right, we went back and tried to correct it. However, we were pursuing getting pipelines built in this country, and in fact we built four major pipelines when we were in office. Those things brought prosperity to northern Alberta.
Chief Isaac Laboucan of the Woodland Cree First Nation has been on the record several times saying that we need to get pipelines built in this country in order for him to maintain his community, its culture and language, and its way of life across the board. It is when folks have jobs, when they are able to pay their bills, that their community is built and thriving. He showed me on Google Maps where his ancestral lands are. The foundation of his grandfather's house is still there today. The foundations of a small clump of houses can be seen on Google Maps, just north of where his people currently live, so they are very much connected to their history. He is a Cree speaker, and many people within his community speak Cree.
His inability to provide jobs for the people who live in his community means that they are moving away. It means that the number of people in his community is dwindling, and it means they are moving to Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatchewan or B.C. in order to find work.
In the past, the forestry industry was active around his community, and many of his people drove logging trucks, ran logging equipment or built roads for the logging industry. That allowed them to make a living right where they live. They also have an oil field service company. They are building roads for the oil patch. They are managing oil and gas wells in the area. They are looking at getting into the solar industry and putting up acres of solar panels.
They are very much involved in the economy, and that is what allows them to continue to flourish. That allows them to go out hunting. When they have money to put gas in their snowmobiles, that allows them to run their traplines. That allows them to start a family, to buy a home, to do all that needs to be done to build a community. In this place, we like to silo a lot of things and say that we are going to maintain culture, and then maintain language, and then maintain community. Those are artificial divisions. The reality is that for people who live in a community, culture, language and community are indivisible. They are three different ways of describing one thing, and that is our society or our culture.
I commend the government for brining forward an indigenous language commissioner. The member for Edmonton Centre was just here, saying that he had tears in his eyes because we were finally doing something to protect indigenous languages in this country. However, although this is a good first step and is notable, the federal government has not suddenly become the saviour of indigenous languages in this country. This is a step within a process.
It is interesting to me that the member is in favour of protecting indigenous languages with an indigenous language commissioner, yet he is happy to shut down pipelines, preventing folks in northern Alberta from making a living and maintaining their culture and way of life.
The fundamentals of maintaining a language are the same whether they relate to indigenous languages or other languages. In my constituency, about 7,000 to 10,000 people speak Cree, about 10,000 people speak German and about 6,000 to 7,000 speak French. All of these communities struggle to maintain their languages. There is no doubt about that.
However, they are vibrant communities, despite what Ms. Bombardier from Quebec says. These are the communities of Falher, McLennan and St. Isidore. These are French-speaking communities, and they are vibrant. Their economies are flourishing, and there is no threat to their French-speaking ways. The signs in these communities are still in French. There is no threat to this because they have the ability to create community and culture and to speak their language, since the economic underpinning of all of this is there.
That is why I say that it is not just indigenous languages that are struggling in Canada. Without the economic underpinning, people's culture, way of life and community are under threat, if people are unable to finance them and to survive under the economic situation in their particular area.
I mentioned the same thing at second reading, and it was interesting to me that there was not a lot of reflection on the fact that we have to get the economy right for our indigenous people in order for them to maintain their families, culture, language and communities. All of those things are immensely important.
Lastly, I would like to note that perhaps it is somewhat easier for the communities in my area to maintain their language because of the fact that they are more northern and remote communities, and they are not right next to major urban centres. When I say all this, there is some lack of understanding on my part as to an indigenous community that is completely surrounded by an urban centre. I do understand and acknowledge that this is something outside my realm. However, I do think that the fundamental thing, in order to maintain community, culture and language, is to get the economy right.
To get the economy right in northern Alberta, we need pipelines. We need pipelines so that we can get our product to market. We need pipelines so we can get our oil off the railway and our grain on the railway to get it out. We need pipelines so we can get oil off the railway and get our lumber to market on the railway. We need pipelines. We need pipelines. We need pipelines.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat of a historical day in terms of the legislation that we are debating. It is part of the calls for action in the reconciliation report. There is a great deal of interest in seeing this legislation ultimately pass through the House of Commons and get to the Senate. I would suggest that there are three or four recent substantive pieces of legislation that really have a significant sense of hope that is out there. This is one of those pieces of legislation. The foster care legislation is yet another example. When we reflect on that legislative package, in the hopes that not only does it pass here but that it also passes the Senate, it will provide hope for many Canadians in all regions, indigenous and non-indigenous people alike.
I appreciate the concerns in regard to the member wanting to route this back into a pipeline debate. However, I wonder why he would choose this particular issue to raise the issue of pipelines. Economic development is something that is very positive. It is encouraging. There is no question about the diversity of our economy, but we also have to take into consideration environmental concerns. Why would the member want to have that sort of a debate when we are trying to advance this very important issue today?
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, that brings me to what I think is very cynical about the government bringing forward this bill at this particular time. We are in the last days of this Parliament. We have been here for three and a half years, and the very fact that now suddenly this is a major priority and we must push this through seems to be a little disingenuous. It seems to me that this is much more of an election piece, much more of a campaign piece than an actual, genuine concern about languages.
To go back to my original point, I do not think it is fair-minded of the government to be introducing this bill at this particular time.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech given by my colleague. Just as a preface, since 2014, there is a new play called New Blood, which is a phenomenal high school student production that I wish could come to Ottawa. It has been in southern Alberta. I think it goes to the heart of what this indigenous languages piece is about.
Having been on the committee, there were many witnesses who talked about grassroots things they were working with on languages. Indigenous people had severe concerns and fears that the money would not get to the education level that it is needed. On the Siksika reserve, for example, they are doing immersion but they expressed concern that this money is being directed to major organizations. They are very concerned that the government money that would come from this would not do what it is intended.
What would my colleague's response be to the concern of indigenous people in the education system?
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I go back to the opening of my speech where I said that the most dangerous words in Canadian society are, “We are the government and we are here to help.” That is always the problem when the government gets involved. Getting the money to where it really will make an impact is always a challenge. That is why I am much more free market about it. It will allow people to make money so that they can support their communities, so that they can support their culture and so that they can support their language. If we get the fundamentals right, their languages will survive. As the French language in northern Alberta has survived and as the German language in northern Alberta has survived, so too the Cree language will survive in northern Alberta.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.
There are over 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada. Over a quarter of a million first nations, Métis and Inuit speak their indigenous languages well enough to carry on a conversation. The most spoken languages are Cree, with almost 100,000 people speaking it; Inuktitut, with almost 40,000; Ojibwa, with almost 30,000; Ojibwa-Cree, with almost 16,000; and Dene, with 13,000. While these numbers are significant, there are languages that have been lost or are at risk of being lost unless something significant is done to retain the cultures and understanding of the languages of the indigenous peoples.
I am happy to say that in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap, something significant is being done to preserve the indigenous languages of the Secwepemc and Splatsin Okanagan nations. One example of this language restoration and preservation is the Shihiya School, which is operated by the Splatsin band near the border of the Shuswap and Okanagan territories. It offers preschool to grade 6. It basically follows the provincial curriculum, but it is also integrating the Splatsin language and culture into its programs.
Another example, one I have more experience with because I have had the opportunity to visit it, is the Chief Atahm School, which is an indigenous immersion school at the western end of the Shuswap Lake area. This school was established through the vision of parents and leaders of the Adams Lake Indian Band, the Little Shuswap Lake Indian Band and the Neskonlith Indian Band, which are all part of the Shuswap territory.
I have had the privilege of touring the Chief Atahm School, and have seen some of the work that has been taken up by the parents and elders of the area. The work being done is inspiring and amazing, and it is largely being done on a voluntary basis. The school has highly skilled educators working collaboratively with parents, former students, elders and technicians to put together the curriculum. The entire teaching process, page by page, image by image, illustration by illustration and story by story is being put together from scratch.
The people involved have learned how to do this, and from what I saw, they are doing an incredibly good job of it. There are elders who show up almost daily to help out. These are elders who are in their nineties, and are the few remaining people who can speak and understand the language fluently. They are working on computers side by side with technicians and illustrators. These elders could never have imagined the technology being used now to retain the language they learned, which was passed on generation after generation through stories, dance, drumming and through some incredible means. Now they are able to tell those stories and pass them on digitally, which is something they would have never imagined, as well as in written and illustrated form in booklets. These are truly amazing pieces.
The school also takes the students out to the fields and streams, which is an immense part of learning and understanding the language and the culture. When I was there, I asked if the languages were similar to Roman or French languages. They are not. The languages are based on experiences, places and geographical areas. They are often based on different times of the year. One word or sound in one language may not mean exactly the same thing in the language of a neighbouring band. It may be similar, but slightly different.
We learned that with the renaming of the Tsútswecw Provincial Park, formerly the Roderick Haig-Brown Provincial Park, on Shuswap Lake. Apparently, in one language “Shuswap” means a place of many waters but another neighbouring area thought it referred to a place of many fish. There are such subtle differences being discovered by the recording, digitization and restoration of this language into modern forms and it is really interesting to see how that is done.
When the school takes the students out to the fields and streams it is also teaching them to harvest off the land. The students are harvesting fish, plants and wildlife. In fact, a deer is brought onto the school grounds and the students are taught how to process all of the meat and the goods off the deer. A smokehouse was also built. The students learn what the language really means when they talk about preserving their food for their future and how that is preserving their culture.
The Chief Atahm School has indigenous and non-indigenous instructors. It has brought people in from the communities outside of the bands themselves to educate the students. As I said, I was very fortunate to be able to visit the school. I was first there last year. I went back again in March of this year.
The school is doing so well and is so well supported by the community that it will be undergoing a large structural expansion. It is going to expand its inner space and teaching area so that, hopefully, it can include higher grades and all of the age levels potentially right up to university level and beyond. It will all be done through an immersion process. Many of us have heard about French immersion, but this is indigenous immersion into the Shuswap language, which is truly an incredible component. I looked at the books the school has. The students are taught the sounds by the instructors, but the words are written with our English phonetic alphabet. Some of the pronunciations were a real challenge for me. It was interesting to learn how to place one's tongue and how one's voice rolls through one's throat. All of this is part of those subtle differences of all those different languages.
I look forward to Bill C-91 making some difference on the ground for students and people in general so they can retain languages like the Shuswap language elsewhere in the country. We are at risk of losing those languages, which will be even more challenging as those members age.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I am going to interrupt the hon. member for a moment. He has been giving a very good speech. I am trying to hear it, but the rumble in the room seems to be going up. I want to remind everyone that business is being taken care of. I am sure everybody will be very interested in what the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap has to say and will focus on him so they hear what he has to say.
The hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, it really is interesting to see what takes place in this indigenous immersion school. The language is much more than written words on a page or spoken words in a story. The instructors actually take the students out into the field to experience the culture and the processes the languages describe.
We will be going into question period shortly. We have a few minutes left for questions and answers, so rather than make it awkward and stretch this over question period and into another day, I will wrap it up here, and I will take questions and comments until question period starts.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from North Okanagan—Shuswap for articulating an important example. What that leads us to reflect upon is that, yes, this legislation is important and, yes, it has had support at report stage. It was a unanimous vote in the House. However, it will be communities that drive the process.
I wonder if the member could talk a bit more about the importance of community-driven solutions and the different stages languages might be at with respect to their development.
Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Mr. Speaker, the involvement of the community in the development of the curriculum and the illustrations of the books showed how important it was to include communities. This school was driven by the parents of the students. They wanted their children to learn their cultural languages. Involving those communities that way is incredible.
The bill begins to address that part of it, but there is a lot missing. The bill was brought in two years after it was promised. Then, at the last minute, over two dozen revisions were table dropped. It obviously was not well prepared, which is typical of the government, and there was a lack of consultation.
The Speaker Geoff Regan
The hon. member is aware that he has eight minutes remaining. Following question period, there could be time for questions and comments, depending on the situation.
The House resumed from May 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the third time and passed.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying hello to my friends, my relations. It is good to see everyone today.
Let us start with a hard truth: we have had our languages taken from us. Canadians must be generous people and not allow these languages to die.
We have been walking a long pathway, and that pathway can lead to a Canada of great hope and promise. This proposed law is about hope: hope for the future, hope for the present and hope for our children.
In this great structure of Parliament, we have power and resources. In the beginning, we were told that our work was for all Canadians. We must all work collectively together, since Canada has written the promises in how processes unfold. We made a covenant, an agreement, together. We are related. If things have not happened right, we will change things to help respect one another.
Treaties are about respect and brotherhood. Indigenous peoples have always had treaties. The Cree and the Blackfoot made treaties using common sense. For example, there was to be no fighting in the winter, as it was too cold and not good to move children, women and the aged from their homes to different locations at that time. If one tribe made war, it sought out the other chief and explained the reason it was making war. Quite often, it was that the young warriors had too much energy, and they were bothering the whole camp. The old people knew that the best way to do things was to send them off to war against the enemy they knew. The two chiefs would talk and one would be given time to move the women, children and old people, and it worked for them. Later, in peacetime, they would talk about it.
The creation stories we tell about Wesakechak are about treaty. These world treaties are about water, earth, air, fire, and of course, the Great Spirit. For instance, when a child is born, the mother's water breaks and this signals that the child is to be born. He then gets his first breath of precious sacred air, and he is a living human being. He is then wrapped in the warm hide and fur of an animal and joins the warmth of the fire and the life-giving milk of his mother. Soon he is playing with the other children outside on their own land, which happens to be Canada.
When the Creator finished creating the land, sea and air creatures, he called everyone forward and told them to ask for gifts they wanted to have for themselves. Thus, he made treaties with all life on earth. Many asked to serve mankind. They were warned about mankind and what he would be like as the best and worst of all creation. They accepted and understood his warnings. For their understanding and sacrifices, they were granted a place in the hereafter. They would and should be honoured by men, women and children in ceremonies, which indigenous people still do to this day.
It is from these teachings that we respect air, fire and water in a spiritual way. They are included in all our prayers and ceremonies. It is a good way to live.
We all have our own languages, understandings and ceremonies. As indigenous people, we respect the earth and all the children of the feathered, furred, scaled, two-legged, four-legged and winged citizens.
Mankind is the only creation that breaks treaties continually. The others have never broken their sacred treaties with us.
From our own common sense, we must pray for the earth and all who dwell here. For over 100 years, we have signed treaties between our different peoples and countries. The original idea was not about subservience but about respect.
Languages must be used to be useful. They must be used by our children in school, in the home and in the rest of society. Our languages must be on TV so that people can see and understand why, where and when and can see what is happening in our Parliament. It is important to have our languages.
I saw a written sign at the entrance to a graveyard in Lac la Ronge, in northern Saskatchewan. It said, "If we could not as brothers live, let us here as brothers lie".
Man is represented by fire. Interestingly, women are represented by water. With just a single word or a single glance, she can elevate or destroy us. Personally, I would rather be a good brother to my fellow man than perish in a dirty flood of prejudice, jealousy, anger or fear.
Language can convey respect and meaning. It represents culture, and it defines who we are, our self-identity. It is about learning, education and knowledge.
Elder Dr. Winston Wuttunee asked me to talk about how our language is important and related to our belief structure. There are four elements: water, air, land and fire. Language is related to these four elements. When we take a word in Cree and break it down, there are additional meanings within that word.
Let us take water as an example. Water is women, life and connection to all of creation. It is beauty itself.
Let us look at air. There is fresh air and dirty air. It all has an impact on how healthy we are. It is life. It is breath. Animals fly in air. We need good air to be healthy.
Let us look at land. We live and we die. When we die, we become the land and the land is our relatives. It feeds the grasses. It feeds the bison. It feeds us. It is us.
Think about fire. Fire is also life. It keeps us warm. It lets us cook and survive. It cleans the land. It is also men. It works best with water.
Let us take one word in the Cree language, nikamoun, which means “to sing”. Nika means “in front”, and moun means “to eat”. Nikamoun, therefore, means "to be fed song". If we break it down further, it could mean "to be fed food by the one in front". This could also be the Creator. To take it a bit further, it means "whoever is in front is feeding us". This is where the greed for money becomes our sustenance. This has quickly become a starvation diet for us all, nature and mankind too. Do we have the responsibility and the ability to respond and learn to save ourselves, our children, mankind, and our world?
Without language, who are we as individuals? We become without a past, unable to understand the thoughts of the past and unable to understand our ancestors in ceremony. They, in turn, are unable to understand us when we cannot communicate in our language.
Our modern Parliament has a role to play in helping indigenous peoples. We can add to the scale of justice by ensuring that our Canadian languages, our indigenous languages, do not become museum pieces relegated to the back of anthropological shelves on linguistics but instead are living, alive, and adapted to a modern world while remaining spiritually connected to the past.
I have dreamed of this moment when the Canadian state, which has for far too long tried to ignore and terminate these languages, would be part of the process in Parliament of breathing life into our common languages.
I thank my colleagues, the House leader and Canadians. I thank our ancestors, who never stopped living. I thank the unborn, who will soon carry the spirit bundle of language into the future. I thank them very much.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, as a mother of two non-status Métis daughters, I am proud to ask the first question in the House of Commons in the Cree language.
What benefit will the bill have for the Cree and Métis nations?
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, suicide has taken too many lives. It destroys whole communities. Language and culture are part of their identity and grow our children right.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend both members for speaking indigenous languages. I hope that one day very soon, on my retirement from this place, I too can pursue those languages in my homeland. It is a great privilege to learn those languages.
Does the member support, and is he willing to speak to his fellows on that side of the House about supporting, amendments that have been brought forward by a number of members in this place on behalf of witnesses who appeared before committee and indigenous people who wrote to the government? They include requiring that the indigenous languages commissioner be indigenous, enshrining the United Nations declaration as a legally binding provision in the bill, adding specific reference to the sixties scoop and taking specific measures to respect the language rights of the Inuit.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is a very long question. There is a lot in there to unpack.
Obviously, I believe this bill does reflect the will of the House when we put forward our ideals and our values in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The federal government went to the United Nations in 2016, 2017 and 2018 to highlight once again Canada's support for the absolute acceptance of UNDRIP.
We are now at third reading. We have heard from a number of witnesses already on this bill. It is time to move forward, though. It is time to make sure this legislation passes, because if we continue to debate and debate, these languages will die. They are dying.
I was speaking with people from New Zealand, and only 10% of Maori are actually speaking the Maori language in New Zealand. That was an absolute disaster, but they started rebuilding the language, working together as a society, indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and trying to come up with a path forward. Today, the language is spoken even in Parliament, and even non-Maori people speak the language and can do introductions.
I hope that one day all MPs will be able to at least do an introduction in the Cree language:
“Hello. I greet you. I am glad to see you all.”
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to know about this bill, about the youth, if the youth are affected.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, that is good.
There is a lot of suicide, and it affects our communities. If the youth know their identity, it helps with their character.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for not only talking about indigenous languages but showing us in practice how certain ideas can be conveyed in indigenous languages that he knows.
I know many of us are involved in learning other languages, whether that be French, English or other languages. I wonder if the member could share a bit about the reality that maybe certain ideas are easier to convey in some languages than in others, that there is certain knowledge or experience inherently embedded in the way people might express themselves in one language that is different in another, and therefore that the preservation of indigenous languages is a way of preserving, through those languages, certain ideas, certain values, certain experiences that maybe do not come across as clearly in other languages.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, at 22, when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, I was fortunate to be transferred to the Valcartier military base. At the time, I did not speak a word of French. I am from Alberta. My attitude toward the language of Molière was far from positive. It is sad but true.
I decided to learn French with the Royal 22nd Regiment in Valcartier, which I salute, and our comrades in battle, the 5th Field Ambulance. Within four months, I was fully bilingual because I did not use a word of English. For me, as an Albertan, it was a way to bring the two solitudes together. However, there are other people in Canada, the indigenous peoples.
Learning French opened up a whole new world for me. Being able to express myself in any language—my mother tongue, French or English—is extremely important to me. I learned that people in Quebec have a slightly different way of thinking than people in Alberta. We are all Canadians and we are all human beings, but we have a different take on some things. Communities work together in Quebec, whereas in Alberta, we tend to be more individualistic; we like to show that we can control our environment.
In my view, language is what commands our thoughts, in a way, and that is extremely important to our cultures. We must also provide that advantage to indigenous peoples, for they have a right to live according to their culture. When they take part in ceremonies, they communicate with their ancestors through their culture and their thoughts. They deserve to have that connection with the past. Maybe one day they will be able to speak Cree at work, at the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal or Caisse Desjardins.
At least they can speak their languages at home and hear them on APTN, the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network. These people helped build Canada, a country that should be admired by all humanity. No other country on earth does this. We do have our problems and things that need improvement, but Canada is still the most wonderful country in the world.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, in the interest of brevity, I will only say that I agree with most of what the hon. member just said. As a footnote, New Zealand has very strong policies in place for preserving the Maori language. It has reserved places in the House of Commons for Maori representatives, and thanks to proportional representation, it now has an equivalent number of Maori representatives in its Parliament to the proportion of Maori in the general population.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette Liberal Winnipeg Centre, MB
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is quite an incredible thing. For me, though, this bill really provides a sense of hope for many of my constituents and it is going to be building on to the future. This is really about reconciliation for me.
I understand there are seats reserved for Maori. In certain parliaments, such as the Parliament of Taiwan, there are also seats reserved for indigenous peoples. At the same time, I know I was elected simply based on my own merits. It is a large debate in our society whether we should reserve seats within what we call the “Liberal democracies”, whether people should have certain rights, different rights, or how those rights all work together.
In Canada, we seem to have come to a consensus surrounding the place of indigenous peoples, but also people who have arrived here in the last 400 years, whether they are French or English. We can all work together.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-91 and, in that context as well, to make some broader comments about the federal government's relationship with indigenous peoples.
During his 1981 inaugural address, former United States president Ronald Reagan said the following: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
Looking at the history of Crown-indigenous relations and the challenges indigenous peoples face in Canada today, it is quite clear that so many of the particular challenges faced by indigenous peoples in our time as well stem from government intervention, the intervention of government in their lives in a way that does not respect their rights as individuals and, by extension, does not respect their identity and culture.
These types of interventions, big government interventions that deny the primacy of culture, that reject parental authority and familial autonomy, and that believe that governments and special interests, as opposed to property owners and local people, should control resource development, have caused significant challenges for many indigenous communities.
While some would seek to construct a false antagonism between Conservatives and indigenous communities, we recognize that it is the fundamentally Conservative principle that families and communities are more important than the state that could have paved, and could still pave, the path to meaningful reconciliation.
On the terrible history of residential schools, these schools were rooted in the idea that government should control the education system and use it to impose values and practices that are contrary to the teachings of parents and communities. That idea was wrong. It was deeply wrong of various non-state actors to collaborate in the implementation of this policy, and all of those collaborators have apologized, along with the government.
However, we should not forget that the root of this evil policy was that the state thought that it should and could interfere in the familial lives of indigenous peoples to impose an education system that was contrary to their beliefs and values. Approaches that deny the necessary involvement of parents in the education of their children, advanced out of paternalistic notions that government functionaries can raise children better than parents, are always wrong and always deeply damaging. We should certainly endeavour never to repeat the mistake of cutting parents out of decision-making about their children's education.
Today, we are discussing, in particular, the issue of indigenous languages. As I said, I and the rest of our Conservative caucus are very much in support of this legislation. We are very supportive of the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages, and we recognize the need for governments to play a constructive role to undo the damage, often damage done by governments in the past.
It should be clear to anyone who has learned a second language that language is more than a neutral medium for exchanging information. Languages have certain assumptions embedded in their structure about what is true and important, which makes certain ideas easier to convey in some languages than in others. People who speak a particular language also understand the cultural logic embedded in that language and can access different information and traditions through that language.
The preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages help indigenous people and all Canadians benefit from a deeper understanding and appreciation of the ideas, history, culture and values of different indigenous nations. The preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages help to preserve and revitalize indigenous traditional knowledge, knowledge that benefits indigenous people and all Canadians.
I want to make a few comments here about traditional knowledge, because it is a very important concept, frequently invoked but rarely explored. We can think of two distinct ways of knowing about things: empirical ways of knowing and traditional ways of knowing.
Empirical ways of knowing involve testing and comparison. For example, if people want to find out if eating a certain compound reduces the risk of cancer, they might conduct a study whereby they have a group of people consume the compound on a regular basis, and another, comparable group not eat the compound. They would eventually compare the outcomes for the groups and see if one group contracted cancer at a higher rate than the other.
This would be an empirical test, and it would provide good and clear information, as long as the comparative groups were large enough and the researchers were careful to control for other factors. Empirical tests are great, although they can be costly and time-consuming. Assessing impacts over time in an empirical way obviously takes a lot of time.
Traditional ways of knowing are also driven by data, but the data used is the experience of generations past. A particular culture might teach that certain practices are good for one's health. Perhaps this is because, over thousands of years of tradition, that culture has observed how people do much better or worse in certain circumstances. Traditional knowledge and wisdom generally come from observation over time and over generations, but without a clearly defined, or at least well-remembered, research design.
Of course, traditional knowledge can, in certain cases, be wrong if people develop that knowledge by drawing the wrong conclusions from their observations, but it is also the case that empirical researchers can err by drawing the wrong conclusions from their observations. Empirical research is sometimes contradicted by subsequent empirical research, just as traditional knowledge may in certain instances be contradicted by empirical research and traditional knowledge may be contradicted by other traditional knowledge.
However, it would be foolish, as some might propose, to discard or ignore traditional knowledge. It is valid and reasonable to draw at least tentative conclusions based on the experience and observation of others, including one's ancestors.
Indigenous communities in Canada have traditional knowledge about this land, about culture, about family and values, about life and dignity and about many other things. Language is often the mechanism by which that traditional knowledge is passed on.
It is also worth observing that it is not just indigenous communities here in Canada but all cultures and traditions that bring with them elements of traditional knowledge. The majority culture in the west has unfortunately become deeply skeptical of its own traditional knowledge.
Edmund Burke, the great English philosopher and politician, spoke of how we receive the goods of civilization from our parents and we pass them on to our progeny, and that we should thus be cautious in the innovations we undertake as a way to ensure that we are not unknowingly taking apart the substructure that holds together our prosperity and happiness. Burke talks, in different words, about the importance of our considering traditional knowledge in the decisions we make.
If a person buys a new house and sees that it has a pillar in a place that is not aesthetically pleasing, should this person immediately knock down the pillar or first ascertain whether the pillar is necessary for preserving the structure of the house? I would tell people not to knock down the pillar unless and until they can be certain that it is no longer needed. If they are certain it is not necessary, then it can be removed. However, if they are not certain, it is better to leave it in place, assuming that the pillar reflects the best intentions of the previous owner and knowledge the owner had about the house, knowledge the new buyer does not possess.
A person's empirical knowledge might eventually supersede deference to the status quo, but in the absence of clear, empirical evidence, a person would probably be wise to defer to the status quo in the meantime.
We see issues involving empirical knowledge and traditional knowledge in many different policy areas. One such area, for example, is the regulation of complementary or natural health products. Many are concerned that the government may seek to regulate these products in the same way that it regulates pharmaceutical products, even requiring the same types and levels of testing, but this policy ignores the possible benefit of traditional knowledge, the fact that people have been successful at using certain products for thousands of years to treat certain ailments and that this can be a valid basis for people to make choices themselves about the self-care products they choose to use.
People who do not like this approach are free to only consume things that have been demonstrated, through double-blind studies, to improve health. However, most Canadians would be open to trying complementary health products alongside conventional treatments if the benefits of those products had some traditional knowledge pointing in their favour. Trying such products is precisely a way in which more data can be gathered about the impacts of certain products, with traditional knowledge and science both developed through continuing experimentation and observation.
I have written to the chair of the health committee to ask the committee to undertake a study on the health impacts of uninsured self-care products and services because I think this is an area that requires greater engagement and study from Parliament. This is just one area among many where we should take the idea of traditional knowledge seriously and recognize that it is complementary to, not antagonistic to, empirical knowledge.
Coming back to the issue of Crown-indigenous relations, I note that the horror of Canada's experience with residential schools is precisely an example of traditional knowledge about the critical nature of the bond between parents and children being ignored in favour of radical and capricious schemes to remake the world in a different way.
The architects of the residential school experience, we should note, did not just ignore the value of indigenous traditional knowledge, but also ignored the traditional knowledge of our own society. This is traditional knowledge about the vital importance of the link between parents and children.
I wrote the following recently in a column for the Post Millennial:
The idea that parents are the primary educators of their children, that human dignity is universal and immutable, that good societies are characterized by ordered liberty rooted in a shared conception of the common good, that people ought to live in accordance with the cardinal virtues—prudence, justice, courage and temperance, that productive work is essential for well being, that human rights are universal and stem from natural law—all of these and much more are part of the traditional knowledge of our civilization.
Unlike traditional knowledge in the scientific domain, traditional knowledge in the domain of politics and morality cannot be put under a microscope—but perhaps that makes the contributions of traditional knowledge in these areas that much more important.
This legislation, Bill C-91, through its work on language, seeks to preserve, through language, indigenous traditional knowledge, so I hope we will also bring to our subsequent debates in this place a greater understanding and appreciation for traditional knowledge in general and for the need to include it and reference it in our conversations.
Also in the area of Crown-indigenous relations, I would like to make a few remarks about the impact of natural resource development on indigenous communities.
The ability of indigenous communities to preserve and revitalize their languages, their traditions and their communities in general requires some degree of opportunity. Natural resource development is not an end in and of itself, but it can provide the capital for indigenous communities to make greater investments into things that matter more, such as family, community, culture and language. For that reason, many indigenous communities believe in resource development because it allows them to get ahead and achieve the objectives they identify for themselves. It allows them to do so without leaving their communities and moving to the city.
Our legal frameworks are supposed to recognize the importance of affected indigenous communities having a meaningful say in decisions about resource development. Unfortunately, the government has a track record of imposing anti-development policies on indigenous communities, in clear contravention of its legal obligations. This hurts these communities economically and weakens their ability to preserve their culture and language. This is yet another example of how inappropriate government intervention in the lives of indigenous peoples undermines their ability to preserve their identity and culture.
I can show the House clearly how the Prime Minister is failing to meet his legal obligations to indigenous peoples in this respect.
The natural resource committee was conducting a study on best practices for indigenous consultation. On January 31 of this year, I had an opportunity to question public servants about our obligations and our actions when it comes to that consultation.
This is what I asked:
Is there a duty to consult indigenous communities when those communities have put time, resources and money into a project going forward and then a government policy stops that progress from being put forward? Is there a duty to consult if indigenous communities are trying to move forward the development of a project and the government puts in place policies to stop that progress? Is there a duty to consult in that case?
Terence Hubbard, the director general at NRCan, replied with the following:
...the Crown's duty to consult is triggered any time it's taking a decision that could impact on an aboriginal community's rights and interests.
I followed up with this:
Okay. It seems pretty obvious, then, that policies like the offshore drilling moratorium in the Arctic, like Bill C-69, like Bill C-48, like the tanker exclusion zone, would have a significant impact on indigenous communities and on their ability to provide for their own communities through economic development, which they may well have planned, and in many cases did plan, in advance of the introduction of those policies.
Let me drill down on a few of those examples.
What consultation happened by the government before the imposition of the tanker exclusion zone? I'm talking about before Bill C-48 was actually proposed, when the Prime Minister first came into office and introduced the tanker exclusion zone.
From the responses to my questions, it became clear that none of the departments represented in that hearing, none of the leading public servants who were involved in overseeing how the federal government consults with indigenous peoples, knew about anything to do with indigenous consultations around the tanker exclusion zone. Almost certainly those consultations did not happen.
While I was in the Arctic with the foreign affairs committee last fall, we spoke to many different indigenous communities about issues around cultural preservation, traditional knowledge and natural resource development. We were told on a number of occasions about concerns regarding anti-development policies coming from the government and their impact on the capacity of indigenous communities to prosper and use their resources to protect their culture in other ways they see fit. We were told in particular that the government's approach to consulting northern communities before imposing an offshore drilling ban in the Arctic was to phone local premiers 45 minutes before the announcement. There was no meaningful consultation on an offshore drilling ban. Instead, the announcement was made by the Prime Minister, along with Barrack Obama.
This showed flagrant disrespect for indigenous communities and for the way in which their ability to prosper and develop impacts their ability to preserve their culture.
These conversations we had in the Arctic and other places made it clear that the Prime Minister has absolutely no interest in consulting with indigenous communities before imposing anti-energy policies that affect their recognized right to pursue growth and opportunity within their communities.
Of course, some indigenous people, some indigenous leaders and some indigenous nations oppose certain resource development projects, and their perspectives should be incorporated into meaningful consultation processes that do not give any one community a veto over projects that impact multiple communities.
The Crown duty to consult does not just exist for pro-energy policy; it also exists for anti-energy policy, policies that deny indigenous communities the opportunity to proceed with plans to build up their own self-sufficiency and to fund projects that relate to cultural revitalization.
The government, it is clear, does not actually care about consulting indigenous communities, given its record. It simply wants to use consultation as an excuse to hold up resource development in certain cases, while completely ignoring indigenous communities when it wants to pursue an agenda that is different from what those communities want. For the government, consultation means deciding what it wants first and then finding people who agree with it to help legitimize a decision that has already been made. This is not in keeping with the spirit of reconciliation or even with the law around the duty to consult.
A Conservative government led by our leader would show real respect for indigenous people by ensuring meaningful engagement in communities, even in cases where there are differences of opinion. We will support the economic aspirations of indigenous communities, as well as their linguistic, cultural and social aspirations, because we understand that a culture is more important than politics. We will reflect our Conservative values in our approach to this critical area, recognizing that big, interfering government has held indigenous people back for too long.
The government must indeed be a constructive partner, but above all else, the government must always ensure that it is not getting in the way. Getting in the way has happened far too often in the past, and it continues, but it must come to an end.
We desire, in all of Canada, to see strong communities, strong families and strong, resilient individuals. I am very pleased to be supporting Bill C-91 and I look forward to the work that can be done to build on it in the future through the government working in partnership with indigenous communities, through the government getting out of the way of indigenous communities and supporting their own efforts to thrive, to preserve and revitalize their culture, and to strengthen their economies and their communities in so many other ways.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
This bill is very important to my constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I believe personally that this legislation provides a great deal of hope to many of my constituents. It is a very important aspect of reconciliation.
When my colleague across the way thinks of reconciliation, specifically with Bill C-91, would he not agree that this is a significant step forward on reconciliation?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will just repeat some of what I said, which is that I and our caucus are very supportive of this legislation. We understand the importance of language as more than just a neutral medium of exchange, but rather as something that entails within it cultural experiences and values that are best understood and conveyed within the context of those languages.
The work of preserving language is important as an end in and of itself, but it also is important for preserving knowledge and experience to benefit the next generation of indigenous Canadians.
It also benefits all of us. It gives all of us an opportunity to learn from the knowledge that comes through these languages.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, I was happy to hear that the member understands the importance of language to indigenous communities across the country as the core of their culture and the core of reconciliation.
We have 70-some indigenous languages across Canada. Most of them are in British Columbia, where it is very diverse. In the Okanagan, where I live, the Syilx people speak Nsyilxcen. There are only 50 fluent speakers of Nsyilxcen left. It is at risk of extinction, as are three-quarters of indigenous languages in Canada.
Reversing that trend is at the heart of reconciliation, and it takes money. The NDP is very much in favour of legislation to benefit indigenous language knowledge across Canada, but we see one big flaw in this legislation: There is no long-term funding. The Syilx people have a fluency training program, one of only three in Canada, whereby they are desperately trying to teach young people fluency in the language. This takes time and money, and yet there is no funding in this legislation for that kind of work. That work is at the heart of this whole idea of retaining these languages and retaining indigenous cultures across Canada.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, it might sound like a bit of a quibble, but I am not convinced that language is at the core of culture. Often values are at the core of culture, but language is an important mechanism by which those things are passed on. It is an important distinction I wanted to make.
To the member's comment about funding, cost obviously has to be considered, and it is important for a government to be engaged in supporting these processes. We can look at two different ways in which these types of important programs and activities can be supported. One is the engagement of government, which is definitely an element, and another is the way in which we can allow and support economic development to take place within these communities. This would give them the resources to invest in projects around language and other areas.
I am not saying it is one or the other, but it is both. Supporting economic development is a key part of the picture. There are certainly many indigenous communities in my province that have been able to benefit from a natural resource development, and that has given them greater resources and greater capacity to undertake cultural preservation activities.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the as-ever thoughtful approach of my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan on this issue. We may disagree around some of the aspects of his speech, but he is clearly very thoughtful about issues of reconciliation.
However, when the member's leader was before the Assembly of First Nations and was asked what the Conservative platform is going to look like and what his party thinks about reconciliation, as I recall, the answer was, “You'll have to wait. We haven't finished figuring that out yet.”
I wonder if my hon. colleague can shed any light on how the Conservative Party thinks we can advance the essential quest for justice and reconciliation.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, if I can just clarify the aspect in terms of our leader's interactions with indigenous leaders, I am very pleased that he is very actively engaged, meeting with indigenous leaders across the country, listening to them and sharing aspects of his vision for the country.
The leader of the Green Party knows that there is a process by which political parties communicate their general values, inclinations, principles and certain policy issues, and there is a certain timing in which specific aspects of those programs are laid out. One does not necessarily publish the details of one's platform six or 12 months out from the time at which people will be making a choice on it.
In terms of the specifics of Conservative values with respect to reconciliation, I talked about many of them in my speech today. We strongly believe in the importance of partnering with indigenous communities and supporting reconciliation. We see in Conservative values this idea of the importance of culture, of family having primacy over politics and the need for governments to be partners with but also to get out of the way of communities.
That is perhaps the kind of discussion they are more likely to hear from Conservative parties in general, and it is the right approach when we see how, historically, the problem for many indigenous communities has been that they have been held back by government policy that has been overly interventionist and overly paternalistic. Those values will be a good guide for us as we move forward with greater detail and greater specifics.
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, it was an honour for me to rise earlier to ask a question and be responded to in the Cree language. We are obviously supporting this bill on indigenous languages. However, it is not enough to have the language; the language needs to be heard and understood. I sometimes feel like the government is not always hearing and understanding.
In my colleague's speech, he mentioned one or two examples of that. Could he expand on them?
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent work in this area and so many others in this place.
On the issue of the government listening to Canadians in general, and particularly in the context of listening to indigenous communities, I spoke about the issue of resource development and how the government does not want to listen to the voices of many indigenous leaders who have been sounding the alarm about, for instance, Bills C-48 and C-69. This is legislation that would make it virtually impossible for certain kinds of resource development projects to go forward in the future, which would undermine this incredible opportunity for prosperity for many indigenous nations.
Along with many on the far left, the government wants to elevate the voices of some people in the indigenous community while ignoring the voices of others. Our consultation approach needs to listen to everybody. We need to make sure those who maybe do not share my particular views on resource development are still very much heard and listened to as part of a meaningful consultation process in which the outcome is not predetermined.
However, I also think that process cannot give any one actor within it a veto over moving forward. It must listen to all of those voices, including those who are in favour of development. This is one of many areas, related in particular to the conversation around Crown-indigenous relations, where the government is unfortunately failing to listen.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the government and the Government House Leader for allowing me some time to speak to this legislation even though they know I am not speaking in support of it. I do appreciate the opportunity.
I think it is important that my voice be heard. I am the only Inuk in the House who can speak freely and vote with my conscience. I cannot in all good conscience support this legislation, because it excludes the Inuit language.
When I voted against Bill C-91 at second reading, I said I would bring forward an amendment, and I did. The minister said in the House that he was open to amendments and was hoping to find one that would work. I spoke with him personally about the intent of my amendment, and he seemed disposed to it.
It was a pretty innocuous amendment. ITK, which has spoken out and come out strongly against this legislation, would not have supported my amendment. Its members felt that the legislation did not go far enough, that it was not strong enough. They worked with my colleagues in the NDP to bring forward other amendments at committee.
In my discussions with the minister, he indicated to me that part of the problem with the amendments and what ITK was looking for with the legislation was that it did not fit the mandate and the scope of the legislation. I was very careful to draft my amendment to make sure that it fit within the scope and the mandate of the legislation.
Having sat on the other side, I understand that we are limited as to what we can and cannot do by the mandate that we have. I was very cognizant of that in bringing forward that amendment. My amendment simply left the door open for the minister to have the ability to work with Inuit for the inclusion of our language.
We have often heard the Prime Minister and ministers in the House claim that when it comes to committees, members are independent. We hear that they are not told how to vote at committee. I now know that is not the case. At this committee, we have the same old same old. All the Liberal members voted my amendment down, as they were told. In fact, they voted down every single opposition amendment.
I may be a little naive, but I am of the belief that committees of the House are supposed to be where all members, regardless of party affiliation, can work together to make improvements to legislation. Believe me, this legislation needs improving.
To vote down amendments without regard or consideration, simply because one is a Liberal and others are not, is childish politics. It has no place in our democracy.
In Nunavut, we govern by consensus. We have no political divisions. All members work together for the good of the people. We could use more of that in this place. Bill C-91 would be a better piece of legislation for it.
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister why, in the budget, he was funding ITK directly and bypassing the Government of Nunavut to deal with our housing and health care crises, even though the Government of Nunavut is the service provider. He got pretty hot under the collar. He was very agitated when he said, “I will make no apologies for a distinctions-based approach...”.
That is exactly the approach that ITK thought was being used when developing this legislation. However, it has become very clear that the government never had any intention of using it, and this is one of the major problems that ITK has with it.
In those comments, the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that for the budget he was taking a nation-to-nation approach with Inuit. Well, he cannot have it both ways, nation building with Inuit in one bill and excluding us on another.
This is very important legislation and long overdue. The preservation of languages is important to all cultures. Now, for the first time, we are recognizing indigenous languages, ensuring they are protected from extinction, just not all of them.
For that reason, because Inuit languages are not included in the legislation, I cannot support it. I look forward to any comments or questions from members.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his testimony.
He may have given a speech, but he was also testifying to what he experienced at this committee, when he saw the amendments being rejected and this government showing its paternalistic approach. I regret that a member has to wonder whether he is naive for thinking that committee members should normally be able to make independent decisions without being controlled by the government.
Does he think that the government is rushing a bit at the end of its term to do something significant, after realizing that it did nothing for four years about something that was supposedly important to its mandate? Does he think the government figures that even if the bill is not perfect, it is good enough?
What does my colleague think about that?
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the government as to the timing of the legislation, but I have heard it was trying to bring forward other pieces of legislation that were derailed. The Liberals felt they needed to bring something forward, so this was brought forward. ITK and NTI feel that this was rushed and that more time could have been taken to ensure it was done appropriately and better.
Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's recognition that it is important we hear a diversity of voices in this place. As I have always said, we will ensure that members have the opportunity to raise their comments and concerns so we can do better as we move forward.
I heard the member for Kitchener—Conestoga use unparliamentary terminology. I would appreciate if he would not put words in my mouth and tell me what I think or what I believe.
I would like to remind the hon. member, who gave such an eloquent speech, that amendments from the opposition were accepted at committee.
The legislation being debated today has been amended from its original form. I would like some acknowledgement that the legislation does put financial obligation on the government of the day. That means a new government would have to change the legislation, because there is an obligation on the government of the day to now fund languages.
I agree that languages have been taken away for far too long. We need to ensure we strengthen them. I am proud of my first language and I would not be who I am today. We have done a disservice when it comes to our relationship with indigenous peoples. This is not the end all and be all, but it definitely is a step in the right direction. We have a lot more work to do.
Would the member agree that we need to work better together, that this is a step and that we could find a path to find a better way forward for communities so we strengthen those relationships?
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I agree with the principle of the legislation. The member is saying that we need to work together to continually improve things. I provided the Liberals an opportunity to do that and they chose to defeat the amendment.
I spoke with the minister. I was very cognizant to bring forward an amendment that fit within the scope and the mandate of what he had to work with. It would have given him the ability to open that door to work with Inuit. The Liberals chose to defeat that.
It was a lost opportunity. I wish the Liberals would have taken that opportunity. Bill C-91 would have been better for it.
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but in preface to that, I want to address the comment made about my comments to the member for Waterloo. I was simply saying that when the input is requested, the Liberals listen with their ears, but then they shut it down. All I said was, “They shut it down”.
I would ask my colleague if in fact my understanding is true. Amendments were made in committee, but all of them were shut down by the majority Liberal members of that committee. I simply want to confirm that this is factual.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, to my recollection, that is the case. However, as the government House leader pointed out, some amendments were accepted. I would have to go back and check. When I was in attendance, all the ones that were brought forward by opposition at committee were defeated. However, I am not 100% sure if that is the exhaustive list of them.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight.
During the deliberations at committee, a number of amendments were accepted from different parties. At every stage, the member for Nunavut was invited to take part. As a government, we made every accommodation for that participation to take place. However, he was not at all of the proceedings. Therefore, the member may not have been privy to some of the amendments that did pass, but they are on the record. The bill we passed at second reading, and which is before us today, is different. It is amended. We are debating the bill as amended.
I would ask the member this. How was Inuktitut excluded from the legislation? I am a little perplexed with the claim that the language was currently excluded. With respect to the framework, it is there. Every indigenous language is included in the legislation, which directly addresses the issues of every indigenous language currently spoken.
Also, how do clauses 8 and 9 allow the government to work with the provinces and territories?
I would like the member's comments on those two questions.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, all the amendments that were brought forward when I was at committee were defeated. However, I did take the minister's word that he was looking for a solution and he would come up with an amendment that would keep everybody happy. It would be a compromise. It did not seem to be the case with my amendment.
The member has said that we are dealing with an amended bill, but none of the amendments deal with any of the issues that were raised by ITK or NTI. They stated publicly that the legislation was in no way co-developed with Inuit. As the member for Nunavut representing the largest population of Inuit in Canada, I cannot support the legislation because of the concerns they have raised, which were apparently ignored by the government.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for what I think is a very principled position.
I think all of us in the House really want to see indigenous languages preserved, protected and enhanced across the whole country. However, we in this party share those concerns that the legislation before us mystifyingly leaves out Inuit languages. In a bill that is supposed to include indigenous languages, it would not require the indigenous languages commissioner to even be indigenous, makes no reference to UNDRIP and has some significant, serious flaws. Therefore, we will join with him in opposing the bill, quite reluctantly. Of course, we would like to see indigenous language legislation passed.
How is it possible for a federal government to bring forward legislation to this place to deal with indigenous languages and exclude the Inuit languages?
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out, the president of ITK and the president of NTI spoke publicly against the legislation because of that exclusion. As I mentioned at the onset of the development of Bill C-91, they were led to believe it would be a distinctions-based approach to developing the legislation. It seems that now that we have it, it is not.
One of the things I tried to bring forward with my amendment, which was a soft amendment and it would have been a very friendly, easy amendment to accept, would have allowed the minister to have the door open to work with Inuit, if he chose to do so. It was not a “shall”, it was not a “must”, it was a “may”.
I am kind of baffled as to why that amendment was defeated. It in no way committed a government, the current government or any government in the future, to any type of direction or commitment, which is something that cannot be done. I was very careful to put forward that amendment in a way that allowed the government to move forward and have the ability to recognize the wishes of Inuit in the legislation.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona. I will try to stay constructive and positive, but I have to say that this government's holier-than-thou attitude annoys me to no end. It is exasperating. The Liberals seem to believe they are above all comments and constructive feedback. They think they know everything, and that is incredibly irritating. We can always sense it in their tone. I have never felt this way before. In the last Parliament, under the Conservatives, I never sensed this level of arrogance. “We know best”, the Liberals say. It is so infuriating.
I sit on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, and this is an issue that is close to my heart. I have here 17 NDP amendments, which obviously were not adopted, and I can confirm that the amendment my colleague mentioned earlier was extremely constructive and opened up doors. Unfortunately, the Liberals think they have all the answers when it comes to drafting bills. They were like that with the SNC-Lavalin affair as well, when they added that little line to the omnibus bill. That was an inspired move. The Liberals must be kicking themselves, because all of Quebec is now complaining about it.
I cannot talk about Bill C-91 without talking about my experience as a member of this House. I represent the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, so of course I want to stand up for the interests of my constituents, for aerospace and for our social fabric. More importantly, I want to find solutions to address the fact that one-third of the children in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert are living in poverty. It is a shocking figure, and no one ever talks about it.
I want to talk about my election in 2011. When I was elected, I was an ordinary citizen from Longueuil who did not have a clear understanding of the issues facing first nations. When I arrived here, my main concerns were defending Quebec's distinct culture and fighting climate change. Quite frankly, first nations were not on my list of priorities. On top of that, I did not know very much about the topic.
Many will recall the leadership race that happened so quickly following Jack Layton's death, and my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, was one of the candidates. At that point, many people in Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, including myself, discovered an ambassador for the Cree Nation. Today that member is one of the people scratching their heads, wondering whether this bill on indigenous languages lives up to the expectations.
When I became acquainted with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, I saw how hard he had worked, especially on the peace of the braves agreement and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I saw how diligently he had to work to solve such issues. I also realized that what was needed was a compassionate approach, not a theoretical one.
This man, whom I consider a friend, taught me that this privileged relationship, as the Liberal Party often calls it, needs to be cultivated. Every time we deal with indigenous languages in committee, I am struck by the heart-wrenching testimony that shows this goes well beyond a theory that language is important. We saw people who were suffering because their past and their roots had been erased, and their personalities and cultures had been bleached white by a centralizing government.
As the representative for the people of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, I was shocked to see just how many open wounds the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was trying to heal. The commission attempted to set out a path for reconciliation.
We came to committee with this in mind, with the goal of working together congenially and collaboratively.
I mentioned the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou today because his outstanding bill seeking to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Bill C-262, has stalled in the Senate. This is a very important bill because it would redefine our relationship with indigenous peoples, with those who are at the very core of this country, but partisan politics are holding it up in the Senate.
I will not call out those involved in the Senate, but it is quite shameful. Things need to get moving. They could use a little nudge to get things going and see them through. This bill would ensure that the government respects the rights of our indigenous peoples and that these rights would be enshrined in all of our bills.
Bill C-91 is by all accounts fundamental and extremely important to the reconciliation process. I understand perfectly just how valuable language is, and how culture is primarily carried through language. It is essential to everything. The situation looks precarious. During one of my visits to Kahnawake, Mr. Norton told me that the Mohawk language is in jeopardy. He said that he was committed to supporting the process. He wants to encourage people to take interest in this issue. Teaching people who are interested in learning these languages again will take several months or years. I therefore understand how important this is.
Also, I was very pleased that my colleagues from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River supported me during the work on this bill and the study in committee. It is a sensitive topic that requires careful consideration. These are not routine laws. These laws have emotional consequences and will shape our relationship with these nations and the preservation of their culture.
People on the ground obviously saw and grasped the importance of this bill. They understood that public officials had tried to draft legislation that would meet their needs. I will try not to use provocative language. I will try not to make us out to be saintly know-it-alls. I just did it, but I apologize. I will try to put this delicately. If this bill is so important to the Liberal government, why are we only talking about it with five weeks left in the parliamentary session? Why is that? Is there a valid reason to explain why this bill was delayed until the very end of the parliamentary session?
The Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage is busy. The committee constantly deals with issues related to the cultural resilience of Quebec, first nations or the Innu people. Let me use a metaphor to describe what is going on here. The Liberals were thinking about where they stood. They realized that the parliamentary session was drawing to a close, and they decided that, given their meagre legislative agenda, they were not too busy to introduce some new bills. They figured it would be nice to do something about this issue. They thought they would look really stupid if they went four years without doing anything about it, so they threw a bill together at the last minute.
As my colleague rightly said, a major player, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, says it is not satisfied and was not consulted. This bill is being shoved down their throats. It is tragic to see this holier-than-thou government pretending it has not just been sitting on its hands this whole time. Sadly, that is what happened.
This is critically important bill. It is unfortunate that it had to be rammed through since it still has many flaws and is far from perfect.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the observation from the member opposite about the extraordinary privilege one has as a member of Parliament and perhaps the shame one has as a Canadian that our approach to first nations communities and indigenous peoples across this country is made better by our presence in the House of Commons, as opposed to being a qualification to get here to begin with. This is in fact truth and reconciliation in action, as we can see here today with the various languages being spoken on the floor.
On this bill in particular, and in reference to the member for Iqaluit, one of the challenges we have with the horrid colonial past this country has unfortunately emerged from and hopefully is changing is that even inside of things like UNDRIP, there are competing interests that have been driven by colonialism.
For example, in some regions of this country, the Inuit will claim land and territorial rights, but other communities—perhaps the Dene, in some circumstances I can think of specifically—will say they have a claim there as well. The challenge with linking language and geography, in particular with reference to indigenous communities, is that those claims are equal, competing and not necessarily easily or quickly resolvable.
The challenge with the ITK position was that it sought to establish language rights on a geographic basis as opposed to a human basis, and that was the challenge we were dealing with.
I am curious to have the member opposite look at it from that perspective and reflect on his comments. We have to improve the situation, but we also have to come back to almost immediately fixing it once again, because when we link language to geography, we may exclude the more harmed person within the colonial experience.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his appreciation for everything one discovers about indigenous, Innu and Métis issues when one becomes a member of Parliament. That having been said, I certainly do not want to understate the complexity of the task. It is true that it is very complex.
However, the fact remains that it is very frustrating for the members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage to all of a sudden be told that this is a government priority that is way behind schedule and that the committee needs to conduct a pre-study of the bill. We did that with as open an attitude as possible, but the government did not really co-operate.
I understand that this is a complex issue. There is no doubt about that. That being said, we need to all work together. The Liberals may have tried to work as much as possible with all those involved, but they certainly did not try to work with us.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Mr. Speaker, lim'limpt. I would also like to say lim'limpt to my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Lim'limpt is the word for “thank you” in the language of Nsyilxcen, the language of the Syilx people where I come from in the Okanagan Valley.
There are plenty of people who know more in Nsyilxcen words than I do, but there are only 50 people on the planet who can speak Nsyilxcen in a fluent manner. The Syilx people are working hard to raise that level of fluency, but it takes time, money and effort. They have a fluency program, one of only three in Canada, I believe, that are aimed at bringing up fluency in languages that are near extinction.
He mentioned Kahnawake; the Mohawk language is one. Squamish, near Vancouver, is another. They need ongoing funding. We cannot wait.
The Conservatives mentioned that we just have to raise the economic works that go on in these communities so that they can afford it, but we need funding now. We need funding on an ongoing basis. That is one of the things the NDP finds completely lacking in this bill.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague.
I admire the fact that he is able to speak the language of some of his constituents. It is a language that is all the more important because it is on the verge of extinction.
He is absolutely right. I should even have talked about how no money has been set aside to ensure the sustainability of such a program. Members will also recall that many people are rightly opposed to the fact that the commissioner in question is not required, by definition, to come from an indigenous community. My colleague is right to point out how important that is, since there are only 50 people left who speak the language. That is outrageous, and it is all happening right before our eyes.
We have a number of institutes that deal with archeology and studying the past, but if we do not want our indigenous languages to become a thing of the past, then we need to ensure their survival.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, at the start I would like to acknowledge that this House rests on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin people.
It just occurred to me, in listening to the discussion here, that we do not only have the tragedy of the disappearing of our languages. My ancestors came to Newfoundland around 1610 and had friendly relations with the Beothuk. Not only have we lost the languages of the Beothuk, but the Beothuk are gone.
As a nation, we have to get serious about this and we have to make sure, going forward, in laws that this place is enacting, that we actually deliver on the United Nations declaration and deliver on the calls to action by the TRC. We have to make sure that we are really getting it because we have directly consulted with the indigenous peoples of Canada.
It is a great honour to speak to Bill C-91. Not only is it an act respecting indigenous languages, but it should be more precisely put, the language rights of first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, although the Inuit are expressing concerns that it does not quite get it from their perspective.
As some renowned scholars in indigenous matters have said, we should not even talk about “indigenous languages”; we should be naming all the languages and all the peoples, because they, themselves, are distinct.
The preamble to this bill specifies that “the recognition and implementation of rights related to Indigenous languages are at the core of reconciliation.”
Reference is made to the calls to action by the TRC on language and culture, as well as the adoption and implementation of UNDRIP. If we go to these calls to action, we see that they are actually titled “Language and culture.” It is not “language”; it is “language and culture”.
The TRC calls on the federal government “to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights”. Then it goes on to say this about the legislation that is to be enacted, this bill we are speaking to right now:
i. Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them.
ii. Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties.
iii. The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds....
iv. The preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Aboriginal languages and cultures are best managed by Aboriginal people and communities.
v. Funding for Aboriginal language initiatives must reflect the diversity of Aboriginal languages.
It is right there in the calls to action. The TRC then calls upon the federal government to appoint a commissioner of aboriginal languages, which the bill does. It is to be noted that the calls to action also specifically call for the government to fully adopt and implement UNDRIP and to implement “a national action plan, strategies, and other concrete measures”.
In reading the actual call, we have to recognize that it is about language and culture. They are tied together. It is important to recognize that the calls to action on language and culture must be considered in the context of the bundle of rights in the TRC report and in UNDRIP, and there cannot be a handpicking of one or the other.
I would add that I have repeatedly tried to get the government to actually make UNDRIP binding in bills that come forward, in particular in decisions by the government that impact the lands and resources of indigenous peoples. Sadly, that was always rejected.
Why was the call to revitalize aboriginal languages issued? As shared so clearly in the TRC report, the very intent of the residential school program was to “take the Indian out of the Indian”. This was done by wrenching wee children from their families, communities and traditions, and forbidding their languages and cultural practices. As Commissioner Sinclair has said so clearly, it amounted to “cultural genocide”.
Far too many indigenous peoples today have lost not only their language, but the connection to their cultures and their traditional communities.
As my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, has shared:
The vast majority of indigenous languages in this country are endangered, and there is a critical need to address that challenge. There is an urgent need at this moment, as we speak, to address that challenge. Our languages are important. If the legislation fails to reflect the intent of the bill, we are not doing our indigenous brothers and sisters in this country any favours.
To the credit of indigenous peoples and other supportive groups, great efforts continue to be made to revitalize their languages and cultures. One example of an indigenous community investing in this objective is the Cayuga and Mohawk immersion initiative at Six Nations.
I had the honour a number of years ago to visit that community and to visit that school. It is absolutely inspiring to see what is done there, without government support, even though it is desperately needed.
The sad thing is that this particular school, which is working on teaching people the Gayogoho:no language, has to hold classes above the curling rink. It cannot even get the support of the government to build a proper school so that it can teach the children these languages. As I was leaving that facility, the children came out of the classrooms, and they went into a round house and sang traditional songs. I witnessed first-hand the tears of the elders, that once again their community is learning to speak their language and to understand the culture. It was phenomenal.
There are examples of non-indigenous entities supporting the development, preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages. One such entity is the Canadian Indigenous Languages and Literacy Development Institute, or CILLDI, at my alma mater, the University of Alberta. The institute brings together indigenous Canadians from across the country to work on learning their languages and how they can promote and revitalize the languages. They get university credit for this. The government actually invests in advanced education. This is an area where we should be providing similar programs right across this country.
Some members have commented on the irony that while this place is debating about indigenous languages, some of the members of this place who are indigenous were not accorded the opportunity to speak in their language. One of my colleagues, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, was not able to speak in Dene because she had to give a 48-hour notice. I am looking forward to the time in this place when we have the interpreters available. As the government moves forward and keeps changing what bills come forward, it is not necessarily possible to give advance notice about speaking in one's language. I have attended Dene gatherings in the Northwest Territories where there were 10 or 12 interpreters available. It is not that we do not have those skills in this country. We have to get serious about providing them in this place at the federal level.
We have witnessed a number of members speaking in this place. The priority has to be to ensure the opportunity for those who are indigenous to speak. Of course, it is great to hear those of us who are non-indigenous trying to speak those languages, and that is admirable.
I want to thank the member for Nunavut for raising the concerns raised by the Inuit at committee. The Inuit are deeply troubled by this bill, and it is very concerning that the government is not considering that and did not properly consult on this.
We called for a number of amendments, which it is my understanding everyone rejected. Those that are critical include the requirement that the indigenous language commissioner be indigenous, which I think is pretty obvious; to enshrine UNDRIP as a legally binding provision of this bill; to add specific reference to the discriminatory policy of the sixties scoop that led to the erosion of indigenous languages; and, finally, to include specific measures to respect the language rights of the Inuit.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Edmonton Strathcona is a lawyer. Therefore, I would like to ask her about the legality, with respect to the charter as well as our Human Rights Act, of putting a provision in a bill where we prescribe particular background of an individual. We all agree that the indigenous languages commissioner ought to be an indigenous person, but I wonder whether putting such a clause into the legislation would violate the charter. How would the member hope to frame that so it can sustain a challenge on the charter front?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I understand from the hon. member that this is the reason why the government does not want to specify that in the bill. Somebody may decide to come forward and challenge that, but this is a bill specifically about honouring, developing and preserving indigenous languages. To me, it would be absurd that somebody would come forward and challenge that the person who is leading that program must be indigenous.
If this is supposed to be a nation-to-nation relationship, it is a perfectly reasonable request brought forward by first nations and indigenous peoples that this person should be an indigenous person. In law after law, the government is changing the legislation to actually specify that a lot of advisory bodies also include indigenous people, so why not specify here?
Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I was not actually aware that the people of Nunavut and their language were not protected in this bill. It was news to me when I heard the member for Nunavut speak. I think that is definitely a miss by the government.
Could the member elaborate on the amendments her party brought that were rejected so that we can understand what they were?
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear the hon. member for Nunavut speak in this place.
I do not know if the member for Yukon was asking about all the amendments. I do not think it is appropriate for me to speak specifically to the call for amendments by the head of the ITK or by the member for Nunavut. I think they have expressed that need specifically very well themselves.
My understanding is that the deep concern is that the Inuit, the people of Nunavut and the Government of Nunavut felt that they were not sufficiently consulted in advance in the development of this bill. Surely that should be one of the most important aspects as we move forward under the UNDRIP and under the calls for action by the TRC, that every piece of legislation that comes forward in this place that may impact the rights and interests of indigenous people be developed hand in glove with those people.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I presented more than a dozen amendments at committee, and like other members, I was disappointed that there were no amendments accepted at clause by clause as the bill was reviewed.
I was very taken with the remarks by the hon member for Nunavut that he is the only Inuktut speaker in this place who is allowed to speak his mind because he sits as an independent. It is a powerful position to be in.
I have struggled with how to vote on this bill, but indigenous groups in my riding have asked me to support it. I will vote for it, but I do so with a sense of deep regret that the amendments to incorporate the Inuit people and Inuktut as a language were not heeded. It also will need substantial funding. In that struggle, I think I share a lot of what the member for Edmonton Strathcona just said. I hope that both of us have come to where we are confident that we are doing the right thing on an issue that matters so very much, which is to preserve and protect indigenous languages from coast to coast to coast.
I just want to invite my friend from Edmonton Strathcona to share where she has landed in that struggle. Even though we know that this bill is not perfect, I think it must pass.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I have worked together on many bills where almost all, hundreds, of our amendments have been rejected, even though the government has said that it is open to amendments.
My colleague has been very clear. We will oppose this bill. I am doing that out of respect for my two indigenous colleagues, who made very reasonable proposals for amendments, which were rejected.
As I mentioned earlier, the TRC itself was very specific. It called on the government to provide the funds. There must be at least some kind of provision in this legislation. We see this time after time in bills that come forward to begin to recognize the rights and interests of indigenous peoples; there is no commitment to funding. Another clear example is the safe drinking water legislation the Conservatives put in place in which they simply transferred liability to the first nations.
Therefore, no, with regret, I do not think, for something as significant as this, which is supposed to be implementing this country's commitment to the UNDRIP and to the truth and reconciliation calls for action, that a step forward is enough. How soon are we going to get a bill before this place again to actually correct the parts of this bill that should have been there to begin with?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all members who spoke in an indigenous language to this historic legislation in this very exciting debate, which is taking place on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe.
To set the scene and give a bit of background on the bill before I get into the bill itself, I note that now members can speak their languages here. Today the first speech was in Cree, and it had simultaneous interpretation.
The procedure and House affairs committee, which I chair, did a study earlier this year about having aboriginal languages in the House. It brought recommendations to the House, and all members in the House agreed to them, which was very exciting. For the first time in history, MPs who can speak an aboriginal language have the right to speak it in the House and at committee, with simultaneous interpretation.
We can imagine indigenous youths sitting at home in an urban area, in a village or on a reserve seeing that they can use their language in the highest democratic institution in the land. We can imagine how much strength it gives them, how much hope it gives them and how much support it gives them for their languages.
That is a very exciting achievement of this particular Parliament. It was initiated by the actions of the member for Winnipeg Centre, who spoke first in the debate today. He spoke totally in Cree, as did some other members.
I want to tell members a story. We put a lot of emphasis on youth. As members know, the Prime Minister has a youth council, and many MPs have youth councils. I was at a youth meeting, which I think was convened by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. A young indigenous woman from the Yukon, who I think has spoken before the United Nations, made the point that people always say that if people get jobs, make good progress in their lives and get strong, they can bring forward their culture and language and that it will benefit all of us to see that creative, exciting diversity. She made the point that this is all wrong. It puts the cart before the horse. She said that what we need first is the language and culture and confidence in the language and culture, because that is what gives people the strength to succeed in school and in life. When they have confidence in themselves, they know where they come from and are very proud of themselves through their language. Of course, language is the basis of culture.
As was mentioned in the debate earlier, language is more than just translating a word, because languages express how we live. For instance, in Inuktut, there are a number of different words for snow, whereas in English, there are not very many. Language portrays a culture, so it is very important to one's way of life.
Statistics show that indigenous people around the world who have pride in themselves, understand their language and have pride in their culture are more successful than those who do not.
This is a great move today in the House of Commons and there is a lot of support here. It is very exciting what the House of Commons is doing.
This is a great step in reconciliation, partly to fix a wrong that we were a big part of creating. Not only did foreigners coming to Canada overwhelm in numbers the first peoples here, but sadly, we took steps to diminish their languages through residential schools, the sixties scoop and relocation.
That is why Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, is so exciting. First, it would ensure the language rights included under the rights referred to in section 35 of the Constitution, such as the right of indigenous people to develop and preserve their languages. Second, the bill would ensure adequate, stable funding for languages. I will talk about that in more detail later, because funding has been brought up before. Third is the revitalization and strengthening of indigenous languages. To ensure that all these things are implemented, a commissioner would be established.
As a number of members have mentioned at various stages of this debate, it is critical to move quickly on this bill, because indigenous languages are disappearing. Thank goodness many indigenous leaders and elders in my area and other areas have taken to recording their languages so that they will always be there and can be revitalized and renewed by the youth. In my area, I think I saw the passing of the last elder who spoke fluently in Tagish. If he was not the last, there are not many left, so this is critical.
When Europeans first came to North America, there were over 90 indigenous languages. There are still over 70, but some have very few speakers, as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs found out when we were studying this. It is very important that this bill be implemented as soon as possible to make sure that we halt the diminishment of these languages, promote and restore them and build them up among the youth. This bill would also fulfill the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action 13, 14 and 15 and would set the stage for articles 11 to 16 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
This legislation was co-developed with first nations, which is why a number of the clauses and principles were very thoughtfully created.
I want to mention a bit about funding. To implement, preserve and restore languages requires funding. This government has made sure that this is taken care of. In the last budget, $330 million over five years was allocated for this, with $117 million after that. Before the bill even comes into effect, all sorts of projects are happening across the country. There have been large increases in funding. Back in 2017, there might have been $5 million, so there has been a huge increase in the funding necessary to move ahead.
This government has taken care of funding for the next five years. However, that does not preclude the possibility of a future government wanting to stop funding this. Therefore, included in this bill, in subsection 5(d), is a statutory requirement that all future governments would have to fund the required activities, which I am sure the commissioner would monitor. It does not happen very often that there is such a clause in a bill, but we have put one in this one.
Section 5(d) reads:
establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages;
That preserves the funding. As I said, we have provided it now, but that preserves it into the future, regardless of what political party happens to be in power.
This is such a unique endeavour. It has been a great education for MPs, who have been hearing indigenous MPs and other MPs provide us with information related to their particular areas. I also want to provide some interesting facts about my particular area.
My riding covers the whole of Yukon and the traditional territories of 14 first nations therein. Some Europeans think that any one indigenous person in North America is the same as another—that they speak the same language, have the same culture, dance the same dances. That of course is not true.
My particular area makes up one one-thousandth of Canada's population, but there are eight language groups: the Gwich’in, the Northern Tutchone, there is a bit of Upper Tanana, Southern Tutchone, Tagish combined with Tlingit, a tiny bit of Tahltan and Kaska. Each of these groups has a different culture and a different history. Their languages are different. To the north of us there are a few Inuvialuit people as well.
I am going to describe the eight first nations in Yukon so that people will have some information about these language groups that they would not otherwise have.
Traditional knowledge is very important. It is a unique type of knowledge passed down orally, generation after generation. According to oral tradition, Yukon first nation peoples have lived in this land since Crow, a mythological creature of the time, made the world and set it in order. Archeologists calculate that the first humans inhabited the Yukon more than 10,000 years ago, crossing the Bering land bridge from Asia or travelling the waters alongside.
Today, first nations people belong to the Athapaskan or Tlingit language groups. I will briefly talk about what the eight specific groups within them are like.
Let me deal with Gwich'in first. The Gwich'in people are our most northerly group in the Yukon. They inhabit a huge area of land in which there are four different dialects. Most familiar to Yukoners are the Vuntut Gwitchin, who reside in Old Crow. Then there are the Tetlit Gwich'in in the Northwest Territories, the Tukudh Gwich'in in the Blackstone area, and the Alaska Gwich'in.
The Vuntut Gwitchin first nation is the modern-day political organization of the Yukon Gwich'in. The Vuntut Gwitchin signed its Yukon first nation final agreement in May of 1993. The people live along the Porcupine River and follow annual cycles of subsistence. Right at the centre of their life is the Porcupine caribou herd.
I will digress for a moment to mention the critical struggle going on to protect the Porcupine caribou herd. If that herd becomes extinct, it will result in cultural genocide for the Gwich'in people of Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories, because their whole life revolves around that herd. Their clothes—including vests similar to what I am wearing today—and their food are dependent on the caribou herd. When I have been there, I have seen them eat caribou three times a day. The caribou is really the heart of their culture. It is absolutely fundamental that this herd not be diminished.
Mr. Trump and the Republicans have passed legislation to allow drilling on the caribou calving grounds. Calving, of course, is a very sensitive part of the caribou life cycle, and this drilling could endanger the herd, which currently numbers roughly 130,000. The Gwich'in people have fought for decades to protect that area, along with the Canadian embassy in Washington. I have been involved for a couple of decades in fighting against any drilling in the Arctic national wildlife refuge area. Canada has a responsibility to do this. We have an agreement with the United States to protect the Porcupine caribou herd.
The second group of people I will talk about is the Hän people. The Hän people live where the Yukon and Klondike Rivers merge. They lived through the greatest impact of change when the Klondike gold rush marked their lives with great social upheaval and displacement.
The chief at that time, Chief Isaac, was very forward-thinking and took their songs and their dances to a community in Alaska, where he asked that they be preserved. He did not want to lose them with the massive influx of people. Dawson City was the biggest city west of Chicago or Winnipeg at the time of the gold rush.
They took their songs away, with a dance stick, and entrusted them to them. The dance stick was called a gänhäk. Then they brought them back, and now they are revitalizing their culture.
The next group is Upper Tanana. There are just a few people on the Yukon side; most are in Alaska. That is near Beaver Creek. A lot of the first nations moved around, depending on the time of year and where game could be found, so they were not on the existing locations where the Alaska Highway is. The effect of that highway on these first nations is an entire speech in itself, and I will not get into it at this time.
I am going through these groups faster than I would like, but I still do not have enough time to give more details.
The next large group is Northern Tutchone. They inhabit the central part of Yukon, often referred to as the heart of Yukon. There are three first nations there, within the Northern Tutchone Tribal Council: the First Nation of Na-Cho Nyak Dun, the Selkirk First Nation and the Little Salmon/Carmacks First Nation. The small villages of Fort Selkirk and Minto were home to the people of this area prior to the building of the Klondike Highway, or as we old-timers call it, the Mayo Road.
The next group, the fifth, is the Southern Tutchone, as we have done Gwich'In, Hän, Upper Tanana, Northern Tutchone.
The Southern Tutchone occupy areas of southwest Yukon. Many traditional areas and village sites were once the centres of trading activity for these nomadic people. While many of these locations were gradually abandoned with the building of the Alaska Highway, they are still regarded with reverence as the homelands of the Southern Tutchone people.
The school there is where my 10-year-old daughter has her favourite class, and it is also where my six-year-old son had his highest mark. That is probably a tribute to the great Southern Tutchone teachers they have. It is also a French immersion school.
The Kluane First Nation, the Champagne and Aishihik First Nation, the Ta'an Kwäch'än Council and the Kwanlin Dun are also in that area. The Champagne and Aishihik First Nation have started maybe the first immersion day care in Canada. The immersion is in the Southern Tutchone language.
It was at the Calgary Olympics that a Yukon first nation person sang the national anthem in Tutchone.
The next group, as I mentioned earlier, may be functionally extinct. If not, there are not many speakers at the moment. I am referring to the Tagish language. The point about the Tagish people near the Carcross area is that this first nation people had great co-operation with the people in the gold rush, unlike what happened in some areas in North America. They helped people come in and were guides for them. They came in from the ocean over what were called “grease trails” because of the eulachon fish grease that indigenous people had carried on them for trade over the years.
Kate Carmack, whose brother was the famous Skookum Jim, recently received the great honour of being the first indigenous woman to be put in the Canadian Mining Hall of Fame for her role in the discovery that led to the greatest gold rush in the world.
As I said, there was great co-operation from the Tagish, and the inland Tlingit people as well, who traded over these grease trails. A number of generations ago, some of them moved inland from the coast to the Teslin and Carcross and Atlin areas.
The Kaska people are found in the southwest corner of Yukon, which they share with Ross River Dena Council and Liard First Nation and a number of people in northern B.C. and other communities. They have friends in the Dene people in NWT.
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, the 2015 Liberal platform promised “...new funding to help Indigenous communities promote and preserve Indigenous languages and cultures.“ However, we note that there is no base funding committed in the bill before us. Unlike the Official Languages Act, the bill contains no federal obligation to fund indigenous languages and no reliable support for indigenous participation in multi-party agreements.
I will note the testimony of Aluki Kotierk from Nunavut Tunngavik, who said:
On the content of the bill, there are a number of central weaknesses, including that the bill does not contain any funding commitments.... Unlike Nunavut's Official Languages Act, Bill C-91 contains no actual rights or duties respecting the delivery of federal services in lnuktut. The bill does not ensure that essential services and programs required for a healthy Inuit population and a prosperous northern economy, such as education, health and the administration of justice, will be available in lnuktut where numbers warrant it.
ln short, with the greatest respect for the intentions behind it, Bill C-91 is largely a symbolic effort.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would respond to those critiques of the bill.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member was here for my whole speech, but because this concern had been brought up by a previous speaker, I outlined the specifics of the funding. However, I will repeat them.
The funding is already taken care of in the most recent budget with a massive increase of $330 million over the next five years and $117 million after that.
However, after the next five years, a future government could emasculate the program and the effectiveness of the bill by not providing funding. Therefore—and this does not happen often—we put a statutory requirement in the bill, paragraph 5(d), which reads: “establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages”.
Therefore, by law, all future governments would have to continue the funding that is necessary to implement this bill.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's information about the tremendous number of indigenous groups in his riding. He mentioned some of them, but he was unable to mention all of them. I would like to give him a chance to mention some of those so that they do not feel left out. I would like to give him a few more seconds to do that.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I did want to mention the people in the Yukon more in depth, and I thank the member for allowing me this opportunity.
The Gwich'in people in the north cover a massive area and are, as I said, dependent on caribou. In the national parks that we have created, there are caribou fences. Because this great tundra is immense, it is difficult to catch the caribou, so these fences were used to entrap them.
As I mentioned, there is quite a difference between the Athapaskan and Tlingit languages. They are within a couple of days' walking distance from each other, can almost see each other over the mountains, but they cannot understand a word of what the other says—yet the Athapaskan people in the Yukon can understand some of the people all the way down as far as New Mexico. The Navaho are there, thousands of miles away. It is because of the migration that totally different people are adjacent to each other, yet they can relate to people thousands of miles away.
We also have, and I must give credit to various people, some very modern dance groups. Most of the first nations, for a long time, did not have a dance group, but now have some very modern dance groups that perform around the world. They are really bringing their culture back, with great credit to such groups as the Dakhká Khwáan Dancers and many others.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Yukon for his in-depth knowledge on this issue.
There are 90 indigenous languages. According to UNESCO, 75% of them are on the verge of becoming extinct. I would like to get a sense from him whether the framework in Bill C-91 hopes to protect all indigenous languages or are we excluding any to his knowledge?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, we are certainly not planning on excluding any. It will be up to the indigenous people themselves. We are trying to facilitate them because we co-developed this with them.
I am glad the member asked the question, because it reminds me that I forgot to mention something very important. Of course, there were consultations across the country. Previous speeches during this debate outlined the hundreds of meetings that took place, the details of which I do not know off the top of my head.
However, in the Yukon consultation I was at, the chiefs made it very clear that this could not be a one size fits all. Each first nation and indigenous community has not only its own language, but its own way of learning. We have all different types of traditional indigenous governments in Yukon, so one size does not fit all.
Therefore, this bill has been set up flexibly and the funding has to go to those first nations directly so they can implement it the way they know how. This way, with respect to the very important question the member asked, the languages of first nations will not be lost by trying to fit them into this one size fits all. Rather, they can implement their types of traditional learning, governance and societies and can bring back those languages.
As I said earlier, the indigenous people were so forward-thinking that they recorded some languages that for a while were extinct. With the types of funds that have been put into the bill and are statutorily required to remain into the future, they can bring them back to life. However, sadly that would not be the case for the Beothuk people, as a previous member mentioned.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on a question my colleague put to the hon. member. He raised the fact the TRC in a call to action specified that the government must finance the revitalization and protection of indigenous languages. The member responded that the law required that funding. However, the only place in the bill where there is anything about a provision of adequate sustainable funding is in the purposes.
A purposes provision is not a duty or an obligation. Therefore, the only part of the bill that provides anything of any substance is the establishment of the commissioner. That is the only place where I can see there is an entity created and there are certain duties of the commissioner. However, what about a duty to directly provide support to indigenous peoples themselves for the revitalization of, establishment of and ability to speak their languages?
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, in my reading of the bill, both the part I quoted and the part the member mentioned, there is a statutory requirement to provide that funding. It would be very difficult for our government to not provide it. Obviously, we are going to provide it. We have already provided it in the budget, before the bill even comes into effect, and hundreds of projects are ongoing.
However, as the member said, it is very important to protect this for future governments. In one particular case, which I will not mention, although it is not directly related to first nations, an entity that helps reform governments signed up and a particular government funded it for one dollar a year, so obviously nothing happened. That is why we are very strongly supporting the bill ensure the funding is referenced and would continue into perpetuity.
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-91, an act respecting Indigenous languages.
As all members in the House know, indigenous issues are among the biggest challenges and the biggest opportunities facing our country. As we create together the space for indigenous peoples to be fully self-determining, with an improved quality of life, we must all work together, across party lines, in a non-partisan fashion.
It is in that spirit that I would like to thank the member of Parliament for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo for offering me this opportunity to speak as an independent member of Parliament on this important legislation.
The preamble, though not the body of Bill C-91, notes that:
....the Government of Canada is committed to implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which affirms rights related to Indigenous languages.
Specifically, I would like to remind colleagues that article 13 speaks to the fact that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
Article 14 goes on to talk about the fact that:
Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning....
States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.
Bill C-91 takes the very important step to establish an office for the commissioner of indigenous languages.
I want to use the time given to me today to highlight some amazing initiatives across the country by indigenous peoples for indigenous peoples to promote indigenous languages.
I had the privilege of visiting many communities when I was minister of indigenous services, as well as when I was minister of health, and I want to share some of the wonderful initiatives I have witnessed.
Let us start in British Columbia.
In British Columbia, it is estimated that there are approximately 30 different first nations languages, and close to 60 dialects are spoken. We cannot speak about first nations languages without remembering Kukpi7 Ron Ignace. Kukpi7 is the name for chief in the Secwepemc language of British Columbia. Kukpi7 Ron Ignace is certainly one of the champions of indigenous languages in his first nation in British Columbia.
Together with his wife, Marianne Ignace, who is a professor at Simon Fraser University, they have written an extraordinary book. This is a book that has been worked on for a lifetime. It is called Secwépemc People, Land, and Laws.
I had the opportunity to visit the community of Skeetchestn, where Kukpi7 Ignace is the chief. I heard the children signing and sharing together in their language, and it was inspiring.
Let me tell the story of Huu-ay-aht First Nations in British Columbia. It is among the Nuu-chah-nulth-speaking first nations. The Huu-ay-aht people have taken an incredible initiative as they continue to pursue and inspire others by their efforts to be fully self-determining. They have established a social services project that takes on a number of initiatives, particularly for children. They have decided to exercise their right to take on child and family services within the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, and they are specifically ensuring they do so in order to bring their children back to their community so they are raised in their language and culture.
Let us move a little east to the province Alberta.
I want to tell my colleagues about the incredible work that is being done in Maskwacis, a region just outside of Edmonton. I had the privilege of being in this community when it announced the beginning of the Maskwacis Education Schools Commission.
I was there with Grand Chief Willie Littlechild, who used to sit in this very House. He spoke about the incredible initiative that the Maskwacîs peoples had been able to undertake in order to start a school system of their own.
Grand Chief Willie Littlechild had been raised in residential schools. He talked about how his language and his culture had been taken from him as he was taken away to one of the largest residential schools in our country. However, now the Maskwacis, which is a gathering of four Indian Act bands, have come together to start a schools commission in order to exercise self-determination. Their education system there is Cree based, based upon the language of their people and their way of teaching. The contents of their teaching are based in their Cree culture and in their language.
We will then go a little further east again to the lovely province of Saskatchewan. Many examples can be seen across Saskatchewan, but perhaps one of the highlights in my mind is when I had the privilege of visiting the Whitecap Dakota First Nation, an extraordinary community just outside the city of Saskatoon.
While I was there, the chief showed me many things, but one of the most impressive was when we went to visit the Charles Red Hawk Elementary School. I met the woman who was the language teacher in that school. She gives Dakota language lessons to the children there. Their proudest moment was when a small group of children stood up spontaneously and asked me if they could sing O Canada to me in the Dakota language. It was a moment that is indelibly impressed on my mind. I saw the pride, not only of the children but of the elder who had taught them their language.
I want to then move to the wonderful province of Manitoba. I have spoken in the House before about the things that I have learned from the first nations of Manitoba as well as the Métis nation of Manitoba.
However, today I want to share a conversation about the work of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. The chiefs have been real leaders in one of the critical issues in our country, and that is the overrepresentation of indigenous children in care. They have highlighted the link between children being taken from their community into the foster care system and the loss of language that accompanies that. In fact, they have gone so far as to propose an act. It is called, the “bringing our children home act”.
In that act, the Manitoba chiefs speak to the fact that “We are reclaiming, practising and promoting our responsibility to pass down our knowledge, language, culture, identity, values, traditions, and customs to our children.”
This morning I had the opportunity to be in the indigenous affairs committee. A gentleman there had been in Manitoba and had experienced the foster care system. His name is Jeffry Nilles. I encourage people to look at the tape of his testimony in today's committee. He talked about what it meant to have been taken from his community, away from his family, about how he was shamed if he spoke in his language. It brought tears to our eyes as we heard about the moments he was treated cruelly because he naturally went to his native language and was punished for doing so. Now he is a man who is proud of the language of his peoples, but it has taken him some time to get there.
I will move further east again to the northern part of the province of Ontario. I would like to highlight in particular the extraordinary community of Fort Albany First Nation. I want to highlight a gentleman there who has been a real inspiration to me. His name is Edmund Metatawabin. Perhaps many members have had the opportunity to meet Edmund.
Edmund wrote a wonderful book, Up Ghost River, which had a big impact on my life. He talks about the role of residential schools. In fact, his book is an account of his residential school experience. He talks about the trauma of being separated from his language and his lineage, when he was forbidden to speak his language. He talks about the disastrous results that have ensued because languages and customs were suppressed by residential schools.
There is a good hint about the importance of indigenous languages in his book. Perhaps the most profound sentences in that book are when Edmund Metatawabin says, “There is no concept of justice in Cree culture. The nearest word is kintohpatatin.” He says that this, “loosely translates to “you've been listened to.”” Metatawabin writes, “Kintohpatatin is richer than justice—really it means you've been listened to by someone compassionate and fair, and your needs will be taken seriously.”
Metatawabin writes, “Kintohpatatin is richer than justice—really it means you've been listened to by someone compassionate and fair, and your needs will be taken seriously.”
That is a word I will never forget. It reminds me of the richness of a word and how much a particular culture can teach us just by showing us the words of its language, as well as how much that can mean to all of us.
Let me continue to travel across Ontario. This time we will come right down to the border of Ontario and Quebec, and in fact this community crosses into the United States as well. It is the community of Akwesasne. The community has an amazing leader in Grand Chief Abram Benedict. Here again I saw how language is so much a part of the pride of this community.
I had the opportunity to visit for the first time the Mohawk immersion school there. This is a school in which elders have come together to teach the young people, who are the teachers. In turn, those teachers teach the children. People in that middle age group did not know their Mohawk language and had to learn it from the elders. Now they, as teachers, are passing it on to children.
One of the things that impressed me at that school was that they had created their own teaching materials. They had taken children's books and adapted them so that the words were Mohawk. It was not just the words; the concepts, pictures, traditions and stories were appropriate for the Mohawk community. It is an extraordinary example, and one that needs to be recognized.
And now we travel to la belle province. Quebec is home to many first nations, but I am going to talk about just one of them, the Huron-Wendat Nation. Their leader, Grand Chief Konrad H. Sioui, is an extraordinary man.
Konrad Sioui left quite an impression on me. He has many stories to share and knows much about his people's history and their places. He told me how those peoples named places, rivers and mountains. Where he lives, every place has a name in his language.
Across the country, many places have names that come from indigenous languages. Grand Chief Sioui talked about the importance of preserving those names in indigenous languages.
We know, for example, that the word Toronto comes from an indigenous language. It is believed that it comes primarily from a Mohawk name, tkaranto, which means “trees standing in the water”. Right here in the city of Ottawa, we know that the word Ottawa comes from the word adaawe from the Anishinabe language, which means “to buy”. Maybe we could sometimes think about the fact that our city has something to do with buying, but I will not spend too much time on that point.
Let us move along to some places in Quebec, since I was just discussing Quebec. Shawinigan is an Algonquin word that means “portage at the crest”. We then look at the northern part of Quebec, because we must not forget the north, where we find the amazing town of Kuujjuaq, which means “the great river” in Inuktitut.
We had better spend a bit of time in the Atlantic, although I know my time is running out. I want to talk about the incredible work of the Mi'kmaq in the Atlantic, and in particular their incredible education authority. The education authority is entirely led by the Mi'kmaq people and is called Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey. I think the Mi'kmaq will forgive me for not getting that exactly right. I tried. We have often affectionately called this group “MK” because it is a little easier to say.
This is an education authority designed by Mi'kmaq for Mi'kmaq children. It has been incredibly successful, and this is in no small part related to its commitment to the Mi'kmaq language. It has, in fact, created an online talking dictionary, so that people can now find Mi’kmaq words online. There are now 6,000 or more Mi'kmaq words in this online talking dictionary. It offers language classes using the Internet, and video conference facilities have been set up so day cares throughout the region can teach Mi'kmaq to their children.
I was happy to hear that St. Francis Xavier University has now delivered its first program in the Mi'kmaq language.
While we are in the Atlantic, let us move north to Labrador and talk about Nunatsiavut, which is one of the four land claim regions of the Inuit Nunangat. The commitment of Inuit leaders in this country to the revitalization, maintenance and promotion of Inuktitut is something extraordinary. Inuit speak regularly about how Inuktitut is at the core of Inuit identity, spiritual beliefs and relationships to the land, as well as their world view and culture. It is fundamental to Inuit self-determination. I witnessed this myself when I went to meetings of the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, which are all translated into Inuktitut.
However, I should note that the Inuit do not support Bill C-91, and it is important for us to recognize that. The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami organization, the ITK, hopes to see the bill amended to include both an annex that addresses Inuktitut as a distinct language and provisions allowing Inuktitut speakers to access federal public services in their language.
There is an impact when those services are not available. I saw it myself in relation to health. People said that tuberculosis, for instance, was not recognized quickly enough because there was no health care provider who spoke Inuktitut and could take a proper patient history. This is an important reality.
Time does not permit me to tell members about the things I observed in wonderful places like the Northwest Territories and Yukon. There are many examples of people working to revive indigenous languages.
It is my intention to support the bill, but more work needs to be done on this issue. This work should be continued in the next Parliament by those who have the privilege of returning to this place.
I had the privilege of learning an indigenous language when I lived in the country of Niger, in west Africa. I became moderately fluent in the Hausa language. The Hausa people have a saying:
[Member spoke in Hausa]
[English]
This means “silence, too, is speech”. Let us not, any of us, be silent on this matter, on the need to revitalize, maintain and promote indigenous languages. Let us recall that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples lays out minimum standards for the survival, well-being and dignity of indigenous peoples.
The right to use, develop and transmit indigenous languages to future generations is nothing less than a matter of survival. The duty to recognize and affirm this right rests on us all.
Adam Vaughan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her profile of the transformations that are taking place across the country. They can only lead all of us, but more specifically the nations she referred to, to a much better place and a much better future.
A Mohawk elder once walked me through an analogy. One of the great challenges we have in undoing colonialism and the racism attached to it is that the process of creating the challenges we find ourselves facing was a complex and very aggressive one. If the movement out of this is too simplified and too aggressive in return, it could lead to even more problems. In other words, colonialism is about rules, and layers and layers of more rules may create even more damage if we are not careful about how we transform the system.
One of the issues raised around this and referenced by the ITK is the notion that indigenous languages should be attached to geography, which was delineated through colonial map-making, and that the primacy of one language over another should be assigned based on geography.
The member opposite referenced that the name Toronto comes from “tkaranto”. It is a Mohawk word, but the treaty is held by the Mississaugas. At the time Toronto was named, the Huron-Wendat had care of the land. There are complexities in the way communities are nomadic. There are complexities in the ways colonialism is layered through generations. There are complexities in the way indigenous people hold and share land, nation to nation to nation, without our even being present.
In light of that, does the member opposite favour a geographic, territorial and map-making approach to language preservation, or should language preservation be based on the people who speak a language and the patterns they create for themselves?
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for his concern for this issue. The simplest answer to his question would be to say that it is not up to me. The answer is, in fact, up to indigenous peoples, be they first nations, be they from the Métis nation, be they Inuit, to determine for themselves. That is, of course, the definition of self-determination, one of the most fundamental rights of indigenous peoples.
It may, in fact, be that different indigenous peoples may answer the question differently in terms of whether it is a geographic decision or whether there is a cultural or historic basis for the decision. It is very important that we in this place unleash the decision-making process and allow it to be free to be where it belongs, which is in the hands of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.
That is why I take so very seriously the concerns raised by people like Natan Obed, the president of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, for whom I have the deepest respect. They say that we need to listen.
I have acknowledged that I will be supporting this bill, but I think there are pieces missing, and I think we have to listen to the requests. As much as possible, we have to work side by side, indeed be led by indigenous peoples, to know how we as settlers and as partners working together can support this critical right.
Linda Duncan NDP Edmonton Strathcona, AB
Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member had the privilege, as a former minister with several portfolios, to travel to those communities. It is indeed a great privilege to go into those communities, hear those languages spoken and see the support for their children. Of course, they have to have go-betweens because there are whole generations that were robbed of their language and culture because of residential schools and the sixties scoop.
The member mentioned that she is going to support the bill, yet she has problems with it. My concern about that is whether there has been genuine consultation and accommodation for first nations if we say that it was all very interesting but we are going to pass the bill anyway and maybe, someday, somebody might table a new bill.
For several of the bills that have come through this place, I and some of my colleagues have taken time allotted out of our own budgets to translate them. I find it stunning that we are bringing forward an indigenous languages bill, yet the government of the day did not take the time to make that bill available in at least some of the indigenous languages. I wonder if the member agrees with me that we need to do more than from time to time have somebody stand up in this House and speak in an indigenous language because they happen to be indigenous or to be learning an indigenous language.
Is there more that this place needs to do to genuinely act on truth and reconciliation and the UNDRIP on languages and culture?
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for her passion on this incredibly important issue.
The simple answer to her question is absolutely. Absolutely, there is more that we can and must do to continue to walk the talk, as it were, in terms of the promotion of indigenous languages.
I would acknowledge that we have come some distance. I was thrilled to hear during debate this morning that not only was the indigenous language of Cree spoken, but in fact, for the very first time, a question by one of my colleagues and the answer to that question were given in the Cree language. That is something to be celebrated, and we need to see more of that.
My colleague, the member for Vancouver Granville, speaks the language of Kwak'wala. I am not sure if I am saying that exactly right either. However, she talked about the fact that she might be able, in this House, to speak in her language, but we would need to provide interpretation.
I really like the member's idea about putting this bill in an indigenous language. It is not too late to do that. I would join others in this place in calling upon the Department of Indigenous Services to take the time to make sure they get it right, to work with first nations, Inuit and Métis to make sure this is ultimately, sooner rather than later, translated into at least a few of the languages it is seeking to preserve.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's speech and listening to her specific examples.
One of the things about being at the committee is that we had people from Michif come and talk with us at the committee. Their concern was that they were not consulted. We heard of others at the school level who were very concerned about the amount of consultation with people who are trying to support the languages. There was no consultation with the people who are actually working with indigenous languages and are providing those services. They are feeling that they were not consulted and that the money will not flow to them. They are very concerned about the bureaucracy at those levels.
I know you have alluded to it a bit in your speech. Maybe you could respond to that concern.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I would like to remind hon. members to refer their questions and comments through the Speaker and not directly to each other.
Jane Philpott Independent Markham—Stouffville, ON
Mr. Speaker, his question raises a fundamental and important issue that members of the House need to consider.
In the development of legislation, particularly legislation that is entirely devoted to an issue that affects indigenous peoples, we need to find a way as legislators to ensure it meets the expectations of indigenous peoples, that it recognizes the rights of indigenous peoples and that it is inspired and led as much as possible by indigenous peoples.
There has been progress over the last number of years. I have heard some people talk about the fact that there was not adequate co-development on this bill and that some bills had done better than others. We can do much better yet. It is not possible to consult all 1.7 million indigenous peoples in the country on all legislation that comes forward, but we can find better mechanisms to reach communities so we do not hear in committee in years to come that people felt they did not have an opportunity to provide input on it.
I challenge all members, especially as we look to the fact that there will be a new Parliament after October or November, and those who may have the privilege to sit in this place in years to come to work together in a co-operative, non-partisan way to really study what co-development legislation looks like. How can we address the importance of ensuring people have the opportunity to contribute so they will come to committee and tell us they have a way to contribute. That is our responsibility.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker,
This bill provides hope for many of my constituents. For me, it is about reconciliation.
I represent a riding in the north end of Winnipeg where we have well over 15,000 people of indigenous heritage. Often the languages we hear, which would be better spoken if they were more a part of our communities and spoken within families, would include Ojibwe and Anishinabe, which is what I attempted to do by speaking a few words in Cree.
It has been an absolute privilege to be on the government benches for many different reasons. One that has had a positive impact is something the Prime Minister often talks about, which is establishing that relationship with indigenous people in Canada and looking at what we can do to advance reconciliation. In good part, Bill C-91 is all about that.
The legislation before us today deals with languages. We have legislation that deals with foster care, which is a huge issue. In the riding of Winnipeg North alone, 2,000 or 3,000 children are in foster care, 90% of whom are indigenous.
This legislation is indeed historic. I have had the opportunity to stand in my place and talk about the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and the many different calls tor action. Of the 94 calls to action, Bill C-91 deals with three of those calls, calls to action 13, 14 and 15. That is one of the reasons why I am a little surprised. I would have thought that members of all political parties and the independents would be supportive of the legislation. It responds specifically to those calls. No one in government is saying that this is the perfect legislation. We always have ways of looking at making some changes in the future. We have seen some significant changes made at committee. Opposition party amendments were accepted at committee.
The legislation before us today responds to three calls to action. If we really want to get behind and support reconciliation, we need to evaluate how we might vote on this. The comments of the members of the NDP at the third reading stage today have been in opposition, with some declaring they will vote against the legislation. If there is a New Democratic member in the House who disagrees with what I have said, that member should stand and justify why he or she will not support Bill C-91 or is prepared to vote in favour of it.
Opposition members try to imply there is no money tied to this and that is just wrong. Let us look at clauses 8 and 9 and other aspects of the legislation. Money will flow as a direct result of it. There is the creation of a language commissioner to work at advocating, facilitating and ensuring we continue to move forward on this critically important issue, an issue I believe in my core that all members support. The comments of members tend to support the need to recognize the true value of indigenous languages and how the enhancement of those languages will be to the betterment of not only indigenous communities but of Canada's society as a whole.
For this reason, I would encourage all members to think about this as being a historical moment for the House. The acceptance of the legislation beyond the House is great and even overwhelmingly positive. For indigenous groups and individuals and non-indigenous people whom I have had the opportunity to talk about the legislation, it has been long overdue.
The legislation would ensure that many important languages do not disappear. I highlighted three languages that are fairly prominent within the riding I represent: Ojibwe, Anishinaabe and Cree. There are many others within Winnipeg North that may not be as commonly spoken but are equally important with respect to recognizing the potential in those languages.
Within this legislation, we allow for agreements to be reached where funding would flow. Other comments from the NDP, which appears to not want to see the bill pass, deal with the sixties scoop. If members read the legislation, the sixties scoop is incorporated into it. As a society, we need to recognize the harm caused by the settlers who came to what we know as Canada today. Many mistakes were made.
I believe the general feeling from the population as a whole is that we get behind the issue of reconciliation. Senator Murray Sinclair is the author of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the calls for action. He demonstrated incredible leadership, which has allowed the national government, provincial governments, municipal governments and the different stakeholders to recognize the importance of indigenous people and what we can do collectively to ensure we continue to move forward. By supporting Bill C-91, we are making a tangible commitment to moving forward on this issue.
For this reason, I encourage members on all sides of this House, in particular my friends in the New Democratic Party, to reconsider their comments this afternoon and look at making it very clear that they do, in fact, support Bill C-91, because if we listen to what they were saying this afternoon, it is obvious that they do not support it, which I believe to be a mistake. I believe that, as the previous speaker indicated, this should be an apolitical piece of legislation. It does not have to be partisan. Members of all political parties and independents can get behind it.
When the minister introduced the bill, and when it went through second reading and the committee stage, there was a great deal of interest, and the government consistently indicated that it was open to ideas and ways in which the bill could be modified. As I indicated, a number of changes that were proposed were accepted, not just from government members but also from opposition members.
The speaker prior to me mentioned the word kintohpatatin, which implies the importance of listening. In representing Winnipeg North, I believe that I have listened to my constituents with respect to the issues surrounding Bill C-91. I believe that the Prime Minister has been listening, has understood, and has been working diligently with cabinet, the caucus, and I would go further by saying all parliamentarians on this very important issue.
This is, in good part, about reconciliation, which is why it is so important that we send a strong message by talking positively about the legislation and supporting it. It does not mean that we cannot talk about ideas or thoughts we might have to improve upon it in the future. It should go without saying that any legislation brought into the House of Commons always has the potential to be improved upon. There are 90-plus pieces of legislation coming through the House. Some of them, such as this one, are really good and all parties should get behind them. This bill might not necessarily be perfect in the way each individual would like to see it, but that does not mean that one has to vote against it. We must look at the principles at hand and what is behind the legislation.
This is more than just talk or propaganda. This is real. Hundreds of millions of dollars would flow as a direct result of this legislation. Indigenous languages in Canada would be better preserved, and in some cases saved, because of this legislation. At least three calls to action would be answered by this legislation. The overwhelming majority of indigenous people, from what I understand, are behind Bill C-91.
There will always be some who will say that we could do more or that we could do this or that. I do not question that, but at the stage we are at today, this is good, solid legislation that would have a positive impact in every region of our country. It is good in terms of reconciliation and so many other things.
I would challenge my colleagues across the way to recognize the true value and meaning of this legislation, get behind it, and vote for it.
Jody Wilson-Raybould Independent Vancouver Granville, BC
Mr. Speaker, as a proud indigenous person from the Musgamagw Tsawataineuk and Laich-Kwil-Tach people of northern Vancouver Island who has an understanding of her own language, Kwak'wala, I understand the importance of maintaining indigenous languages and ensuring that they last into the future.
I listened to the hon. member's comments, and I think about the lost opportunity that we have to create the space and create the foundation for transformative change in indigenous communities.
Many people and many members in the House have talked about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is in the preamble of the bill and which speaks to the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of indigenous peoples, including languages, which, as an indigenous person, I know are central to our well-being.
Would the member agree that it would be more important to put the minimum standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into the body of the legislation, thereby creating the space for rights recognition and ensuring the longevity and sustainability of indigenous languages?
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member's language, Kwak'wala, as being the language of a good number of indigenous people. I also recognize how important it is that government continue to move forward.
Before this legislation existed, there was nothing. In just over three years of governing, we have brought forward legislation that will have a significant impact.
I have had the opportunity to work with individuals in my community. I often make reference to Sharon Redsky, Cindy Woodhouse, Amy Chartrand and many other members of indigenous communities. I suspect that if I were to canvass them today, they would tell me that it is really important that we pass this legislation. Not only should we pass this legislation, but we should not forget about it. Maybe we should look at ways to continue it going forward.
I am going to quote from Bill C-91, page 5: “contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.” That is actually within the legislation.
The bill might not be perfect, but at the end of the day I would like to see it pass, and I believe this is something Canadians as a whole would like to see. Let us talk about the future.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, we do need to have a conversation about the future and the logistics and the practicalities of delivering on the aspirations of this legislation, which may be in part what my colleague from Vancouver Granville recognizes.
We support this legislation. As Conservatives, we support the aspirations and the ambition around this legislation. We recognize the foundational importance of languages and the importance of passing on cultural traditions, values and faith through families.
Part of the issue is that the introduction of this legislation was delayed for so many years after the promise was first made by the current Prime Minister, and a bunch of amendments have just been made. Now he is talking about consulting on the logistics and the details in the future, after third reading of the bill in the House of Commons.
I hope the member can shed some light on exactly the concrete plan for delivering on the aspirations of this legislation that all of us support.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as we move forward, the government hopes that the bill will pass through the House and get the support of the Senate. The monies, and we are talking about significant amounts, millions of dollars, are already allocated in the budget. The government is prepared to invest in this legislation right away.
The Conservative Party, here in the House, is supporting the legislation. One of the reasons I was hopeful that all members of the House would get behind the legislation is that it would send a very strong message to the Senate, to our senators. We want the Senate of Canada to realize that it is the desire of the elected House of Commons to see this legislation pass. This is a piece of legislation that we do not want delayed.
If we listen to the possibilities of changes, let us consider this. We received a bit of criticism, asking why it took us so long. There has been a great deal of consultation, and a great deal of work has gone into this. There have probably been thousands of individuals involved in getting us to where we are today.
Out of respect for everything that has been done to date, I think it is time that we stopped talking about it. Let us get the legislation not only passed in the House but passed in the Senate. The Senate should realize that Conservatives, Liberals and others want this legislation passed as soon as possible, as it is.
Kent Hehr Liberal Calgary Centre, AB
Mr. Speaker, I am from Calgary Centre, the traditional home of the Treaty 7 people, including the Blackfoot, Stoney-Nakoda and Tsuut'ina people. I talk to people from that region, and they know how important this bill is, not only for preserving the indigenous languages, but also for passing on that education component to the youth so that they can continue to strive and thrive, and have that sense of culture.
I would like to applaud the member for his speech, particularly for recognizing many of the good works the government has done, including investments in education, reversing boil water advisories, embracing Jordan's principle to ensure that services are available for first nations children at the same standard as they would be otherwise, and continuing to revamp our foster care system to embrace a more indigenous approach with families.
I was really struck by how the member connected the work we are doing on the 94 principles of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. We adopted this work in the last campaign, and we are making progress. I would like to hear more from the member about how this connects to the work we are doing, and how it is fundamental to really seeing a nation-to-nation relationship with our indigenous peoples.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, whether in the Prairies or any other region of our country, indigenous issues are of the utmost importance. I know my colleague and friend gives a great deal of attention to this issue. I truly respect that.
The member points out what I would like to highlight as a very important issue. We can demonstrate, at the national level, implementing the calls to action where we can, but when we talk about the 94 calls, it is not just the national government that has a role to play. There are other levels of government, other groups, and indigenous leaders themselves who all have a role to play in the issue of reconciliation and the calls to action.
As an example, I appreciate some of the fine work that my local school division, the Seven Oaks School Division, is doing in Amber Trails, one of the schools promoting indigenous language. These are the types of initiatives that can really make a difference.
Our role here in Ottawa is to be able to lead and demonstrate leadership on the issue of reconciliation. That is something the government has taken very seriously since day one. Bill C-91 is an excellent example of that.
I have had the opportunity to speak on our foster care legislation, which is another excellent piece of legislation. We had a private member's bill, Bill C-262, another excellent piece of legislation. We have seen strong leadership coming from the House of Commons, and we need to be able to see that sense of co-operation and leadership being applied in all the different areas of Canadian society.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share my time with my hon. colleague from Lakeland.
It has been a very interesting morning listening to the speeches, and I am happy to rise to discuss Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. I have had the opportunity to study the bill as a member of the heritage committee. I participated for many hours on that committee. I learned a lot from witnesses, and we heard some very thoughtful, insightful commentary on the bill's successes. We also heard about some possible shortcomings. I appreciate my colleague across the way referring to having the opportunity to speak to some of those challenges.
Before I do that, I need to talk about a play put on by the Siksika at Strathmore High School called New Blood Dance Show, a story of reconciliation. This is a phenomenal production that relates specifically to this topic.
It was in 2014 that the director of this play was inspired when she went camping with her sister at Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park. While she was there, she saw writings that are sacred to the Blackfoot people. They are recordings of their stories. She was sad to learn that when the Blackfoot people were moved onto the reservation in the late 1800s, they were not allowed to visit their writings and learn of their heritage. For 70 years, three generations were unable to learn their stories, and the translations were lost. The show is about learning these stories.
The director met with the chief of the Siksika at the time, Chief Vincent Old Woman, and he told her many stories about going to a residential school, the loss of language and the loss of heritage. From visiting those writings, she developed a play called New Blood. This is a phenomenal play put on by high school students, the majority of them Siksika. The play has been performed many times in southern Alberta and in British Columbia.
What they would really like to do, though, is come to Ottawa to put on that play. It is a play people need to see, and hopefully, if they keep applying for grants, they will be able to achieve that goal. I hope people here are able to see that production.
I believe that there has been some discussion about the rushed nature of this piece of legislation. The Liberals brought this forward at the end of three and half years, although they said years earlier that this was a critically important piece of legislation. Not only did they rush it to the point of just getting it through to start the process in the House, we were asked to do a pre-study before it was sent to committee.
We met daily, sometimes for many hours. The rushed nature of this legislation is probably the reason for the amendments and the ongoing challenges. It was problematic in the sense that members on the committee identified specific words that were going to create problems. When I first suggested that some of these words would be problematic, there were snickers on the other side.
When constitutional lawyers showed up as witnesses and started pointing out these same words as problematic, saying that this could end up in court, it became much more interesting to see the reaction. What was then problematic was that just minutes before we started clause-by-clause, the Liberals dropped many amendments on the table that were the exact concerns I had brought up. When I brought them up, they were snickered at, but when a constitutional lawyer brought them up, the Liberals paid attention, because they could see that this could cause problems and be tied up in court.
The Liberals referred to many amendments by the opposition being accepted. They were not our amendments. I do not remember, sitting on that committee hour after hour going through clause-by-clause, the amendments from the opposition being accepted. It has been said many times that they were accepted by the opposition. I do not remember that happening.
The Liberals have a piece of legislation, which we agree with and support, but we do not agree with the rushed nature of it. They talked about the extensive consultations they had. When we asked questions about the consultations, first they talked about doing them for six months. Then they said there was a three-month window. When it came down to it, they did consultations for just weeks. In committee, they said that it was down to weeks.
When we thought of the 600 different indigenous groups and sub-groups, such as the Métis and all the varieties of people out there, we began to understand that this consultation process was flawed. When we started to hear from witnesses that they had missed critical groups of people to talk to, we began to understand why the legislation was flawed. We began to understand why the legislation has problems and why witnesses were saying that the Liberals missed the mark.
We agree to support the legislation. The government said two years or three years ago that it was going to do it, but it should have started sooner and developed legislation that could have circumvented some of those flaws. Witnesses appeared who said that the bill had nothing to do with the Inuit. They were left out and not consulted. There are constitutional lawyers who are still concerned that the language, even as amended, could become tied up in court. That is the wrong place for legislation to go. If the government wants to get something done, it has to make the legislation better before it is passed. Although we agree with having it, the process left a lot to be desired.
I think of the people I have met from the Siksika Nation, the people who work in the education system. I see the immersion programs starting in Siksika. When I visit the schools or speak at their graduations, I hear how important their language is, but I hear that they are concerned that those who are younger than the elders but older than the youth are going to miss out. Immersion programs are starting in schools, but when the students go home, who are they going to speak to, because their parents do not know the language? The educators view this as a huge problem. They were never consulted on how to deal with that.
The school systems working with this are dedicated. They want it to work. Those school systems for Michif believe that the money is headed into bureaucracies. They believe it will not come down to where it is needed at the grassroots level. They do not believe that they were recognized as key components of this particular legislation. I agree with that. From my education background, I know of many types of government legislation that has been announced that at the school level has trickled down as pennies. The dollars went into bureaucracy.
Witnesses said that they believe that the money will go into national organizations. They do not believe that it will reach the schools, where it should be, because they were not consulted. There are many instances of people talking about languages disappearing or being at risk. If this money disappears into bureaucracy, it will not save those languages. That was a concern of the witnesses.
We will support this. However, we believe it was too rushed. There are challenges with it, and we wonder if it will get where it needs to.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, when I was on the opposition benches, which was not that long ago, the Stephen Harper government would have legislation moving through committees. I do not recall ever seeing an opposition amendment passed by the government of the day. In the four years of his majority government, I never saw it.
The member talked about not listening or acting. The government has clearly indicated that where we can improve the legislation, we are open to it.
Let us look at clause 18, which I will use as an example. It says, “The Commissioner and directors are to be appointed to hold office on a full-time basis.” That is what the legislation says today at third reading. That is not what it said at second reading. It was amended. This was an opposition amendment. It was an NDP amendment.
This government listened, whether to individuals outside the House or inside it. Even opposition members were listened to.
This is good, solid legislation. Why can we not agree and just let it go through? It is good, and I believe that a vast majority of our constituents would get behind it.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's interest in wanting to let things go through, but I think one of the reasons we are here is for the opportunity to speak to the bill.
The member talks about being able to speak to things. I know he is well versed in standing up to speak about many things, and I appreciate that he is able to do that. That is what we are here for. We have the opportunity to speak about legislation. We may be in support of it, but we point out things that may have been challenging during the process and may require changes in the future. That is our role and our responsibility.
We will support the bill, and we will get this done.
Pierre Nantel NDP Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am sincerely grateful to my colleague from Bow River for his speech and his contributions to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, particularly in the case of this study. Unlike me, he has a direct connection to these people and their reality. He has often spoken on behalf of communities affected by this bill.
I second what he said about the importance of this bill. I share his disappointment in the Liberals' grand consultation, which was supposed to take care of everything and happened a lot faster than expected.
For years, our wonderful Liberal government sat back and did nothing. Now, all of a sudden, right before the election, the government thinks it is time to take meaningful action. Does my colleague not find that despicable? The government says everything is as it should be and wants us all to support the bill.
Martin Shields Conservative Bow River, AB
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work done by the committee. There was input from everyone who spoke at committee. There was heartfelt work done, many hours of it. Members tried to find the right words to make this legislation work and to make it good.
We listened to incredible witnesses who brought suggestions to us. They understood the issue, and this helped us understand the legislation now before us.
As my colleague said, we had the opportunity to make suggestions and take the suggestions we heard from witnesses. It was a challenge to move them forward. They were excellent suggestions from witnesses, which were made to help this legislation.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, on June 11, 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper delivered the historic residential schools apology. He acknowledged the two primary objectives of the residential school system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures and to assimilate them into the dominate culture.
He said:
First nations, Inuit and Métis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these schools.... 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.
That apology was the beginning of an earnest effort to start to heal the intergenerational harm and trauma caused to indigenous people by over a century of federal government-imposed policies. Stephen Harper's apology, which was the first by a prime minister in Canadian history, led to the final settlement on Indian residential schools and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to ensure the full history of the residential schools and the experiences of survivors and families were made public and to provide recommendations on the path forward for reconciliation. The final report included 94 calls to action. This bill addresses calls 13, 14 and 15.
It is crucial to understand the complex shared history of the founding peoples within Canada, including when the power of the state was used to break families and to harm children in unspeakable ways in a systemic attempt to destroy traditions, beliefs and languages. The long and difficult journey of survivors and their families in speaking about those experiences and about the impacts that reverberate in real ways today can enable meaningful reconciliation in the future.
More than 150,000 indigenous children were forcibly removed from their homes as part of the residential schools program, a program that predated Confederation and continued well into the 1990s. More than 20,000 indigenous children were taken from their homes and placed with non-indigenous families, a wave of displacement that became known as the “sixties scoop”. Generations of children grew up without parental role models, without grandparents and elders, without the love and nurturing of family members to pass along foundational family and cultural values. They grew up away from their families and outside their communities, and the effects are readily obvious today.
In 2016, Statistics Canada reported that of the foster children in private homes who were under the age of 15, 14,970 were indigenous, which was over half of all foster children in Canada. The disproportionate socio-economic challenges among indigenous Canadians, such as violence, suicide and high-risk vulnerability, show that impact. There is a long and multipronged effort ahead to make right that immense and systemic trauma caused to indigenous people by a government-driven attempt to dismantle their cultural practices.
As Conservatives, we in particular believe deeply in families as the building blocks of society; in parents as first teachers; in limiting the scope of the state in intervening with families and individuals; in language as the cornerstone of generations being able to preserve traditions, values and cultural practices; and in the free and equal inherent dignity, sanctity and self-determination of every individual human being. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the Conservatives were the first to take this important step and that we support the aspiration and ambition of Bill C-91.
However, while Conservatives made historic investments and took action regarding indigenous culture, education, housing and water treatment under the previous government, the reality is that a total reliance on federal funding will never provide the future that first nations want for their children. That is why indigenous economic reconciliation and empowerment are also important to Conservatives. When indigenous communities have access to revenues independent of the government, they can invest in their own priorities without having to get approval from a civil servant in Ottawa or fit their plan into a federally prescribed program application. Empowering first nations economically provides the tools for indigenous communities to invest in their culture and to preserve and nurture their heritage and language for future generations.
In Lakeland, Joe Dion of the Frog Lake Energy Resources Corporation has been a champion of empowering indigenous people to generate sustainable wealth for communities, elders and future generations. I represent a region blessed with an abundance of natural resources and indigenous people and communities who participate as partners, owners, employers, contractors and workers in responsibly developing these resources. I am proud to represent all communities and people in Lakeland, including the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, the Fishing Lake Métis Settlement, the Kikino Métis Settlement, the Frog Lake First Nation, the Goodfish First Nation, the Kehewin Cree Nation, the Saddle Lake Cree Nation, the Onion Lake First Nation and the Elizabeth Métis Settlement.
For those communities and, unfortunately, other indigenous communities across Canada, the dream of economic self-sufficiency is being blocked by the current Liberal government. The Liberals' anti-resource agenda is sabotaging the best hope these communities have to become truly independent of the federal government.
Isaac Laboucan-Avirom, chief of the Woodland Cree First Nation, said, “It frustrates me, as a first nations individual, when I have to almost beg for monies when we're living in one of the most resource-rich countries in the world.”
When this Liberal Prime Minister vetoed the northern gateway pipeline, the equity partners said they were “deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with Indigenous communities would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development.”
When it comes to the Liberals' no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, Stephen Buffalo, president and CEO of the Indian Resource Council, on behalf of hundreds of indigenous-owned businesses, said:
Indigenous communities are on the verge of a major economic breakthrough, one that finally allows Indigenous people to share in Canada's economic prosperity...[but] Bill C-69 will stop this progress in its tracks.
About the Liberals' oil export ban, Bill C-48, which was announced with no indigenous consultation 30 days after the Liberals formed government, Gary Alexcee, vice-chair of the Eagle Spirit Chiefs Council, says, “With no consultation, the B.C. first nations groups have been cut off economically with no opportunity to even sit down with the government to further negotiate Bill C-48.”
He said:
If that's going to be passed, then I would say we might as well throw up our hands and let the government come and put blankets on us that are infected with smallpox so we can go away. That's what this bill means to us.
He went on:
Today, the way it sits, we have nothing but handouts that are not even enough to have the future growth of first nations in our communities of British Columbia.
Those are incredibly difficult words to read, but they reflect the deep-seated sense of betrayal that many first nations now feel toward the current Liberal government.
As the Conservative shadow minister for natural resources, I almost always talk about the multiple indigenous communities or organizations that want to develop mineral and energy projects in their territories because a majority of indigenous communities want resource development and want to partner with businesses to create opportunity for their communities and for future generations.
There are also many examples of initiatives that indigenous communities want to fund and have begun to establish across Canada to preserve their languages and culture. One of those examples, Blue Quills, is remarkable in how it has been transitioned from something used to attack and dismantle indigenous families and cultures to now champion the preservation and the future of indigenous languages, faith and cultural practices.
Blue Quills, located out of St. Paul in Lakeland, was a residential school, and now it is the largest language, cultural and sensitivity training centre in the area.
The history of the college dates back to 1865; the present campus was built in the early 1930s as a mission residential school. Blue Quills is one of the first indigenous-administered post-secondary education institutions serving first nations and other students from across Canada. It offers several courses that teach the Cree language, as well as anthropology and interdisciplinary courses on indigenous communication through art, dance and language.
Lakeland College in Vermilion, with a campus in Lloydminster, offers a specific program for indigenous educators. The college hosts an indigenous elders-in-residence program.
All of these programs are funded in part through the financial support of the local treaty first nations. Those first nations are also the very ones involved in responsible energy resource development, and they are concerned about their future and their future financial prosperity being threatened by the Liberal attacks on oil and gas in my region.
It is incumbent on all members of this House to work toward meaningful reconciliation. I want to quote Taleah Jackson, a young woman originally from Saddle Lake and a cultural guide with North Central Alberta Child and Family Services and Blue Quills University, a constituent who inspires me. She says:
My language is important to me as I am not a fluent speaker I see the value and the beauty of the language of my ancestors. But more importantly Language is the key to our ceremonies, stories, protocols, identities and our ways of life. It was told to me once that when we speak our language we are speaking from our hearts and the Creator hears our prayers. We must respect our fluent speakers and Elders for they have been instrumental to the preservation of Indigenous Languages and keep our sacred languages safe.
I agree with Taleah, because protecting Canada's indigenous languages is protecting our shared Canadian heritage.
It was on December 6, 2016, that the current Liberal Prime Minister promised to introduce this indigenous languages act, and over two years have gone by. I hope that the Liberals also will provide a concrete plan of how they will deliver on the aspiration of Bill C-91.
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Mr. Speaker, the member raised some very heartfelt and difficult language from members of her community that really points to the need for additional reconciliation and the government making legitimate attempts to meet the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
I will point to three of them, those being the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action 13, 14 and 15. Each of these relates to language and culture. Indigenous groups have told us that they believe the bill reaches that divide and is a step in the right direction to meeting those three calls to action.
Although a large part of the member's speech was about issues that are economic in nature and related to jobs, which are also important, I wonder if she can confirm to us that she supports the intention and spirit of the aspects of Bill C-91 that relate to the truth and reconciliation commitments and that she intends to support the bill in the House.
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do intend to support this bill here in the House.
The point that I was trying to make is, first of all, that Conservatives value and recognize the importance of languages and the preservation of cultural traditions and values. It was Conservatives who recognized and apologized for the attempt to destroy indigenous languages and cultures and also took the first step, which I think future governments are going to carry out. We also recognize the importance of the difference between words, spending promises and legislation on the one hand, and action, outcomes and deliverables on the other.
My point near the end of my speech was similar to what some members have raised in the House today. It is that the current Liberal Prime Minister made a promise in early 2016 that is embodied in this legislation, but we are close to the next election already, and at this point this legislation is being rushed through the House of Commons, once again with some mistakes having been made and with the idea that there will be some sort of consultation afterwards.
I think what Conservatives are pressing is that the Liberals really need to let Canadians know exactly how the ambition and the aspiration of Bill C-91 will be delivered, either through programs or policies, and what the cost implications will be and when the partnerships with the levels of government, indigenous leaders, indigenous communities and indigenous educators will happen. What will all that look like?
I think that it is our responsibility to ask those questions. It really is the Liberals' responsibility to tell Canadians as a whole those answers, and also to tell the indigenous Canadians to whom they promised this legislation exactly how they will deliver it.
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the parts of her speech related to indigenous peoples. They were very positive. We really appreciate that.
In reply to her last question, there are all sorts of projects under way in indigenous languages, and there is a large amount of funding for the next five years. The process is already under way. This legislation just means that it will go on into the future.
A previous speaker talked about consultations. Once again, I will refer people back to the second reading votes, when we talked about a huge number of meetings and consultations with first nations, Métis and Inuit.
However, my question is this. One of the amendments that was accepted previously and is in the legislation now was that the legislation must be reviewed every five years. Is the member supportive of that amendment?
Shannon Stubbs Conservative Lakeland, AB
Mr. Speaker, I certainly would support the ability for future governments to review the legislation every five years. I think that will be critical to measure the outcomes of this legislation. The outcomes, after all, will be the most important thing in the long term—not just the words, the rhetoric, the promises and the spending announcements, but whether the aspiration of this legislation can actually be delivered, which I think my colleague from Bow River was talking about earlier.
I certainly support that concept of future governments reviewing this legislation every five years.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
Before I recognize the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I must inform her that I will have to interrupt her in 10 minutes for question period. Afterwards, she will have 10 minutes remaining.
The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask you if I can share my time with the member for Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital. I am sure he would like to speak to this bill.
Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, is very important to our government. This bill was studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of which I am a member.
I would like to start by acknowledging that we are gathered today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. I am probably not saying that right, so I apologize. I am francophone, and I am sure everyone can hear it.
I am happy to express my support for Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. This initiative is incredibly important, and it is urgent to take action, especially with regard to the role of elders in the revitalization of indigenous languages. Needless to say, the reason this situation is so urgent is that the number of indigenous elders who speak these languages as their mother tongue keeps shrinking.
With their considerable life experience, elders are held in high regard as wise keepers of language and traditional knowledge. The participants and keepers of indigenous language who contributed to the engagement sessions on indigenous languages legislation last summer emphasized the importance of taking action. In many communities, the situation is critical because the number of people who can speak these languages fluently is shrinking as elders pass away. Hope that the languages can be passed on via oral tradition is fading.
In 2005, the message that emerged from consultations by the Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures was that taking immediate measures to stem language loss was crucial. That was 14 years ago, and the situation has only become more urgent since. Participants noted that first nations, Inuit and Métis languages had been under attack for at least a century. It goes without saying that revitalizing these languages may take time. Nevertheless, we must set short-term goals and get projects going immediately. Urgent action is needed, but the process is likely to take quite some time.
It goes without saying that there is a need to provide support to indigenous communities and governments to help them act immediately. For example, in the first nations context, one in three seniors reported having an indigenous mother tongue in 2016. By comparison, about one in 10 first nations children aged 10 to 14 had an indigenous mother tongue. That is a huge difference.
Some languages have few remaining speakers of the grandparents' and great-grandparents' generation. While no indigenous languages in Canada are considered safe, it is important to state that language vitality across first nations, Inuit and Métis varies broadly. For example, among the Inuit, a higher percentage of seniors also reported having lnuktitut as their mother tongue, compared to younger generations. However, the Inuit have the highest percentage of mother tongue speakers across all age groups, compared to first nations and Métis.
Less than 2% of the Métis population reported the ability to speak an indigenous language. A higher percentage of Métis seniors reported an aboriginal mother tongue and the ability to speak an aboriginal language, compared with their younger counterparts. Appropriate solutions to support the reclamation, revitalization, strengthening and maintenance of indigenous languages will be determined on the basis of the vitality of a given language, and will be in keeping with the communities' language strategy.
Indigenous elders must play an active role, because they are the ones with the knowledge. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report stated that communities and educational institutions should be prepared to draw on valuable resources from indigenous communities to facilitate the teaching and transmission of indigenous languages.
This is not to say that indigenous languages are completely gone when there are no speakers left. Languages can be revived through the efforts of documentation and archiving. In such cases, elders are the most valuable asset to help build resources for their languages for generations to come.
Take, for example, Peter White, an elder from Naotkamegwanning, who used his expertise and resources to record stories and songs from his elders to preserve them for years to come. People like him are making a valuable contribution to revitalizing these languages.
There is also Bert Crowfoot, from the Aboriginal Multi-Media Society, who saw the importance of preserving language 36 years ago, when he made the decision to safeguard audio and film content on old reel-to-reel tapes, VCR cassettes, old 16-millimetre film and floppy discs that contain storytelling, interviews and music in the Cree language. Today he is helping to direct a project called Digitizing the Ancestors to create a searchable digitized archive. It will be a resource to help future generations learn Cree by hearing voices from the past.
Elders, the carriers of indigenous languages, are also the keepers of the traditional knowledge written into those languages. It is widely recognized that the wisdom of elders is vital to transmitting an authentic interpretation of languages. Elders are known to be the true language experts.
The First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres reiterated the importance of elders in its report on indigenous languages legislation engagement, stating that elders guide our work and act as language advocates and experts within their communities and on a national scale.
During the engagement sessions that led to this bill, participants often reiterated the importance of engaging elders in any language revitalization efforts.
This legislation provides the flexibility needed to support various levels of linguistic vitality. ln certain situations, this could mean encouraging elders to take part in planning, in activities and in programs. In other situations, it might be just as important to give elders an opportunity to learn their language within their community.
This approach is based on the premise that language revitalization is multifaceted. Several different approaches might be needed to meet the needs of the various segments of the community, ranging from early childhood learning to adult immersion programs.
I will close by simply adding that, sadly, indigenous communities are losing elders every year. We must take action. I call on all hon. members to work together to pass this bill.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Anthony Rota
I wish to inform the hon. member that there will be a five-minute period of questions and comments after oral question period.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the third time and passed.
Dan Vandal LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise in the House to once again discuss an important issue.
It is always an honour to rise and speak in this House on behalf of the citizens of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital on legislation that will have such a profound impact on Métis, first nation and Inuit people across this great country.
Today we have had the opportunity to hear speeches in indigenous languages. Unfortunately, I will not be able to recite the entirety of this speech in my own indigenous language, the language of the Métis people, Michif. However, I have often risen in this House and spoken about the deep pride I have in being a member of the Métis nation.
I am proud to represent my riding of Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, the birthplace of Louis Riel and his final resting place. When I rise in this House, I often think of my ancestors who fought not only at Red River but also in Batoche. I think of Joe Vandal who was killed in a battle at Batoche. I think of his relatives, Baptist Vandale and Pierre Vandale, who were arrested at Batoche fighting for Métis rights in Saskatchewan. I try to honour their legacy by continuing the fight to improve the lives of Métis people across this country.
Bill C-91 is indicative of the progress that our government has made, in partnership with indigenous people, towards reconciliation. This piece of legislation was inspired, promoted and advanced by indigenous people. It was the Assembly of First Nations which, in its document, “Closing the Gap”, emphasized the importance of protecting indigenous languages across Canada. This document raised the profile on the issue, bringing it to the national stage.
We have seen for generations the Government of Canada implementing laws and regulations on indigenous peoples without their input or collaboration. However, the legislation we are speaking of today is the very opposite of that historical practice on how we make laws in Canada. The idea for the legislation came directly from first nation, Métis and Inuit people. While novel, it is shocking to me that it took this long until any government actually started listening to indigenous people to make laws that they want for themselves.
The bill itself was co-developed with indigenous groups, ensuring that the legislation reflected the needs of indigenous groups. Through the committee process, the bill has been improved through more consultation with indigenous individuals, groups and organizations. Frankly, this is exactly the way legislation concerning indigenous peoples needs to be created.
For me, this piece of legislation is extremely relevant and time-sensitive. The world is watching what we do as a nation to protect indigenous languages. The United Nations declared that 2019 was the International Year of Indigenous Languages. In passing Bill C-91, we are taking concrete action as a federal government to ensure that the protection of these languages is enshrined in federal law.
What is equally important with this law is ensuring ongoing funding for the protection of these languages. I would be remiss if I did not mention the investment that was committed in budget 2019 for indigenous languages. Budget 2019 commits $334 million over five years with $116 million ongoing. This is not perfect, but it is definitely a tremendous step in the right direction. I am very proud of our budget commitment towards indigenous languages.
I feel that I am a living example of why this legislation is very important. While I had the opportunity to learn both official languages, I am also proud to be a Franco-Métis, and like many other Métis people, I was not afforded the opportunity to learn the Michif language.
In 2016, according to census data, there were approximately 580,000 Métis living in Canada. However, only 1,170 indicated knowledge of Michif. This exemplifies the problem facing indigenous languages in Canada. Roughly 0.002% of Métis people can speak their language.
Historically, Métis people actually spoke a variety of languages, including Michif, French, English, Cree, Ojibwa and Bungi. One of these languages, Bungi, a combination of Gaelic and Cree mixed with French and Saulteaux, is already extinct. Brayet, believed to be spoken by Métis in what is now Ontario, a mix of French and Ojibwa, is also extinct. It is nearly impossible for us to determine specifics of this language. This is a true shame, and emphasizes why we must work together to protect other indigenous languages.
Together, there are three dialects of Michif. Michif is considered by linguists to be the true mixed Métis language. It mixes Plains Cree verbs and verb phrases and French nouns and noun phrases along with some Saulteaux as well as English, depending on the locale and the family.
Michif French, spoken in various places in all three prairie provinces, is a dialect of Canadian French that sometimes employs an Algonquin syntax. Northern Michif, spoken in northwest Saskatchewan, is a dialect of Plains Cree with a tiny number of French words.
Despite the staggering low number of Michif speakers, we must praise the resilience of these languages. Despite a history of colonization and a history of residential schools and day schools, the Michif language still exists today. This speaks to the pride of the Métis people in their culture and in their history.
Métis people have also been undergoing a cultural re-emergence. More people are discovering their Métis heritage and reclaiming their traditions and cultural practices. Despite all the attempts throughout the history of Canada to destroy indigenous cultures and traditions, we have persevered.
Through institutions, such as the Louis Riel Institute in my province of Manitoba and the Gabriel Dumont Institute in Saskatchewan, learning materials have been made accessible and available to the Métis. These learning materials serve a dual purpose through teaching and instruction, but also in maintaining and preserving the language.
I must also mark the work of Norman Fleury, a Michif language specialist. Norman's work to preserve and protect the Michif language has been invaluable. The Métis people owe Norman a great deal of gratitude. Norman is the author of the first Michif dictionary, La Lawng: Michif Peekishkwewin.
With this legislation, I hope that it will be easier for children and grandchildren across Canada to learn their indigenous language.
I hope to see within my lifetime a thriving community of Michif speakers. With this legislation I believe that this is both possible and attainable.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, you will note that all sides of this House recognize the importance of language revitalization and preservation.
However, what I have been consistently concerned about is there are five weeks left in this Parliament and the government, in the last weeks of this Parliament, is rushing many pieces of legislation through. We hear there are so many now that the legislative clerks are having trouble keeping up.
I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary why it is with bills that are produced by the government in an unheard of way there have to be 23-plus table-dropped amendments. It is absolutely unheard of. What could give us any confidence that the government has actually done this particular piece of legislation right?
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work we have done in indigenous communities on many fronts.
Since being elected in 2015, we have invested, in partnership with the Métis, Inuit and first nation peoples, over $21 billion in infrastructure, education, health and child welfare. We have made a real difference in all of those fields across the country. We launched the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. The bills we have introduced are only part of the overall strategy toward better meeting the interests of indigenous peoples across Canada.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, a number of times my colleagues have tried to insert into the binding text of the legislation the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Currently, in this piece of legislation, it is once again in the preamble but is not part of anything that is binding.
I wonder if my hon. colleague might comment as to why we once again find ourselves with a bill for indigenous people that does not include the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Mr. Speaker, our government was very proud to support the private member's bill on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP. I believe every member on this side of the House supported that legislation, which is currently in the Senate. We hope that it will receive royal assent before we rise for the next election. Given that every member of this House has supported UNDRIP speaks for itself. Once it receives royal proclamation, I hope it will be the underpinning of much legislation. Legislation such as this fulfills the actions that begin with the adoption of UNDRIP. I am very supportive of UNDRIP.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his incredibly hard work on this legislation.
In the “Purposes of Act” part of the bill, clause 5 states, “The purposes of this Act are to”, and under paragraph (g) on page 5, it states, “contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.”
I wonder if the member could comment on the significance of that with respect to the bill.
Dan Vandal Liberal Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, MB
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage for his hard work on this languages bill. It really came together through the contributions of many individuals on all sides of the House.
Five or six years ago, if we had asked ourselves whether the words “United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” would actually be in the text of a bill that was approved in the House of Commons, and I hope will be approved in the Senate and receive royal proclamation before we rise, we would have told ourselves that it was absolutely impossible. This side of the House has endorsed UNDRIP unanimously. The wording contained in UNDRIP is in this bill. We are very proud of that. It is something that is going to make this country stronger.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, as always, I would like to salute all the people of Beauport—Limoilou tuning in this afternoon. I would also like to salute my colleague from Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, who just gave a speech on Bill C-91. We worked together for a time on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I know languages in general are important to him. I also know that, as a Métis person, his personal and family history have a lot to do with his interest in advocating for indigenous languages. That is very honourable of him.
For those watching who are not familiar with Bill C-91, it is a bill on indigenous languages. Enacted in 1969, Canada's Official Languages Act is now 50 years old. That makes this a big year for official languages, and the introduction of this bill on indigenous languages, which is now at third reading, is just and fitting. That is why my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, the Conservative Party's indigenous affairs critic, said she would support the bill when it was introduced back in February. Nevertheless, we do have some criticisms, which I will lay out shortly.
The bill's purpose is twofold. Its primary purpose is to protect indigenous languages and ensure their survival. Did you know that there are 70 indigenous languages spoken in Canada? The problem is that while some languages are still spoken more or less routinely, others are disappearing. Beyond ensuring their survival, this bill seeks to promote the development of indigenous languages that have all but disappeared for the many reasons we are discussing.
The second purpose of the bill, which is just as commendable, is to directly support reconciliation between our founding peoples and first nations, or in other words, reconciliation between federal institutions and indigenous peoples. As the bill says, the purpose is to support and promote the use of indigenous languages, including indigenous sign languages. It seeks to support the efforts of indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages, especially the more commonly-spoken ones.
Canada's official opposition obviously decided to support the principles of this bill right from the beginning for four main reasons. The first involves the Conservative Party's record on indigenous matters. Our record may not have been the same in the 19th century, and the same could be said of all parties, but during our 10 years in power, Prime Minister Harper recognized the profound tragedy and grave error of the residential schools. He offered an official apology in 2008.
I want to share a quote from Prime Minister Harper, taken from the speech by my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo:
The government now recognizes that the...Indian residential schools policy...has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.
That is why my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said:
We acknowledged in 2008 that [the Canadian government at the time was] part of the destruction of these languages and cultures. Therefore, the government must be part of the solution in terms of helping to bring the languages [and culture] back, and part of that is Bill C-91.
This is why I said that reconciliation is one of the objectives of this bill, beyond the more tangible objective. That is the first reason the Conservatives will support this bill on indigenous languages.
The second reason is that, under Mr. Harper's fantastic tenure, we created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It was an important and highly enlightening process.
There were some very sad moments. Members of indigenous nations came to talk about their background and share their stories. They put their cards on the table for all to see. They bared their souls and told the Canadian government what they go through today and what their ancestors went through in the 19th century. Not only did the Conservatives offer a formal apology in 2008, but they also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to promote reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the Government of Canada and all Canadians. Our legacy is a testament to our sincere belief in reconciliation. I am sure that is true for all MPs and all Canadians.
Now I will move on to the third reason we support this bill. I am the critic for Canada's official languages, French and English. That is one of the reasons I am speaking today. When I first saw Bill C-91 on the legislative agenda, I considered the issue and then read the Official Languages Act of 1969. The final paragraph of the preamble to the Official Languages Act states that the act:
...recognizes the importance of preserving and enhancing the use of languages other than English and French while strengthening the status and use of the official languages...
When members examine constitutional or legislative matters in committee or in debates such as this one, we need to take the intent of the legislators into consideration. When the Official Languages Act was introduced and passed in 1969, the legislators had already clearly indicated that they intended the protection of official languages to one day include the promotion, enhancement and maintenance of every other language in Canada, including the 70 indigenous languages. Clearly that took some time. That was 50 years ago.
Those are the first three reasons why we support this bill.
The fourth reason goes without saying. We have a duty to make amends for past actions. Those who are familiar with Canada's history know that both French and English colonizers lived in relative harmony with indigenous peoples for the first two or three centuries after Jacques Cartier's arrival in the Gaspé in 1534 and Samuel de Champlain's arrival in Quebec City in 1608. Indigenous peoples are the ones who helped us survive the first winters, plain and simple. They helped us to clear the land and grow crops. Unfortunately, in the late 19th century, when we were able to thrive without the help of indigenous peoples, we began implementing policies of cultural alienation and residential schools. All of that happened in an international context involving cultural theories that have since been debunked and are now considered preposterous.
Yes, we need to make amends for Canada's history and what for what the founding peoples, our francophone and anglophone ancestors, did. It is a matter of justice. The main goal of Bill C-91 is to ensure the development of indigenous languages in Canada, to keep them alive and to prevent them from disappearing.
In closing, for the benefit of Canadians watching us this afternoon, I would like to summarize what Bill C-91 would ultimately achieve. Part of it is about recognition. The bill provides that:
(a) the Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous people recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages.
This is a bit like what happened with the Official Languages Act, which, thanks to its section 82, takes precedence over other acts. It is also related to section 23 on school boards and the protection of anglophone and francophone linguistic minorities across the country. This bill would create the same situation with respect to section 35 and indigenous laws in Canada.
The legislation also states that the government may enter into agreements to protect languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism 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.
Lastly, the bill would ensure the availability of translation and interpretation services like those available for official languages, but probably not to the same degree. Federal institutions can cause documents to be translated into an indigenous language or provide interpretation services to facilitate the use of an indigenous language.
Canadians listening to us should note one important point. I myself do not speak any indigenous languages, but for the past year, anyone, especially indigenous members, can speak in indigenous languages in the House. Members simply need to give translators 24 or 48 hours notice. That aspect of the bill is about providing translation and interpretation services, but those services will not be offered to the same standard as services provided under the Official Languages Act. However, it is patently clear that an effort is being made to encourage the development of indigenous languages, not only on the ground or in communities where indigenous people live, but also within federal institutions.
I would also point out that the bill provides for a commissioner's office. I find that a little strange. As my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo said, for the past four years, the Liberals have been telling us that their most important relationship is the one they have with indigenous peoples. I understand that as a policy statement, but I think it would be more commendable for a government to say that its most important relationship is the one it has with all Canadians.
Now I will talk briefly about the current Commissioner of Official Languages. Many will understand the link I am trying to make with the new indigenous languages commissioner position that will be created. Right when all official language minority communities across the country are talking about the need to modernize the act, today the Commissioner of Official Languages released his annual report and his report on modernizing the act. Most Canadians want bilingualism that is even more vibrant and more wide-spread across Canada. At the same time, there are clearly important gaps in terms of implementing the Official Languages Act across the entire government apparatus.
I have a some examples. A few months ago, the National Energy Board published a report in English only in violation of the OLA. At the time, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie said that was unacceptable. The government's job is not to simply say so, however. She should have taken action to ensure that the National Energy Board complies with the Official Languages Act. Then, there were the websites showing calls for tender by Public Services and Procurement Canada that are often riddled with mistakes, grammatical, syntax, and translation errors and misinterpretation. Again, the Minister of Tourism, Official Languages and La Francophonie told us that this was unacceptable.
There is also the Canada Infrastructure Bank, in Toronto. The Conservatives oppose such an institution. We do not believe it will produce the desired results. In its first year, the Canada Infrastructure Bank struggled to serve Canadians in both official languages. Again, the minister stated that this is unacceptable.
These problems keep arising because of cabinet's reckless approach to implementing, as well as ensuring compliance with and enforcement of, the Official Languages Act across the government apparatus. It has taken its duties lightly. The minister responsible is not showing any leadership within cabinet.
When cabinet is not stepping up, we should be able to count on the commissioner. I met with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Théberge, yesterday, and he gave me a summary of the report he released this morning. He said that he had a lot of investigative powers, including the power to subpoena. However, he said that he has no coercive power. This is one of the main issues with enforcement. For example, the majority of Canadians abide by the Criminal Code because police officers exercise coercive powers, ensuring that everyone complies with Canadian laws and the Criminal Code.
The many flaws and shortcomings in the implementation of the Official Languages Act are due not only to a lack of leadership in cabinet, but also to the commissioner not having adequate coercive power. The Conservatives will examine this issue very carefully to determine whether the commissioner should have coercive power.
The provisions of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, dealing with the establishment of the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages are quite vague. Not only will the commissioner not have any coercive power, but he or she will also not have any well-established investigative powers.
The Liberals waited until the end of their four-year term to bring this bill forward, even though they spent those four years telling us that the relationship with indigenous peoples is their most important relationship. Furthermore, in committee, they frantically rushed to table 20-odd amendments to their own bill, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo pointed out.
How can the Liberals say their most important relationship is their relationship with indigenous peoples when they waited four years to table this bill? What is more, not only did they table the bill in a slapdash way, but they had to get their own members to propose amendments to improve it. It is not unusual for members to propose amendments, but the Liberals had to table a whole stack of them because the bill had all kinds of flaws.
In closing, I think this bill is a good step towards reconciliation, but there are no tangible measures for the commissioner. For instance, if members have their speeches to the House translated into an indigenous language and the translation is bad, what can the commissioner do? If an indigenous community signs an agreement with the federal government and then feels that the agreement was not implemented properly, who can challenge the government on their behalf?
There is still a lot of work to be done, but we need to pass this bill as quickly as possible, despite all of its flaws, because the end of this Parliament is approaching. Once again, the government has shown its lack of seriousness, as it has with many other bills. To end on a positive note, I would like to say that this bill is a step toward reconciliation between indigenous peoples and the founding peoples, which is very commendable and necessary.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the way the member opposite structured his speech, especially the parallels he drew between the Official Languages Act and the indigenous languages act. I think they are very important.
We are celebrating 50 years of the Official Languages Act, and in these 50 years, we have made enormous strides in protecting both official languages in Canada and in increasing their use. In places like Toronto, many schools are bilingual, and there are many French immersion programs. There are many different programs available to support official languages.
It is in this spirit that I want to ask my question. It is essential that the government take leadership in ensuring that languages are protected. In a place like North America, which is predominantly English speaking, other languages, including French and indigenous languages, can easily be lost. In the case of indigenous languages in Canada, the government has played a very important role in their demise over past generations.
What does my friend think are the important aspects of the language commissioner? What can be done to strengthen that aspect?
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, the member is right. We are celebrating 50 years of having two official languages in Canada. They are official languages in terms of status and institutionalization of the facts, because historically, there were two languages three centuries ago. They were part of our identity in Canada, and they are still part of it.
There are a few ways to ensure that the Commissioner of Official Languages has more powers. As legislators, we have to do our due diligence and look at this carefully. Specialists have said that we should have pecuniary and administrative sanctions. For example, some governmental agencies and private enterprises, and only one private enterprise in Canada is under the law, which is Air Canada, go against the law. Some of them constantly go against the law in their behaviour and actions, on a monthly basis sometimes. Although the commissioner is constantly making recommendations, 20% of his recommendations are never followed, as was said this morning. Why? It is because he does not have the power to tell organizations to stop or they will pay a fine.
Another option is to have an executory deal. It is less coercive. The governmental agency or private enterprise could be asked to make a deal, such as being in accordance with the law within five months.
If my colleague is interested, he can look into how it is done in Wales, England. It has a commissioner who has huge coercive powers.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I think the member and I chatted once after a speech about Diefenbaker. We were on the same side for a short period, and then we veered off.
The government members have said that they entertained amendments from the opposition regarding the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am not sure my colleague shares my view, but I would like to see the declaration in the text of the bill. I would like to hear his comments on that. The government has included it in the purpose of the bill, with language like “contribute to” and “facilitate”. It is not in the binding text of the bill, and for me, this means that it is not something the government has to adhere to.
I would also like him comment on the fact that we do not have to wait for a private member's bill, Bill C-262, to pass. The government has all the power it needs to include sections of the UN declaration immediately in the language bill.
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, if I correctly understood what the member said, there is, in fact, a part at the beginning of the law that speaks about the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNDRIP, which does not bind the government to this law, and maybe she finds that unfortunate. However, I voted against the UNDRIP.
There were some indigenous people in my riding who came to my office, and with courage and pride I sat in front of them and explained to them why it was actually a courageous act as a legislator in 2018 to vote against the ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by Canada. Why? It is because most constitutionalists would say that it goes against some of our own constitutional conventions and laws, and I think that a courageous legislator must tell the truth to Canadians.
Although we might like the UNDRIP, it is not in accordance with Canadian law. What is most important for a legislator is not to protect United Nations accords; it is to protect the Canadian law. I explained that to my constituent, who was an indigenous person, and I think we had huge respect for each other. Although he did not agree with me, I understand why he could not agree with me, which was because of the history he had with us and the founding people. Maybe that is why the UNDRIP is not so clearly enshrined in this law.
Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his passion for official languages. I only wish that I was fluent in more than just one.
There are some important distinctions between the Official Languages Act and the indigenous languages act. The indigenous languages act is about protecting and preserving. As the national chief famously said at committee, this is not about putting Cree on Corn Flakes boxes. It is about their culture and protecting language within their culture.
Could the member comment on the importance of a language?
Second, the member talked a little about the amendments. When the government has to introduce amendments, it is actually because of mistakes in the text. These are mistakes the government members did not catch when everyone else was submitting amendments. These are mistakes they had to fix at the very last minute. Could the member talk about how absolutely extraordinary it is for a government piece of legislation to have so many mistakes that it does not identify until the last minute?
Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC
Mr. Speaker, to the first question on the importance of language, I know what it means, because I am a Quebecker. I am a French Canadian, and I am able to speak in French in this institution, but I like to show respect and answer in English when someone talks to me in English. My father is an anglophone, by the way.
When my daughter was born five years ago, I intended to speak to her in English, and I told my wife that she could speak to her in French, but I could not do it, because when I speak in English to my daughter, it is not from my heart. I do not feel the connection. Therefore, yes, a language is fundamental to a person's identity. It is fundamental to carry the culture we are from. It is impossible for me to speak to my kids in English. I do not see them that much, because I am here, but when I speak to my kids, I want my heart to be speaking.
Second, it is obvious that there were a lot of mistakes in the bill, because the government had to present more than 20 amendments. We should be afraid that there are other mistakes in the bill, which we did not have time to discuss or analyze correctly. I think that could be something troublesome that the next government, which will be Conservative, will have to repair.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am hesitant and a little uncomfortable today to be speaking to this bill. I am going to talk about that in a bit.
Before I do that, I just want to acknowledge what a great honour and privilege it is for me to represent the people of North Island—Powell River. One of the things that is unique and wonderful about that region is that I represent over 20 indigenous communities that come from the Kwakwaka'wakw peoples, the Nuu-chah-nulth peoples and the Coast Salish peoples. I am very proud to represent the northernmost part of the Coast Salish territory.
I have learned a lot from those communities and I know from them how important language is. I am also very proud that this fall in Campbell River we will have our first kindergarten immersion program, speaking Kwak'wala, which is amazing. It will allow a portion of the indigenous community I represent to send their children to school, learning their first language. I am so proud of that work.
It is important that we recognize on the ground how much work is being done in communities across the country and how many indigenous communities and the communities around them are working with them to make these things a reality.
My granny lost her language. She went away to residential school from the ages of four to 16. When she came home, she did not have a lot of memory of her language.
My auntie, her daughter, also the hereditary chief in my family, named Hatix-kuwa, which means peace within the frame of a house, now teaches language in our community. It is amazing that when the work is done and the focus is there, what communities can do.
When I heard about the legislation initially and I looked at it, I felt a lot of excitement and pride in the work the communities I represent and the community I am from had done. However, I am struggling.
It is important that when we are in the House, we remember that as legislators our jobs are to struggle. It is to not look at things simply but to look at them in a more broad and complex framework and to ensure we are humble as we walk in that path. When we make decisions, we make them on behalf of the many people in the regions we represent.
One of the biggest struggles I have in this place is that so little is being done, but it is better than nothing. At some point, it is important that we say that a bit better is not just better than nothing. It is not justice.
In the history of the country and its relationship with the first people of this land, justice has never been a reality. Where justice happens, it happens because the people themselves do the work to make that justice a reality.
I want to speak to the fact that it is hard because this bill aims to protect and preserve indigenous languages. It does not reflect the key recommendations that were made at committee by language experts to do that work. We need to sit with that. Recommendations that are needed to meet the objective of protecting and preserving these languages were not accepted.
I want to be very clear. From my perspective and the reality in which I have grown up, these languages were stolen, literally beaten out of children. When we look at the responsibility of this place to be part of protecting that, to bringing back those language keepers, to ensuring we are passing that on to the next generation, we need to be accountable for that, all of us, because it is our job as legislators.
Language is the reality around us. Many elders have said to me that language is based on the land. It is based on the relationship that people have with the land and how the people act toward one another on the land on which they live. That is pretty fundamental. When we think about the languages that we have in the country and the fact that so many of us do not know them, it means we do not know the relationship of the people with this land. We do not know how the people interacted with the land and we do not know how they treated each other. I do not even know how to explain how important this is.
When I think of the elders and the wisdom they have given me and how they have had to translate that language into languages that I understand, I am just incredibly humbled and grateful. I am always aware that there is so much I do not even begin to understand. What an honour it is to be in that place and that they allow me to make all my mistakes.
The other concern I have with the bill, the other issue I am struggling with, is the financial resources are not stable and they are not long term. How will this allow for the activity to continue and for long-term planning to occur?
Recently I was at an event with the Klahoose, Tla'amin, Homalco and the K'ómoks First Nations in my region. They are relatives. They came together and created a language site where they were sharing languages. All of these elders were saying words. It is all recorded so we can keep this, so we can protect it and pass it on to the children. Two of my children are part of that process.
I looked at the great work they were doing. One of their challenges was how to plan long term. When it is project to project, they continue to hope they have enough resources.
I am here to say that I want more. I want better. I want justice. I feel like it is time. I feel like it is way beyond time.
Another concern is the fact that the indigenous language commissioner has no guarantees on the extent of his or her powers and capacity to represent the best interests of the many communities across the country. When I think about the work the communities I represent are doing to protect their language, to protect the people who are the keepers of their language, to ensure they are in a process of taking the language keepers and passing it on as teachers to the next generation, it is a sacred duty, it is a sacred commitment and they are working so hard.
I believe there should be accountability in this place to know what is happening, to understand the challenges. The indigenous language commissioner should have a significant role in this responsibility.
The other thing that really concerns me was the fact that Inuit communities shared a lot of their concerns. The ITK suggested there should in fact be Inuit-specific legislation, that the proposed indigenous language commissioner was little more than a substitute for the aboriginal languages initiative program, which failed. It really just oversaw the decline of indigenous language in recent decades.
When we hear testimony like that, we need to remember, as the people who do not understand the languages, there is a relationship there that we cannot fully comprehend, but we must honour it and recognize it.
Here I am, standing in this place again, looking at another piece of legislation that starts something, and people are going to support it. Of course the communities I represent want to see this. They want to see something. Again, it is a little better, it is better than it was before, it is something to hang our hats on, but it certainly does not go far enough. It does not get to the core issue, which is, what is our commitment in this country as the representatives of the place that stole the language, that supported places that beat the language out of children?
One of the elders from my community used ask me to think about the first children who went to residential school and when they came home. They were gone for years and they came home and could not speak the elders' language. They could not speak to our own children. They were there and they were so happy they had finally come home, but the children could not understand what they were saying to them. They have still not healed from that.
When we stand in the House, we think we understand and when we propose things, we have to remember indigenous communities have paid long enough. I will struggle with this decision. I will struggle out of respect for the communities I represent. I will struggle because even in the face of this adversity, they are still here. Like my granny said, “You don't complain, Rachel, because we're still here.”
We need to do better. We need to ensure that the people who are still here get to go so much further. We will do our due diligence and we will support them in doing that, recognizing they have a right to their language that was stripped away from them.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate many of the comments the member opposite has put on the record this afternoon. Bill C-91 is historic when we look at the importance of language. As the member just finished illustrating, quite eloquently I must say, at the end of the day when we have those calls for action, when we talk about reconciliation in the report, three calls to action are addressed within the legislation.
I think we would all agree that it might not be perfect legislation, but we waited a long time, generations for it. It provides hope to the 15,000 plus people with indigenous backgrounds who I represent in Winnipeg North.
I wonder if my colleague would agree that the legislation moves us forward on the whole idea of reconciliation, rectifying a wrong, and in a tangible way provides hope for future generations. It is not just for indigenous people. We will find non-indigenous people who not only support, but also have an active interest in indigenous languages.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I think about the practices in the family I am married into. The practice is that when we talk about serious things, we pause and take a moment to reflect. This is not something in the culture of this place, which is unfortunate.
Often we are put in time crunches where we are pushed very quickly to respond to many things. I accept that is part of the challenge of this place. I think that if a lot of indigenous elders came here and helped us work through some of these things, we would all be a lot richer and more fulfilled as human beings.
I am tired of a little being enough. When we starve people and give them a small amount of food, it feels like everything. My struggle is when do we finally acknowledge that we need to give so much more.
Robert Gordon Kitchen Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the member for North Island—Powell River on board with the Veterans Affairs committee, which she recently joined. It is great to work with her.
She have may recognized in her research that before the study we are doing right now, we did a study on indigenous matters. In particular, we have gone to the northern part of Canada to Yellowknife. When we were there, we met with a lot of our Canadian rangers. We found out there were multiple languages in the north.
I would like to hear the member's thoughts on how the legislation might be of benefit to them or actually be a detriment to them.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am so honoured to sit on the committee, working for veterans in our country. I appreciate working with the member on those very important issues.
We should all be curious about multiple languages. I think about my last event I referred to earlier. Four nations put together a website with different words and were looking at how to merge sentences, and all of that part as we learn a language, and how one community would say one word differently than how another community would say a similar word.
The nuances of indigenous languages across the country are extremely profound and mesmerizing. It is an honour to learn them. I hope the legislation moves forward to engage with that. I do not think it is enough. I worry that it will be short-term, not long-term. A lot of people in my riding who focus on indigenous language talk about the need for stability with respect to resources to do the long-term work.
Hopefully it will be a step in the right direction. I know indigenous people will make it a step in the right direction because of their hard work. I just wish there were more.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I certainly found the speech by my hon. friend from North Island—Powell River extremely moving because of her deep connections within the community, but I am still not certain and I am struggling.
I plan to vote for this legislation. I will soon have an opportunity to say why. However, given the stress of knowing that this bill is not everything that is needed, yet is a step forward, I am wondering on what side she is going to land and how she is voting on this bill when we come to vote.
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Mr. Speaker, what I will say to my constituents is that I am still struggling with that problem.
I take that struggle as a sacred commitment to the work that I do and the place that I do it. It is hard, because I hear the voices from my riding saying that they know this is a step, but it is not a good enough step, and they are disappointed. At what point do we stand up and say a little bit is not good enough? When a society in this country was based on beating language out of children until they did not have it anymore, at what point do we say that we need to do better?
I will struggle with that. When I am asked to make that decision, I will be happy to talk to every single one of my constituents about my reasons.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
Before resuming debate, I would like to inform the House that there have already been more than five hours of debate on this motion. Consequently, all subsequent interventions shall be ten minutes for speeches and five minutes for questions and comments.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks, as many have today, by saying that we meet today on the traditional and unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg. I hope that one day we will begin all our daily proceedings in this place with this acknowledgement. I also want to acknowledge that my riding is situated in Treaty 6 territory and on the ancestral homeland of the Métis people.
Tansi. On behalf of my constituents of Saskatoon West, I am honoured to offer a very small greeting in Cree. I do not speak the language. Of Canada's 70-plus indigenous languages, Cree is the most widely spoken in my riding of Saskatoon West.
We know that the ancestral languages spoken by the first peoples of Saskatchewan and Canada are at risk of not just decline but in many cases of extinction.
Of all the people reporting an indigenous mother tongue in Canada, the third-highest proportion lives in Saskatchewan. For centuries, Saskatchewan has been the ancestral home of many first peoples, including the Cree, Assiniboine, Saulteaux, Dene, Dakota, Atsina and Blackfoot. Many people would not know that we have five indigenous languages spoken in my riding: Cree, Ojibwa, Dene, Dakota and Michif. Indeed, most would not know that the vast majority of indigenous languages in this country are endangered and that there is a critical need to rise to the challenge and ensure their preservation, protection and promotion.
While Bill C-91 seeks to preserve and protect indigenous languages in Canada and to try to put our colonial past behind us, I find it deeply flawed. Sadly, I do not believe it would accomplish all that it is set up to do.
My esteemed New Democrat colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who helped draft the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, expressed at second reading some significant concerns about the effectiveness of the legislation that he hoped would be addressed by the committee. I thought I would share his concerns.
First, the bill does not provide or indicate that significant funding will be dedicated for the protection of indigenous languages in Canada.
Protecting and promoting indigenous languages requires stable and long-term financial support based upon the needs of indigenous communities and provided within the principles of free, prior and informed consent. However, for four long years, instead of a federal government taking decisive action to protect, preserve, promote and invest in indigenous languages, the responsibility to educate our young people has continued to fall primarily on dedicated teachers, elders and individual speakers. These community leaders and language keepers have done an amazing job in building curricula and facilities, creating teaching materials and doing fundraising to help protect their languages.
One of those leaders, who lives in my riding of Saskatoon West, is Belinda Daniels. Belinda is a member of the Sturgeon Lake First Nation and an educator and teacher with Saskatoon Public Schools. Belinda comes from a generation of Cree people who grew up feeling shame and trepidation for trying to learn their own language, so as an adult, Belinda founded the Nehiyawak Summer Language Experience, a Saskatchewan language immersion summer camp that has been held annually for the last 13 years at Wanuskewin and is open to anyone wishing to learn Cree.
Belinda is a true leader, and I want to thank her for all her great and hard work in preserving and promoting the language of her people.
Belinda and others working hard to teach indigenous language need a federal government that will provide substantial and meaningful financial support to help them preserve and protect our traditional languages and cultures in Canada, but there is no such provision in Bill C-91, and the government rejected all opposition amendments that sought to provide this assurance.
A second shortcoming of the bill relates to the status given to indigenous languages. During the drafting process, the government was reputedly told that the status of indigenous languages in Canada must be defined, yet this bill provides no such framework. New Democrats would like to see indigenous languages recognized as official languages or given special status and would like to see this recognition articulated and implemented in collaboration with indigenous peoples.
A third issue, which I have already raised in the debate today, pertains to indigenous rights, and specifically to articles 11 to 16 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The bill before us today does not include within the text, and therefore the legally binding sections of the bill, the inherent rights of indigenous peoples to their languages, as articulated in the UN declaration.
New Democrats wanted to see articles 11 to 16 explicitly referenced in legislation, and we tabled an amendment that would do so. However, it was defeated by the government.
I have two final points I wish to raise that are particularly troubling to me and to others.
First, for some reason the government failed to include the sixties scoop in the preamble, where the bill references the racist and discriminatory policies and laws of the Canadian government that were detrimental to indigenous languages and contributed significantly to the erosion of these languages.
Over 20,000 indigenous children were stolen from their families, placed into foster care and adopted by non-indigenous families by the sixties scoop. During this time, the Saskatchewan government implemented the “adopt an Indian Métis” child program, or AIM, as it was called. AIM, promoted sometimes through classified ads in local newspapers, encouraged the adoption of indigenous children by non-indigenous families. This program was jointly funded by the Canadian government and the Province of Saskatchewan.
The sixties scoop and AIM were distinct racist government policies to devastate indigenous families, and in so doing to deny indigenous children and their families their basic human rights, including the right to their indigenous language and culture.
Bill C-91 should have acknowledged these racist government policies to ensure we all understand how we got here today and why a bill like Bill C-91 is so needed.
Finally, Bill C-91 would not require that the indigenous language commissioner be an indigenous person. This is the office that would oversee the progress of this legislation, yet government members rejected the NDP's attempts to ensure indigenous oversight over the bill's implementation.
Although government speakers promised at second reading to work with opposition parties and other members of the House and to be open to amendments that would improve the bill, I feel this legislation has found its way to the floor of the House today with virtually no opposition amendments of substance included.
To recap, the government rejected opposition and other members' calls to define the status of indigenous languages in Canada, strengthen indigenous oversight over federal programs, explicitly refer to our country's obligations under UNDRIP, include significant moments in our colonial history and, finally, to provide adequate funding so that indigenous languages can enter into a new era of revitalization.
Clearly, colonialism is not yet behind us, and I urge all members of the House to do better.
To end, I am profoundly disappointed—I think that would be the word— that this Parliament has missed the opportunity to really and truly co-create with indigenous people an indigenous language bill that would have truly transformed people's lives.
In closing, I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague, the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River. This member has shown parliamentarians how to collaborate and work together on legislation. She has proven that working together yields positive outcomes. Her leadership on her own private member's bill, Bill C-369, is nothing short of commendable.
Unfortunately, when it came to Bill C-91, her leadership and knowledge as an indigenous Dene woman were discounted. Despite the great personal cost of her efforts, we are being asked to support a bill that falls well short. I quote her words:
While the bill would be a step forward, to what goal and to what end are we walking toward? Is the goal one of half measures that would marginally improve indigenous language education in Canada, or is the end goal one of fundamental change to Canadian society that fully respects the needs of indigenous languages, recognizes their place in our culture and creates a generation of indigenous youth who speak the same languages that generations of people before them spoke?
I wish we were today debating a bill that was the fundamental change my colleague had hoped for.
Gary Anandasangaree LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism)
Mr. Speaker, it is deeply troubling to hear that the NDP has chosen not to support this bill.
I do want to point out two key aspects of the bill that we have heard about a number of times today.
The first is with respect to UNDRIP. In the purpose part of this bill, in paragraph 5(g), it is very clear that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is incorporated into the text of the bill. I just want to point that out.
The second point is with respect to amendments. Bill C-91 as revised is available to all members. All of the amendments are underlined. It is very clear that a number of amendments offered by different parties went through. I fully reject the premise that we did not incorporate amendments from opposition members. There is one amendment from our friend from northern Quebec. There are many others that we incorporated. I am really disappointed in the position taken by the NDP.
What is the member's solution to making sure that indigenous languages are protected? We have heard many times from many communities the dire need to have indigenous languages protected. If we as a Parliament cannot get this done within the remaining days of this Parliament, it will be considered an opportunity missed. It would be very disappointing to many communities around the country.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I anticipated that my hon. colleague might bring the issue up. I respect the fact that he has pointed out a number of times the reference to UNDRIP in the bill. In my comments I mentioned that it is not in the binding part of the bill. That is an extremely important distinction.
I did not at any time say no amendments were accepted. In my speech I talked about the ones that I thought were very important and should have been included in the bill to make it much better.
In no way has anyone on this side of the House delayed the government's ability to do this work quickly and to do it properly. I heard the parliamentary secretary speak of being open to amendments. I think the amendments that eventually were included in the bill by the government were not all the substantive amendments that were suggested. For that reason, I find this bill to be very lacking.
I did not in my speech talk about whether I would support the bill. I wanted the government to understand that there are a lot of problems with the bill so I mentioned those in my comments.
Anne Minh-Thu Quach NDP Salaberry—Suroît, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for pointing out that Bill C-91 contains a number of flaws.
Inuit communities, in particular, were not heard and their needs were not taken into account in the drafting of this bill. Eleven measures proposed by the Inuit were not included in this bill. Why were they not included when the government claims that this bill is the result of extensive consultation?
We know that the majority of Inuit in Nunavut speak Inuktut. I believe the figure is 84%. They were not consulted and they are not getting any funding under this bill that would have allowed them to support their communities and to ensure that funding is provided by indigenous and Inuit peoples only.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for highlighting another aspect of the bill that I did not have the opportunity to talk about in my remarks. That is the objections from Inuit people about the lack of mention and protection and consultation with governments as well.
I am a non-indigenous person who does not speak an indigenous language. It may be fine for me and the parliamentary secretary to say that this is a good start and that we should get on with it, but it is not. It is not talking about my identity and my culture. It is not an either-or kind of thing.
As the member who spoke before me mentioned, it is important that we pause and listen to one another and do the good work that we are meant to do. I am trying my hardest to do it but it is very difficult with what is contained in the bill.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Windsor West, the Environment; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Drummond, the Environment.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by acknowledging that we are standing here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples and express to them our deep appreciation for their extraordinary hospitality and patience. Meegwetch.
My riding in this place, as you just spoke it, is Saanich—Gulf Islands. Saanich is an anglicism of a Sencoten word for the nation of the traditional peoples of the lands that I have the honour to represent in this place. I am still struggling to pronounce it properly. According to my friend and colleague, who is also my MLA at home, Adam Olsen, who is from the Tsartlip First Nation, it is “Wsanec”, but I am still not pronouncing it right. However, in the Sencoten language that comes from that nation where I live, I raise my hands to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all my friends and colleagues in this place, and everyone in this place is my friend, and say hiswke hiswke siam. I do not have a Sencoten translator in the booth, so I will translate that this means “honour, honour, thanks and respect”.
One of the chiefs of my territory explained to me that her grandfather told her that standing with one's hands up in the air actually represents a tree and that the trees of our territories protect us, sustain us and that we are in a relationship with them.
Today, we have heard a lot of people in this place speaking of how language is a critical, if not foundational, indispensable part of culture. I have learned so much from my friends who are Sencoten speakers about how true that is.
I am very blessed to live on the southern tip of Vancouver Island on the coast of the Salish Sea, the most spectacularly beautiful, blessed place in this country. When we translate the word for “humans” in the language of the peoples of the territory in which, through their generosity and patience, we live, it comes out the “human people”. When we translate the word for “salmon”, it comes out the “salmon people”. The word for “whales” is the “whale people”. The word for “trees” is the “tree people”. In the creation stories that come from that culture and those peoples, the Creator actually took people and said, “You're a hard-working people; we'll make you the salmon.” Some people were scattered like stones across the water and became the islands themselves. The more I learn about the culture, mythology, stories, traditions and languages that come from the place I represent here, Saanich—Gulf Islands, the more I feel compelled to say that I am the member of Parliament for the human people in Saanich—Gulf Islands, and for the salmon people, and for the whale people and for the tree people. It is an extraordinarily different world view and it is communicated through language.
Currently, at the University of Victoria there is a groundbreaking program at the law school, which is under the direction of Professor John Borrows and other indigenous scholars. It is now offering degrees in indigenous law in the same way our law schools in this part of the country offer degrees in common law, which is the one I learned. I got my degree at Dalhousie University. At the University of Ottawa one can get both a common law and civil law degree. In Quebec, there is a different tradition of civil law. At the University of Victoria there will now be a degree program in indigenous law.
The programs that are taking place are bringing law students into the culture of Tsartlip. There are four first nations communities within my riding: Tseycum, Tsartlip, Pauquachin and Tsawout. The Tsartlip program involves indigenous scholar Sencoten speakers to communicate how the relationship with the land dictates the law. It is extraordinary and it is growing. The Tsartlip First Nation has an immersion program where children are currently learning Sencoten as they learn English.
They are learning from a program that uses a teaching method that comes from Hawaii. It makes us so happy, as other members have said, to hear the children speak the traditional languages that skipped a generation. Through all kinds of colonialism and oppression, whether it was the sixties scoop or residential schools, the languages were almost lost. What a tribute to the persistence and resilience of indigenous peoples that the languages were not lost.
Turning to this bill, I had 10 amendments that went to committee. I tried hard but they were not successful. They were derived from the testimony of many people, indigenous organizations and groups before committee. I desperately regret that this bill excludes the interests and concerns of Inuktitut-speaking people. The ITK's evidence and their quite extraordinary leader, Natan Obed have gone unheard, and that is a tragedy.
I was particularly directed by a brief to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on Bill C-91 from the First Peoples' Cultural Council, because their headquarters is in my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands. The council had many criticisms and wanted amendments. In its brief to the committee, the council said:
We support legislation to recognize and revitalize languages. We respectfully ask that you consider our recommendations ta strengthen Bill C-91. There is an urgency to pass this legislation before the end of this parliamentary session. However, the greater urgency concerns lndigenous languages themselves.... The need to act is urgent. Nevertheless, in spite of the current status of lndigenous languages, we know that reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening them will be possible, with adequate, sustainable and long-term funding that is held and directed by lndigenous people.
The disappointment is large that we do not have at this point that commitment to sustainable, long-term funding. We do not have the amendments. One of my amendments was to ensure that we recognized in Bill C-91 that this is within the context of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It falls short.
I want to explain briefly why I will be voting for this bill, while I recognize it falls short. One reason is that I am amazed by the work in indigenous languages of Chief Dr. Ron Ignace of the Skeetchestn First Nation, also Shuswap. He has asked me to vote for this bill. He worked hard on the bill. He told me to get this bill through. That weighs on me. He has written a book on indigenous languages, on his own nation's language.
Also, I have been asked by the very group whose testimony I just read in part, the First Peoples' Cultural Council. The council said that I have to vote for Bill C-91. The council wants to get it through and get it passed.
Here is my commitment, here in this place, standing here now.
I heard the wonderful speech of my colleague from Markham—Stouffville and agree that voting for this bill is not to say that we have accomplished what needs to be done. Voting for this bill does not mean we think this bill meets what is required of us in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action. Voting for this bill is a pledge and a promise to do more.
We must do more. We must protect indigenous languages across Canada.
Protecting languages, restoring languages is not accomplished by Bill C-91, but if we do not get this passed now, we have less to cling to. My promise and my pledge is this: As leader of the Green Party of Canada, I will make reconciliation will central to our electoral campaign. Real justice, real reconciliation will be central. When we come back in larger numbers after the election, we will come back to insist that stable funding be provided, to insist on the inclusion of Inuktitut, and to insist on the things that we are honour bound to provide to ensure the protection of these languages.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to voting on this piece of legislation, would the member join me and maybe three other people to stand and force a recorded vote?
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, out of deep respect for the member for Nunavut, who is the only Inuktitut speaker in this place who is able to speak the language without pressure or whips, yes, I will stand with the hon. member.
Sheri Benson NDP Saskatoon West, SK
Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot from the member in my first term as a member of Parliament.
I have worked in the community and I have worked from the other side with governments, and my concern is that governments—not individuals, but governments—tend to check boxes off and say they have done something. That is my concern with this piece of legislation. It does not go far enough.
I want to echo her comments to say that regardless of the outcome today—and I think we understand what the outcome will be, as the government has a majority—that I will also continue to work to improve this piece of legislation.
I would like to give the member an opportunity to make more comments on that.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always the question of whether the perfect is the enemy of the good, but this bill is so far from perfect. On the other hand, because of the requests that have made to me directly from indigenous peoples, I think we are better off to pass it now. If I had heard from anyone in indigenous communities, and particularly communities in my riding, that they did not want it passed, I would lean toward voting against it.
I voted against the environmental assessment bill that is currently before the Senate. I think, in a word, that it is putrid. It falls so far short of promises that to pass it makes things worse, because that is when the box we ticked off sets environmental assessment with the wrong architecture in concrete for good.
This is different. This is not the wrong architecture; it is just not enough. We can go back after the election, and if enough of us who are worried that this bill is not good enough make the pledge, we can insist and make it an election issue.
I do not take anything for granted. All of us are up for interviews with our employers to find out if we are rehired or if our contract is suspended, but when we come back and if we come back, we can fight to make sure this program is properly funded.
Hunter Tootoo Independent Nunavut, NU
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for committing to stand with me.
We have heard from the government how important this piece of legislation is, and members from the opposition are saying the same thing. If the legislation is so important, Canadians deserve to see how their representatives stand through a recorded vote, rather than just seeing it agreed to on division.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, procedurally it only takes five members of Parliament to insist on a recorded vote. I think we can find among our numbers enough members who see the benefit of knowing how members voted and of allowing constituents to see how they voted.
Anyone who votes to support the bill in this place should be honour bound to take it to the next steps, the next stages, that are so clearly missing in the bill right now. Those who vote against it are only voting against it because—at least according to the speeches from the New Democratic Party caucus—although they have a commitment to the principles, they find the bill inadequate. I would hope that all of those members who are re-elected will join anyone else in this place who says they voted for it on probation, in principle, but we have to fight for more.
Some hon. members
Question.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Some hon. members
Yea.
Some hon. members
Nay.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
In my opinion the yeas have it.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 so we can begin private members' hour.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all due respect to the member for Winnipeg North, I feel I might be more effective than he was.
I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House for the clock to be seen at 5:30.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.