Bill C-91 (Historical)

Indigenous Languages Act

An Act respecting Indigenous languages

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

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Let me say, Mr. MacGregor, that we share your passion for ensuring that that language in particular gets preserved, as well as the rest of the languages that were on the verge of extinction prior to the passage of the Indigenous Languages Act.

I think they're a bit divorced, but what I would say to you is that as far as the Indigenous Languages Act is concerned, which was Bill C‑91 in the 42nd Parliament, it is a freestanding entity and it's coupled with an official languages commissioner and robust resources investments that we've already made. In terms of the volition of our government to continue to replenish those resources and maintain that strong preservation and integrity of official languages, that volition is there.

I think where this provision will help is that it will allow a review court, if it comes to that, to look at what we've done with the Indigenous Languages Act and to interpret it in a manner that abides by and promotes aboriginal and treaty rights. That would beg the question.... If a specific group had a treaty or had established an aboriginal right—and there's a legal test for that as well—and if that could be established in law, the interpretation that would be given to upholding and promoting that language would be emboldened by this kind of amendment.

I think it works in the same direction, in terms of advancing reconciliation and advancing indigenous rights, including, in this particular case, indigenous language rights.

Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to read a quote from Carla Lewis. She is the chair of the First Peoples' Cultural Council in British Columbia. She cites:

Generations of oppressive and assimilationist federal and provincial policies have aimed to wipe out First Nations languages. Through dedication and hard work, our people have fought for language rights to keep our languages alive. But many of our languages have few speakers left and most fluent speakers are elderly. Our languages hold our culture, history and ways of being. We can’t over-emphasize the urgency of the situation...

She is referring to the fact that last year the FPCC received $43.3 million in federal funding. This year in the budget, it is expected to receive only half of the funding. This is putting language learning at risk, despite the fact that we have seen a 20% increase in the number of people who are learning their language. It is also following the federal Indigenous Languages Act, Bill C-91, which Tla-o-qui-aht—

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

I had my staff do just a bit more research on “Indigenous governing body”. I asked them to do a search on where that term also exists.

The term exists in Bill C-35, the early learning and child care in Canada act; in Bill C-23, an act respecting places, persons and events of national historic significance or national interest, archaeological resources and cultural and natural heritage; the Corrections and Conditional Release Act; Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages; Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families; Bill C-68, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and other acts in consequence; Bill C-69, an act to enact the Impact Assessment Act and the Canadian Energy Regulator Act, to amend the Navigation Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts; and Bill C-97, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 19, 2019.

I haven't looked at how these might differ from each other.

Having said that, have you been able to assess whether or not there are similarities or differences between what's in this act and what these other acts might be?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

It's like Bill C‑91, which you referred to earlier. I was there when Bill C‑91 got jammed through, right at the end. How long did it take to appoint the three commissioners for that?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Absolutely. We do it in different ways.

For example, for indigenous people, one of the things I'm most proud of is that when I was heritage minister the first time, we put in place Bill C-91 on indigenous languages. That passed and became reality. Now the office is in place and we are supporting it, and we now have bills with the three NIOs, the national indigenous organizations for the Métis, the first nations and the Inuit, to support them in their efforts, in some cases simply to have their language survive.

This will help us not only to teach the language but also to have more music, more television and more films for indigenous people. This will help young indigenous people to be prouder of who they are, because they will see themselves in all of those productions. It is the same for racialized people. Bill C-11, for example, is asking for some of the contribution, the money we're getting, to go to racialized, indigenous and different under-represented groups. Why? It's because it's the right thing to do.

[Sherap Therchin, Executive Director, Canada Tibet Committee]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. I deeply appreciate this opportunity to speak with you on this important matter of Tibetan language and education.

The Canada Tibet Committee is an independent, non-partisan association of Tibetans and non-Tibetans from across Canada. Founded in 1987, its mandate is to promote the human rights of Tibetans living under Chinese rule.

As committee members will know, the right to education is protected in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Both of these treaties explicitly guarantee that minority groups must not be denied the use of their own language, either in the community or otherwise. Further, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that individuals “have the right of self-determination”, including “social and cultural development”.

Here in Canada, the federal government supports efforts by indigenous peoples to reclaim and revitalize their linguistic heritage, in part by adopting the Indigenous Languages Act in 2019. In the province of Quebec, it has been more than 40 years that all children in the province have to be educated in the French language until the end of their secondary studies.

It is also interesting to note that the Government of China has adopted its regional national autonomy law, which clearly states in article 37 that “The organs of self-government of national autonomous areas shall independently develop education for the nationalities” and “shall, whenever possible, use textbooks in their own languages and use their languages as the media of instruction.”

Despite such guarantees, however, a suite of policies imposed across the whole of China by the central government under the pretext of poverty alleviation or ecological protection have reinforced the ongoing assault on the Tibetan language and cultural traditions. Such policies include various nomad relocation schemes, the school consolidation policy and the bilingual education policy. These policies have, in effect, reduced the ability of Tibetan children to access schooling in their own language, as witnesses explained in detail before this committee in the previous meeting.

A few years ago, Global Affairs Canada funded a project to support efforts by the Tibetan exile community in India and Nepal to deliver quality education in the Tibetan language. Notwithstanding the many differences in the broader context, the project provided valuable lessons about challenges faced when promoting Tibetan language in the face of a different dominant language. For this reason, Canada is well placed to take the lead on this issue.

Therefore, in conclusion, we wish to make the following recommendations for the committee's consideration.

Number one, open the dialogue with the appropriate counterparts from the National People's Congress on the matter of minority languages and education in Tibet.

Number two, invite visiting parliamentarians from China to indigenous communities and to Quebec in order to share Canadian experiences regarding the protection and promotion of minority languages.

Number three, support academic research aimed at identifying the impacts that resettlement and education policies in Tibet have had or might have on the vibrancy of Tibetan language and culture.

Number four, encourage the Canadian embassy in Beijing to develop Canada fund projects related to Tibetan language education, including support for Tibetan-language lending libraries or the training of Tibetan-language teachers.

Finally, number five, advocate on behalf of Tibetan human rights defenders who uphold linguistic rights.

Thank you.

National Indigenous Languages Day

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today on National Indigenous Languages Day. This is a day to bring attention to the critical endangerment of indigenous languages and to celebrate the rich and diverse heritage they bring to our country.

Today, there are at least 70 distinct indigenous languages spoken in Canada, and every one of them is fundamental to the identity, culture, spirituality and self-determination of first nations, Inuit and Métis. It is an inherent right to pass their knowledge, their stories and their histories in their own voices to all future generations.

This is a goal we are working toward in partnership through Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, to protect, preserve and revitalize indigenous languages throughout this great nation.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Pelletier. Thank you, Minister.

If you have those numbers, you could send them to the committee.

I mentioned some of the problems. We've been told that it's hard for people who want to make requests to have direct contact. Of course the matter of human resources is important, as are the delays. People told us that they had tried to get in touch with someone, but that it was impossible. It took far too long. In some instances, it was up to 11 months or even a year. That's a problematic situation.

There is also the whole issue of resources. I know that the will is there. Things improved from 180 projects to approximately 1,000. That covers all the Inuit and Métis projects. Nevertheless, people are talking about the situation, including the communities themselves, which were making requests through organizations. They don't have the resources that a very large band council would have, for example. I have even seen disparities on the North Shore, where I come from. These people need more than resources, and that's the reason for the question. I thought to myself that might be one of the first things to take into consideration if we want to give people access to the available funds.

I'd like to raise a completely different subject with you, Minister, about dormant languages.

I am aware of Huron-Wendat, a language which is not being spoken. I know that we're going to return to the review of the Indigenous Languages Act, but would nevertheless like to know how, in Bill C‑91 or in the indigenous languages and cultures program, the issue of research or revitalization will be dealt with. That's really pushing it, given that this language is not even being spoken. Several activities will be funded to get people together so that they can talk about it. But in some communities, people are no longer speaking their language, even though they want to reclaim it.

How will things proceed? What will be the minister's responsibilities? We have seen interest and determination from the commissioner, but we know that it will require effort over the long term, as well as enormous resources. I've discussed it with him. However, it would appear that there are only three people at the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages at the moment. Clearly, between now and full implementation, all of the emphasis will be on the department itself.

[Dr. Kevin Lewis]

[Witness spoke in Plains Cree, interpreted as follows:]

I would like to commend you for asking these questions. I thank you so much from the bottom of my heart.

If you look at mental health, that's the mind. How do we heal our minds? There are two things that we're looking at. When we look at the Maori, they call neurodiversity tânisi êtikwê. There is no term in our languages. We don't have it, but this terminology says we have to ask—we have to resort to our elders—how do we heal ourselves? If a person is not mentally or physically...when you look at the four quadrants, this is when we run to the elders in terms of healing.

When we went to Auckland four years ago, we went to listen to their languages. We went to do our research. We had the researchers, professors, directors and all of them, whoever was involved in all those universities in Auckland, and every one of us, every one of them, was looking at the mental health aspect. How do you heal your people mentally and physically? How do you approach the elders? How do you do that? Even the Hawaiians were looking at us. They were asking the same questions.

It's us, but it's us with the first nations elders and how we are sitting here together and how we are looking at this legislation, the Indigenous Languages Act. This is how, if we start gathering and having these types of engagements, we will lift our language and this is how we will lift ourselves.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut]

[English]

I want to thank all of the witnesses. Normally I'm able to speak in Inuktitut during these sessions. I've very much welcomed having my space, my interpreter, replaced by a Cree interpreter so that we can hear you speaking your language. I've very much enjoyed hearing what you've had to share.

I also thank you, Claudette Commanda, for welcoming us to your territory.

To you as well, Dr. Williams, thank you so much for your testimony.

I'll just ask one question. Could I ask each of you to respond to my one question?

What I'm finding is missing in the Indigenous Languages Act is that nowhere does it talk about the importance of healing. It does provide a bit in the preamble, and in later parts of the act it acknowledges what Canada has done. It acknowledges that reconciliation is important, but nowhere in the act does it talk about the importance of healing and how relearning indigenous languages can be a form of this healing that helps to make sure that we have a better sense of self to improve our sense of identity as indigenous peoples.

I wondered if you had thoughts on whether it would be important to incorporate an amendment into the Indigenous Languages Act about the importance of healing.

Qujannamiik.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very grateful to our witnesses for being here today in person and joining virtually to share their wisdom. It is such a privilege to hear so many indigenous languages today already.

The first question I'd like to ask is for Dr. Williams. You were very instrumental in setting up one of, if not the first, band-run school in the country. Then just last year the Líl̓wat Nation signed an agreement with the federal government to have full control over how education is delivered for the nation, including control over curriculum, teacher certifications and graduation requirements.

I was hoping you could share with our committee here the importance of this path in being able to sustain and revitalize the language of the Líl̓wat Nation and what other nations—such as the Squamish Nation, in my riding, which is very interested in this—can learn from this process and what we as a committee can learn as we look at the future of the Indigenous Languages Act.

[Dr. Lorna Williams, Chair, First Peoples’ Cultural Foundation]

[Witness spoke in the Líl̓wat language]

[English]

Lorna Williams is my English name. Wánosts’a7 is the name that my people call me. I come from the land of the Líl'watul, in a place called Mount Currie in British Columbia. I taught at the University of Victoria and retired from there.

I am the current chair of the First Peoples' Cultural Foundation. I'm the past chair of the First Peoples' Cultural Council. These are organizations that work on revitalizing, recovering and maintaining the indigenous languages in British Columbia.

My work with our languages began when I lost my language at residential school. I attended the St. Joseph's Mission in Williams Lake and had to relearn my language. It was fortunate for me that the language in my family was strong, and that I lived in the old part of our village where the old people had never been to English school. I was able to recover and to recover my language. I learned English while I was in the hospital.

As a child, I came to see the challenges and the beauty of language and communication. I feel that's where I began my education.

In 1971, 1972 and 1973, my village of Mount Currie was the first community in B.C. to take over its own education. This was a change in government. One of the things that our community said was that they could see that our language was beginning to shift. More and more people were speaking English than our language, which was really different, and they said, “We have to stop this.”

One of the challenges they gave us was to figure out how to keep our language thriving. This was in the early seventies.

I'm sharing this with you so that you know what my background is. I've been involved with K-to-12 education, both at the band-controlled school level and at the public school level. I was a consultant for the Vancouver School District for 15 years. There, I saw children from across Canada in Vancouver. They were children who no longer had a connection to their homelands. A few did, but many didn't. I saw the challenges there that need to be overcome to help us follow our right to our languages. I then went to work for the Ministry of Education in B.C., and then to the University of Victoria, where I finished my employment career.

In 2019, I was present at the UN when it became the International Year of Indigenous Languages. There was so much hope and positive talk about indigenous languages around the world. In 2019, I was so pleased that, finally, the country of Canada was acknowledging and recognizing that our languages exist, and putting into place a process of our being able to work together to do something, finally, in a legitimate way for our languages.

The challenge is a big one for Canada, which has two official languages, both colonizing languages that continue to colonize our people, not just here in Canada but in many places around the world. One of the challenges for the government to make something of this act is to determine whether it has the courage, the audacity and the zeal to look at itself honestly and to look at how all of the policies, the practices and the habits that have became entwined and entrenched to protect English and French keep indigenous languages down. You have to be brave to look at what those practices are, at what those policies are, because they have to be addressed to shift and to change what we have become so habituated to in this country.

We also need to be able to look at the impositions of the Indian Act and be brave enough to change it. What has it done? It has divided us, making some status and making some non-status. It's dislocated, dislodged and relocated people, indigenous people. This act has to be able to serve all indigenous people. That's what you set out to do. It's important then for us to know what it is and what the challenges are that we face. For example, today there are children who have half-status. There are children who have quarter-status. Do they have a right to their language? Will they be served under this act? That's what you have to be able to look at.

We need to be able to look at the infrastructures that are supposed to serve the revitalization, the recovery, the maintenance and the sustaining of languages. I want to speak here about education, because the institution of education has been the instrument that has been used to destroy, to annihilate, our languages and our people. We also need to know that education is a powerful institution and that it can serve to support the work that we need to do, but it can only do that if we're brave enough to redesign it, to question it and to learn from indigenous people who've devoted their lives to trying to strengthen this.

For example, we need indigenous language teachers in schools. There's a demand for them. Schools have used fluent speakers, our elders in our communities. They've never been recognized, acknowledged as teachers, but they do the work. They have figured out how to do it with no post-secondary training.

There is not one single teacher education program in Canada where indigenous language teachers can get the education they need, the learning they need, to do this challenging task, to get a credential and to be recognized and paid as teachers.

Right now, Mr. Garneau, across this country there are many teachers of indigenous languages, and they're paid a pittance because they're not recognized as teachers. That's why I say that we have to look at much of the infrastructure that's in place and make the changes that are needed.

We have some opportunities currently that I want to highlight. One is that the Province of Ontario a few years ago put into place the possibility for indigenous institutions to be degree-granting. That is a huge step. It's a positive step. It could be a very important contributing force to making this Indigenous Languages Act work. We have in British Columbia many years of experience in working with every first nations language—34 languages and their dialects. This is complicated work. It requires lots of support from communities, partnerships and collaborations, but it also counts on the kind of research that needs to be done and that right now does not exist. We have some examples.

It's important, then, to look at yourself in government, at how you stop the work, but also look at what people have been doing across this country to keep our languages alive. When you think about all the things that have happened and that have tried to silence us, our languages continue. They continue because of the passion and the commitment you heard from the former speaker, who talked about the commitment from our elders, our knowledge keepers, to protect our languages of the land. We need to be able to use that, learn from it, go forward and work together.

Thank you.

[Claudette Commanda, Chief Executive Officer, First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres]

Thank you.

Good evening. I am Claudette Commanda, member of the Kitigan Zibi Algonquin First Nation.

I welcome you. I'm honoured to make this presentation on the ancestral territory of my people.

I hold various titles, responsibilities and roles, such as chief executive officer for the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres. I am an Indian day school survivor. I am a representative plaintiff for the survivor class federal Indian day school settlement; a special adviser on reconciliation to the dean of the faculty of law; elder-in-residence; professor; and chancellor of the University of Ottawa. I am a mother of four and a kokum—or grandmother—of 10; this is my most cherished role and responsibility.

Despite the various titles and roles I hold, today I am here as the chief executive officer representing the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres. I have been with this national first nations grassroots organization since 2000.

The FNCCEC was established in 1972. We are a non-profit, national, first nations grassroots organization born out of Indian control of Indian education. Our organization is community-based and grassroots-driven, and we are inherent and treaty rights holders. We are independent from the Assembly of First Nations or any other political entity.

The organization is composed of 46 cultural centres, which are located in every part of the country and represent the language and cultural diversity among first nations. Our elders guide our work and support our community-based and national role as language advocates and language experts. The organization provides technical and program assistance to communities in their development and delivery of language and culture-based education programs.

As rights holders of our languages, the FNCCEC and its member centres understood the need for languages legislation: legislation to guarantee financial support for communities to develop immediate and long-term sustainable solutions for language revitalization and protection, and our right to educate our children in our ancestral languages.

For 47 years, FNCCEC was entrusted—and continues to have that trust—with a national mandate on the promotion, protection, revitalization and maintenance of first nation languages, cultures and traditions. Despite our organization's expertise in language development and program delivery for our communities, FNCCEC was not called on to be codevelopers in the drafting of the languages legislation known as Bill C-91.

However, our organization supports the Indigenous Languages Act. We were pleased to see our vision, our efforts and our actions for language protection become a reality. For decades, with steadfast determination, the FNCCEC advocated for language legislation. Language champions such as Ron Ignace, Verna Kirkness and Amos Key, to name but a few, remained constant in their support of FNCCEC and our mission for legislative language protection.

Why is the act important? What does it mean for the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres?

We see the Indigenous Languages Act as a validation of our languages. It validates the importance of our languages and the richness of our languages for cultural identity and healing. In building self-esteem for first nations children and youth, the validation of our languages for the intergenerational transmission of knowledge is so critical and so important, because our languages are who we are: our identity, our culture and our life, and that connection to land, to spirit, to the creator and to all of our teachings.

The Indigenous Languages Act is also viewed as the Government of Canada's acknowledgement of the historical wrongs that have contributed to language loss. It is also viewed as an instrument to hold the government accountable in its obligation to support the restoration, revitalization and retention of first nation languages with an ongoing commitment for funding needed for immediate and long-term language planning, resource development and language learning.

The protection of the first languages of the land is paramount. After all, first nation languages, indigenous languages, are the original languages of Canada. Canadians must embrace this truth. Raising awareness of the importance and the value of first nation languages provides the opportunity for Canadians to acknowledge, respect and celebrate first nations people, our histories and our rights, and to foster reconciliation, people to people and nation to nation.

We are hopeful and we wait patiently for the act to provide permanent sustainable funding, funding that is of critical need for our communities to build and foster language health both today and lifelong. The act must be the authority to eliminate proposal-driven, piecemeal funding. The current language and cultural funding program criteria, and the administration of funding, can neither sustain nor continue to be the source of language and cultural revitalization, or be the eligibility for language support, for our communities. Change is needed.

We know that much work is still required to fully implement the act. The implementation must ensure that first nation grassroots communities and well-established first nation organizations, who have immense expertise and lived experience in language protection and revitalization, must be included in every stage of implementation and operations, including the development of policies and funding models. The implementation of the act and/or distribution of funding cannot be delegated to political organizations. Grassroots communities and grassroots organizations are the language-holders, the language speakers and the language champions. We are the frontline workers. We are the present. We are the past. We certainly are the future.

We appreciate the working relationship with the staff at Canadian Heritage, who recognize the diverse expertise of the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres. They value the community language experts who assist in the government's work on indigenous languages.

The act, including its spirit and intent, must be fully and diligently recognized in the implementation for the protection and revitalization of first nation languages. The beneficiaries are our children, today and seven generations beyond. Much work remains to be done. FNCCEC's wide array of expertise in language development, implementation, research, and program and technical support must be integral to all aspects of the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act.

Let's work together to make this happen for our children and our youth today, and for seven generations.

Chi miigwetch. Thank you.

[Ida Bear]

I did a presentation on Monday, just the other day, and we were talking about language and self-esteem. I asked a question: Who am I? Well, you can look at me externally and say, “You're an indigenous woman. You're an older woman. You might be a great-grandmother.” But nobody can tell by looking at me that I have worked years and years and years in post-secondary institutions and also in the community, which I think is very important.

I too came out of residential school. After spending all my childhood there, my youth, I came out a changed person. How do you have healing? You do healing through the language and culture. When I went in, I was five years old. Already I had the language. I had my values and teachings from my grandparents. When I went in, everything was different. There was a lot of corporal punishment and abuse, sexual abuse and physical abuse. You came out as a nobody with no self-esteem.

We're advocating through the language and culture program things like land-based education and using traditional doctors—I'm one of them—for healing of the soul and spirit, but we don't get funding for it. We've been running programs like that for a long, long time without any assistance from the federal government. It's through our local initiatives. I think about it this way: Money doesn't really heal anything, but it sure as heck would help us to do the work in the area of healing. For example, a lot of people say that today it's contemporary times and the past is dead. No, it isn't. The past is just hanging over you with all its negativity, all its hurts and all of whatever it was they did with colonization, turning us into western automatons leaving behind our identity—who we are.

I'm Cree through and through. I do have French on my grandfather's side. I have Scottish on my maternal side, but we all identified as Cree in culture and language. You know, up to five years old, you already have that language. You never lose it. It's like a computer. It's inputted. It's just that psychological processes come into play where you can't get it out.

That was the case for me. In 1974, when I began to get involved in languages and culture, I couldn't even speak my language. I had to get it out, but there were so many obstacles. There were psychological obstacles. There was panic, I would say, in using my language, because there was too much corporal punishment when we'd use our language. In terms of cultural practices, when my mom used to come and visit us, there would be a supervisor. We had 10 minutes with my mom. She would try to bring traditional foods. They would just throw it out as not fit for dogs. There was this demoralizing way of treating us.

I agree with you that within that languages act we need our indigenous doctors, our healers, our psychologists, our psychiatrists, people like me and ceremonial people to be paid for the work we're doing and not to just be given tobacco in a piece of coloured cloth. That doesn't pay for your food. That doesn't pay for your accommodation.

Many of the people doing that work are long gone. The last one died a month ago. We really don't have that pool of traditional healers who do the language and culture work. Since 1967 we've had a core group of us working toward the revival of language and culture. Through the work in language and storytelling and cultural-based activities and ceremonial activities, many of us found healing.

Where we found healing, we got our voice to say, “Okay, we're going to put the western ideology aside. Now we're going to spend time looking at us, at who we are as a people.” We're very diverse, but as indigenous peoples we have universal principles.

We have soul; it's in our language. We have spirit; it's in our language. When we speak our language and we openly speak it, the Creator Otipéyihcikéw hears us and we begin to heal. We need people who are healthy, who are healed, to be able to reach out to the people who need healing.

When I quickly went over the Indigenous Languages Act, I was thinking about that. I said to myself, you know, through language and culture we get healing. We get land-based education. We go to ceremonies. We go to sweat lodges. We go to shake tents. We go to pipe ceremonies.

Our psychologists, our dreamers, are different types of doctors. They're healers of the brain. Nobody recognizes us. Some of us have three, four, five or seven Ph.D.s in ceremonial aspects. We're still very much looked down on, and they say, “Well, you don't have a Ph.D. from a reputable university. You didn't spend nine, 10 or 11 years doing a study.” Our people have worked and lived all their lives in what we call miyo-pimâtisiwin, “the good life”. How do you get at that good life? Practise your culture. Practise your language. Eat your traditional foods. Have your ceremonial name.

My name, and it's kind of comical, is Ká-kisíyásit. I wanted a beautiful name like “Yellow Buffalo Woman” or “Blue Robin”, or all of those nice names. When I got my name, it was Ká-kisíyásit, meaning “one who flies fast”. I told my medicine name-giver, “I don't want that name.” He said, “It's not I who gave your name. It's Otipéyihcikéw, the Creator, who gave you that name.” One who flies fast—that's here, the soul, the spirit.

You can cover a lot of territory for healing, for spiritual teaching, by teaching the language, by being able to pray in a language when you're asked or to counsel somebody who sits there and says, “I don't feel like living anymore. I don't speak my language. I don't know any ceremonies. What am I going to do?”

You went into that whole phase. When you had your people doing the consultation, I wasn't involved, so that part was missed.

I agree with Dr. Megan—I don't know how to pronounce your last name, and my Cree gets in the way—that we should actually look at redrafting or making amendments to include that.

Do you know something? I think it's a positive thing. Back in 1967 we said we needed to save our languages. How many years ago was that? It was roughly 40 years ago. This is 2023. We've lost many of our languages. It wasn't enough for some of us to do the little piecemeal things we were doing. My colleague and I covered all the communities in Manitoba. We set up language working groups back in 1983 and 1984. Once we left, because we didn't train the trainers, it died, and there was no ongoing work done on working with the community, the parents, the grandparents, the ones who have no education.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

To all of you who gave a presentation, I thank you all. What you said is very important, and what you said is very relevant, as you all pointed to coordination as an item.

To Dr. Ida Bear first, when it comes to indigenous peoples and their languages and the Indigenous Languages Act, I look at the content. It's a good act, but it doesn't state anywhere in the act that we need to heal from past abuses and the destruction of our own language. It states that we need to work together, but our language was meant to be lost forever, according to a government policy. Many people are hurting, angry and in need of healing from this abuse.

Can you strengthen the act by adding that financial resources should be available for healing purposes also if we are going to reclaim our languages, which we were forced to give up?

I ask Dr. Bear. Thank you.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for joining us today for this important discussion and for being part of this study. I thank all of you for your testimony.

So far what has struck me is that each of the opening remarks really touched on the coordination aspect of the programs from the federal government.

Dr. Lukaniec, you mentioned the lack of a positive impact from the Indigenous Languages Act. You mentioned the need for language rights and passing some amendments to sort of beef that up.

I find this very interesting for a number of reasons and very concerning for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we've seen a lot of reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General recently pertaining to Indigenous Services and how, over the last number of years, there have been a lot of resources and dollars allocated but not necessarily a commensurate increase in the results. I think that's a major gap we're experiencing that we're seeing across the country. Each of you pointed that out, and quite rightly so.

With that in mind, in thinking about the results and the outcomes that we obviously need to be striving toward, Dr. Lukaniec, I'll come back to you again, since you started off. You mentioned the need to pass some amendments for the Indigenous Languages Act in order to strengthen it. I'm wondering if you could speak in more detail to some of those specific amendments.

[Dr. Megan Lukaniec, Linguist, Huron-Wendat Nation Council]

Thank you very much.

Kwe aweti'.

My name is Dr. Megan Lukaniec. I'm a member of the Huron-Wendat Nation situated in Wendake, Quebec. I am a linguist for our nation.

I am honoured to be here to discuss the Indigenous Languages Act, and the impacts of that act on our community and our language.

Our language, called Wendat, became dormant over a century ago, but since 2007, we have been reawakening our language through the careful analysis of archival documentation.

As of right now, for our nation, there has been no positive impact of the passing of the Indigenous Languages Act. No funding model has changed, this funding was and still is project-based. Furthermore, we have not been contacted by or in communication with the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages.

The only change that we have experienced with the passing of this act is an increase of service work. We have been called upon to participate in numerous consultations sessions, both prior to and after the act. Despite many of the important and insightful comments that I have heard in these sessions since 2018, I have not seen any of these changes implemented thus far.

I humbly present three recommendations to this committee.

The first recommendation is to pass amendments to this act since it has no teeth and is more or less symbolic. I'll give you an example of that. Paragraph 5(d) reads that the purpose of the act is to “establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, sustainable and long-term funding”, but that's actually not the same as committing to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding.

Right now, that means that this funding is dependent on the goodwill of the federal government in power. It is also very non-committal in terms of language rights. We need a commitment that we have the right to educate our youth in our language, and it's especially important here in Quebec with the passing of Bill 96. These rights are mentioned, but they are not explicitly stated in the act.

I also would point you to the legal brief of Karihwakè:ron Tim Thompson of Yellowhead Institute, who provides some thoughtful critique of that.

My second recommendation for this is to change the funding model. Get rid of short-term project funding and its associated problematic measures.

Prior to funding from Canadian Heritage, we actually had a five-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. It was a partnership between our nation and Université Laval. We had exponential growth during that period of time since, for the first time, we could plan our activities for five years rather than a single year or even two. We could also modify the project activities to fit our actual needs, which often change from the needs that we estimate at the time of submitting a grant application.

Since we started depending on funding from Canadian Heritage, that was roughly in 2012, our language work has really stagnated. We are stuck on a roller coaster of a grant cycle, and in some ways I believe that this funding has actually set us back rather than moved us forward over the past decade.

The application processing delays are inexcusably long. We once waited 11 months from the time of submission to the time of acceptance of the grant, and of course the deadlines don't change necessarily. You have to ask for extensions. There's also very little flexibility in changing the project activities or the timelines, and there's no recognition of how their delays impact us in our work and in our language planning.

The bigger reality is that we don't want to do projects. The work that we're doing in our community to revitalize our language is not a project. It shouldn't need to be packaged into something new and shiny each grant cycle, with deliverables that need to be sent to Canadian Heritage after the fact.

Instead, we really hope that the federal government could fund full operating budgets for a period of at least five years to reawaken and revitalize our languages, and not projects with deliverables that are counted according to metrics designed by someone else.

My third recommendation for you is to increase the funding to at least match what is provided to official languages. Dr. Onowa McIvor talks about this very issue in her 2013 article. She says, “it takes greater resources to rebuild something than it does to destroy it.” With amounts of up to $300,000 per year, the funding we receive now is more of a token of support than actual support.

We know that our languages are not being funded at the same level as English and French. We're being told as much during these consultation sessions when we are being asked to provide criteria that will be used to choose amongst the best grant applications. Please don't make us compete against one another for essential funding that is needed to support our languages.

We need this funding to undo the harm the federal government and its other colluding agents have caused to our language. We would like to have at least the same as if not more than what is provided to English and French, because it does cost more to rebuild.

In conclusion, it's been almost four years since the act has passed. We have been waiting patiently. We are still without any adequate, sustainable, recurring and long-term funding for our language. The current funding amounts and current funding model are both unacceptable and will not permit us to effect real change in our community in terms of language revitalization.

We are now coming up against a funding gap since we had a two-year grant from Canadian Heritage that will end on March 31. There are no other funding calls that are available despite the fact we were told that these new funding models would come into effect in the spring of last year, in 2022.

I implore you to act fast because we're doing all we can on our end to sustain and nourish our language, but we really need the federal government to commit itself to help us rebuild from the damage they caused our language. We need this financial support, and we need it now.

That is all.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I was asking this question because I believe that, two Parliaments ago, there was an indigenous languages bill passed. The applicability of this law with respect to other obligations of Parliament is important to recognize, when new language regarding indigenous languages is included in this bill.

Thank you.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Ms. Kublu and Chief Tremblay for being at this committee meeting. What they said about land was very interesting.

I should have started by wishing you a happy International Decade of Indigenous Languages.

The committee's goal is to study how the government can support language revitalization. The Indigenous Languages Act, Bill C‑91, was passed in 2019, but time is running out. Just over the past 30 years, Ms. Kublu has seen knowledge of Inuktitut and the number of Inuktitut speakers decline. In theory, the act is supposed to be implemented over five years, but action must be taken. Even Mr. Tremblay said there's hardly anyone left under 60 who speaks his language, so revitalization has to happen through community initiatives. This shows us just how important it is to take significant measures now even though the act was passed in 2019. Ms. Kublu and Chief Tremblay talked both directly and indirectly about immersion.

Now back to the land issue. In my riding on the North Shore, we have the Innu first nation, whose language is very much alive. Having read the Innu-French dictionary, I learned that a lot of the terms have to do with the land and practices upon the land, so I certainly understand the importance of language.

I have two questions for each of you. Please answer as you see fit.

Do you think that, since 2015, or since the Indigenous Languages Act was passed in 2019, the government has stepped up with financial support for indigenous languages?

Let's start with that first question, and then I will ask the second one.

[Gerry Guillet, Director of Education, Athabasca Denesuline Education Authority]

Thank you very much, honourable Chairman.

Good morning, honourable members. I'm Gerry Guillet, director of education and CEO for the Athabasca Denesuline Education Authority of northern Saskatchewan. Our authority is very young in its establishment. We were first organized and have been operating since August 2019. In establishing our authority to represent the far northern isolated communities of Fond Du Lac, Black Lake and Hatchet Lake first nations, we deliver educational programming for the schools. We have four schools of 1,300 students.

The Dene language, culture and land-based programming are an important part of our authority. It is our first strategic plan in improving the language abilities of our students. The remoteness of our communities creates many challenges for the authority, and we had to house our education centre in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. We can only reach our communities via air travel. One community has an all-season road, which is a 14-hour drive to the south in Prince Albert. Having said that, our land-based culture and language programs are our first priority in the strategic plan of our authority.

We have many aspects to our programming that are vital, including literacy and numeracy. However, given the culture where our students are not using their language at a significant level, certainly one of our major attempts is to improve and provide more language opportunities.

It is important to note that 75% of the staff in the schools in our communities are local and only 60% of them are able to speak the Dene language. We are planning that we would like to instill in our schools Dene immersion programming. We come across many challenges in that aspect, certainly, with the lack of resources in the Dene language. Our elders in our communities are very strong within their language, their culture and their faith dimension.

We certainly feel that the government's Indigenous Languages Act is one that we'd look at in terms of formulating all our strategies as we want to plan initiatives and activities for restoring and maintaining the fluency in our Dene language.

Our attempts to create technological tools and educational materials, including audio and video recordings, have met many challenges. We have not been able, as a new authority, to access the funds that are required for us to realize those visions, goals and aspects for our children and our community members within our communities.

Our coordinator, who is very fluent in the Dene language, has done a tremendous amount of work in the three years of our existence to improve significantly the ability of our teachers and our programs in our schools to include the Dene language in all the instructional materials as much as possible.

In the daily life of our students in the classrooms, our Dene language is spoken almost as much as the English language, despite the fact that we follow provincial curricula, all in English. Dene certainly is a language that is used throughout our schools and in our communities.

What we are asking for at this opportunity is the funding that our authority desperately needs in order to revitalize the language of our Dene people. It is being lost at a significant rate, and it is our goal to revitalize our language within our culture of our Dene people.

We have not realized any significant funding increase to date in order for us to move forward in translating many of the resources available in English into the Dene language, so that our immersion programs have the resources for our teachers to teach the language at a significant level.

I take this opportunity to express to the committee that our organization is a model. Although we are only three years old, we have established an organization founded on children coming first. Our board of directors is very determined. They hold their children, first and foremost, in their hearts and their deliberations.

All of our programming and initiatives are directed toward our children. In particular, our language is sacred to them, which we desperately want to revitalize. Our children need to learn more of their language, their land base and their culture. We are attempting to do that in revitalizing the language aspect within our communities and, in particular, within our schools. To initiate any kind of immersion program in Dene, we lack many of the resources to enable that vision to move forward.

It is my intent, Mr. Chairman and honourable members, to present to you today a challenge that the Athabasca Denesuline Education Authority faces in revitalizing our language, certainly according to Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act. We are really looking at having more opportunity within the funding regime so that we can address those issues for our communities and our people.

I thank you for that.

National Council for Reconciliation Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to contribute to the debate on Bill C-29 at third reading.

This is quite critical legislation and I will start with some preparatory comments. Our government is committed wholeheartedly to pursuing all avenues possible in the advancement of reconciliation in this country. It goes without saying that when we speak about reconciliation, a cornerstone of this concept is the idea about accountability, that the government, the country, needs to be held accountable for historical wrongs that have been perpetrated against indigenous peoples for literally centuries on this land.

Residents in my riding of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto have spoken to me regularly over the past seven years about the importance of reconciliation, the need to advance it and to address the TRC calls to actions. I am very pleased to note that the TRC calls to action, five of them in particular, are really at the heart of this legislation.

What my constituents and people around the country have told me is that we need to ensure we are doing everything in our power as a government and as a Parliament to remedy the wrongs that were inflicted upon generations of indigenous people, particularly indigenous children who, through the residential schools program, were robbed of their families, their culture, oftentimes their language and, indeed, their history.

Going back seven years to 2015 before we came into power as government, we campaigned on a platform that called for a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples, one that would be based on the recognition of rights based on respect, co-operation and partnership. An important cornerstone of any nation-to-nation relationship as it is being advanced is basic respect for the autonomy and self-determination of the various indigenous peoples that we engage with, being first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. This is important on the international stage, but it is also important right here in Canada.

The reconciliation process that I am speaking of has to be guided by the active participation and leadership of indigenous peoples. I will digress for a moment. We had an example of that in the legislation I was privileged to work on, which, if memory serves, was either Bill C-91 or Bill C-92 two Parliaments ago. However, the important piece is not the number of the bill that we advanced at the time, but the indigenous languages legislation that we advanced and passed in this Parliament, which is now firmly part of Canadian law.

In that context, we co-developed the legislation in that spirit of reconciliation, in terms of giving full participation and leadership in the development role to indigenous communities, first nations, Inuit and Métis. That is an important aspect of reconciliation and how it manifests, but so too is this bill. With this bill, we would put in place institutional mechanisms that are called for in the TRC calls to action for indigenous peoples, so they can hold Canada and the Canadian government to account for meeting goals on the path toward reconciliation.

What is Bill C-29 about? It is called “an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation” and, like the indigenous languages bill that I was privileged to work on two Parliaments ago, it has been driven by the active participation of first nations, Inuit and Métis communities, organizations and individuals right across the country. What it would do is establish a permanent, indigenous-led, independent council with a mandate to monitor and support the progress of reconciliation in this country, including progress toward the full implementation of the TRC calls to action.

Let us talk about those calls to action. I mentioned them at the outset of my comments. The calls to action call on the government to create a non-partisan body that would hold the Government of Canada to account on the journey toward reconciliation. Specifically, calls to action 53 and 54 call for the establishment of this national council for reconciliation and for permanence of funding, which is very critical. We need to not only create the body, but adequately resource it.

Call to action 55 calls on the government to provide relevant information to the council in support of its mandate, providing it with the tools so it can execute its functions. Call to action 56 calls on the government to publish an annual report in response to the national council's annual report covering what the government is doing in terms of advancing reconciliation, another key component.

I will digress for a moment. I know there were some very useful amendments proposed at the committee stage, which I believe were universally adopted and it was unanimous coming out of committee. One of the components was for the government's response to be led by the Prime Minister himself, which is really critical in terms of emphasizing the prioritization and importance of this issue about advancing reconciliation. It is critical to not underestimate the impact that this kind of council will have on fostering the type of relationship with indigenous peoples I mentioned at the outset of my comments.

Through the annual response report, Canada would be consistently required to account for progress being made and also progress that has not yet been made, including identifying challenges, hurdles and obstacles.

It would be the people most impacted by such policies, the first nations, Inuit and Métis people on this land, who would have the power and wield that power to hold the government of the day to account.

That is really important. This is not about partisanship. This is not about what the Liberal government will be held to account for. This is what any government in the country would be held to account to do, going forward, with respect to advancing reconciliation, which is very critical in terms of such a pressing matter.

It is clearly only the beginning of some of the work we need to be doing. We know that, in Ontario, in my province, the median income of an indigenous household is 80% of that of a non-indigenous household. We know that the life expectancy of an indigenous person is over nine years shorter than a non-indigenous person on this land.

We know that while fewer than 5% of Canadians are indigenous, indigenous women represent over half of the inmate population in federal penitentiaries. We know that when we account for male participants, while indigenous men represent 5% of the population, they represent 30% of the prison population. Those are really chilling statistics.

I can say, parenthetically, that TRC call to action 55 has several subcategories. Two of the subcategories, and I will just cite from them, talk about the council ensuring that it reports on the progress on “reducing the rate of criminal victimization of Aboriginal people” as well as, in call to action 55, subsection vii, “Progress on reducing the overrepresentation of Aboriginal people in the justice and correctional systems.”

I think one important facet of what the council will be doing, and also how the government will be responding, is highlighting some of the initiatives we have already started to take.

I am very pleased to say that, about two weeks ago, we secured passage and royal assent of Bill C-5. The bill addresses mandatory minimum penalties in the country, which have been in place for far too long, and how those mandatory minimum penalties served to take low-risk, first-time offenders and overly incarcerate them, disproportionately impacting indigenous men and Black men in Canada.

That is an important facet, in terms of how we advance this fight for reconciliation and how we advance some of these terms that are specifically itemized in the calls to action. That is exactly the type of thing I would like to see reported on by the council and included in the responses by the Canadian government, as to what further steps we can take to cure such instances, such as overrepresentation.

There are lasting effects. All of these statistics I have been citing demonstrate the lasting effects of the intergenerational trauma in Canada that has been inflicted upon first nations, Inuit and Métis communities. They are the result of enduring systemic discrimination and systemic racism in this country. That is critical to underline. It should be an issue that is really incontrovertible in the chamber.

We cannot begin to address such serious issues until we put into law a mechanism for holding the government of the day accountable, consistently accountable, for the actions, both past and present, and for what we are doing to remedy these historical injustices.

I was quite pleased to see this bill get the support of all parties at second reading. I am very confident that, hopefully, it will get support, once again, of all of the parties in the chamber.

I note, again, some of the important amendments that were made. I mentioned one of them right at the start of my comments. Other useful amendments presented by a multi-party group at committee included having elders and residential school survivors and their descendants populate the board of directors for this council. That would be a really critical feature.

I will say, somewhat subjectively, that I was quite pleased to see the fact that the importance of revitalizing, restoring and ensuring the non-extinction of indigenous languages also forms part of the amendments that were suggested by the committee, something we have wholeheartedly adopted already in Parliament.

As I mentioned earlier, the response to the annual report will be led by the Prime Minister himself.

That being said, this bill would do more than place obligations on the government. It would compel the government to continuously hold a mirror to itself, to urge us to never stop striving to do the best job we can vis-à-vis reconciliation. It would urge us to take ownership of the wrongdoings of the past and of the challenges of the present, and to work toward a commitment to do better going forward.

I think this type of honesty and accountability has been long sought after, and Bill C-29 is a step in the right direction.

I commend the bill and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same and ensure its passage.

Motions in amendment

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-29, an act to provide for the establishment of a national council for truth and reconciliation. I want to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin peoples.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the incredible work of many of my colleagues from different parties, including the member for Sydney—Victoria, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the member for Northwest Territories, the member for Nunavut, the member for Winnipeg Centre, the member for Edmonton Griesbach and others, who, over the many years we have been here, have been inspirational in their work and advocacy as we make sure that as a government, we move forward on reconciliation.

Reconciliation is multi-layered, is often complex and is an issue that will take generations to achieve in Canada. Canada has gone through 154 years of colonialism and deeply rooted legislation that often disempowered and displaced first nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada. We have gone from having over 90 indigenous languages to only a handful being spoken today. We have seen the horrific results of residential schools and the intergenerational trauma they have created, and the lasting effects of the hurt and loss. We saw this with the unmarked graves, starting last year, and I suspect we will see it again and again as we unpack this deeply hurtful issue over the next few years. Parliament recently acknowledged what happened with residential schools as genocide, and that, too, is a very important aspect of moving forward and speaking truth to power.

As we look at establishing the national council for reconciliation, it is important to look at history. In 2015, when we took office, the commissioners of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission presented their findings, with 94 calls to action. That was in December 2015. They outlined the bare minimum that needs to be done in order for our path to reconciliation to move forward.

Since then, we have seen a number of different initiatives, including the report of the MMIWG, the missing and murdered women and girls report, and the calls to justice, as well as several other very important findings, including the unmarked graves. These things put additional responsibilities on the government and on all Canadians to address.

The 94 calls to action are an all-encompassing set of guidelines for the federal government, provincial governments and in some cases municipal governments, as well as organizations, particularly national indigenous organizations, and all Canadians. It is important to recognize that reconciliation is not a journey that can just be undertaken by Canada as a government. It needs to be an all-of-Canada effort that includes all stakeholders.

When we talk about reconciliation, oftentimes we talk about what Canada is prepared to do, but it really comes down to how much trust and confidence indigenous people can have in this process. What we have seen in the last seven years is that while we have moved ahead on a number of very important initiatives, we have often seen this relationship be two steps forward and one step back because there is a lot of unpacking to do. As we approach and encounter these issues, it is important that as a government we double down and recommit to working harder to ensure we move forward on this process.

It is an imperfect process. It is an imperfect set of ideas that often may need reflection, and in that I am pleased to share with the House some of my experiences over the past seven years working across party lines with the members opposite.

I do want to start off with our work on Bill C-262, which was a private member's bill brought forward by my friend Romeo Saganash. It essentially called for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and I was fortunate to work with Mr. Saganash over the couple of years he was actively advocating for Bill C-262. We travelled a fair bit in our committee work and spoke to many individuals: young people, elders, band councils and indigenous organization members. The enormous support the bill had across Canada with indigenous people was remarkable. However, we saw that the same level of commitment was not here in Parliament.

Over time, sadly, Bill C-262 did not pass, but we were able to get Bill C-15 through Parliament in 2021, and basically it is calls to action 43 and 44, and it was able to pass. The second part of UNDRIP is the implementation of a national action plan, and our department is working very hard with indigenous partners and national indigenous organizations, as well as rights holders and many others, to make sure we have an action plan that can really address a review of laws and move us forward on this path.

One of the things that has really humbled me is the work we have done on indigenous languages. There is an act, Bill C-91, which was passed in 2019, and it was a critical moment in Canada because, when we talk about language, it is so fundamental to all of us. Often, I look at the passion with which my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois address the issue of bilingualism and language, and the passion with which many of my colleagues on this side speak to the need to protect the French language.

I think it is so critical to ensure that linguistic minorities are protected across Canada, but often missing in that conversation is the need to protect and save the many indigenous languages that existed prior to Confederation. In many ways, those languages are in their last stages. Medically speaking, they are on life support because we have so many languages that are at a point of being lost permanently.

I know the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London spoke about Oneida Nation on the Thames, and that is one of the groups we met during the development of Bill C-91. It was devastating to see that only a handful of people were able to speak that language, which shows how important it is that Bill C-91 is there. As well, we, along with the support of the New Democratic Party, repealed mandatory minimum penalties just last week, and we implemented the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation.

These are some measures that speak to the work that has been done, but there is a lot more to do, and I believe the national council would be a very important tool for us to measure objectively what work we need to do. It would measure and report back to the House, as well as to Canadians, on the need to fill in the gaps and to make sure we fulfill all the commitments in the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

I look forward to questions and comments from my friends, and I thank them for this opportunity to speak.

[Marjolaine Tshernish, General Manager, Institut Tshakapesh]

[Witness speaks in Innu.]

[English]

Thank you for this invitation to contribute to the process that confirms the great importance of dialogue prior to implementing major projects for the benefit of the greatest number, including members of the First Nations of Quebec.

I am an Innu from the community of Mani-Utenam on the north shore of the province of Quebec. I am the general manager of the Institut Tshakapesh, an organization that has been in existence for almost 45 years.

Giving an Indigenous nation the right to speak is an appropriate and respectful way of recognizing it as a nation. In the case of Bill C‑29, this means recognition of its mother tongue and the language spoken in its region, its contextual environment, its geographic context, and its specific needs.

Often, the Innu nation of Quebec, which has French as its second language spoken, does not recognize itself in the way relations between the federal government and anglophone Indigenous people. It sometimes feels excluded from the major discussions. As a result, we feel powerless to act within those discussions. Today, I want to thank you for inviting us.

This linguistic specificity must now be taken into consideration. It may have very significant consequences for our communities, in particular socioeconomic consequences.

Since we live in eastern Canada and our spoken language, other than our mother tongue, is French, it is important that we be taken into account in allocating certain seats reserved for Indigenous people in Canada. It is important to allow members of First Nations who use French to have a place in major political discussions. As well, the documentation has to exist in that language so that these nations are able to speak freely in the official language in which they are fluent.

I also wanted to remind you that when Bill C‑91 concerning Indigenous languages was announced, the Assembly of First Nations, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council participated in drafting it.

I note that there was no joint drafting in the case of Bill C‑29. An interim committee was appointed by the ministers. I do not doubt the quality of the work done, but I must point out that we received no information in the regions. When Bill C‑91 was drafted, we received information in the regions. We were informed even before the bill was announced and throughout the process until it was passed.

In this case, however, were it not for the member for Manicouagan, Marilène Gill, I would not have been made aware of the existence of Bill C‑29.

Obviously, we are pleased with the initiative that establishes a national council for reconciliation, which responds to calls to action 53 to 55 issued by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

I particularly want to make recommendations relating to the composition of the board of directors, specifically for adding another organization. There are the transitional committee and the office of the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, but it would be wise to add the Assembly of First Nations or another organization so that more people would be able to choose the directors.

The francophone region of Quebec should also be represented on the board of directors so that we are able to receive information in our region.

It is also important that one third of the Indigenous directors be candidates who acknowledge the existence of systemic racism. This is very important going forward, for the work of the National Council for Reconciliation.

We must make sure there is equitable representation of men and women on the board of directors and that it includes elders and former residential school students or children of residential school survivors. It is important that this sensitivity be reflected in the work of the National Council for Reconciliation.

We must also make sure that the directors do not have a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest with the National Council for Reconciliation.

When the National Council for Reconciliation is created, it will be important to make sure that it has all the resources at the start that it needs in order to fully do its work, to perform its mandate. Even today, we are not hearing anything about the members of the transitional committee created last year. That is probably because they do not have the resources they need to perform their mandate. They are invisible. So it is important for the National Council for Reconciliation to be operational quickly, for it to be visible and accessible, and for it to be possible to see the work it is doing.

I would like to make one comment on accountability. I have seen that all levels of government, that is, the federal government, the provinces and the First Nations, had to provide data, at its request, to the National Council of Reconciliation so it could submit reports on the progress being made towards reconciliation. It is therefore essential that the Council have access to that data, which it be from the provincial or federal government or from the First Nations band councils. The data in question in the bill is under federal or provincial jurisdiction, or under the jurisdiction of a First Nations nation or band council.

I don't know whether I have any time left.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Thank you for that very important question.

As Minister of Official Languages, I wanted to be sure I did nothing to undermine Bill C‑91, which was introduced to protect indigenous languages and has now become law. You can see very clearly at a number of places in Bill C‑13 that we would be doing nothing to undermine indigenous languages. We recognize that we have 70 indigenous languages in Canada, and we want to be sure they can thrive too.

I had the good fortune to meet the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, Ronald E. Ignace, and we had a very constructive conversation. We agreed to meet again because we want to work together. If there's anything that we can pass on to him, advice or details on the work the Commissioner of Official Languages is doing, or if he wants to learn from our experience or draw on our strategies, we're prepared to work with him. He left with a clear understanding of our approach, and it was a very good meeting.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I would qualify your earlier question. There are a great number that are under way currently. The legislation under Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the immigration notes, currently the movement on the national recognition date, as well as UNDRIP, which your party opposed, are all key to transforming the relationship.

I think one of them is trust. Certainly you mentioned money, but you put forward a false dichotomy. Obviously, we want to see progress from the money, but we have to be relentless in our investments. This is about closing socio-economic gaps. The record shows that has moved. It's about closing the financial gap in education and in all the other investments in infrastructure and housing investments. These are all things that have happened and we want to continue on those.

Opposition Motion—Action Toward Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, let me start by congratulating you on your 10-year anniversary in that chair as Deputy Speaker and your distinguished service as a parliamentarian in this chamber, respected by every one of your 337 colleagues.

I want to speak today about something that is critically important, not just now but all of the time, that has come to the forefront given this opposition day motion that we are discussing, and that is the events at Kamloops in terms of the shocking discovery of the mass grave of 215 children who belonged to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation.

After hearing about it on the radio, and the sheer magnitude, my first reaction was simply one of horror, and I had to explain to my kids why I was reacting the way that I was.

My second response was as someone who came to this chamber as a lawyer who has some experience with international law, particularly with Rwanda at the UN war crimes tribunal. I thought of how we usually associate mass graves with foreign conflicts and not with Canada. Then I started to think of what we have done vis-à-vis indigenous people of this land and how sometimes it is not much different in terms of the overt assimilation that we have propagated against them, and when the declared policy of the government at the time was to “take the Indian out of the child”.

I also reacted as a parliamentarian who has not been in this chamber as long as you, Mr. Speaker, but for six years now, who feels like he has gathered some understanding of the situation. I had gone through the calls to action, but I was still shocked and surprised. However, we do not have to dig too far to realize that there were a lot of people who were not surprised, and a lot of those people are indigenous people of this land, particularly elders.

This led me to the question of how we value knowledge and recognize its legitimacy, and how this Eurocentric idea has been passed down that unless something is reduced to writing or photographic or video evidence, it probably did not happen. This is a bias that we bring to the table that we have to acknowledge. I thank a constituent of mine who wrote to me about the issue of Canadians, including Canadian parliamentarians, who need to learn to embrace oral histories as legitimate histories so that we can truly come to terms with the magnitude of what we are dealing with.

I also reacted as a father, as I mentioned, when I heard the news that morning on CBC Radio while my children were eating cereal in front of me. My boys are very dear to me. I mean, everyone's children are dear to them. My wife, Suchita, and I are raising two young boys, Zakir and Nitin, and we try and do right by them. However, it one thing for me to imagine my children being removed from my home against my will, but it is another thing entirely to imagine them never returned to me and to never know their whereabouts, which is exactly what has transpired over and over again with indigenous families of this land. This is the true tragedy that needs to be dealt with and understood, and it needs to be accounted for, which can only start with a very strong, historical, educational exercise.

There are some people in this House who are younger than I am, which is the tender age of 49, who had the benefit of actually being educated on this. However, I went through every level of school, including post-secondary education and through law school, and never once was I instructed about the history of the residential school legacy in this country, which is quite shocking for a guy who graduated law school in 1998.

I know that people are now getting that education, and that is important. I also know that people are taking steps, and we heard the member for Kings—Hants talk about what was happening in his community in Nova Scotia. In my community of Parkdale—High Park in Toronto, there was a vigil just yesterday about this very issue, which raised awareness, and that is important. I thank my constituent, Eden, for organizing the vigil. She took the reins on doing so, because she felt so strongly about it. I took my oldest son to that event, because I wanted him to be there to understand, to learn, and to see how others were reacting to what we had learned on Friday morning.

It is one thing to read stories, and I do read him stories, particularly the orange shirt story of Phyllis Webstad, the woman who wore that infamous orange shirt, which was removed from her at that residential school. She is also a member of the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc First Nation. However, it is more than just the stories, and I wanted him to get that. It is not just past or distant history, it is still unfolding around us, which is very important, because we should not deem it relegated to the past. It was also important for him and for me to see the turnout, the number of young people who were there, and to hear the demands, and there were many.

There were many directed at the federal government, the government that I represent. There was outrage, shock and horror, but it was important for me to hear the demands. It was important for my son to hear the demands. If I could summarize it, which is difficult to do, but they want justice, accountability and transparency and they want it now, not at some date to be determined in the future.

I hear that sentiment and I very much share that sentiment. I say that in all sincerity in this chamber for those who are watching around the country. In particular ,what I think is most critical is just having a sense that if this happened to the Tk'emlúps First Nation, in Kamloops at that former school, we know that there are 139 sites around this country where it may very well have happened there as well. That forensic investigation, that radar investigation must be done and it must be done immediately.

I know that we have dedicated as a government almost $34 million to address some of the calls to action we have heard extensively about during the course of today's debate. If more money is needed, it must be provided forthwith. That is what I am advocating for.

Others have also said to me just get on with every single one of those calls to action, get it over with now. It has been far too long. I hear that outrage and that sense of urgency. I pause because I know in looking at the calls to action that some of them relate to us at the federal level, us as parliamentarians in the House of Commons. Some of them relate to provincial governments, city governments. Some of them relate to institutions and school boards. Some of them even relate to foreign entities.

I, for one, would be dearly appreciative to see a formal papal apology. That is call to action 58. That is a call to action that the Prime Minister squarely put to the Pope on a visit to the Vatican and that has not yet been acceded to. I think that stands in stark contrast to what we see with other denominations of Christian churches in this country that have formally accepted and apologized for the role that the church played in terms of administering many of these residential schools. That needs to be forthcoming and Canadians are demanding that, rightfully so.

Others I believe have been met at least in part if not fully. I count myself as very privileged to have served in the last Parliament when I was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Heritage. We worked on and co-developed with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders what became Bill C-91, Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act.

I personally count that as one of my most significant learning opportunities as a parliamentarian. It took that lawyer who was not educated about this stuff in law school and it turned him into a parliamentarian who was dealing directly with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders about the difficulties of not having that connection to one's language and what that does to one's psyche, one's level of mental anxiety, one's connection to one's culture.

We have remedied that. It speaks directly to TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15. We have also made great strides with respect to indigenous child and welfare legislation. That was Bill C-92 in the last Parliament. The most important piece there is that the norm now based on that legislation is if we must remove a child, then we keep them within their group, within their first nation, among their community and only as an absolute last resort would they be removed.

We have worked on UNDRIP with members of the opposition parties including the NDP. We have worked on Bill C-22, which I count myself privileged to have worked on as parliamentary secretary to the current Minister of Justice. It deals with curing the overrepresentation of indigenous people in this land. Much more remains to be done. I do not discount that and it needs to be done quickly. We need to do that work together.

I welcome this debate. I welcome the discussions we have been having literally all week, not just today about this important topic, because they are critical. I do feel at my core that we will only gather sufficient momentum when all Canadians are talking about this stain on Canada's history and Canada's legacy. That is critical to see. We have seen it over the course of this pandemic where people, non-white and white, people who are racialized or not racialized have taken up the call for addressing systemic racism and systemic discrimination in wake of George Floyd and in this country people like Regis Korchinski-Paquet.

I am seeing that again now. I am seeing that massive outreach now and that is a good thing because it gives us momentum. It gives us the initiative to keep working hard at these issues and to keep focused on these calls to action in addressing the needs of indigenous people, but always in a manner that is led by indigenous people and done on their terms, because gone must be the paternalism where Ottawa dictated to indigenous people the appropriate remedies. We must be listening and responding.

Indigenous Affairs

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member that these calls are for all of Canada and particularly non-indigenous Canadians. The federal government has a very large role to play in this and there are a number of calls to action that we have moved on quite quickly.

I would note the implementation and passage and royal assent of Bill C-91 on indigenous languages, and Bill C-92 on child and family services. These are all transformative documents to fill the inequities that have characterized our relationship as a country.

We will continue to move on today's pathway announced by the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. It is one that is equally transformable with respect to missing and murdered indigenous women. I would point to the over $2 billion in the budget dedicated to implementing that.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you so much. Thank you for reminding us of the decades of work that have gone into this. This week at the UN permanent forum, for us to be able to thank Wilton Littlechild for all his work.... But there are so many other Canadians and indigenous representatives from Canada, like your family, Jaime. You've lived this your whole live. I don't think we could have a stronger advocate. Thank you for all you do.

Also, in talking about the kind of engagement, I just want to say that we want meaningful engagement, and that means that the excellent Bill C-262 that Romeo Saganash brought forward was evergreened—because the declaration is not—to include two-spirited peoples and to make sure that the definition of the diversity within indigenous communities is not only in the preamble but also in the body of the bill.

This is an exciting time and it helps that the reference to the UN declaration is now in eight of our bills in Canada, including Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. The intent and the commitments in the UN declaration are now part of Canadian law. This will serve to help people understand better what section 35 rights mean, and that indigenous rights and treaty rights are not debatable. They exist, and they will continue to flourish with the understanding of all Canadians.

Broadcasting Act

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr Speaker, it is my pleasure to address the House today from my riding in Toronto on this important piece of legislation. Bill C-10 is a crucial initiative that will bring the radio, television and telecommunications sector into the 21st century.

As we have previously heard in the speeches from many of my colleagues, the last major reform of the Broadcasting Act occurred in 1991. All of us have witnessed an incredible shift in the radio, television and telecommunications sector since that time. Back then the Internet was not even in its infancy: It was the purview exclusively of the U.S. military. I did not even obtain my first email address until about 1994, if memory serves correctly, when I was in my last year at McGill. It is incredible to think that an act drafted around basic radio and television technology, circa 1991, is still regulating the sector today.

Today, as parliamentarians, we are taking an important step forward in modernizing broadcasting regulation in Canada. Nowadays, we know that this sector has remarkably flourished and represents a unique opportunity to access culture. Many platforms have emerged, including Netflix, Disney+, YouTube and Spotify. These provide opportunities to share Canadian culture and content all around the world, also while consuming cultural content here at home that comes from several different countries.

However, online broadcasting services are currently not subjected to the same regulations as traditional broadcasting services. This bill would fix that basic inequality. Canadians greatly benefit from accessing foreign productions, but it is also essential to support our Canadian producers and creators, especially now during a pandemic, when showcasing Canadian content and telling Canadian stories is so critical to the well-being of all of us. This is something that we as a government have always sought to do since coming to power in 2015, by funding our national broadcaster the CBC, and by increasing funding to the Canada Council for the Arts as well as to Telefilm Canada.

However, one issue has remained a stubborn obstacle. How do we support Canadian content in an era when the methods for broadcasting are shifting massively, from radio and TV to online? Bill C-10 would fill this void by providing the CRTC with modern regulatory tools.

Canadians are increasingly using online platforms to access cultural content. For instance, it is estimated that 62% of Canadian households currently use Netflix. This dramatic shift has resulted in an increase of approximately 90% in online video revenues per year for the past two years. Meanwhile, conventional broadcasters have experienced a steady revenue loss of 1.8% per year for the past five years. These alarming statistics clearly demonstrate that the CRTC's regulatory framework needs to be adapted immediately to better support Canadian content producers in order to level the playing field.

Implementing the changes in Bill C-10 would quickly produce clear and concrete impacts. Let me give an example. By creating a new category of broadcasting under the online broadcasting category, Bill C-10 could lead to increasing contributions to Canadian music and stories by as much as $830 million by 2023. This is excellent news for our Canadian cultural sector.

Let me speak about diversity. In addition to levelling the playing field between the traditional broadcasting services and the web giants, by ensuring that web giants contribute to the creation, production and distribution of Canadian stories and music, this bill would also reflect where Canadian society is in 2020. The new regulatory framework outlined in Bill C-10 is focused on building a more inclusive cultural sector as part of the larger goal of building a more inclusive Canada.

Supporting diversity and inclusion is essential, and that it is exactly what Bill C-10 would do. Anglophones, francophones, racialized Canadians and Canadians of diverse ethnicities, socio-economic statuses, abilities, sexual orientations, gender identities and expressions all deserve to be represented in our cultural sector. I cannot stop myself from thinking about all the kids out there, including my own brown-skinned South Asian children, who are watching shows and dreaming of their future. They have to know that their dreams can come true and they can achieve everything that they want. Seeing people who look like them in the shows that they watch is undoubtedly important. I know this as a parent. I know this as a racialized parliamentarian.

We know that representation is a key step to reaching better inclusion of marginalized groups. The logic that applied when we decided to put Viola Desmond on the $10 bill to ensure that all Canadians, including Black Canadians, could see themselves represented in our institutions, also applies here in the cultural sector. The more Canadians who can see themselves reflected in our cultural sector, be they religious or racial minorities or others, the better we are as a nation.

I want to also highlight the importance of improved support for indigenous cultures in our broadcasting sector. During the last Parliament, I was privileged to be asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage. In that role at that time, I had the chance to work on co-developing with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders Canada's first ever Indigenous Languages Act. The work I did on Bill C-91 in the last Parliament deeply shaped my own understanding of the need to protect indigenous cultures and languages in order to empower first nations, Inuit and Métis people on Turtle Island.

By including concrete measures in this bill to better reflect indigenous cultures in Canada, Bill C-10 will contribute to that work of the revitalization of indigenous languages by ensuring that indigenous children have access to cultural content in their languages. Let me emphasize that Bill C-10 would have a real impact on the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages and cultures, which is fundamental to reconciliation.

I am also pleased to see that the broadcasting system will be adapted to the needs of persons with disabilities. There is a lot of work ahead of us in order to build a more inclusive Canada for people living with disabilities. Ensuring that programming on TV, radio and online is accessible without barriers to persons with disabilities is a step in the right direction.

When I speak about my riding of Parkdale—High Park, I know that promoting arts and culture is a very important issue not only for my riding, but indeed for all Canadians. I want to highlight, for example, that just last week Warren P. Sonoda was elected president of the Director's Guild of Canada. I had the opportunity to work with Warren on important roles when I was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage. I am thrilled to see what he will accomplish while holding that position. I want to credit the work by outgoing former DGC president, Tim Southam.

My riding of Parkdale—High Park is known for many people like Warren and Tim. It is known for great artists, wonderful creators and important film and TV producers. I am speaking for example of Dave Forget, currently on the national executive team for the Director's Guild, having previously worked for 14 years at Telefilm. He has spent most of his life working in the film industry, and I am proud to call him a constituent.

Additionally, professor Chris Romeike in my riding did the cinematography on the recent movie The Inconvenient Indian, which was based on Thomas King's bestseller. It explores the cultural colonization of indigenous peoples in North America and was deemed by the producers of TIFF as the one must-see film at TIFF this year.

I want to congratulate so many people: Paul Barkin, Mary Young Leckie, John Turner, David Makin, Alain Zweig, Jasmin Mozaffari and Ali Kazimi, for all of their important and award-winning work and contributions to the film and TV sectors. Ferne Downey, who was mentioned in the context of the previous speech, is my constituent. She was previously the head of ACTRA and is now the head of the International Federation of Actors.

I could keep going much longer, but I will mention one last person: Jeff Churchill, of Jitterbug Boy, an original footwear company in my riding whose shoes are being made for a variety of shows such as the upcoming Batman film. What is important about that last reference is that when we support the Canadian cultural centre, we are also supporting all of the derivative economic benefits that come from supporting film, TV and our content creators. That is what Bill C-10 will enable us to do by better funding the sector and levelling that playing field. This is a critical piece of legislation.

We know that financial support for Canadian content will decline as the revenues of traditional radio and television broadcasters continue to decrease. Bill C-10 is the first step in aiming to fully modernize the broadcasting system in Canada to ensure that both traditional and online broadcasting contribute to the Canadian broadcasting system. Our Canadian producers deserve to be operating in a fair situation where the rules are equal for everyone. Allowing the CRTC more powers to modernize the regulatory framework is important, by imposing more regulations on online broadcasters, as is simultaneously ensuring the regulatory independence of the CRTC.

In conclusion, as I have outlined, Bill C-10 is about ensuring fair and equitable treatment between traditional and online broadcasters. It is about better representation of Canadian society in our cultural sector. I am incredibly proud of our Canadian cultural sector, and in particular the role it is playing in buoying Canadian spirits and easing Canadian anxieties during the COVID-19 pandemic. I know that with the right tools, our Canadian creators will continue to keep producing terrific Canadian content for years to come. Bill C-10 is one of the tools we need to maintain our support for Canadian creators. The work of passing it should not be a partisan issue, nor should it be delayed. We cannot afford to wait 30 more years before modernizing the act. The time to act is now.

Citizenship Act

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that I am speaking from the traditional homeland of the Dene, Métis and Inuvialuit of the Northwest Territories.

I am of Métis descent. I am a member of the Dehcho First Nations. We are known as the “big river” people. I believe I am the only sitting member who attended the residential school program, or the hostel program as we knew it.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in support of the government’s bill that would revise the oath of citizenship. It continues our government’s important work to walk the shared path of reconciliation and the implementation of the TRC's calls to action.

I would like to point to a number of key legislative initiatives that address calls to action and advance reconciliation.

Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, received royal assent in June 2019. This act supports the Government of Canada’s efforts to reclaim, revitalize, strengthen and maintain indigenous languages in Canada. The act was developed to address calls to action numbers 13, 14 and 15; elements of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or UNDRIP; and the Government of Canada’s commitment to a renewed relationship with indigenous people based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

That same month, in June 2019, royal assent was given to Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. It came into force on January 1, 2020. This act was codeveloped as part of Canada’s efforts to reform indigenous child and family services, which included implementing call to action number 4. It affirms the rights of first nations, Inuit, and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services and establishes national principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, which help guide the provision of indigenous child and family services.

The act was the result of extensive engagement with first nations, Inuit and Métis, treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provincial and territorial governments, and those with lived experience, including elders, youth and women. It reaffirms the government’s commitment to advancing self-determination and eliminating existing disparities between indigenous and non-indigenous children and youth.

The act also lays out flexible pathways for indigenous governing bodies to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace they choose. Through the act’s legislative framework, they can move forward with their own service delivery models and laws and choose their own solutions for their children and families. It ensures indigenous children are cared for in the right way, with connections to their communities, cultures and languages. Furthermore, since January 1, 2020, every service provider, province or territory delivering child and family services to indigenous children and families will need to follow the minimum standards found in the act.

Bill C-5, an act to amend the Bills of Exchange Act, the Interpretation Act and the Canada Labour Code regarding a national day for truth and reconciliation, was introduced by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on September 29, 2020. If passed, this bill will be an important step in responding to call to action number 80 by establishing the national day for truth and reconciliation on September 30 as a statutory holiday for federally regulated workers. This national day would honour survivors, their families and communities. It would also remind the public of the tragic and painful history and legacy of residential schools that remains a vital component of the reconciliation process.

The Government of Canada continues to work closely with partners to address the remaining calls to action.

In June 2019, the government received the final report from the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, entitled “Reclaiming Power and Place”. It responded to call to action number 41, which called for the launch of a public inquiry into the disproportionate victimization of indigenous women and girls.

Furthermore, the Government of Canada is committed to gender equality and reconciliation with indigenous peoples, and has eliminated all the remaining sex-based inequalities in the Indian Act registration provisions, which go back to its inception 150 years ago. We committed to eliminating all sex-based discrimination in the Indian Act registration, and we delivered on that promise.

Bringing Bill S-3 into force also responds to the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls calls to justice and provides justice to women and their descendants, who fought for these changes for decades. We will continue with partners and other levels of government to respond to the findings of the national inquiry and to this national tragedy.

In closing, I reiterate that the government is determined to address the historical, colonial racism and injustice of yesterday, just as we are determined to root out and expose the racism of today. As Canadians have seen all too clearly during this difficult time, racism, both systemic and social, continues to be all too prevalent in our country. It must not and cannot be tolerated, for that, too, is part of the healing process, just as this bill is part of the healing process.

This bill represents progress on the shared path to healing and reconciliation. It responds to concerns expressed in the final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. It points the way to a more inclusive Canada. Moreover, by amending the oath of citizenship, it represents greater awareness and answers call to action 94.

I am pleased to offer my full support of the bill before us.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I really do believe that the tabling of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.... The legislation that is on the floor, the bill that has passed through the House of Commons, Romeo Saganash's bill, unfortunately got held up in the Senate. I hope that we will be able to table that this fall. Minister Lametti is just finishing the engagements that are necessary to do that in the technical advisory committee, and we look forward to doing that.

As you know, the UN declaration was part of Bill C-91 on languages, part of Bill C-92 on child and family. We are already acknowledging how important that declaration is for us to be able to move forward, and to explain to people that the UN declaration is not scary; this is the way forward for certainty.

Bills of Exchange Act

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting day listening to speeches. I worked last night on this intervention. It is challenging, in the sense of my background and culture.

It takes me back to the heritage committee when we dealt with this topic, and my understanding and knowledge were lacking. We depended on the witnesses to inform, explain and educate us. Were they all on the same page? No, there were differences of opinion about which day, indigenous day, orange shirt day. We heard opinions about more important things that should be done. It was interesting to listen as they brought it to us at that committee.

By the way, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Fredericton.

The bill has now been returned to the House. The goal of this legislation is extremely important, with the reconciliation with indigenous people as the national objective. The residential school is a dark chapter in Canadian history. I did not live it. My family did not live it, but I have visited Siksika Nation, which is in my riding. It is the second largest nation in the country. On that nation there were two residential schools run by two different Christian faiths. One school is gone. The other school is still there. I visited those places with elders. Where the school is gone, there is what they believe to be an unmarked graveyard with no recognition but memories of who went there and never came home.

The other one that is still standing is now called Old Sun Community College. The building has been refitted, changed and provides programs that suit the times that are needed now. As I walked through that building with an elder, there were parts of that building she would go through and parts she would not. She remembered some horrific things in that building, like the day her sister fell three storeys and landed at her feet and it killed her. That should not have happened, but it did. I cannot remember that because it is not part of my background, but I could listen to an elder tell me that story. The story of when she was six years old and would go to school and escape and go home. Her parents would be horrified that she was there, because they knew the Indian agent would soon arrive at the door threatening to take away anything that they had unless she was returned to school. That is not part of my memory, but it is part of my learning.

The bill is important and we are putting the onus on 5% of the population to teach us. Is that the way to do it? We have adults in this country who do not have this education or the opportunity. The town of Strathmore has done phenomenal work with the Siksika Nation. Many students from both communities, Siksika and Strathmore, go to that school. The drama teacher in that school wrote a phenomenal play called New Blood. It is put on by high school students from Strathmore and Siksika. It needs to be seen far and wide because it would educate adults.

I have visited our National Arts Centre, which now has two indigenous employees, but it has no money. I want the play to come to Ottawa. We need adults educated. As mentioned many times in the House, education is a critical piece. However, it is not just for students, it is for adults as well. I have watched that play and seen what the adults learned from it. It is put on by indigenous and non-indigenous students working together to produce a fantastic story of reconciliation with history in it.

Today, as I look at the notes I had and listen to the members, I look at the structure of, for example, Siksika.

Members can look at what the federal governments, provincial governments and municipal governments are responsible for, but do they understand what a municipal government, supposedly, at the band level does? Siksika Nation's council takes care of the roads and the sewer and the water, when it works, if it works, if it is there, but they are also responsible for education in their nation and they are responsible for health. There is a whole broad range of things they are responsible for, and we, as an adult country, do not understand the challenges that level of government has and the responsibilities it has. We do not know that unless we take the time to learn.

How are we going to learn it? Are we putting the onus of this bill on 5% of the population, without resources, to teach the rest of us? That is not going to work.

We have a piece of legislation that should be approved. I totally agree that it should be approved. However, where is the backup, in the sense of what the responsibility is to get the education for this to the population? I am not talking about schoolchildren; I am talking about the adult population. Where is it? We are now putting a heavy debt back on the indigenous people to educate the rest of us by saying, “You've got a day”.

I totally agree with the day. On Siksika reserve, one of the councillors led a walk from those unmarked graves at the school, which is gone, across the nation to the other school. That is an education those people understand. They are walking those footpaths. They are walking the footpaths that their elders walked when they went back and forth. We were not there. We do not know that path. We have to learn it, or this just becomes another holiday, which is wrong. We cannot let this slip into another holiday, yet we are putting the onus on the indigenous people to do it. We are naming it. I am a person who is not of that culture. It is not my history.

I remember when we passed the indigenous languages bill, Bill C-91, at the heritage committee. We had many witnesses come, and the ones I liked the best were the ones who said, “How is the money going to get to our school kids so we can keep our heritage and our culture with our language?”

I made amendments at that committee, and they did not pass. I wanted the money to go directly to the school level, just like the federal government does with the gas tax, which goes directly to the municipality. We bypass the other people and it gets done. I wanted the money to go to the indigenous communities and their schools. That is not where it went. It went to the three major organizations in this country. The leadership of Siksika Nation asked me about this legislation and the money. I said to ask the government and to ask their indigenous organizations where it is. Where is it? They are not preserving their language; they are not getting the money.

We have to work at the grassroots level, just like the indigenous people understand they need to do with their language. They need to get into their schools and teach their own children their languages to keep their cultures. It is an oral culture. They have passed many things on orally. It is a story culture, from elders to generation to generation, but they are not getting the money.

My fear is that we will pass this and we will have a day of recognition. They will be proud to have it, but will the 95% of the rest of Canadians have a clue? That is my fear.

Judges Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, definitely I will tell the member what happened when it came to the Senate delay.

It was coming to May of that year and the government woke up and realized that it had passed the least legislation of any government before it. It decided to put a slew of things in. We had Bills C-91, C-92, C-93 and a whole bunch of them come in. The Senate has a protocol where they have to address government business first, before private members' business, which this was at the time. That is what happened there.

I assure the member that the Conservative senators are on the page and absolutely believe that we need to do something to address sexual assault in this country, and will support this bill as well as others that take that measure.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

I thank the member opposite for her question and advocacy in this matter.

As she well knows, in the last mandate we adopted a new bill, the Indigenous Languages Act, to help save, promote and foster indigenous languages and the revitalization of those languages. We are doing so in partnership with indigenous communities across the country and we will continue to do so, Mr. Chair.

Supplementary Estimates (A)

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Chair, I must confess I am having some difficulty seeing the member opposite on the other side of the House. It is much more comforting to have her here, although she does keep us quite heavily to account, as people paying attention can clearly hear.

The member will have noticed, and underlining her point is the fact that the national action plan is not a static document. Vote 10 in particular has $6 million appropriated to continue engagement with members, including families and subscribers, for the calls to justice.

The member will also have noted last week that we announced $40 million for 10 new shelters across Canada. This is not a static document.

I will take the time to also say that this is not a federal document. This is a document that involves input from provinces, from territories and, most importantly, from indigenous peoples who guide the way forward as to how we move forward as a nation. The funding response is one element. We did not wait to do so.

There is a legislative response that is embodied in Bill C-91 on indigenous languages and in Bill C-92 on child and family services. These are all part of what we call a whole-of-government approach, but underscoring that, more important should be the fact that this is about keeping people safe and keeping the most vulnerable people, indigenous women and children, safe in our country as we move forward. Again, the document is not a static document. It will be a guide for how we move forward as a nation.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you for the question. I'll go to the throne speech first.

This is the first time ever in the history of Canada that there is a whole chapter dedicated to indigenous people's issues. In that throne speech, there is strong reference to the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That was number one, because if that's implemented, that will create economic stability and economic certainty right across every province and territory. Then there is talk of a treaty commissioner, because we have 634 reserves or first nations across Canada, over 60 different nations or tribes, over a million people, but we have a treaty relationship through sharing the land. This is a lot of land first nations people are sharing with 37 million people called Canadians now. We're sharing land and resources, so the treaty commissioner to implement with the “spirit and intent” was a key piece.

Then there was C-91 on languages and C-92 on child welfare. Then we had the implementation of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and then youth suicide. There was mental health talked about in the throne speech. We are seven times the national average for youth suicide. Then as well there was that the infrastructure gap would be closed by 2030. That's investments in housing, water, infrastructure, all those things—huge things. If the throne speech can be implemented, that will be huge.

In terms of what this government is doing and how we communicate, we communicate to the 634 bands through our newsletters, our updates, our websites and our communiqués. That's what we're doing from the Assembly of First Nations' side. We have constant chiefs committees. We also have a chiefs committee and a COVID task force in place to deal with this. We have the systems in place, no question, but there's lots of work to do post-COVID-19 to kick-start the economy. People on this call should know that first nations have contributed lots through our treaty relationship with the Crown. That's a a lot of land across Canada and a lot of resource bases that have been shared to help develop the GDP and the overall economic growth here in Canada.

That's my comment. Thank you.

Citizenship Act

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to acknowledge that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation.

The story of indigenous peoples in Canada has a history that stretches far into the past, well before the arrival of European newcomers to Canada.

Indigenous people have a fundamental role in Canada's past and are a strong pillar of our society. These are words people will hear at many citizenship ceremonies across Canada. Taking the oath of citizenship is a vital step in the process of becoming a Canadian citizen. It is recited as the final step to becoming a Canadian citizen. During the ceremony, participants accept the rights and responsibilities of citizenship by taking the oath of citizenship, after which they become a Canadian citizen and receive a certificate of citizenship.

I have had the privilege of attending many citizenship ceremonies in Surrey and welcoming new groups of Canadians to this great land. This bill is particularly important in Surrey where the largest urban indigenous population in British Columbia lives and welcomes new Canadian neighbours who have made their home in the city. It is important for both new Canadians and those who are born here to learn about indigenous peoples and their history.

Bill C-6, an act to amend the Citizenship Act regarding the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's call to action number 94, proposes to change Canada's oath of citizenship to include clear reference to the Constitution, which recognizes and affirms the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis people.

The proposed amendment to the oath reflects the Government of Canada's commitment to reconciliation and a renewed relationship with indigenous peoples based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. The proposed amendment is part of the government's ongoing response to the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The changes are an important and necessary step in advancing Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation and strengthening the country's valued relationship with indigenous peoples in Canada.

The government's proposed amendment of the citizenship oath would allow new Canadians to fully appreciate and respect how indigenous peoples are an important part of Canada's history and identity. The new citizenship oath would also reflect our expectations that new Canadians demonstrate an understanding of indigenous peoples and their constitutional rights.

There is no relationship that is more important to the Government of Canada than the one with indigenous peoples. Together, Canada and indigenous peoples are continuing to forge a renewed relationship based on the recognition of rights, trust, respect and a true spirit of co-operation. That is why across the country Canada and indigenous peoples are working together to close the quality-of-life gap between indigenous and non-indigenous people.

Important progress has been made. The last three budgets have provided $16.8 billion in new funding for indigenous peoples, an increase in planned spending in 2020-21 of 34% over 2015, but there is still much work to do. Budget 2019 represents the next step in the ongoing path towards reconciliation and a better future for indigenous peoples and everyone.

This bill is especially important to me as I sat on CIMM, the citizenship and immigration committee, for four years, and in this Parliament, I currently sit on the international trade committee. For the first time in any of Canada's free trade agreements, a general exception was incorporated to ensure the government is able to fulfill its legal obligations to indigenous peoples in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and other self-government agreements.

Consultation with indigenous communities during the CUSMA negotiations was one of Canada's top priorities. To make sure that indigenous people's trade interests would be protected, the CUSMA includes language that recognizes the importance of more engagement with indigenous peoples.

The CUSMA preserves Canada's traditional reservations, exceptions and exclusions in multiple areas, including cross-border trade in services and investments, natural resources, the environment, and state-owned enterprises. By promoting indigenous entrepreneurship and business, the government will help first nations, Inuit and Métis people fully contribute to and share in Canada's economic success. This is a critical part of advancing reconciliation and self-determination.

All children in Canada deserve a real, fair chance to reach their full potential no matter where they live. By continuing to work collaboratively with first nations and Inuit partners, the government is working to eliminate barriers to accessing quality health care and culturally relevant social supports that children need to succeed. Distinctions-based funding for post-secondary education will also help first nation, Inuit and Métis students better access post-secondary education and succeed during their studies.

The government is also taking action to help communities reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages and sustain important cultural traditions and histories. This includes the passing of Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act, last year, which protects 90 living indigenous languages spoken in Canada.

While the path to reconciliation is long, the government will continue to walk with first nations, Inuit and Métis people in its actions and interactions. As I mentioned, the proposed changes to the oath we are talking about today are an important and necessary step in advancing Canada's broader agenda for reconciliation with indigenous peoples in Canada. It demonstrates to new Canadians, and in fact to all Canadians, deep respect for indigenous peoples and recognizes that the histories of first nations, Inuit and Métis people are a vital part of Canada's fabric and identity.

[Daniel Wilson, Special Advisor, Research and Policy Coordination, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to speak with the committee today as we meet on the unceded territory of the Algonquin nation.

The Assembly of First Nations has developed a submission reflecting a broad range of investments that would support the participation of first nations in the economy. I believe it has been distributed to members. My thanks to the clerk.

As we have noted with this committee in the past, closure of just the education and employment outcome gaps between first nations and other Canadians would provide an additional 1.5% to Canada's gross domestic product. Among the investments set out in the document we have provided, I'd like to highlight four priorities that I believe could provide the greatest return on investment, with each of these moves forward a shared priority of first nations and the Government of Canada, building on important work already done and being done.

The first is the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, passed by the previous Parliament. The revitalization of first nations languages is a key step in reversing one effect of Canada's former residential school policy—the erasure of our languages. Knowledge of one's language also leads to better educational attainment and supports better employment prospects, part of that GDP growth to which I alluded earlier. The investments detailed in our handout were calculated by former associate deputy minister of finance Don Drummond, and take into account the investment made in budget 2019.

The second priority I'd highlight is similarly about implementing legislation passed in the previous Parliament, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families. Again, the roots of that legislation lay in our colonial history and the failure to provide adequate care to first nations children. The important step of recognizing the jurisdiction of first nation governments through legislation is most welcome, but that jurisdiction needs financial support. The investment called for in our submission will support implementing first nations' jurisdiction. It would result in fewer children in the system and reduce the social costs of the damage being done to them currently. Those reduced social costs will be joined, once again, by better outcomes for first nation citizens and concomitant benefits to Canada's economy.

The third area I would like to highlight is housing. Regional Chief Picard of the Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador spoke to this in this committee yesterday, so I will use this time solely to augment his remarks. I would point out that the investment called for in our submission would also give effect to one of the simplest and most concrete recommendations from the inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women and girls that this government conducted over the previous Parliament. As that inquiry reported, lacking suitable housing alternatives, young women move out of their communities and find themselves in environments that are not secure and that expose them to harm. This investment can prevent that vulnerability and save lives.

In addition, it is well established that the ability to function at both school and work is dependent on the quality of housing. Committee members can easily imagine how difficult it is to function at school or work the next morning when upwards of 20 people are sharing a three-bedroom house, as is too often the case in first nation communities. Addressing this need will reduce social costs and provide benefits to the greater Canadian economy through enhanced productivity.

The final priority I'd like to bring to the committee's attention is governance funding. The Assembly of First Nations welcomes the unprecedented investments made by the current government over the past four budgets. The investment in governance detailed in our submission will increase the return on investments made to date and any that may come in the future. Every government requires strong governance systems in order to make efficient and effective use of the resources at their disposal. First nation governments are no exception.

Funding for first nations governance has not risen by more than 2% in any year since 1997, thus failing to keep up with inflation, let alone other cost drivers. As a result, current funding for first nation governance amounts to just over 3% of spending, whereas most governmental organizations operate in the 10% to 15% range of expenditures. This is simply unsustainable for our governments. The investment outlined in our submission would provide for institutional development; the creation and functioning of shared service organizations; recruitment and retention of qualified staff; and the strengthening of financial management, human resource, and IT systems, and all other essential governance structures required to run an effective and efficient government. By investing in good governance, first nations are able to make better use of the resources available to them.

Canada and first nations share a desire to increase self-determination for first nations, as we agree that this, above all else, will improve the quality of life of first nations' citizens. However, jurisdiction, without the fiscal capacity to exercise that jurisdiction, is hollow. This investment in governance funding could be the most important step that Canada can take to support the important work that first nations and Canada are engaged in together.

First nations' priorities are Canada's priorities. The return on investment is clear and benefits us all.

I look forward to your questions.

Thank you. Wela'lioq.

[Chief Ghislain Picard, Assembly of First Nations Quebec-Labrador]

[Witness spoke in Innu-aimun]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and distinguished members of the finance committee.

I certainly want to acknowledge the Anishinabe nation, since we are their guest today on their unceded traditional territory.

I’d like to start by thanking the committee for this last-minute invitation. In particular, I’d like to thank the Bloc Québécois for the opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance. It means that the voices of Quebec’s first nations and Inuit communities can be heard when it comes to important issues that concern our region.

The Assembly of First Nations Quebec–Labrador, or AFNQL, is a regional consultation body made up of the Chiefs’ Assembly as well as a political and administrative office. The assembly is composed of the chiefs from the 43 communities of the first nations of Quebec and Labrador, and represents a total of 10 nations: Abenaki, Algonquin, Atikamekw, Eeyou—or Cree—Innu, Huron-Wendat, Maliseet, Mi’kmaq, Mohawk and Naskapi.

The Chiefs-in-Assembly elect the AFNQL chief for a three-year mandate. I am the elected chief, and I was re-elected in January 2019. The Chiefs-in-Assembly created a regional body to assist and support the regions, which includes regional administrative organizations for all the first nations. They are the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission; the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Economic Development Commission; the First Nations Education Council; the Institut Tshakapesh, an institute for the Innu nation of eastern Quebec; the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Sustainable Development Institute; the First Nations Human Resources Development Commission of Quebec; and finally, the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Youth Network, which ensures representation of a vital group, youth.

The contribution of the AFNQL and its commissions is intended to benefit, first and foremost, Quebec and Labrador’s first nations governments. Given how closely connected our network is, we are in the best position to provide direct support to our communities. Despite that closeness, there is a need for strategic investment in knowledge building, an area where we can make an even greater contribution to all first nations governments, as well as to the federal and provincial governments.

Our interdependence supports the case for key investments that will have a positive impact on the health determinants of our population. I want to stress that the issues facing first nations are transpartisan. While we have a collective responsibility to improve the long-neglected living conditions and welfare of Canada’s first nations, we above all have a duty to give our children, our youth and our families a future with dignity. And that dignity will only come once full and total self-determination has been achieved.

An area where the neglect is most visible is housing. It’s an area where key investment is needed. In the year 2000, the state of housing was deemed a crisis. Today, 20 years later, nothing has changed: we still face a housing crisis. The underfunding of the first nations housing sector in Quebec is alarming. The population is growing, the sector is underfunded, and the gap between needs and actual construction is widening. The links between housing and other spheres of society have been demonstrated. Investing massively in first nations housing would contribute to reducing the social problems observed, while benefiting all partners seeking to stimulate economic and social development.

Over the years, federal budget allocations have not kept pace with needs. On average, between 225 and 250 housing units are added to the communities’ housing stock each year. Existing federal programs meet less than 15% of on-reserve housing needs. In a 2019 analysis, the AFNQL estimated that an investment of $3.9 billion was needed over 10 years—in other words, $390 million per year—to build new units, renovate, repair and decontaminate existing units, and service land in order to address the current backlog and respond to the growth of first nations households and families.

The federal government must help first nations develop and manage new regional housing entities accountable to first nations for managing housing and related infrastructure programs.

Child and family services is another key sector—and this is not in order of priority. An act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families received royal assent on June 21, 2019 and came into force on January 1, 2020. Sustainable and predictable federal funding over the long term to implement the act is paramount if we are to exercise our inherent right to self-determination and self-government.

It will be essential to establish a regional authority to support communities and organizations wishing to develop their law. This will involve legal and technical aspects, negotiations and any other costs related to the full implementation of this new law and the creation of an independent entity to advocate for children's services.

The current annual budget for child and family services in Quebec ranges from $100 million to $105 million, $50 million of which covers child placement. This is the minimum required, and more accurate cost estimates using tangible data will need to be established.

Education is another key sector. The first nations policy proposal to transform first nations education was adopted by resolution by the Chiefs-in-Assembly and cabinet in 2019. It calls on the minister to take the necessary steps to strengthen first nations elementary and secondary education through regional models that provide adequate, predictable and sustainable funding, while promoting good student outcomes.

Now I'll turn to public safety. It's impossible not to mention the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls or the Public Inquiry Commission on relations between Indigenous Peoples and certain public services in Québec, known as the Viens commission, which calls into question public authorities in relation to the safety and security of first nations women. That safety and security hinges on the development and implementation of a legislative framework that recognizes first nations policing as an essential service, with equitable funding and capacity support. It is essential that robust and culturally appropriate policing services for local first nations governments be adequately funded.

On a regional scale, the funding needs are as follows: $200 million over five years to enhance and expand first nations policing services; $50 million over five years to modernize safety infrastructure in first nations communities; and $50 million over five years to create safety and security programs for first nations communities.

Impossible to overlook, indigenous languages are another key area of focus. First nations want to ensure the survival of their ancestral languages, in accordance with the UN guidelines set out in the resolution proclaiming 2019 the International Year of Indigenous Languages.

Bill C-91 gave rise to the Indigenous Languages Act, which seeks to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages in Canada. It received royal assent on June 21, 2019, and funding is necessary to implement the act.

Lastly, I'd like to mention an extremely important issue. On January 21, we found out that the number of indigenous inmates, especially women and youth, had hit a historic high; they account for 30% of the federal inmate population.

We have to talk about justice. The federal government must act swiftly to end the overrepresentation of indigenous people, youth and adults alike, in the criminal justice system. That's what Minister David Lametti indicated in a letter to the Assembly of First Nations Quebec–Labrador on April 1, 2019, and that is our position as well.

The First Nations of Quebec and Labrador Health and Social Services Commission conducted a study culminating in the report entitled “Portrait of the Criminalization of the First Nations in Quebec: Providing Impetus for Change”. The findings are troubling. First nations populations are decidedly more criminalized, primarily those under the age of 25. The rate of criminalization is five to six times higher in first nations communities than in all of Quebec. Adequate funding of justice initiatives and community justice programs such as justice committees in our communities can only result in a reduced prosecution rate of our members.

The justice committees already in existence in our communities are underfunded because there has been no increase in the federal budget since 2008. In addition, it is important to consider that the provincial budget is also capped. The lack of resources—causing inadequate working conditions—in the existing justice centres in our communities is at such an unacceptable and unsustainable level that it impedes the exercise of our right to develop our own justice systems.

I would say more, but I will leave it at that for now.

Thank you.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

To all the distinguished members of the committee, I'm very happy to be here acknowledging you all as friends and relatives. I also acknowledge the Algonquin peoples for hosting this on their ancestral lands. For me, from our AFN, I'm happy to be here.

I want to share some perspectives. I'm very honoured to speak here on behalf of the Assembly of First Nations regarding Bill C-100. I'll also say a few words about the process to negotiate, ratify and implement the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement.

Trade in resources and goods in this land, I always say, began with us, the indigenous peoples. The participation now in 2019 in international trade should not be seen merely as part of history. Going forward, how do we get more involved?

As self-determining peoples, we have interests and rights respecting today's international trade agreements. We've always said that for far too long we have not seen the benefits from international trade flow to our businesses or to our communities as first nations people. These facts should form a part of legal and political frameworks when Canada explores new free trade agreements. I've always said, from a first nations perspective in Canada, that whenever Canada goes out to negotiate or discuss anything from softwood lumber to trees, anything from potash in southern Saskatchewan, to uranium in the north or any oil, coal, or whatever natural resource it is, indigenous peoples should be involved and should be participating, because there's respect or reference that we still have unextinguished aboriginal title and rights to the land and territory and resources. It's a simple fact. So we need to be involved.

When Canada, through Minister Chrystia Freeland, welcomed me to be on the NAFTA advisory committee, it was very important, because to date, indigenous peoples haven't been involved. We also had indigenous officials working as part of the working group. In the end, we'll say that this work resulted in the most inclusive international trade agreement for indigenous peoples to date. It's not perfect, but to date it's the best that we have in Canada.

With the ratification of the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement, we would take a step to making international trade more aware of and more equitable in its treatment of indigenous peoples, and especially for indigenous women entrepreneurs. We still have more work to do.

We believe the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a step in the right direction with the new general exception for indigenous rights with respect to inherent and aboriginal and treaty rights. As well, with specific preferences to carve out procurement benefits and other opportunities for indigenous businesses and service providers, there's also a promise of future co-operation to enhance indigenous businesses. As well, importantly, the investor-state dispute settlement process, which was a threat to indigenous people's rights, will be phased out for Canada. This is the groundwork for positive change.

While the Canada-United States-Mexico agreement is a new example of the difference it makes to engage with indigenous peoples at an early stage, there must be increased opportunities for first nations participation not only in international trade negotiations but also in trade missions.

Canada should extend an official role to first nations in negotiations of all international agreements on trade and investments that impact inherent treaty aboriginal rights. This would better reflect the nation-to-nation relationship and the whole-of-government commitment by Canada to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In addition, the inclusion of first nations leads to better decisions and better outcomes.

With regard to Bill C-100, what I'm recommending to all the committee members here is that there should be in place a non-derogation clause. It's a safe clause, that nothing in this agreement will affect existing aboriginal treaty rights, which are affirmed in section 35 of Canada's Constitution. I'm making that recommendation as well as that it be interpreted and implemented consistent with those rights in section 35. It's good to have it ratified by Canada, the United States and Mexico on one hand, but each nation-state will come back and do some sort of legislation with the implementation. That's the piece we're looking at making the recommendation on. I'm not advising that we open up the agreement; no, leave it the way it is, but move in tandem with the other two countries to get it ratified. We have to be careful to be not too fast and not too slow, because if one of the three countries doesn't get it ratified, the deal is not going to be implemented.

It's not just that international trade and investment agreements can impact our rights, but also how the agreement is implemented through domestic regulatory and policy matters. That has to be looked at. Once the agreement is ratified, we must work together to realize the economic gains and ensure the provisions related to indigenous peoples in international trade agreements are implemented in a manner that brings greater economic equity to first nations peoples.

The first area where indigenous peoples can see the benefits from this agreement is government procurement. Procurement is always a big thing. Everybody says this should be easy, that it's low-hanging fruit. Canada must move from policies and objectives to mandatory requirements for procuring goods and services from first nations businesses. The Assembly of First Nations is ready to work with Canada to make sure we develop legislation together for social procurement that benefits first nations and other indigenous peoples.

The only other thing I'd like to share here before concluding is there are three or four very important bills we want to see passed before this week is up. Bill C-91 on languages, Bill C-92 on child welfare, and two private members' bills, Bill C-262 and Bill C-337, all need to be passed. If in the event the legislature is called back, those should form the priority. But we're hoping and praying that all MPs, all the leadership here on Parliament Hill, will get behind and pass those pieces of legislation as soon as possible.

That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the time.

Access to Information Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, she talked about and was very critical of the Access to Information Act. She was very critical of Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, all of these wonderful pieces of historical legislation that have moved the bar significantly forward.

The other day, we talked about national pharmacare, and the New Democrats asked, what about hearing and all of these other things? We talk about a national housing strategy, and they say we need to have more houses. We could never, ever please the New Democratic Party here. There is no legislation before the House that they would say they agree with it in its entirety and that we have done a good job on.

Does the member opposite not recognize that within this legislation, where there are significant reforms that have been long overdue, over 30 years overdue, along with other pieces of legislation, there are a lot of good things happening? They can say some positive things. Even when I was in opposition, I said positive things at times to the government. It is okay to agree that the legislation is good at times. Would the member not agree?

Bill C-68—Time Allocation Motion

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the Senate there are a number of bills that are so important, just like this exact bill here, Bill C-68. There are also Bill C-88, Bill C-91, Bill C-92, Bill C-93, Bill C-391, Bill C-374, Bill C-369 and Bill CC-262. All these bills are being delayed by the Senate because they are taking far too long.

I was wondering if the hon. minister could tell us why the Conservative senators are delaying all these bills, delaying us from doing the job that Canadians have sent us here to do. They gave us a mandate in 2015, after a decade of darkness with the Conservatives, to repair the damage they had done to the environment and to indigenous communities and to make sure we get this job done.

Can the hon. minister talk a little bit about that, please?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Well, I would have to disagree with that, honourable member.

After the interim report, there was an off-cycle budget for $50 million that included the money for healing, the money for commemoration, the special unit in the RCMP and in policing. There are billions of dollars here in the estimates on housing, and all of the things that are truly moving forward. As I've said before, to me, as a family doctor and as a mother, the changes to child and family services, Bill C-92, are transformational. The fact that once again nations will have jurisdiction over their children and their youth and will no longer be vulnerable, preyed upon, to me, is transformational.

As well, the commission really made strong calls for justice on language. I think that Minister Rodriguez, in Bill C-91, has done important work there. Everything we have done is about changing the relationship, which was a colonized approach, one of paternalism, of disempowerment, to one of empowerment and a real respect for indigenous rights, and a relationship based on respect and partnership and co-operation.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families Act

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Winnipeg Centre for standing in this House and raising a point of privilege to ensure that when it came to indigenous languages, they would be able to be interpreted and heard in this House. When the government took action, he was the first member to stand and share a speech. I was pleased to be able to hear the interpretation and understand what he was saying. I commend the member for knowing the language of his roots and of his foundation.

When it comes to Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, this is legislation that I have had to give notice of time allocation on. When it came to this piece of legislation tonight, it is the first time that I will not have to move time allocation, because the opposition has finally realized it is the right thing to do.

I would like to hear directly from the member what this legislation means to him, and for his roots and for future generations, and why he is pleased that we are moving ahead.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The member spoke in Cree and provided the following translation:]

[Translation]

I want to talk about Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages. There will be a new Commissioner of Indigenous Languages.

What will be your role in the establishment of that office to protect indigenous languages and to ensure they are used in extremely minority situations across Canada?

Resuming debate

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House. I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.

I would also like to acknowledge the many residents of Beauport—Limoilou who are watching this afternoon's proceedings as usual. I would like to thank them for a wonderful riding week last week. I met with several hundred of my constituents, many of whom attended the 17th Beauport business network breakfast. The network is doing very well. We will soon be holding a local press conference to announce that the network is going to have its own independent board of directors. That will give Beauport's business people a strong voice for dialogue with their elected representatives. Back home, I often joke that I am getting my own opposition up and running.

All joking aside, following the three “Alupa à l'écoute” public consultations that I held, I want to tell those watching us today that I will hold a press conference in a few weeks to announce the public policy that I am going to introduce with my leader when we form the government in October. This policy will help seniors return to the labour market, if they so wish, and alleviate the labour shortage.

This evening we are debating the motion moved barely 24 hours ago by the government, which would have us sit until midnight every evening from Monday to Thursday, starting next Monday. The government feels compelled to make up for its complacency over the past few months. It was caught up in several scandals that made the headlines, such as the SNC-Lavalin scandal. It is waking up and realizing that time is passing and it only has 20 days to complete its legislative agenda. There is a sense of panic. Above all, when the session comes to an end, they do not want to be known as the government with the poor legislative track record.

I would like to quickly talk about the government's bills. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles talked about the number of bills the government has passed so far. This time three and a half years ago, in the final weeks of the Conservative term under Mr. Harper, we had more than 82 bills that received royal assent, and five or six other bills on the Order Paper. So far, the Liberals have passed only 48 government bills that have received royal assent, and 17 are still on the agenda. They do not have very many bills on their legislative record.

For three and a half years we have heard their grand patriotic speeches and all the rhetoric that entails. During the election campaign, their slogan was “Real change”, but with so few bills on their legislative record, their slogan rings hollow. What is more, their bills are flawed. Every time their bills are referred to committee, the government has to propose dozens of amendments through its own members, something that is rarely done for government bills.

Next, let us talk about electoral partisanship. The Liberals made big promises to minority groups in Canada. Three and a half years ago, the Prime Minister boasted about wanting to advance reconciliation with indigenous peoples. However, the Liberals waited until just a month before the end of the 42nd Parliament to introduce Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, in the House. Even though the Liberals are always saying that the government's most important relationship is the one it has with first nations, they waited over three and a half years before introducing a government bill on the protection of indigenous languages. I would like to remind members that there are over 77 indigenous languages in Canada. Once again, we see that the Liberals are in a rush and stressed out. They want to placate all of the interest groups that believe in them before October.

What about the leadership of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons? From the start, three and a half years ago, she said that her approach was the exact opposite of the previous government's, which she claimed was harmful. Nevertheless, she forced sixty-some time allocation motions on us. When it came to reforming the rules and procedures, she wanted to significantly reduce the opposition's power.

We want to stand before Canadians and ask questions and bring to light the reason why debates will go until midnight. The reason is that the Liberals were unable to properly complete their legislative agenda and move forward as they should have.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The manners in which the law will be made accessible will be assessed by each indigenous group. Some groups will want their laws made accessible by the minister, but others will not want to have their laws published in the Canada Gazette. A similar memo was proposed in the context of Bill C-91 on indigenous languages, and such a memo was not supported. We will not be supporting that.

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Clause 26 agreed to on division)

(On clause 27)

Extension of Sitting Hours

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to speak to the government motion that would, among other things, extend the hours we would be sitting in this place until we have completed this Parliament on June 21. It would also take away a lot of the tools we have as the opposition to hold the government to account.

As we listened to some of the answers by the government House leader, it is no surprise that in the dying days of the scandal ridden, promise breaking, tax raising and very severely ethically challenged disaster of a Liberal government, we are seeing Liberals use disrespectful, draconian and bully-like mannerisms to get their agenda accomplished.

It was quite interesting and telling when the government House leader was answering questions and referring to a couple of things. First of all, when I asked her about our opposition day and whether she was going to make those days short, she stood and said to my colleague, the House leader for the NDP, as well as to me, that somehow our behaviour earlier in this Parliament was the reason she was going to punish us with shorter days.

That speaks volumes, and not in a positive way, to the utter lack of respect the Liberals, under the leadership of the Prime Minister and the government House leader, have for the work we do in the opposition. We are not doing anything on this side of the House outside of the rules. We are using the rules, mechanisms and the tools we have to hold the government to account. What is the answer from the government to that? It is going to punish the opposition because it can. It is going to punish the opposition by giving us a very short day and not extend our hours of opposition. That answer was very indicative of the attitude of the Liberal government and the Liberal Party in general to this House of Commons and Parliament.

Secondly, when the government House leader was giving answers about debate, she talked about members of Parliament repeating themselves or speaking about partisan issues. She felt that that was when she should tell her members not to speak quite as long and that they should shut down their comments. Are we now in a new day and age when the Liberal House leader will tell duly elected members of Parliament that they should not use all of their time, and that she is going to shut down the opposition as well because she thinks that what we are saying is not relevant and that we are repeating ourselves?

When the Prime Minister appointed the House leader to her position three years ago, a lot of us had concerns because she was a very newly elected MP. She had not been in the House as a backbencher or sat on committees. She had been in her role for I think 70 days or so. She has really done a commendable job in that time with the hand she has been dealt. However, I do believe that with her comments that I mentioned, it is clear that is the message she is getting from the top. That is what she is hearing from the Prime Minister and the people at the top who direct her. She has been told by them to shut the backbenchers down. If members are talking too much on our side, she is to shut them down, as well as do whatever she can to shut down the opposition.

At the end of the day, the Liberals are in charge and are the bosses, so they are going to tell people what to think and members of Parliament what they can and cannot say. If they are talk too much or for too long, or the Liberals think their remarks are repetitive or partisan, because God forbid, Conservatives act like Conservatives and New Democrats act like NDP, they must be shut down. The Liberals are clearly partisan, but the Liberal belief is that if something does not align with what they think, then it must be dismissed and shut down. We have seen that on a number of occasions.

Sadly, the House leader's comments in the last few minutes regarding opposition days and that she is going to punish us, as well as telling her own members not to speak because it would be repetitive, are absolutely unbelievable and a very sad reflection of what we have seen over the last four years.

Now here we are. We have all returned from another May constituency week to another Liberal motion to extend our sitting hours. I have already acknowledged, and will say for the record, that our previous Conservative government did the same thing in 2013 and 2014.

In the last election year, 2015, however, we did not have to extend our sitting hours, because we managed the House in an efficient, respectful way. Stephen Harper's government had a well-managed parliamentary agenda. His House leader, my former colleague, the very well-respected Peter Van Loan, would often remind the House of the ambition to have a hard-working, orderly and productive Parliament. That is what Canadians enjoyed up until the 2015 election.

Since then, things have changed, and they have changed drastically. That change is where the seeds for today's motion were planted. In came a new Prime Minister in late 2015, heavy on charm and light on substance, as it would turn out. One government, ours, with a track record of delivering, was replaced by a government obsessed with something called “deliverology”. Do members remember those days? I think my colleagues opposite were also kind of interested in what deliverology meant and where it was going to take us.

Deliverology was like a lot of things from the government. There are a lot of buzzwords. No matter how many buzzwords the failed Liberal government has repeated, it has conjured up pretty well zero results.

Let us go through some of those buzzwords, because they really are interesting to reflect on. Let us look at what was presented to Canadians, what was advertised and what was actually delivered, which was not as advertised.

Let us begin with the buzzwords “hope” and “hard work”. I am afraid the Liberals put way too much emphasis on a lot of hope and very little emphasis on hard work.

There were some things they worked hard on. The Liberals worked very hard on mastering government by Instagram and Twitter. They worked hard on posturing and, unfortunately, on dividing Canadians. The Liberals worked hard on finding ways to run endless deficits, to the point where it would take decades for the budget to balance itself, as our Prime Minister said. The Liberals have also worked hard on virtue signalling. In fact, they have that one down to an art form.

What about actual hard work and actual accomplishments here in the House of Commons? So far in this Parliament, 48 government bills, other than routine appropriation bills approving spending, have received royal assent, with 17 more passed by the House. Some of these bills were simply matters initiated by us, the previous Conservative government, such as a number of the bills related to the border. Those were bills we initially brought forward.

There were also free trade agreements, such as with the European Union and the Trans Pacific Partnership, as well as bills on victims' rights in the military justice system. Obviously, we agreed with those bills. We basically brought the government to the one yard line, and it took it across the finish line. The Conservatives know that we did the heavy lifting, but we were in agreement with those bills. Those are among the bills the government passed.

These numbers are also in spite of the government regularly using time allocation and relying on omnibus bills, even though that flies in the face of all the sanctimony the Liberals have thrown our way. Let us remember that. Let us remember that during the 2015 election, the Conservatives were preached at by the then-Liberal candidate, soon to be the Prime Minister, about how Parliament was going to be respected. He was not going to use time allocation. The Liberals would not be using omnibus bills, and they would allow parliamentarians to have their say. Let us remember the sanctimony.

By comparison, when the 41st Parliament drew to a close, a total of 95 government bills, other than appropriation bills, had received royal assent. That was under the Conservative government.

The contrast gets no better for the Liberals when it comes to private members' bills. Since the 2105 election, 20 private members' bills have received royal assent. At the close of the previous Parliament, 41 private members' bills had become law. That is why the previous Conservative government was able to claim that it had posted the strongest legislative results in a generation. No matter how many midnight sittings the Liberals plan, they simply will not be able to match our record.

I think of all the time the Liberal government has wasted. I think back to a year and a half ago when the Liberal government tried to bring forward changes to the Standing Orders. Those changes would have given us a four-day work week, when the rest of Canadians work all week long. The Liberals wanted us to get Fridays off. The Liberals wanted to make changes so that the Prime Minister would not have to come and answer questions in this place.

The Liberals wanted to make a number of massive changes, and they fought tooth and nail for them. Thankfully, between the NDP and the Conservatives, we were able to put a halt to that. With the small tools we had that they had not tried to take away, we were able to stop that.

We have seen, again, the lack of hard work on matters of substance that needed to be completed in the House of Commons on the legislative agenda. It never really happened. That is one buzzword we heard.

Here is another buzzword we were all really interested in. That was “Canada is back”. Do members remember that one? Boy oh boy. That one has not turned out well at all.

Right now, under the present Prime Minister, Canada has probably fewer friends than ever. The Prime Minister has managed to tick off and offend just about every one of our major friends and allies. It has been shameful to watch. We know that we will have our work cut out for us when the Conservatives win government in October. We will once again restore respectful, principles-based foreign policy on the world stage so that countries around the world know that they can respect us. They will know that we are not just lecturing them. We will have a relationship with our trusted allies, and we will build on those relationships.

The Liberals first talked a big game on peacekeeping, then they stalled and dithered. Then, when the rubber had to hit the road, they put forward a token effort, limited in time and scale, yet quite dangerous and misaligned with Canada's national interests.

In the NAFTA talks, the Prime Minister capitulated and failed to get Canada a better deal. Instead of negotiating, the Liberals focused on opportunistic leaks, photo ops and sound bites.

The Liberal leader, in the presence of the Japanese Prime Minister, twice mistook him as a representative of China. Do members remember that? That was only a few weeks ago. I am still shocked by that.

Then there was the strident, knee-jerk virtual signalling tweet sparking a diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, with ramifications in a range of areas, including front-line health care in Canada.

Speaking of social media, the Prime Minister's infamous “Welcome to Canada” tweet sparked a massive, unprecedented surge in illegal border crossings into Canada.

In foreign relations, we were told what wonderful doors would open in China for Canada with the arrival of the new Liberal government. Tell that today to canola farmers. Tell that to our pork farmers. Tell that to any number of Canadian businesses, large or small, trying to do business in China. Tell that to individual Canadians who have been harassed by the Chinese government, denied visas, detained and arrested on political grounds.

Of course, there was the Prime Minister's unforgettable trip to India. It was a seven-day trip with half a day of government meetings. Each outfit was more colourful than the last; each development was more embarrassing than the previous one. The Prime Minister spent tens of thousands of dollars flying in a celebrity chef to cook supper, a celebrity chef who happens to be on his hand-picked Senate selection panel.

However, that was hardly the worst. The Prime Minister invited a convicted attempted murderer to hobnob with him at two receptions, and when that was discovered, the fingers started pointing. Wow. Of all the things that happened in the Liberal government, when we look back at the India trip, it was probably one of the most embarrassing for Canadians, not only because of what their Prime Minister did in India but because of the aftermath and the blame that was levelled. It started with it being a backbencher's fault. The Prime Minister threw one of his own backbenchers under the bus. He does that quite often.

Then it was an Indian government plot, then maybe it was someone else. In the end, Daniel Jean announced his retirement. In no circumstance would the Prime Minister fess up and acknowledge that he had blown it and that his office had blown it with a bad decision and bad judgment.

God forbid that the Prime Minister would actually apologize for something he did. He will apologize for all kinds of things, but there have been so many opportunities, as we have seen in the last four years, when he has done things that are wrong, when he has done things that are unethical and when he has done things that are on the borderline of illegal. That remains to be seen. He has fired people. He has treated people disrespectfully. He has done things that have shocked and appalled us.

The India trip was one of those where the Prime Minister could have stood up and said, “I am sorry. I made a mistake. I have issues with bad judgment. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes. All of you are paying for it, but I am human. I err a lot." He should have said that, but no, he did not. Everyone else got the blame.

Saying “Canada is back” really has not panned out very well, has it? It certainly did not help the Liberals advance their agenda here in Parliament.

Let just try another one on for size. How about “Sunny ways, my friends. Sunny ways”? Do members remember that one?

To start with, I think this is one of the things that has disturbed Canadians across the board, even those who voted for the Prime Minister. There were a lot of people, obviously millions of Canadians, who voted for the Prime Minister, believing him, believing his promises, believing that he was a fresh face who was going to do things differently. One of the things that is so frustrating and disappointing is his lack of ability to really embrace diversity. People may wonder how I can say that, because the Prime Minister always says that diversity is our strength. Just like everything with the Prime Minister, he says one thing with his words, but his actions are completely different.

The Prime Minister has very little tolerance for diversity of thought and different opinions. He wants to embrace diversity when it is easy for him and when it might help him score some political points. However, if an individual dares to disagree with him, that is when his real character seems to be exposed.

One of those items became very clear when illegal border crossers started crossing into Canada. There were a lot of concerns. A lot of Canadians, including in my riding, have been doing a wonderful job helping refugees who are coming into this country who need solace, who need protection and who need to be able to be in a country where they can live, worship and raise their families. Canada is welcoming them. We have so many private sponsors and Canadians across the country who are helping them, but there have been concerns raised about people coming across the border illegally. However, the minute these concerns were expressed, the Prime Minister, Prime Minister “Sunny Ways”, began the reckless name-calling, calling people racist, or, as his minister said, “un-Canadian”. It is un-Canadian if someone dares to ask questions of the government.

We will remember the Canada summer jobs attestation, where if one disagreed with the government on matters of conscience, one would not be allowed to have government funding. So much for diversity, again.

We should have seen this from the very early days and early months of this Parliament, when the Prime Minister almost lost a vote, and certainly lost his temper. Everyone will remember, after his legislation to help his friends at Air Canada squeaked through on the Speaker casting a vote, the Liberals proceeded with the draconian and outrageous Motion No. 6. Does everyone remember Motion No. 6? I think we all remember Motion No. 6, an outrageous and scandalous power play to silence the opposition and sideline critics.

In the midst of the uproar over Motion No. 6, the Prime Minister, as everyone will recall, stormed across the floor of the House, jostled some MPs who were slowing down his day and fiercely elbowed one of my colleagues. It was clear then that this was a prime minister who would have his way when he wanted it. We understood those words just recently with respect to the SNC-Lavalin scandal and how the Prime Minister would ensure he would get his way. We saw this tactic coming, foreshadowed by Motion No. 6.

Then, a year later, the government House leader released the so-called discussion paper, which I alluded to earlier, about standing order changes. It was a naked power grab that her colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee were keen to rush through.

I also remember the government noting that committees were free to do what they wanted to do. That has become the biggest punchline around this place. Committees are not free to do what they want to do. They are completely directed by the Prime Minister. We saw that at the procedure and House affairs committee regarding the Standing Orders.

This would have eliminated 20% of question periods, would have the Prime Minister show up once a week, would have silenced the opposition at committees and would have created a new time allocation on steroid procedure. Thanks to the efforts of the opposition, the Liberals would back down some six week later on the worst parts of their proposal. That did not represent a very sunny ways type of government.

With respect to name-calling, I want to mention something particularly disturbing. We heard the finance minister call our deputy leader a “neanderthal” because she dared challenge him on some of the policies he was bringing forward. Then the Prime Minister called her an “ambulance chaser”. I think that was during the time when we were asking why in the world Terri-Lynne McClintic was being moved to a healing lodge. At around that time, the Prime Minister called the Conservatives ambulance chasers.

Not only are the Liberals trying to shut us down in what we do in the House of Commons, but they are trying to shut down Canadians through this name-calling. We have been specifically called names by the Prime Minister, again, with no apologies at all. I think the former attorney general has also been victim to the same kind of thing. She has been accused of things, called names, maligned and has not been able to defend herself. She not only has not received an apology from the Prime Minister, but has not been able to defend herself.

This brings to mind somebody else who needs an apology from the Prime Minister. In all honesty, this man more than anybody deserves an apology from the Prime Minister, and it is Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

All of us on this side are used to these kinds of attacks from the Liberals and the Prime Minister, but not Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, who has served his country with such distinction. Before any charges were even brought against him, the Prime Minister was already saying the issue would go before a court. It looked as if the Prime Minister and the PMO tried to bankrupt him. They accused him of things and put him and his family through such an emotional ordeal. I am sure it affected his family's physical health, financial, mental health and reputation. It is absolutely disgusting to see what the Prime Minister and his minions did to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

I do not like that the Conservatives were called neanderthals and ambulance chasers and that Canadians were called racists and un-Canadian, but above anyone, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman deserves an apology from the Prime Minister. All of us, including those on this side, need to remind the Prime Minister that before he writes up any more apologies to anybody else, for whatever reason he thinks might do him well politically, he needs to apologize to that man, this honourable Canadian. He needs to show the courage that he should have as a prime minister and apologize to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman.

The actions and this attitude reflected in the Liberals' relationship with Parliament have only served the paralyze the House, not facilitate the passage of an agenda. As I said, so much for sunny ways.

I have given a few examples of all these empty gestures and slogans, but I want to highlight a few of them.

The next one is, “better is always possible”. That was another one from the government. After watching how the Liberal government has approached the criminal justice system, I cannot help but think this. After the Liberals leave office, things will get better for Canadians on a lot of fronts. Better will definitely be possible.

For example, the Prime Minister sees the criminal justice system as a toy. We saw the Prime Minister weigh in and condemn a unanimous jury verdict that he did not like in Saskatchewan. However, that was just small potatoes, as we would learn later.

As I said, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman would be charged with the breach of trust. That was his interference in that case. The charge was not a surprise, of course. The Prime Minister had been musing for months, a year actually, that Mark Norman would end up before the courts. How could he have known that?

He had demanded an investigation into an embarrassing leak that some members in the Liberal cabinet were looking to do the bidding of well-connected friends. The RCMP had clear signals from the very top that something must be done. Therefore, once before the courts, the government denied the vice-admiral access to the material he needed to defend himself. He was not even allowed access to his own emails. Things kept getting worse and worse for the Liberals. Finally, a well-respected MP, the Prime Minister's former chief whip, announced he would testify against the government. Days later, the charges were withdrawn.

I refer back to that case because I want to link it to the SNC-Lavalin affair. Even though a lot has been said, again it very much shows the disrespect of the Prime Minister.

In short, the Prime Minister wanted yet another friendly corporation to enjoy the blessings of its well-groomed Liberal connections. Amendments to the Criminal Code, as members will recall, to let SNC-Lavalin off the hook from a trial for foreign corruption and a ban on government contracts were shoved into a mammoth omnibus budget bill, the very thing Liberals swore off, and whisked through Parliament last spring. However, the Liberals were stumped, even though they got this bill passed. The director of public prosecutions was simply not going to do what the Liberals expected her to do.

Therefore, the Prime Minister set all kinds of pressure from various angles upon the former attorney general to get her to overrule the Public Prosecution Service, but she was not going to do it. She said no to the Prime Minister. How dare she, but she did. She said no not only to the Prime Minister, she told the finance minister that he and his staff needed to back off. She told the Prime Minister, his chief of staff and the clerk of the Privy Council, as we all heard on that tape, to back off, that they were interfering.

However, let us remember that the Prime Minister is used to having his way all the time. Some people who feel they are entitled and have never had to go through a hardship in their life and have a lot of privilege are used to getting their way. Clearly, the Prime Minister is one of those. When the former attorney general stood up to him and stood by her respect for the rule of law in Canada, she stood up to political interference in the criminal justice system. For that, she got fired. Sadly, we have not been able to hear her full story because the Prime Minister has not waived that privilege, but we have seen enough that we can connect the dots. We can see that when she was fired as attorney general and moved to Veterans Affairs, that was the reason why.

Thankfully, courageously, all of this has been exposed. Although we still do not have the full truth of what the Prime Minister has done, again it has shown Canadians that the Prime Minister is not at all as advertised. So much for hope and hard work, so much for sunny ways, so much for diversity, so much for tolerance, all of that is a sham under the Prime Minister.

We do hope the Prime Minister will one day lift the gag order. If he will not, the next prime minister probably will, and I think there will be an opportunity for that to happen. Canadians will hear the truth at one point or another.

What happened? Both the former attorney general and the former president of the Treasury Board stood up to the Prime Minister. and not only did they get fired and resign from their positions, they got kicked out of the Liberal caucus in violation of the Reform Act, again in violation of the law. That is a day in the life of the Prime Minister.

How many laws did he break with respect to conflict of interest and ethics? Four. He is the first Prime Minister in the history of Canada to break those laws. Then he broke the rules and the law regarding the Reform Act.

That entire episode gripped this entire House and paralyzed the government. It was in chaos. I think it had 10 cabinet shuffles in three weeks. The government was in absolute chaos. While there were all kinds of issues going on across the country, the Liberal government and the Prime Minister could only focus on one thing. It lost the clerk of the Privy Council. The principal adviser, Mr. Butts, resigned. It lost a number of cabinet ministers. It was in absolute chaos and shambles. We were gripped with this in the House of Commons as well.

In fact, it is the continuing mismanagement by the government that has brought the need for it to propose government Motion No. 30, which we are debating right now. It is the mismanagement that comes from the very top.

The Prime Minister is so infatuated with his own image and so focused on being a celebrity that he overlooks the substance and hard work of leading a government. That is a very sad reflection of the government and where we are in the country today. This is a prime minister who does not understand that being a prime minister is not a ceremonial role, not something just for a celebrity, but the top job in the country. It is governing not only the people of the country but the budget, the economy and foreign affairs. All of these aspects of a country like Canada should be at the forefront in the mind of the Prime Minister. Instead, he is focused on his celebrity status and getting on the pages of Vanity Fair or Vogue. Perhaps it is GQ, People or TigerBeat, if it is still a magazine. Imagine Donny Osmond and the Prime Minister on the cover of TigerBeat. He is sadly overlooking the substance and hard work of leading a government.

I have been here for almost 11 years and it really has been quite a privilege. I started as a backbencher. Backbenchers are underrated. They do such tremendous work.

I was on a committee for a number of years and learned so much about how committees worked. I was then privileged to chair a committee. That also helped me understand the rules of this place. I chaired a committee during a minority parliament. Even more so, when chairing the committee, I had to ensure I was impartial and applied the rules equally to both sides, the government members as well as the opposition, which at that point was a smaller Liberal opposition, the NDP and the Bloc. It was such a privilege to learn and work with colleagues. Then I was privileged to be a parliamentary secretary. In 2013, a number of years later, I became a minister. I believe that experience really helped me become a good minister, and now the opposition House leader.

Many of us on both sides have worked our way up from being backbench MPs to maybe working on committees and into other offices.

As I watched, I was inspired by the example set by our former prime minister, Stephen Harper, an exact opposite of the current Prime Minister. Stephen Harper knew every file backward and forward. He was not concerned about celebrity status. He wanted to connect with Canadians to know what their concerns were and to govern in a responsible way. He was an example of tireless devotion and hard work on behalf of Canadians.

The current Prime Minister has not helped his case by building a PMO where everything is reportedly bottlenecked through just one or two staff. We are hearing a lot about that. Even current Liberal MPs are very concerned with what is going on in the PMO and how decisions are being made there. As the House leader just confirmed, she tells her backbenchers whether they should shorten or lengthen their speeches.

Another example, and I already mentioned that, is the government House leader's early appointment. As I said, the hon. member for Waterloo had been here 70-some days when she was appointed as the government House leader. I felt that it sent a message. This is with respect to the House leader. She and I work well together. We certainly disagree, and I am certainly not happy that she is giving us more short opposition days, but as I said earlier, I think she has done the best she could with the hand that was dealt to her.

When the Prime Minister appoints as a House leader an individual who has been here only for 75 days, it tells all of us that he really is not very serious about getting things done. Maybe he thinks her position is just a ceremonial role as well. We certainly have seen her have to carry a lot of very difficult answers and non-answers to questions for the government. She has been put in a position where unfortunately she has lost a lot of credibility. While the Prime Minister is sitting there silently or signing autographs, she is having to defend his trip to billionaire island. While he is sitting in question period staring off into space or thinking about things, she is the one who is standing and answering or not answering very difficult questions. It is sad because I feel that the Prime Minister set her up to fail, and it is very disappointing to see that he has done that.

I did give a longer speech about this point previously. It was a speech around the Prime Minister's so-called approach to feminism, which I find to be fake. It is a lot of signalling and not true respect for the equality of women, and for us as women in this place being able to be where we are based on merit, based on our ability and our strength, being able to speak truth to power, being able to stand in this place knowing that we got here absolutely on our merit. When the Prime Minister appoints people just because they are women and then does not even respect them and listen to them, as he did with the former attorney general, we have seen time and time again that his approach to feminism is a lot of words and no action.

I am going back to the power of the PMO. I imagine the House leader has had a lot of struggles with the PMO behind the scenes trying to line up a legislative agenda and trying to get departments to hustle and bring their long-overdue proposals to the cabinet table and convert them into bills, and trying to get her colleagues to meet what a coordinated plan requires of them. However, it sounds like she is basically just telling her colleagues what to do.

News flash for them, that is not the way it happens. In the previous government, not only did we pass many private members' bills, but we had more government MPs vote against the government's position. We had more free votes than any other government. It was really quite remarkable.

I would never betray caucus confidentiality, but I will say this. I think this is a departure for the Liberals and it might be a good thing for them to think about when they are the third party again or maybe opposition after the next election, which remains to be seen, but they may want to allow their caucus members to speak their minds freely and not have to set their agenda ahead of time or allow the Prime Minister and his minions to tell them if they can speak. It is wonderful in caucus to be able to stand and not get permission, but be able to speak to the leader freely. He or she listens, and sometimes decisions are changed.

That actually happened in our previous government, and it is wonderful to be able to speak freely in our caucus to each other and to our leader. That would be a nice thing. Maybe those who have served under previous leaders like Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin or Michael Ignatieff were able to speak freely, but it does not appear that they are able to do that with the current government.

It is the Prime Minister's way, or they are out. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more members of Parliament who were Liberals and who, under various circumstances, were disrespected and did not feel welcome anymore in the Liberal caucus. That is very sad to see.

Let us get to the next mess that the Prime Minister has made, and that is in the Senate. It is quite something to see what is happening in the Senate. The Prime Minister has a leader of the government in the Senate whom he tries to disavow. The Prime Minister has, however, done an excellent job appointing ideological fellow travellers to the Senate, though he likes to call them “independent”. At the end of the day, though, when something comes to a vote, the Prime Minister has always been able to count on his so-called independent senators' votes. However, getting there has not always been very pretty. I have to say it is a bit entertaining to watch on this side.

The real litmus test for his so-called independent Senate will be whether it heeds Liberal political imperatives in an election year, follows the spirit of Motion No. 30 and passes all of the Prime Minister's bills in the way that he wants. I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, it means that we have seen a number of Senate amendments to current legislation. Of course, at the end of the day, the Senate has backed down to the government's opinion every single time. It is quite interesting. While there is something generally reassuring about an elected House, even under the thumb of a majority government carrying the day, it has nonetheless meant that the House spends an extra two days or more on every government bill that gets bounced back from the Senate.

It is also a reflection of the government's lack of consultation with Canadians over many of its pieces of legislation. Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and Bill C-71 are all bills where, had the government just taken a little time to listen to Canadians, had it admitted that maybe it made some mistakes and had it made those adjustments, it might not be seeing the problems it is seeing with the current legislation in the Senate. However, that is what the government is getting.

The Prime Minister's mismanagement of the Senate has directly contributed to the mismanagement of the House of Commons, hence the need for government Motion No. 30. Here is the present scene: a scandal-ridden, disastrous Liberal government flailing about in the dying days of this Parliament in a rush to just do something, to get something done, something other than making pot legal. That is about the only thing the government has done, and it has actually done that pretty poorly. The legalization of cannabis is really the only notable accomplishment of the government to date. Even with that, it turned out to be a disaster.

What does the government have left to do, which it is in such a hurry to achieve? The government has horribly failed in meeting any of its lofty commitments to indigenous peoples. Now it is in a panic to rush through Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, the indigenous languages and indigenous family services legislation, so that it can say, “Look, we have done something.”

There is, of course, yet another omnibus budget bill that it is ramming through the House at this moment. The government will no doubt want to see that piece of legislation and all of its provisions to implement another promise-breaking, deficit budget through Parliament. Rumours have also started to fly that the government will seek to implement, before the election, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement, the new NAFTA, where the Liberals capitulated to the American administration on replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement.

On the NAFTA negotiations, the Prime Minister wasted a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get a better deal. However, Conservatives worked hard to get tariffs removed, and we recognize how important free trade with the United States is. We will be voting to ratify the deal in Parliament, but the Liberals cannot take this as a licence to abuse Parliament. We are already well into the 11th hour for this Parliament. I can confidently predict that the House will not be a happy place if the implementation legislation is brought forward at the very last minute and then we are called to rush through the bill with little or no scrutiny to make fundamental changes to the world's most important bilateral economic relationship.

Again, we need the government, at this very late hour, to show some responsibility and let Canadians know, let members know, what it is planning to do with this agreement and with the ratification.

Turning to other priorities the government will seek to advance this spring, we see other economic legislation that is really hurting our economy. The government is the proud owner of a $4.5-billion pipeline, which has not even started to be built. Government members are scrambling to shore up the support of environmental activists, whose votes they heavily courted in 2015 but clearly are losing. Today we are going to be seeing the welcoming of a new member of Parliament from the Green Party. I think when the Liberals talk about an emergency, that is an emergency they are very much seized with, the emergency of their losing their so-called environmentalist vote.

However, there is some legislation that is really problematic, such as Bill C-88, which is a bill that would restrict pipeline and resource development in Canada's north. Bill C-68 would make negative changes to fisheries laws, which would result in economic activity being hampered. Bill C-48, and it is quite interesting to see what is happening in the Senate with that one, is a symbolic gesture; well, it is more than a gesture, as this bill would ban tanker traffic from part of the B.C. coast, which is where many first nations are calling for greater pipeline development and economic opportunity. At the same time, there is no proposed tanker ban on the east coast, where Saudi Arabian and Venezuelan oil is coming to Canada.

Of course, there is Bill C-69, the no-more-pipelines bill, which would absolutely stop any energy infrastructure development in Canada. We have heard from experts, stakeholders, provinces and first nation groups that Bill C-69 is an absolute disaster for this country. We would not have any more pipelines built. They will be built in other countries. Canada will miss this window of opportunity. Again, the government does not seem to understand the consequences of its actions. However, I understand there have been many amendments by the Senate, up to 200 amendments, so it will be interesting to see if those are overturned by the Liberals, who are hoping to regain their environmentalist votes.

In Canada, majority government policies are usually assured of being put into place. Therefore, the shadow cast by these bills has, unfortunately, already done a huge amount of damage in our resource sector and in other parts of our country, putting a chill on investment and development long ahead of these bills becoming law.

Adding to that is the sad, sorry spectacle of the duelling climate emergency motions before the House this month, which is another interesting thing to watch. Before Victoria Day, the New Democrats put forward an opposition day motion declaring a climate emergency, and the Liberals defeated it. Lo and behold, the very next day, the Liberals brought forward their own climate emergency motion, which we debated for just a few hours. Then, the day after, they were on to something else, and the Prime Minister was flying somewhere in his jet. Can members imagine that there is a climate emergency and the Prime Minister gets on his jet and flies away? It is pretty unbelievable. I call that a high-carbon hypocrite.

Here we are this morning, back from our constituency break. Where is the emergency debate? I do not see it. The government's emergency is worrying about what is happening on its left flank, worrying about the senators and worrying about getting legislation through. However, this morning we have this debate, which is something different still. This afternoon, the Liberals are going to squeeze in another two or three hours on their climate emergency, hoping that some of their environmentalists are listening and they can fool them into thinking they care about the environment, when in fact the only plan the Liberals have for the environment is a tax plan. Who knows? The motion goes back into the parliamentary ether under the who-knows-when category.

I think this is just a political emergency. As I mentioned, the Green Party won a by-election on Vancouver Island, with the Liberal candidate running fourth, which is really quite something. I think the Liberals are very worried. They have to be worried about what is going on in B.C. The Prime Minister, as I said, scrambled and stuck something in the window to look like he was doing something. It is sort of fun to watch them do this.

I know what the Liberals are going to do. The Minister of Environment and Climate Change actually mentioned it on the weekend. Their approach, according to the minister, is that if they stand in the House and say it loud enough, as well as yell it in question period, Canadians will just believe it. Now we know why the Prime Minister and that minister stand and yell. It is sad to say, but they believe that if they say it loud enough and yell it enough times in this place that Canadians will believe it. That is horrible. It is cynical, disrespectful and shameful. I certainly hope that maybe at their next caucus meeting, some of those Liberals will have the courage to speak up to their boss, the Prime Minister, and maybe a few of their ministers, and tell them that it is about time they respect this place and respect Canadians.

Here we are debating government Motion No. 30, because the Liberals claim they are working hard to pass legislation. Then we will turn to a virtue signalling motion that will not change one law or do one thing. It is really interesting to see what the Liberal government is doing.

Let us go back to Motion No. 30. Those were my opening remarks, and now I am getting into the real substance of my speech. I appreciate the encouragement. Motion No. 30 before us today calls us to sit until midnight on four days a week, as well as for most votes to take place after question period. These are understandable. We were in government and understand it, but we did not have to do it in 2015. We were able to manage things so efficiently under Peter Van Loan and Stephen Harper that we did not extend into night sittings in the summer of 2015. However, for all the reasons I have pointed out, the Liberals had to.

Some of these measures can be understood by us, as Conservatives, as they are things we have asked the House to do. There is one addition to the motion that is truly a nice one, and I am going to compliment the government on it. There is a provision in this motion to have a couple of evenings that are dedicated to statements by retiring members from all sides. We will have the opportunity to set aside partisanship for a short period of time to hear the farewell speeches by our departing colleagues. That is something we do not always get to enjoy when we have one-off statements made in the midst of one political battle or another. I am really glad to see that provision. There are members on every side of the House who are retiring and not running again for various reasons. In the last Parliament, we set aside a couple of evenings for those members, who could invite their families, friends and staff members. It is a really good thing and I am grateful. I thank the government for putting that provision into this motion.

However, the motion is not perfect. This is where I am going to discuss the parts of the motion that we do not like and believe are a greedy approach on behalf of the Liberals. I have already talked about 2017 and 2018 when the government motion proposed reducing opposition days to opposition half days. We objected then, and we object again.

This year's motion is very aggressive in some other ways also. The rules normally require report stage votes and third reading debate to occur on separate days. Under government Motion No. 30, that waiting period would be eliminated. Again, this is another way that the government can rush through legislation.

With regard to the way that the previous motion on extended hours worked, there was a one-day delay between a vote on the previous question and a vote on the main motion. That would be eliminated under government Motion No. 30. In previous years, all dilatory motions were banned after 6:30 p.m., but now ministers would be allowed to propose them. The government wants us to sit late every night, yet wants to keep for itself the power to send us home early.

On the last opposition day in each supply period, we vote on the estimates. That is when we go through the government spending plan line by line and approve the items. Unfortunately for the current government, these have often fallen at times when the government was being particularly arrogant, like in March when the Liberals were insisting on preventing the members for Vancouver Granville and Markham—Stouffville from speaking. Therefore, we did have to hold the government's feet to the fire and we triggered marathon voting, which is one of the very few devices left for us to make our disagreements felt.

Now, government Motion No. 30 would create a backdoor procedural trick to group and apply these votes. That is in an effort to spare the Liberals from standing and voting for their spending proposals, and that is if a voting marathon even happens this spring. Again, this is one of the small tools we have to hold the government to account and draw attention to what the government is doing. The Liberals have taken that away as well. It is shameful. The takeaway from this is that while the Liberals are setting long hours, they want to make light work. Again, it is a lot of hope but very little hard work.

There is also one small curious difference between this motion and those from the previous years. Normally, when a concurrence debate is interrupted, the government has 10 sitting days to reschedule the conclusion of that debate. Under past motions for extended hours, whether Liberal or Conservative, that 10 days has been increased to 20 days to avoid further extending some House sittings from 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. Instead, the government motion proposes 31 sitting sitting days, not 20. It is an interesting little change, nuance, in this motion. Since there are only 20 scheduled sittings days left, that tells me one thing: The Liberal government now recognizes it has mismanaged its agenda so badly that it could be preparing for the House to have a summer sitting. I am wondering if all the Liberal members were aware of that little nugget. Again, it is going to be a matter of our watching this space to see what happens.

Finally, something that is not in the motion also has us concerned. That is the prospect of amendments to the Standing Orders getting rammed through this spring under the cover of midnight sittings. On one hand, there is a private member's motion, Motion No. 231, sponsored by the member for Pierrefonds—Dollard. It did not come through this morning, but many of us have had a chance to look at that private member's motion and have to wonder if it is not under the direction or the support of the Liberals. The Liberal government did—

[Morley Watson, First Vice-Chief, Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning to our senators, members of Parliament, as well as our Assembly of First Nations staff who are with us. I want to thank you for the prayers offered to us this morning. I want to, as you did Madam Chairman, acknowledge the Algonquin nation as we are meeting on its territory.

I am Vice-Chief Morley Watson, and I hold the portfolio of health and social development for the Federation of Sovereign Indigenous Nations.

Bill C-92 contemplates critical and long overdue reconciliation of jurisdiction over first nations children across Canada. It is the top issue for first nations in Saskatchewan as we realize that we have the second highest number of children in care and more than 80% of those children are our children. We have also endured, and continue to endure, one of the most dysfunctional child welfare systems infested with some of the most racist and derogatory attitudes that effectively produces results contrary to the fundamental values and principles of child welfare.

From residential schools to the sixties scoop, to modern-day decisions to apprehend children, when healthier and safer alternatives are available, first nations children are ultimately the victims. Provinces are failing the first nations children and families for which they have been delegated responsibility for protecting and supporting. It is time for our provinces to step aside and support those who actually are passionate about supporting first nations children and families.

Here are why six provisions of Bill C-92 are so important to us.

Number one is clause 18, the affirmation and recognition that is our inherent right to provide for our children, to care for them, and to keep our families together.

Number two is clause 14, that the priority must be on prevention and keeping our family units together.

Number three is that if a child is removed, the priority must be on placement in the family and in our communities.

Number four is that birth alerts must be stopped. The trauma of removing children in hospitals is so traumatic to the mothers and family that it represents everything that has failed about a provincial child welfare system imposed on our people. That is also in clause 14.

Number five is clause 9, that the best interests of the child must be interpreted with understanding of our identity, connection to our families, culture, languages, territories and values.

Number six is that poverty and poor health are not reasons to remove a child from our families and communities.

We know this bill was not co-drafted with first nations. Canada drafted it on its own, but shared a consultation draft with our federation. It was developed with our input into the process and our office met with the current and former minister many times, as well as with officials. We submitted briefs and positions to inform the changes we believed were required. Canada did not accept all of our policy positions, but we urged Canada to include predictable, sustainable needs-based funding provisions.

In Saskatchewan, the 74 first nations of the FSIN, for over 50 years, have built distinct, co-operative institutions to serve our people in our communities, such as the First Nations University of Canada, the Saskatchewan Indian Institute of Technologies and the Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority. Other bodies have been created and operated with great impact.

We are rebuilding our nation, supporting our young people to provide them with the education their grandparents were denied. We want to build more supports for our first nations in relation to child welfare. Our demonstrated ability to create jobs for our people and economically enhance opportunities for the people of our region is a key goal and issue. By building capacity, first nations will not be looked upon as an economic burden, as we currently are. We will build our own economies with more opportunity and jobs from this bill, and we will build families at the same time.

The bill needs to reference the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Bill C-91 has a “purposes” section that references the United Nations declaration, because the protection of human rights and the implementation of the United Nations declaration is the framework for this cultural, language and family-building work that we must do together in Canada.

I thank you for this opportunity to address this important bill for our first nations people in Saskatchewan. We know this work is difficult and it will take many strategies and collective efforts. We urge you to accept the importance of this bill and to make improvements, but not to delay it. The FSIN and many of our other tribal councils and first nations are working to implement their authority and laws for children and families.

We cannot be held back any longer. Our children deserve better than the status quo of today. We hope that this bill will help to influence continued recognition of inherent and treaty rights, title and jurisdiction in future co-developments. We know that the only way to maintain healthy and thriving communities is by supporting our people to raise their children in accordance with our own history, culture, languages, customs and laws.

We know that our children are not subjects or commodities to be owned or to be considered property. They are a gift from the Creator. It is a sacred responsibility to protect and nurture our children. It is inherent to us, as people, to care for our children according to our laws, no matter where they reside.

In all aspects, children are considered—always. This was true even at the time of treaty. Our elders wanted to ensure health and happiness for all of our children, as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and the rivers flow.

Madam Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.

[Dr. Pamela D. Palmater, Chair in Indigenous Governance, Department of Politics & Public Administration, Ryerson University, As an Individual]

Hello. Thanks for having me.

Kwe, ni'n teluisi Pam Palmater.

I am from the sovereign Mi'kmaq nation on unceded Mi'kmaq territory. I have been a practising lawyer for 20 years, 10 of which were spent at Justice Canada and Indian Affairs, where I received all the training in the legislative process, statutory interpretation and legislative drafting. I also have my doctorate in law on legislation that impacts indigenous people, so I have a very particular focus here, and it's very legislative, as opposed to policy-based.

I'm here to speak against Bill C-92 as it is currently drafted. I think that without substantive amendments it risks interjurisdictional chaos, legal chaos and chaos on and off reserve. In addition, of course, it won't do anything to address the humanitarian crisis.

I have several core problems with it. One is the same problem I have with Bill C-91 and Bill C-97, which is that they are pan-aboriginal legislation. By being pan-aboriginal, in fact, it discriminates against first nations because it doesn't focus on first nations' specific rights, our unique histories, our unique socio-economic conditions or our specific interests. To my mind, first nation rights should never be limited by the different legal, political and social statuses of other groups.

For example, the Métis do not suffer the same acute socio-economic conditions that first nations do. That's just a fact. We also know that in Canadian law, when you treat everyone formally the same, you end up treating the most disadvantaged unequally. What we're advocating is substantive equality that is first nations-specific, so first nations-specific legislation and not formal equality.

The other concern is that there is no independent recognition or status for first nations laws that make them paramount. They are only considered to be a federal law, no different from a bylaw under the Indian Act. For anyone who has ever worked with first nations or at Justice Canada or Indian Affairs, it is nearly impossible to get the RCMP or anyone else to enforce Indian Act bylaws.

Right now, under this legislation, instead of being paramount, first nation laws are conditional or subject to the provisions of the Charter; the Canadian Human Rights Act; section 35 of the Constitution Act; all of the limiting Supreme Court of Canada cases; the division of powers under section 91(24); coordination agreements and all of the interpretations that courts would give to those coordination agreements—of which there could be upwards of 634—and failure to abide; pre-existing provincial court definitions of “best interests of the child”, which I have to remind everyone here are court-defined and open to the same amount of racism and abuse that's already been shown in the courts against first nations children; and, of course, clauses 10 to 15 of Bill C-92 itself.

Those are a lot of things that trump first nations laws, and that's a problem. There has to be a discussion that is not only about recognizing first nations jurisdiction in and of itself but also about issues around paramountcy of laws and how these jurisdictions will work together.

My other concern is that it forces first nations to negotiate agreements with federal and provincial government, when provincial governments are the problem. The federal government is the problem in the sense of discriminatory, chronic underfunding. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already talked about that. However, it's the provinces that have allowed these human rights abuses to continue despite the research and despite all of the evidence. The last people many first nations want to work with are the provinces, which commit the abuses. To actually force that is to reinforce this horrendous humanitarian crisis, and that is something that I think many first nations have already testified to being rightly against.

The biggest thing, I guess, is that despite being sold as committing funding to first nations, there's no statutory commitment for funding. It is one thing to acknowledge in a “whereas” clause that there are calls for funding, that in principle maybe we'll talk about funding or we'll figure out ways to talk about it. However, there is no statutory commitment saying the minister will fund first nations for all of the services and actually define what those services are—and leave it flexible enough.

There are no guidelines around how that funding would be provided such as population, demographics, birth rates, actual costs, first nations rights around this, which are very different from Métis and Inuit rights. There's nothing that makes Jordan's principle mandatory in this legislation, and that should, in fact, be a core part of the legislation. It's certainly a core part of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. There's no commitment to address the underlying root causes of child apprehension, which for first nations specifically tend to mostly be socio-economic conditions. It's not just good enough to fund aftercare or parental programs if you're not also saying we will also make a commitment to housing, food, water, education and access to health care, which are all the reasons why most of these kids are taken away to begin with.

Another core legislative problem is that the minister retains all of the powers under the act, including the power to make regulations. There's only a requirement to consult with indigenous groups, and we all know how poorly consultation works in practice. We've been subject to hundreds of court cases because the federal government still doesn't understand how to actually consult, accommodate and get consent, because all of those things work together as a package. Now with UNDRIP, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we're talking about free, prior and informed consent. This bill is the opposite of that. It's basically saying we'll talk to you but we get to do all of the regulations, and it's in the regulations where a lot more damage can be done, a lot more control can be had. Or there can be no regulations at all, because we've seen ministers promise, “we're just going to do this act and we'll solve all the problems in regulations” and, hello, no regulations. We're just going on past practice.

The global pan-indigenous consultations also skew what should be in the regulations. What is good for first nations may have nothing to do with Métis, so why would Métis have a voice in what kind of regulations will apply to first nations and vice versa? That's part of the legal problem with the pan-indigenous nature. By empowering one entity, that is, by empowering the minister throughout all of the sections of this legislation, you are in essence disempowering another. Whatever power the minister has, that's something that first nations don't have, and that's a real problem.

I do find it really disturbing that in all of this legislation, knowing how closely related forced and coerced sterilization is to child apprehensions and how they've been linked, there is no provision in here that specifically prohibits the use of forced or coerced sterilizations in any child and family services situation, especially with regard to child care

There are lots of other issue around wording. There should be a discussion about jurisdiction over off-reserve, issues around data collection, but my specific suggested amendments are that if you're going to do legislation for those first nations that consent, it needs to be specific first nations legislation whether you're talking about languages or child and family services. Only first nations are under the Indian Act. First nations have an entirely different set of rights and laws, and you cannot put them all together.

There needs to be, if there is legislation, fully funded opt-out provisions so that first nations that are already engaged with child and family services don't have to be a part of this legislation, that their choice isn't just status quo or nothing, that a fully funded alternative means if we're not funding you under this process, we will fund you under your own process.

There needs to be targeted and committed funding specifically for first nations that is based on population, inflation, costs and needs. The first nations inherent right to be self-determining over child and family services must be recognized in their own right, not attached to section 35, not attached to UNDRIP, not attached to anything external. The inherent pre-existing right needs to be the foundation of any legislation going forward.

I would also add that if you want to give real effect to this, repeal section 88 of the Indian Act to oust provincial jurisdiction over first nations altogether.

My last recommendations specifically reference UNDRIP and all of the provisions, and specifically reference the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and say that this bill should not pass as is. It needs at a minimum comprehensive review with first nations experts, including people like Dr. Cindy Blackstock, who has extensive amendments to make, and organizations like the National Association of Friendship Centres.

Thank you.

Indigenous Languages Act

[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.

[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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[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.

[Dan Vandal, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will complete debate at third reading of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the Senate amendments to bill C-55, an act to amend the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act.

Next week the government will be proposing a motion to debate the rising climate emergency across Canada.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-55.

On Tuesday, we will move on to Bill S-6, the Canada–Madagascar tax convention implementation act, 2018.

Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Tuesday, May 14, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Justice.

In closing, mothers who provide love and guidance are present in our lives in many forms. I am thankful to the mother figures in my life. On behalf of the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada, and I am sure all members in this House, I wish all mothers a happy Mother's Day.

Indigenous Languages Act

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

The catalyst was when former minister Jane Philpott called that emergency meeting. That was the catalyst that shed a light on this, not only nationally in Canada but internationally, and showed that something had to be done. That was the push to get something started. That's when committees were brought together, people were brought together and experts were brought together involving the national advisory committee. We embarked on that process.

It wasn't as robust as, for example, Bill C-91 on languages, but it was something. Because we wanted to meet this deadline as soon as possible, that's what happened, and that was the reality.

I don't want to be cynical about this because it's about children. We lift up the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and the work we've done to fix the on-reserve discrimination there with more resources to meet the children's needs. This is off reserve now in another jurisdiction, so there had to be something there, and that's what this speaks to. The catalyst, however, was back in January. We're working as diligently and as quickly as we can to get this done.

[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.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a good question, again, and I know we've met with your leader as well many times and we've discussed these. I would say there are many important bills, but we always focused on C-91, languages; C-92, child welfare; and then C-262, the UN declaration.

I said that I'd be a happy national chief if they all pass by the end of June. I know the issue is free, prior and informed consent. People think, “Is it a veto?” and “Did you hear from Paul Joffe and other experts?”

I say that it's not a veto, but you have to respect aboriginal rights, inherent rights and treaty rights, and involve the rights and title holders sooner than later in any initiative. With free, prior and informed consent, when people.... You mentioned that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are going to say, “Don't pass this”. That is a region and that's a regional chief. Grand Chief Arlen will be here to say that.

You know the numbers in Canada. There are 203 chiefs in British Columbia. There are 47 in Alberta. There are 74 in Saskatchewan. There are 66 in Manitoba. There are 134-plus in Ontario. There are 47 in la belle province of Quebec. There are 13 in Nova Scotia, 15 in New Brunswick, two in P.E.I., two in Newfoundland, 14 in the Yukon and 28 in the Northwest Territories.

Do you think there's unanimity?

There you go, but we have 400-plus chiefs supporting this. We have numerous resolutions to support this. I would encourage people to look at starting to fix this, because I'm going to disagree with people in a respectful way that the status quo is not acceptable, and it should not be acceptable to have 40,000 children in foster care. That's where my head goes at all times.

[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.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary 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, 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.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness spoke in Ukrainian]

[English]

That's little bit of Ukrainski. I know your background.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

That's “I'm happy to be here” in Cree.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I'm thanking you all, as relatives and friends, and I'm thanking you for acknowledging the Algonquin territory here.

This morning, I also welcome the good thoughts, mind and brain of my colleague, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond. She is a well-known person across Canada and an expert in child welfare, amongst other things.

The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada provided many concrete proposals for moving forward on the reconciliation and human rights of first nations. The TRC acknowledged in the first five calls to action that the matter before you today, child welfare, has to be addressed.

The TRC specifically identified the need for federal legislation to launch the change needed to end the crisis of over-apprehension of first nations children. The TRC also said that meeting the minimum human rights standards of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is foundational to reconciliation.

This approach informed the resolutions adopted by the Assembly of First Nations, which led to our involvement in this initiative. The reason is compelling. We have many resolutions from our chiefs in assembly. Nobody can question the mandate or ask why the AFN is doing this. You don't get a hundred per cent of everything all the time. I don't think any of your parties do. I don't think Canadians do, on any issue, and neither does the AFN, but we have a mandate and we have direction as per our process. That's why we're doing this.

When rights have been violated and children's lives have been harmed, we say that, over time in these systems, the respect for the basic human rights of children, families, communities and nations is only the proper framework.

Why is Bill C-92 important? Bill C-92 must be understood within the context of the status quo today for first nations children. I know it sounds repetitive—you've heard many witnesses—but we're going to keep saying it until people get it. There are 40,000 children in care right across Canada. Some of the provinces are worse than others.

You have two systems. There are on-reserve child and family services agencies, but now there are the provincial systems as well that need to be addressed. That's what this is trying to look at.

When we say that there are 40,000 first nations children in care in Canada, we know that there are more children in care than were in the residential schools at the height of their operations. That's a very astounding stat and figure and number. It's a human rights crisis in Canada. So we say that it's a humanitarian crisis and a national human rights crisis. It's not a challenge that will be met by federal, provincial and territorial governments continuing to impose their assumed jurisdiction over our children while ignoring the inherent rights of first nations people.

The status quo has been a clear and unconscionable failure. It has huge consequences for generations of children, families and communities. Bill C-92 marks a significant shift from the legal status quo regarding first nations jurisdiction. The bill includes several provisions that affirm the inherent aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations, including self-determination and the inherent right of self-government in relation to children and families. Many first nations are ready to operate under their own laws, and they have been pushing for this for decades.

I always say this: Occupy the field. You have federal laws. You have provincial and territorial laws, but you also can have—and should have—first nations laws in different sectors. Occupy the field and assert that jurisdiction as part of that inherent right.

Splatsin First Nation and Kukpi7 Christian—he's going to be here later on today—is a case in point. Kukpi7 Christian and the tribal council are ready, as are many others across Canada. We are being held back by the lack of legislation supporting and recognizing full first nations authority and jurisdiction over child and family services.

In addition to the jurisdiction and law-making affirmations in the legislation, operational principles were added to ensure that critical problems in child welfare can be addressed immediately.

Principles such as the priority on prevention and the placement of children are designed to recalibrate the child welfare system on the first day after royal assent. Prioritizing prevention over apprehension, along with the importance of culturally relevant placements, are immediate improvements available to first nations even before first nations pass their own laws.

Bill C-92 also advances substantive legal recognition of the human rights of first nations peoples by affirming collective rights, critical rights of individual children and youth, and the rights of their families and caregivers.

Bill C-92 is a good step forward. It's a step forward for first nations, and there is a pressing urgency to complete the work and see the bill passed. It's very important work of this committee. Roll it all up. You have to get it into votes and then over to the Senate. That's another avenue to look at. June is coming and there's a sense of urgency for friends and relatives.

We say that no one piece of legislation is going to reverse all the problems, but this legislation is a step forward.

It's a step forward. No single legislative instrument will be enough on its own. Starting with a national framework while regional and first nations-level innovations continue is a good first step. There's flexibility. This legislation will complement and not detract from existing self-government agreements.

The impact of the child welfare system is felt every day in first nations communities and families. You've heard constantly—and it's true—that there is no greater gift from the Creator than our children. They deserve to grow and develop within their families, with full knowledge of their culture, languages, customs and traditions, and with the love and support of their first nations.

We require a system that affirms our identity and our family systems, where we no longer are required to push and plead for support and recognition from provincial governments: governments that have merely taken their cues from the Indian Act and consequently have imposed harsh policies on us that have failed our children.

Bill C-92 recognizes and affirms what we firmly believe that we have always had: a right to raise and take care of our children according to our own practices and values and to transmit our languages and cultures across the generations and into the future.

Clause 18 of the bill is critical for us. There must be a rights-based approach that affirms our inherent rights, including self-government for child and family services. It's time that Canada shifted the system to do what should have been done years ago.

Bill C-92 is an important step forward because it affirms our jurisdiction and creates space for first nations laws and practices regarding our families. It is rights-respecting legislation within the context of implementing the UN declaration, which is the minimum standard for the survival and dignity of indigenous peoples. It sets out key principles that will prevent children from being removed from their homes unnecessarily, promotes children staying in their communities and ensures that the principle of the best interests of the child is understood and applied with a first nations lens for our children and families.

We know that Bill C-92 is not perfect.

I made my little line here: Perfection in any bill or law can be seen and viewed as an enemy of good. Begin and build perfection over time, because there are reviews, but at least start. Start. Get it passed.

This can be strengthened and we have recommendations to strengthen it. There are four areas.

Number one is funding, a very important piece. Funding should be clarified through three amendments: (a) the language on funding in the preamble needs to be more precise to affirm that Canada acknowledges the call for funding and accepts the call for funding; (b) a funding provision in the body of the bill is needed; and, (c) clause 20 of the bill on coordination agreements needs to be more precise about the fiscal arrangement needed to support first nations governments and coordinate services across systems on the reserve and off the reserve. There has to be coordination.

That's one piece on the funding.

Number two, the UN declaration reference in the preamble is important but must also be included in the purpose section, clause 8, to include advancing the UN declaration as a key purpose of the legislation. This provision must be done in the same manner as was done in Bill C-91, the indigenous languages bill. The UN declaration is a framework and has many important provisions for children and families, like clause 8, on preventing forced removal of children from one culture to another.

Number three, the best interests of the child sections should be amended to clarify that first nations governing bodies that pass laws prescribing the factors for determining the best interests of the children will add to the factors in the bill, creating recognition and support for our ways of caring for our children and families. This is important, because for some of our people we do not remove a child. We remove the person harming the child and keep the family intact. We believe that this is in the best interests of the child. Our laws must be affirmed and our practices supported to preserve family unity.

The fourth one, Jordan's principle, should be given explicit reference in relation to substantive equality for children to ensure that this useful legal tool is confirmed in Bill C-92, building upon the resolutions of Parliament that have adopted Jordan's principle. This can be added to the preamble and to all sections referencing “substantive equality”, including subclause 9(3).

I say all of this foremost in the interests of first nations children and families.

Madam Chair, these are the formal amendments that I have just read. I want to formally table these amendments to the committee. It will help in your report writing. They're all here.

That's it.

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.

[Grand Chief Edward John, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee members.

I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin people as well, and their traditional homelands.

We're from the same organization in British Columbia, so I won't go into that background. I do want to mention that on submitting this report, the Premier of British Columbia asked, given the significant numbers of children in care, to seek advice on what the province ought to be doing. It's close to a 200-page report with some 86 recommendations. It takes an extensive look at the impacts of laws, policies and practice standards.

I didn't start there. I started in the communities, asking them what they thought and how they felt about how these provincial laws, policies, regulations and practice standards impacted them. This story is really from their perspective. It's the practice side of this impact in our communities. The clerk has this, as well as a summary. There's another document that was tabled with the clerk with our position.

Bill C-92 represents a clear advancement for prevention, early intervention and protection services—in section 1—for indigenous children, youth and families in their respective communities while acknowledging and respecting the diversity of indigenous peoples.

The bill speaks to indigenous youth, but in the operative sections of the bill, the youth are not included. I think it's something that needs to be considered. It may be an oversight.

The national advisory committee is an advisory committee to the Minister of Indigenous Services Canada. The interim report from that committee was submitted to the former minister of Indigenous Services Canada, Jane Philpott, and the AFN National Chief Perry Bellegarde. I chaired that committee. The recommendation from that committee was that the federal government consider enacting federal legislation to address the staggering challenges faced by first nations people relating to children and families. Minister Philpott concluded that these challenges amounted to humanitarian crises. We all recall that moment.

Indigenous peoples developing their own laws, regulations, policies and practice standards will exercise their responsibilities in a modern context and uphold and act on their inherent rights to support their children and families. Their laws: by them, for them. Clause 18, read together with clauses 2 and 8 provide a necessary and critical foundation for this.

The operative principles of “substantive equality” in subclause 9(3) and “cultural continuity” in subclause 9(2) are essential for indigenous peoples. When combined with the necessary and extensive support from the federal and provincial governments, they will help to address the deeply rooted ravages of over 150 years of deliberate and misguided assimilation of Crown laws and policies. The final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission called it “cultural genocide”.

Bill C-92 together with Bill C-91 on indigenous languages provide a substantive framework to remedy past government policy pillars to “kill the Indian in the child” by removing the child from siblings, family, community, foods, lands, territories and resources; and providing education to Christianize and civilize the child by declaring as inferior indigenous philosophies, teachings, languages and culture.

The proposed legislation has shortcomings and is not exhaustive. For indigenous peoples, there will be both internal and external challenges, obstacles and hurdles for the full and effective realization of this significant aspect of the right to self-determination. Constructive and desperately needed changes for indigenous peoples will take time.

I have three recommendations that I want to deal with.

Clause 15 should be strengthened by ensuring the necessary support and other measures for parents, extended family and community, so that no child is removed for reasons related to poverty or the socio-economic circumstances of the child's family.

The recommendation on financing and funding is critically important. There's only one reference in the preamble. The recommendation is that the underlying substance of this acknowledgement should be moved from the preamble to the operative provisions of the bill.

I agree with the recommendation on amending article 8 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are hopeful that the three bills, Bill C-262, Bill C-91 and Bill C-92, will be adopted and royal assent will be given before the end of this Parliament's mandate.

Finally, the budget implementation legislation, which contains many significant financial commitments to first nations, Inuit and Métis people needs to be adopted. We cannot have Canada's commitments die on an Order Paper. We've been through that once before.

Thank you.

[Cheryl Casimer, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

[Witness spoke in Ktunaxa]

[English]

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for providing me an opportunity to share some thoughts on the bill with you. I'd like to start off by acknowledging the unceded territory of the Algonquin peoples and thanking them for allowing us to do this important work.

I'm a member of the political executive with the First Nations Summit in British Columbia. We represent those first nations involved in and supportive of treaty negotiations with Canada and British Columbia. I'm also a member of the First Nations Leadership Council, which is a political collaboration among the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, and the BC Assembly of First Nations.

The bill before you for study is one of the most single important pieces of legislation for first nations people in a generation.

For the 204 first nations communities and tribal councils in British Columbia, and for our nations that are actively working to put in place our child and family laws and policies within our systems of government, this legislation is long overdue.

We have been working with Canada and British Columbia to prepare for implementation of first nations jurisdiction. We confirmed in 2015 that we would pursue legislative, policy and practice reform to achieve this objective. We know that the task of reform is daunting, but it is one of the most important tasks we will have.

Bill C-92 must be understood within the context of the status quo for first nations children. The reality is that there are approximately 5,000 first nations children in care in British Columbia and approximately 40,000 in Canada. This is more children than there were in the residential schools at the height of their operations.

We collectively face a humanitarian and national human rights crisis. I acknowledge the work of former minister Jane Philpott, who called a national emergency meeting in January 2018 to find a means to address this national crisis in partnership with first nations and address the issue around first nations children, family and communities.

We see Bill C-92 as a significant and important first federal step in the legislative reform necessary to support first nations in exercising their jurisdiction over child welfare. While there are opportunities to strengthen Bill C-92, the bill has many positive features.

First nations in B.C. want to take this next step of work, and Bill C-92 provides the necessary support for us to do so and to give proper footing to this work for the implementation stages. It will finally enable Canada to work with first nations in a meaningful way, based on the recognition and respect of our rights, to transform child welfare and restore indigenous systems and approaches to supporting children and families.

There are at least six major aspects of this bill that will build upon our work and take it to that next level: one, priority for prevention approaches; two, provisions on substantive equality; three, best interests of the child provisions; four, priority for placement of children with family and community; five, principles for service delivery; and, six, process rights. Yet, there will be a critical need to make sure that these concepts work on the ground, and that implementation of the legislation is effective in shifting away from the overrepresentation of first nations children in child welfare systems and toward prevention and the reunification of families.

Having said that, I would like to now focus on a number of key recommendations that we believe would strengthen the bill.

We recommend that Bill C-92 include a role for an independent children's advocate or commissioner at the federal level to support the implementation of the concepts and the rights in Bill C-92, and to monitor implementation and assist children, youth and families in navigating the systems that will be impacted by this law.

Second, we understand that there is a review period of five years to evaluate the effectiveness of the bill. We believe this time frame may be too long for the first such review. As such, we believe that the bill should be reviewed after three years and should make sure the special first review covers issues raised by many before this committee and in public comment on the bill, including the addressing of funding; jurisdiction; better outcomes for children and youth; reunification of families; and respect for women and girls, and elimination of discrimination on the basis of gender.

We'd also like to add a reference to the United Nations declaration in the purpose. I urge you to add a specific reference to the United Nations declaration in the purpose section of Bill C-92, as was done in Bill C-91 regarding indigenous languages, so that the United Nations declaration can form and provide necessary context for this work at all levels. We are proposing an amendment to consider a provision (c) to state: to implement the United Nations declaration as a progressive framework for the resolution of human rights issues impacting children, youth and families.

Next we'd like to address the issue of funding. We believe that we need to have statutory funding issues addressed in the bill as well. We're not sure about the mandate of the committee to recommend changes in that regard, but I do emphasize that funding is critically important to reform child welfare and to support first nations child and family services.

Next, in relation to the “stronger ties” rule, we draw your attention to the fact that some of the provisions of the bill may cause confusion with regard to our first nations laws and practices.

The provisions on stronger ties in clause 24 provide that when a conflict between two nations' rules appears to present a conflict over which first nations system applies to the decision for a specific child or family, the test in the bill is that the governing law will be that of the “community” with “stronger ties”. This kind of rule may be valuable, but it needs to be qualified to permit the first nations laws to sort out how conflicts will be handled as well. Our inter-tribal systems have worked this out for generations and the either-or nature of this may undermine some of our laws and practices.

For this reason, I believe there should be a section added to clause 24 which provides that “the rules for resolving conflicts between laws may also be resolved through agreements between Indigenous governing bodies or according to Indigenous laws applicable to children and families”.

I thank you for the opportunity to appear and provide feedback on this important and momentous bill, and I urge you to work with resolve to complete this task as a priority and to see this bill through to completion. It is long overdue and most urgently needed.

Thank you.

Bill C-91—Notice of time allocation motion

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this will not need to be utilized.

In case an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the third reading stage of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

Once again, I hope this will not need to be used.

An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak on a historic piece of legislation, Bill C-92, an act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

It is also an honour to welcome over 30 students from Mr. Dingwall's grade 12 politics class at Humberside Collegiate Institute in my riding. They are here to study xenophobia and refugees, but the concerns and the aims of that study have a link to this legislation. The link is that their study and this legislation both identify key areas of inclusion, of the promotion of diversity, and of the remediation of historical injustices.

Let us talk about Bill C-92.

Bill C-92 seeks to do two very important things. First, it would affirm the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples in relation to child and family services. Second, it sets out several principles, including the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality, that would be applicable on a national level to the provision of child and family services to indigenous children.

Let us start with my past role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage in 2017. At that point, I had the privilege of engaging with first nations, Inuit and Métis leaders and elders, and subsequently assisting in the co-development of a different bill, Bill C-91, which aims to promote and preserve indigenous languages in Canada. I am very pleased to see that this bill, a companion bill, seeks to enshrine the importance of culture and language when it comes to determining what is in the best interests of the child.

When indigenous children are navigating our child and family services system, their culture and language must be taken into account and must be protected.

Indigenous leaders across this country have called on successive governments to make changes to address the overrepresentation of first nations, Inuit and Métis children in the child and family services system. They have been doing that important advocacy work on this file for over a decade and have highlighted the important voices of indigenous children from across the country to shed light on the shortcomings of our current child and family services systems.

It is undeniable that the levels of indigenous children in care have reached the point of what has been described as a humanitarian crisis. Indigenous children under 15 make up 7.7% of the Canadian population, but they account for 52.2% of children in foster care in private homes. That is a staggering statistic—7.7% of the population, yet 52.2% of the children in foster care. Incredibly, we know that there are more indigenous children who have been removed from their homes and placed in the child welfare system, right now in 2019, than there were at the height of the residential school system, which is such a shameful legacy in Canadian history.

We also know that often indigenous children are separated from their families and communities, which deprives them of their language, their culture, and their connection to their people. That is absolutely and categorically unacceptable. It is vital that we address the root causes that have led to this humanitarian crisis, including such things as poverty, intergenerational trauma, and culturally biased child welfare policies and practices. That is what Bill C-92 will address.

Our current child and family welfare system is failing indigenous peoples and has been failing them for some time. It is for this reason that our government is taking steps today with Bill C-92 to redress the situation.

Our goal as a government has always been to support legislation that respects the principle of self-determination of indigenous people and legislation that advances what we would call meaningful reconciliation. These two objectives were the basis for our actions taken while crafting this legislation.

Recognizing the urgency of addressing these issues, the Minister of Indigenous Services at the time hosted an emergency meeting on indigenous child and family services in January 2018. During that meeting, our government had the opportunity to hear from experts, advocates, indigenous partners, and provincial and territorial people, but most importantly from youth, such as the youth who are here today from my riding, but especially youth from right around the country who had a lived experience of navigating the child and family services system. It is of the utmost importance to continue to elevate the voices of those with first-hand experience so that we can learn from their experiences and make the legislative changes that address the problems individuals face when accessing our child and family services system.

Following that emergency meeting back in January of 2018, 65 sessions were held during the summer and fall of 2018 to engage with people around the country, whether in Toronto or Winnipeg, from coast to coast to coast.

That engagement, which was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, engaged 2,000 individuals in different sessions, including representatives of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, as well as treaty nations, self-governing first nations, provinces and territories.

In January of 2019, further in-person engagement sessions with indigenous partners and provincial and territorial representatives were conducted to consult on the proposed content of Bill C-92.

What is critical is what we learned in those consultations. We learned that Canadians care about reforming child and family services in a way that better meets the needs of indigenous peoples. It is clear that Canadians are shocked by the statistics with which I started my discussion and my contribution to this debate. This is an issue that has been raised by many of my colleagues in the House. It is certainly an issue that my constituents in Parkdale—High Park feel strongly about.

Whether they are students at Humberside Collegiate or at any of the other secondary institutions in the riding, whether they are younger people or older people, constituents of all backgrounds have told me, “I am not an indigenous person, but I know we need to remedy a historical injustice. To do right by the colonial and racist legacy of the residential school system and the policies and practices put in place by successive governments for 152 years, we have to implement legislation to remedy those wrongs.” Bill C-91, coupled with Bill C-92, does exactly that.

People have spoken to me about ensuring that we have culturally appropriate child and family services to protect the vibrancy of cultures. I have often told them it is important for people such as me or random constituents to engage with and learn more about and understand indigenous history, knowledge and culture. It is even more important to restore that knowledge and understanding to indigenous communities without doing it in a paternalistic way, as in past practices, but by co-developing solutions with indigenous people and empowering them to implement the solutions they feel are appropriate for their communities. That is what the bill will do.

Let me explain that indigenous children are being removed from their homes and communities in greater numbers than they were at the height of the residential school system. We have had conversations regarding the next steps our government must take to protect indigenous children, and as a result we are affirming the jurisdiction of indigenous peoples over child and family services.

Bill C-92 does not provide a one-size-fits-all model. Rather, it would allow indigenous people to exercise partial or full jurisdiction over child and family services at a pace that promotes the well-being of their communities. The bill would allow indigenous groups to exercise their inherent and rightful jurisdiction over child and family services, which will result in their laws prevailing over federal laws and laws of the provinces and territories, in the case of a dispute between the two. This is a very important point, because it gives meaning to this notion of self-determination and self-governance.

The legislation also sets out a robust mechanism whereby indigenous groups would enter into tripartite coordination agreements with the federal government and the provincial government of each province in which the indigenous group is located to work together for up to 12 months to reach a tripartite agreement. Along with affirming jurisdiction, the bill also sets out principles such as the best interests of the child, cultural continuity and substantive equality around the provision of child and family services to indigenous children, applicable at the national level.

Let me pause here to say that this is something we are working hard to implement across government. The analogy I would draw to this “best interests” provision is to a different bill that I have been privileged to work on as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice, Bill C-78. It is a family law reform bill that again entrenches the best interests of the child, but importantly, it echoes the language we find in Bill C-92, language that talks about the spiritual, cultural and linguistic continuity for indigenous children remaining with indigenous family settings. That is critical to Bill C-78, and also critical to Bill C-92.

With regard to decisions as to what is in the best interests of the children, Bill C-92 elaborates several factors that need to be taken into account. They are the child's physical, emotional and psychological safety; the child's security and well-being; the child's cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing; and the maintenance of an ongoing, positive relationship with the family, community and indigenous group to which they belong.

Let me restate that, because it is so critical and gets to the heart of what the bill is about: When there is a child welfare situation that involves removing a child from their original home to a foster care type of setting, we need to think about what is in that child's best interests.

How we evaluate that is by thinking about continuity in the child's ongoing positive relationship with his or her family and with his or her indigenous group. That is the key in what we are talking about here. That creates stability for the children through the connection for the children to their language and, importantly, to their territory. By emphasizing these factors, the legislation would ensure that child and family services take into account cultural context when making decisions as to what is in the best interest of first nations, Inuit and Métis kids. The goal is to decrease the number of indigenous children who are separated from their families and their communities.

Additionally, when decisions are being made about what is in the best interests of children, this bill would prioritize a shift from apprehension to prevention, thereby promoting preventive care that supports the entire family.

What does this mean?

We know, unfortunately, that too often child welfare advocates will arrive at a situation and say that a child needs to be removed from a family setting because of the conditions in which the family lives. The solution is not then to remove more children; the solution is to repair and correct the conditions in which indigenous people live. That has to be the solution. It bears common sense scrutiny. It bears logical scrutiny.

It also is completely consistent with an approach toward reconciliation whereby we accept and acknowledge historical racism and the legacy of colonialism and move forward together with indigenous peoples to correct that legacy. That is what this bill is doing by targeting this specific issue.

How does it do it?

The bill says that a child should not be apprehended solely on the basis of his or her socio-economic conditions. Instead, it calls upon governments to work with families to find solutions that uplift all family members and keep the child in that home. Moreover, if apprehension and placement are deemed necessary to ensure the best interests of the child, then Bill C-92 delineates an order of priority to be respected when placing that child, and this order is important.

If apprehension needs to occur, this is the classification, and it is a prioritized list: first, keeping the child with one of the child's parents; second, keeping the child with another member of the child's family who is an adult; third, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to the same indigenous group, community or people; fourth, keeping the child with an adult who belongs to an indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs.

That is an important prioritization, because it emphasizes exactly what we are trying to do: We are not trying to create further rupture between indigenous people and their culture and communities, but trying to restore and enhance that connection. This order of priority emphasizes family members first, and subsequently adults belonging to the same indigenous group, community or people.

By formalizing in law the need to keep indigenous children with indigenous communities, Bill C-92 takes a huge step forward in protecting cultural continuity by taking into account the things that I have been mentioning when determining what is in the best interests of the child: language, culture, connection with family.

To give a mundane example, if a child who speaks Cree lives on a reserve in rural Manitoba and if a removal is required, the services do not remove that child all the way to Winnipeg. First, they make every effort not to remove the child. If a removal needs to occur, they keep the child on the same territory with the same community, with people who will continue to speak Cree to the child so that the child can maintain that connection to their people. It is that straightforward.

The importance of cultural continuity is further enshrined in this legislation by establishing an ongoing obligation to reassess the possibility for an indigenous foster child to reside with one of the child's parents or an adult member of his or her family.

That is the kind of legislation that people in Canada want, including those in my riding and including the very patient people who have been sitting here from Humberside Collegiate Institute.

What they have said to me over and over again, and what I have heard in my riding and right around the country when I was working in my capacity as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is that indigenous reconciliation is the responsibility for all of us. It is not simply the responsibility of indigenous communities or the government vis-à-vis indigenous communities; it is the collective responsibility of the 36 million people who inhabit this country to move on that path together.

Bill C-92 is a milestone piece of legislation that would have significant impacts on the lives of indigenous youth, their families and their communities. It is an important step in advancing meaningful reconciliation and in implementing the vital recommendations made by the TRC. I want to thank the indigenous leaders across Canada who have advocated on this issue for years, as well as the current minister and the previous minister, the member for Markham—Stouffville, for their invaluable contributions, without which this legislation would not have been possible.

We are committed to working collaboratively with all levels of government and all relevant stakeholders to continue to advance the well-being of indigenous peoples, but as I said during the course of my remarks, we will not do this in a paternalistic or colonial way, but in a manner that empowers indigenous peoples and allows them to make decisions for their communities and for themselves.

Bill C-92 is an important first step in that direction, and I strongly urge every member in the House to support it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, during the development Bill C-91, the constitutional lawyers we heard from said that the legislation was not written for that to occur, as there were problems with jurisdiction. That was one of the problems of Bill C-91. In Bill C-92, I hope the legislation is written to actually do that, because in the case of Bill C-91, constitutional lawyers said that because of the way it was written, there was a problem as to who holds authority.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-92, an act respecting first nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

As part of that, I need to refer to an interesting production that I was able to attend a few weeks ago, the New Blood dance show. New Blood is a story of reconciliation, and it was a phenomenal presentation. This widely acclaimed production blends Blackfoot music and contemporary music by Peter Gabriel to create an amazing piece of theatre celebrating Blackfoot history and traditions.

For all those who might be interested in seeing it, it is a high school group that is connected closely with Siksika. There are a lot of students in it. It was first performed in 2014, and it is performed annually, with new students as participants. It has been viewed in many places in southern Alberta and in some in British Columbia. It is based on a chief's life, going through reconciliation and becoming a chief of his people, and the ultimate goal of the teacher who developed this production was to hopefully bring it to Ottawa so that more people could see it.

I think it is fantastic, and hopefully Heritage Canada understands how important this type of production is, as it is done by indigenous youth in our country.

The legislation that we have in front of us comes on the heels of Bill C-91, which was sent back to the House from the heritage committee.

I was fundamentally supportive of Bill C-91's objectives. Its objectives were important to constituents in my riding.

Siksika Nation, which is located in Bow River, has already taken steps to offer an immersion program in the Blackfoot language for the first time this September. The program will be offered to kindergarten and grade 1 students to start. This is an incredible step in ensuring their language and culture are strengthened through future generations. The students need to be there. I hope this program is a great success.

However, even though I fundamentally supported Bill C-91, the way the government rushed through the legislation was unacceptable. As with Bill C-92, the government introduced Bill C-91 late in its mandate. This has left the government scrambling to force the legislation's passage. In fact, as we were in committee, about 15 minutes before we were scheduled to meet for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91, we received over 20 new Liberal amendments to that piece of legislation.

Previously, when we were discussing the bill and hearing witnesses, I had pointed out some of the constitutional challenges that I felt Bill C-91 would have. Then we had constitutional lawyers appear before the committee as witnesses, and they pointed out the same problems. They believed that this legislation would not stand in court the way it was written.

Some amendments were made and maybe that will fix the legislation, but that is the problem with both Bill C-91 and Bill C-92. They were written too hurriedly and too late. Constitutional lawyers did not have an opportunity to deal with the amendments to make this legislation better or more correct so that it does not end up in litigation for years in court.

This pattern should not be repeated with Bill C-92, but I understand that the committee is conducting a pre-study and going through the same process. It was a piece of legislation that was rushed too quickly.

I understand that Bill C-92 seeks to affirm the rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis to exercise jurisdiction over child and family services by establishing national principles, such as best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality to guide the interpretation and administration of the bill.

These principles are intended to guide indigenous communities on the delivery of child and family services. If the legislation meets its objectives, it would keep extended families together and in their communities, which is a critical part of the goals, but I do not know if the legislation is going to achieve that. I do not think anyone would be opposed to that goal.

Consistent with the 2008 residential school apology delivered by Prime Minister Harper, Conservatives believe steps must be taken to reduce the number of indigenous children in care. Amends need to be made for residential schools and the sixties scoop.

My mother, for example, was one of the first teachers after the transition out of residential schools to teach in what it was called a day head start program for four- and five-year-olds for indigenous children on the Blood reserve. It was the first transition for students of that age to be at home and not in a residential school.

Ultimately, this legislation can reduce the number of indigenous children in care. It is well designed, but what did we see on Bill C-91? On Bill C-91 we heard from many witnesses that they had not been consulted or that their advice was unheeded. First of all, we heard on Bill C-91 that there had been extensive consultation. Then witnesses talked about six months. Then it got down to the fact that it was actually only for three months that there was an attempt at consultations, and then we heard that it was only weeks, so it is a challenge for us to know what really happened when we hear that extensive consultations have been done.

Given that Bill C-92 aims to give indigenous communities more jurisdiction over their foster care program, I would hope that the government will actually listen to the witnesses that are coming to committee. Otherwise, this is just one more example of colonialism by the government, which the government claims it is trying to avoid.

On Bill C-91 there were a lot of witnesses with a variety of opinions that did not match the legislation. They needed more consultation. As well, when I was at committee, we once again had a tremendous variety of witnesses with different opinions on National Indigenous Peoples Day, and again it was the government making the decision with its legislation.

I understand that the first nations, Inuit and Métis continue to be overrepresented in Canada's foster care system, According to the 2016 census data from Stats Canada, there are almost 15,000 foster children in private homes under the age of 15 who are indigenous, which is 52% of foster children in Canada. Obviously, the current system is not working well for indigenous youth.

I respect the fact that the government is taking measures it believes will address the situation, even though the government waited until the very last minute to introduce this legislation. Bill C-92 emphasizes a need to focus on prevention, rather than on apprehension. When apprehension has been deemed in a child's best interest, the legislation provides an order of preference for the placement of an indigenous child with a family member or a member of their community and stresses that siblings should be kept together when it is in their best interests. That seems like a good approach, but will it work?

While I have only recently reviewed the legislation, I look forward to learning more about the government's intentions to execute this plan. That is where we will find out if it works. Just as there were flaws in Bill C-91, I trust that the committee is receiving valuable testimony from witnesses on how to fix the potential flaws in the bill and how to make it better.

I do have a particular concern about coordination of this legislation with the provinces and territories. I understand that on the day the bill was tabled, Saskatchewan's Minister of Social Services, Paul Merriman, told APTN that the federal government chose not to collaborate with the provinces and territories to develop this legislation. In the development of Bill C-91, what we heard from people from the grassroots in the education systems in indigenous communities was that there was no consultation with them, and again the provinces are saying that there was no consultation with them. This is a problem.

Jurisdiction over this file may get complicated. I hope this issue will be addressed at committee. Bill C-92 will be a better piece of legislation if the committee actually addresses some of the problems, just like in Bill C-91. The last thing we want to do is spend this time on legislation and then have it end up in the courts under appeal.

Indigenous Languages Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Parliamentary 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.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

moved that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the third time and passed.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

moved that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, as amended, be concurred in.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

I appreciate that, because that twigged a concern. With the indigenous languages bill, for Parliament, in consultation and collaboration with indigenous peoples, to recognize section 35 rights, rather than court systems, that is perfectly appropriate. Language was also cleaner in terms of not having those provincial issues. What we did with Bill C-91, although unique and unusual, is a little different from what's happening with Bill C-92.

For example, from my interpretation of Bill C-92, if in the riding I represent there is an indigenous organization providing services on and off reserve and that is well agreed to, when those agreements are made, that makes sense. However, in the absence of those agreements, you could potentially have, off reserve, someone who is defined under the Daniels decision with no particular group who has taken on the authority under this act.

Therefore, what we are doing is imposing this legislation on the provinces, when they're taking care of off-reserve indigenous children, without any conversation. As I understand it, that is your particular area of concern, the constitutionality of doing that.

[Isa Gros-Louis]

UNDRIP is much broader than this legislation, and maybe you're raising this because it was mentioned in Bill C-91. However, in Bill C-91, UNDRIP refers to languages particularly, whereas UNDRIP does not make particular reference to children and families. That's why it's not specifically mentioned in this legislation.

Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her continued advocacy on behalf of her constituents and for indigenous peoples in Canada. It is a contribution to this House and it is an important voice that is being heard.

In the work that was done on Bill C-91, which is the indigenous languages act, first, we took the important step of co-developing that act, meeting with first nations, Métis and Inuit leaders around the country. I participated in those consultations, as did the former minister of heritage, as well as the current Minister of Heritage.

Secondly, we have tabled historic legislation, because we know that the policy of assimilation manifested by the residential school system was one of gross assimilation and effectively cultural genocide, as was described by Beverley McLachlin. We know that when we restore language capacity, we restore people's connections to their culture, their self-esteem and their education, and their economic outcomes improve.

With respect to this specifically, this issue was raised by the TRC calls to action 13, 14 and 15 and were responded to by virtue of tabling this very legislation. The monetary amounts complement the important statutory instrument.

With respect to the committee issues that she is raising, I am not aware of how committee proceedings proceeded, nor what the basis was for making a determination or predetermining who would fulfill the role of the official commissioner.

I will always stand behind our government's commitment to indigenous reconciliation and the fact that it informs every single mandate letter for every single minister in this cabinet, the fact that we have tabled language legislation, child welfare legislation and that we have lifted 81 boil water advisories and are on track to continue to lift all of them by March 2021.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions]

Mr. Speaker, I will continue the excellent commencement to this debate in this 20-minute segment by carrying on from the comments that were made by the member who just spoke.

I am rising in the chamber to speak to Bill C-97, the budget implementation act. This bill continues our government's commitment to put forward a progressive and positive agenda for all Canadians.

This budget has received praise from numerous sources. I have heard about it from the engaged and informed constituents of my riding of Parkdale—High Park, some of whom are here observing the proceedings today. Welcome, Mr. Van Dam.

This legislation will fund important initiatives in relationship to the environment, in relationship to anti-racism, in relationship to support for places of worship, indigenous languages, students, the LGBTQ2 community, infrastructure, health initiatives, social finance and so much more.

During my remarks today I will detail the highlights of this budget that relate to Bill C-97, which will improve the lives of my constituents in Parkdale—Hyde Park as well as Canadians right across the country.

First, it is important to thank the many stakeholders and individual Canadians for their hard work in advocating for various causes and issues raised in the budget by presenting their submissions to the Minister of Finance and the finance committee.

I want to begin my substantive remarks with one of the most important priorities for our country and for the world at large, as was just touched upon in the previous statements. It is the issue of climate change and its impact on our environment.

I agree wholeheartedly with the question that was posed by the NDP heritage critic about this issue needing to be a pan-governmental issue and a nonpartisan issue. Unfortunately, to date it has not been.

As many Canadians know, our government has placed a price on pollution, and it came into full force on April 1 of this year. This is a historic tool that will ensure that pollution is no longer free, and it reflects what I hear from my constituents and people right around this country: that climate change is absolutely real and that we must take action now.

In budget 2019 and through this very bill, we are taking steps in our plan to protect the environment and at the same time grow a clean economy while making life more affordable for Canadians.

This budget implementation legislation would implement a few additional measures, such as our $1-billion plan for investments in energy efficiency, which includes our new home retrofit program to help Canadians lower their electricity and energy bills.

It also includes a new $5,000 subsidy for Canadians investing in zero-emission vehicles. Those are Canadians in my riding of Parkdale—High Park and Canadians in every riding of this country. The bill will also support zero-emission vehicle manufacturing right here in Canada.

This is how we are making meaningful progress on fighting climate change now.

Next is an issue that touches all of us in this country, including residents in Parkdale—High Park in Toronto: the cost of housing.

Everyone deserves an affordable place to call home, but far too often Canadians are being priced out of the housing market. This bill would implement housing investments from budget 2019 that we are making to address housing affordability.

An important initiative is the first-time homebuyers incentive, which will allow first-time homebuyers to reduce their monthly insured mortgage payments by way of a shared equity mortgage from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, which would not have to be paid off until the unit is eventually resold. The shared equity mortgage could be up to 10% for a new build or up to 5% for a repurchase.

We are also allowing Canadians to withdraw, without penalty, an additional $10,000 from their RRSPs for the purpose of buying a home.

As well, we are increasing the funds for the rental construction financing initiative, which will help to build thousands of new, well-priced units right around country. That is important, because we have heard constantly that in order to address housing, we have to address the supply.

Bill C-97 would also implement our plan to modernize the Canada homebuyers' plan. This plan is intended to assist Canadians with their down payment and, by extension, the costs of purchasing a home. With this legislation, we are increasing the homebuyers' plan withdrawal limit from $25,000 to $35,000, which will make it more flexible to adapt to changing familial circumstances. That is in reference to the RRSP notion that I raised earlier.

This is on top of our overall $40-billion national housing strategy that now exceeds $50 billion when we combine previous budgetary allocations with the allocations currently being made. This national housing strategy has already been a tremendous success right around the country.

How does it affect my riding? I will explain how. It will affect my riding in two concrete ways.

First, we have five federally subsidized co-ops in my riding of Parkdale—High Park. Every single one of the tenants who has a rent-geared-to-income subsidy provided by the federal government will have that subsidy renewed by virtue of this budget and by virtue of our policies on housing.

Second, we have made a historic announcement of $1.3 billion for the national housing strategy that will come directly to Toronto to help those who are in social housing. It will come to the Toronto Community Housing Corporation. This is the single largest investment in Canadian history that is dedicated directly to municipalities, and 58,000 units will be affected. It will help to renovate, maintain and repair the housing stock, ensuring that the housing stock remains on the market so that people are appropriately housed. That is what a housing strategy does. That is what I am proud to defend here as a government member.

Our infrastructure investments do not stop there. Once again, we are stepping up while governments like the provincial government of Doug Ford are stepping out. In particular, we are investing $2.2 billion into the federal gas tax fund. That gas tax transfer is being doubled this year through this budget so that municipalities can commence much-needed infrastructure repair. This is how we will ensure that infrastructure funding gets exactly where it needs to go, and more importantly, it will go to those who have the ability to actually get the projects done, meaning local and municipal governments and grassroots community organizations.

Why are we taking this step? It is because it was asked for by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Those municipalities have expressed their absolute frustration with governments like the one in Ontario led by Premier Ford, which has stubbornly refused to get moving on much-needed infrastructure repairs purely because of partisan considerations. What we are doing is going directly to those municipalities to address their needs.

This budget implementation bill would also implement Canada's first ever poverty reduction strategy by entrenching an official poverty line and the national advisory council on poverty into law. This is in addition to the incredible news this year that the poverty initiatives implemented by our government are indeed working. Statistics released earlier this year show that 825,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty and that we are three years ahead of the targets we set as a government. Thanks to federal initiatives, poverty has fallen 20% since 2015. A hallmark of that initiative is the Canada child benefit and its targeted, means-tested approach.

We are continuing with the other important commitments we have made. We are entrenching pay transparency with this bill. As we well know, currently women in Canada earn approximately 87¢ on the dollar compared to men. This is absolutely unacceptable. Last year's budget introduced pay equity measures, and in order to reduce the wage gap, this year's budget will introduce new pay transparency measures in Canada for federally regulated employers. With this legislation, we will require employers to include new salary data in their annual reports to the Minister of Employment, Workforce Development and Labour in order to ensure total pay transparency. This is important because it will have an impact on Canadians.

I want to pick up on a question that was asked to the previous member, who spoke about indigenous reconciliation and how it is vested in this budget. It is vested in two critically important ways.

The first is in providing supports of over $300 million for indigenous language maintenance, protection and revitalization. I was very proud to have worked on the development of Bill C-91, which would revitalize, protect and promote indigenous languages during my time as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We are now coupling that statutory instrument with the financial resources to make it a reality. This is something that has been lauded by indigenous leaders, and rightly so, because it puts money to the commitments we have made to reconcile with indigenous peoples through promoting their language faculties.

Second, it needs to be stated over and over again that the situation of boil water advisories on reserves is deplorable, but we are making active changes to that situation. Thus far, we have lifted 81 boil water advisories around Canada. We are on track to lift all of them by March 2021. To demonstrate our commitment to this goal, we have dedicated an additional $733 million in this year's budget to that very important goal to ensure that no person in Canada, particularly no indigenous person, has to boil their water in order to drink safe water.

Those are the kinds of commitments that people have talked about to me in my riding. Those are the kinds of commitments toward housing, to reconciliation, to poverty elimination, to women, to addressing economic circumstances and job creation that people prioritize. This is a budget that I am proud to stand behind, and I urge every member of this chamber to do exactly the same.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the committee, good afternoon.

Thank you for inviting me to speak before the committee.

Before we begin, I would like to acknowledge that we are gathered on the traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinabeg.

As you mentioned, I am joined by Ms. Laurendeau and Mr. Francis.

Before we get into the supplementary estimates, I will thank the committee for all your hard work in the last couple of months on Bill C-91, regarding indigenous languages; on the review of the Copyright Act; on Bill C-369, to establish a national day for truth and reconciliation, just name a few. Those are very important issues to Canadians, and your work is making a difference in their lives.

Thank you for all your hard work.

Today I'm honoured to speak to you about the investments we're making in Canadian arts and culture. This year's budget reflects a promise we made to Canadians four years ago, a promise to support the middle class and the people working hard to join it. Canadian Heritage will continue to reinvest in our creators and cultural industries.

Why do we do it? We do it because culture matters. It matters to all Canadians. We all love going to the movies, singing along to a favourite band, or enjoying a great book. Judging from your reactions to a certain Canadian rock icon who recently paid this committee a visit, I think members of the committee can agree that some of our best memories are from concerts we've been to.

I often say that culture is fun, but it is also good for the economy. In fact, culture contributes more than $53 billion to the Canadian economy. The cultural sectors also employ over 650,000 Canadians and create many more jobs in the tourism industry. This means indirect job opportunities in restaurants, transportation and construction, among others. It has a major impact across the board.

Lastly, we've reinvested in culture because diversity and inclusion are important to Canadians. These values are part of our identity, part of who we are. Sadly, we know that Canada is not immune to racism, discrimination and the politics of division. That is why we're investing to celebrate our diversity and promote inclusion.

The investments in budget 2019 will allow us to keep the promise we made to Canadians.

We're supporting our music industry by investing $20 million over two years, or $10 million a year, in the Canada Music Fund. We're supporting our creators, festivals and shows by investing $16 million over two years in the Canada Arts Presentation Fund.

We're also supporting local celebrations, especially those of diverse groups such as pride festivals and powwows, by investing $34 million over two years in the Building Communities through Arts and Heritage Program and in the Celebration and Commemoration Program.

It should be noted that the amount also includes $10 million over two years to mark the new National Truth and Reconciliation Day and to celebrate National Indigenous Peoples Day.

Through the multiculturalism program, we support projects to eliminate discrimination, racism and prejudice in communities across Canada. In budget 2019, we proposed to provide $45 million over three years, starting this year, for a new anti-racism strategy. We want to find ways to combat racism in all its forms, while focusing on community projects. At the governmental level, these efforts will be coordinated by an anti-racism secretariat.

In terms of reconciliation, our government is taking a decisive step in the right direction by tabling our bill on indigenous languages. Thank you all for doing the pre-study and completing your report on the bill. What you did is so important, because as you know, the situation is urgent. Three-quarters of indigenous languages spoken in Canada are endangered. That is why we will provide adequate, stable and sustainable funding to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages.

In our 2019 budget, we're proposing major investments. You saw it: more than $333 million over five years, starting right now, starting this year, and more than $115 million every year after that.

The bill proposes responsive and flexible mechanisms that will allow us to direct funds to Indigenous communities, namely regional and national Indigenous organizations, and self-governing Indigenous governments.

They are the ones working on the ground, and they know local needs much better than I do, much better than we do. They are, therefore, best placed to define the solutions that will work best for them. They will have the freedom they need to allocate the funds appropriately.

Madam Chair, we look forward to continuing to work with you, members of the committee, and the Senate to pass the bill before the House adjourns for the summer.

In addition to the investments laid out in the budget, we're pleased that the supplementary estimates (B) include the additional funding we requested. It amounts to an increase of $9.34 million.

Allow me to review quickly the main items included in that amount. First, the amount of $5 million will go to the Vancouver Foundation to improve access to Canada's justice system. It's also our government's way of recognizing the enormous contributions of Beverley McLachlin, former chief justice of Canada. These funds are used to support projects that help break down barriers to civil and family justice.

Our government is committed to ensuring that Canadians have the best possible access to the justice system. It's key to having a healthy, democratic and inclusive society.

In honour of the former Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable David Johnston, Supplementary Estimates (B) also include a grant of more than $2 million to support a foundation, which mobilizes Canadians around promising projects that contribute to a stronger Canada.

Thirdly, Supplementary Estimates (B) includes more than $1 million for the Canadian Soccer Association to support the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup of Soccer. Those who know me know that I'm very pleased about that.

Finally, I'd also like to mention an investment of more than $500,000 for an initiative of vital importance to all Canadian citizens: ensuring a healthy digital democracy.

The health of our democracy depends on the reliability and diversity of our news and information sources. Every citizen is entitled to develop informed opinions, hold governments and individuals to account, and participate in public discourse. There is a rise in false, misleading and harmful information online and in social media. In this matter, our government takes its role very seriously.

We support projects that equip Canadians with the ability to evaluate online information with a critical eye. In our 2019 budget, we want to strengthen this digital democracy project, so we're proposing an investment of more than $19 million over four years. These funds will create a program that will help us better understand the impacts of misinformation and identify ways to fight it. This investment will also allow Canadians to lead an international initiative to strengthen citizens' resilience to misinformation and promote diversity of online content.

It is in the same perspective that we want to support journalists across Canada. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Professional journalism is one of the pillars of our democracy.

When we see how quickly our newspapers are disappearing, we cannot stand idly by. Our government is playing a major role in that as well. It will continue to play a major role and we will do something about it.

You know that, you saw it in the fall 2018 economic statement: we announced our intention to bring in targeted tax measures in support of Canadian journalism, including through tax credits and tax incentives. I want to assure you that the fundamental principles of an independent and free press will be absolutely upheld in the granting of these credits and incentives.

Madam Chair, arts and culture remain priorities for our government, and we'll continue to support our artists and creators, just as we will continue to create jobs and protect our inclusive diversity.

Madam Chair, honourable colleagues, thank you for your attention.

I also want to thank my parliamentary secretary, Andy Filmore, for his absolutely extraordinary work. We are lucky to have him.

I would be pleased to answer your questions.

Second Reading

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to a broader issue. The government has consistently talked about what its priority bills are in terms of moving forward, but our time is getting very short.

The Liberals have accused the Conservatives of stalling on Bill C-91, the indigenous languages legislation, and on Bill C-92, the child welfare bill. They have said that it is absolutely critical that we move forward and get them done. They like to lay the blame for their lack of House management on the Conservatives.

We fully anticipated that we would be talking to the important child welfare legislation. I wonder if my colleague could comment on the fact that his government seems to have priority legislation but does not seem to be able to get things through the House in a timely way. The government ends up cutting off debate on every single piece of legislation that comes along due to its poor House management. This is just another example.

I thought we would be talking about Bill C-92, but we are talking about a bill the government introduced six months ago and that has been on the floor for only a short time, and suddenly we have time allocation.

Indigenous Languages Act

[David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, a charter statement for Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

Public Accounts

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to what was a tangential reflection of what this debate is about. However, I noted the member talked about Bill C-92. Are the Liberals avoiding debating the bill because they are worried there are so many flaws in it, like in Bill C-91? It was unheard of that the government actually had to table over 30 amendments at clause by clause.

Are Liberals trying to avoid discussing Bill C-92 because they are worried they have again created legislation with so many flaws in it that they will be truly embarrassed when we have witnesses at committee pointing out all those important flaws in that legislation?

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

(Motion negatived)

All right, so we are going ahead.

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

(On clause 2)

The first amendment we have is NDP-1.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

Seeing none opposed, it passes.

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

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

Indigenous Affairs

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

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

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

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

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

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

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

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

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and honourable committee members.

[Witness spoke in Cree ]

[English]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As highlighted in the preamble of Bill C-91:

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

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

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

Meegwetch. Kinanâskomitin.

[Chief Gerald Antoine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Witness spoke in Dene Zhati]

[Chief Gerald Antoine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How much time do I have left?

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

[Witness spoke in Dene Zhati]

[English]

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

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

[Grand Chief Wilton Littlechild, Grand Chief, As an Individual]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good evening to each and every one of you.

[Witness spoke in Cree]

[English]

I bring you greetings in my language to acknowledge your excellencies and all the fellow panellists here and to be grateful for this opportunity for me.

I will state at the outset that I'm appearing on my own individual behalf. I don't have the mandate to speak for Ermineskin, Saddle Lake, Alexander, Sunchild, O'Chiese and Onion Lake First Nations in Alberta, who desire to express their own sovereignty and have indicated to me that I don't speak on their behalf. Hopefully, I'll speak perhaps more as a grandfather than anything else.

Thank you for that.

Also, as a prelude to my comments on proposed Bill C-91, as I said in my language, I want to express very sincere gratitude to each and every one of you for the work you're doing here.

At an earlier time, in an earlier life in the other place, as we used to call it, and when I had the great honour of giving my maiden speech in Cree in 1988 as a member of Parliament, things were very different. I won't go into all of the hoops I had to go through to do that, but I want to indicate how important language was and is, then and now, not only to identity and pride but also to spirituality, which is an essence of who we are.

I'm glad to see my brother Romeo here. He will remember that during the United Nations debates on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, when the articles came up on languages, I spoke for 10 minutes in Cree at the UN. You can imagine what the temperature of the room went up to. I asked people, “How did you feel when I spoke my language? Were you angry? Were you disturbed?”, because I could see the interpreters in their booths looking at each other and moving around. I did that for a purpose, because the point I was trying to make was that when our ancestors signed treaties, Treaty No. 6, you can imagine how they must have felt when they didn't understand the languages that were being used.

I want to do that again today by addressing Bill C-91 through a treaty lens, because there are some omissions in the bill from that perspective.

Another experience I draw on was the first international conference on indigenous languages, which was held in Japan in 2005. At that point, I spoke on an international legal framework for indigenous languages that was then in place.

I've also chaired some of the United Nations caucus meetings on indigenous languages. A couple of weeks ago, I guess almost a month ago now, I had the pleasure of presenting at the launch of the International Year of Indigenous Languages.

This is a really historic time, then, for this committee to be discussing such an important bill. At this time of the year, there are many reasons of importance. At the launch of the International Year of Indigenous Languages, I also referenced another part of my life, which was as a commissioner for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. For six and a half years, as I'm sure you all know, we went across the country, listening to former students. Survivors of residential schools shared their stories with us. Sometimes I would ask them, “What does reconciliation mean to you?” I remember one old man said, “Reconciliation, to me, means you give me my language back.” He paused, and then he said, “No. No. Reconciliation, for me, means give me half of my language back and I'll be very, very happy.”

I also want to share with you an opportunity I had on another occasion. I know that some of you have heard me say this before, but I ask each of you this question: Have you ever heard a language die? Have you ever heard a language die? One time, at a meeting at the United Nations, where we always offer an invocation and a prayer to begin our meetings, we asked an old man if he would be willing to say a prayer for us. He said, “I want you to listen very carefully. Listen to the sound of my voice. Listen to the words I'm going to use, because I am the last living person who speaks our language.” He went on to pray. About a month later, I got a phone call from a man who said, “Willie, the old man died.” I said, “What old man?” He said, “Do you remember the man who prayed for us at the UN? He died.”

I would not wish that experience on anyone. It was almost like somebody hit me right in the gut. I didn't know the man, but I heard his language, and I heard it die. That's how important this work is for me. It's because of the situation of our languages across the country. I heard survivors say, many times in anger and many times in tears, that they wished they could speak their language, but they couldn't; it was beaten out of them, they said, at residential school.

With that background, I look at Bill C-91 through the lens of a treaty. I have some comments I want to make in that regard.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you all for being here.

Ms. Joe, I really do want to thank you for the work of NWAC. I know our government values the work you do and I think we've worked together on many different initiatives.

With respect to languages, I was rather perplexed, so I had to get some clarity from the department.

My understanding is that you're right about the codevelopment: We had three national indigenous organizations that were part of the codevelopment process, and NWAC was not one of them. I believe we had 1,200 engagements with individuals and organizations with respect to the consultation, and I am advised that NWAC participated in five of those engagement sessions. Of 20 engagement sessions, I think you were part of about five. I'm also advised that NWAC received $166,000 in funding to undertake consultation and that a written submission was received from NWAC.

My sense is that while in your opinion, it may not be adequate—and I respect that if you feel that way—we want to put on the record that we definitely value what you're doing, and that your perspective is essential to the work we've done. Bill C-91 in part reflects many of the things recommended by you and your organization. I want to acknowledge this and to thank you for raising your concerns. Certainly, we will continue to engage on this as we go forward on the funding, and on other aspects, and in the future we will definitely work more collaboratively with NWAC and your team.

Thank you.

[Wayne Long]

To be clear, is it safe to say that you think Bill C-91 is a good start but needs amendments or t needs...? You suggested some amendments.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

This, in my opinion, is landmark legislation. I'm a business guy. My background is business, and I'm always more about execution and implementation.

My concern is this, and I'm looking for your guidance, Ms. Ayoungman, Ms. Peters and Ms. Joe. With respect to the rollout of Bill C-91, knowing there are federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as communities and villages and different ways, shapes and forms, Ms. Ayoungman, you said you wanted the money to flow directly to you and circumvent other layers, if you will. Ideally, how do you see this rolling out? How do you see the funding reaching the appropriate groups?

One of the concerns I have, if you're talking education, health care or what have you, is that there's a lot of infrastructure already there that can apply for money and disburse money and funding, etc. Can you give me your comments, Ms. Ayoungman, as to how you would see the funding rolling out to different groups across the country?

[Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Weyt-k, bonjour, and good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I am Francyne Joe, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people's traditional and unceded territory.

Since 1974, the Native Women's Association has been the chosen national representative of grassroots indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. We represent first nations on reserve, off reserve, whether status, non-status, or disenfranchised, and Métis and Inuit. We defend their rights and we advocate for those voices that are not heard.

Today I sit before the House of Commons to outline NWAC's significant concerns about Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

The Minister of Heritage and Multiculturalism, Pablo Rodriguez, tabled Bill C-91 without meaningfully consulting NWAC. The co-development process excluded us.

NWAC supports the Government of Canada's efforts to preserve, promote and revitalize first nations, Métis and Inuit languages, and agrees that Bill C-91 is essential. However, NWAC cannot fully support it without major revisions to address these disparities.

First, Bill C-91 does not include a culturally relevant gender-based lens. Intersectional lenses are imperative to every government policy and legislative decision. It reveals the distinct and unique impacts that legislation will have on marginalized and vulnerable groups, especially indigenous women. This is essential to meeting their needs and implementing effective legislation.

Additionally, this must be led by indigenous women. We are the keepers of traditions, of cultures, of languages. We are the hearts of the communities, and we are the mothers teaching our children how to communicate. Indigenous women must be the foundations of all language revitalization efforts, with full inclusion.

NWAC strongly recommends that the government meaningfully consult with us to apply culturally relevant, gender-based analysis and hear the concerns and solutions that indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people have to contribute.

Second, Bill C-91 does not take a distinctions-based approach. You cannot treat the preservation of each language identically with a blanket approach, or it will fail. A distinctions-based approach considers how a specific policy, program, service, or piece of legislation will affect first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across Canada differently.

The act does not specify whether non-status indigenous women and their children have any language rights. It does not state how Métis people living all over Canada, not just in the west, will be represented and included. It does not take into consideration the needs and priorities of Inuit communities. While two-thirds of the Inuit population can speak Inuktitut, this number is steadily declining. NWAC recommends that before Bill C-91 can be passed, it must clearly outline how it will account for the distinct contexts, needs and priorities of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities with regard to language revitalization.

Third, the act must specify its legally binding commitment to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for indigenous languages. Funding is one of the most substantial barriers to language revitalization.

On February 7, Mr. Virani stated, “over and over again in the consultations—that what we need is supports in terms of resources and what we need is stable, long-term, predictable funding.”

Outside of the preamble, the act does not specify that the government has legal obligations to create adequate, predictable, sustainable and long-term funding. This is not a question of determining a funding amount, but about distributing allocated funding enshrined in Bill C-91. NWAC recommends that before Bill C-91 is passed, it must clearly outline a legally binding commitment to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding.

Lastly, the act must specify its commitment to Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle is a child-first principle aiming to ensure that first nations children have access to all essential public services, regardless of jurisdiction. Language education is an essential public service for all indigenous children.

Currently, every indigenous language in Canada faces potential extinction. We are in an urgent state for language education. There cannot be any delay in services due to payment disputes within or between the federal and provincial governments, because we know that language education is fundamental to identity, culture and the history of our nations. Language education is an essential service, yet indigenous languages ae not treated as essential services. Would anyone deny language services for the cultural survival of French Canadians?

NWAC recommends that before being passed, Bill C-91 must clearly outline its commitment to Jordan's principle, as indigenous languages must be treated as an essential service.

Thank you, and kukstemc.

[Margaret, Kaweienón:ni) Peters (Mohawk Language Curriculum and Resource Developer, Ahkwesáhsne Mohawk Board of Education, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

I acknowledge everyone here.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

Thank you for inviting me to provide my voice.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

My real name is Kaweienón:ni, which means “she makes the way”.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

I'm Onondaga Nation and I'm Snipe Clan, but I'm a fluent Mohawk speaker.

First and foremost, I am a mother and grandmother.

The retention, restoration, revitalization and reinforcement of the Mohawk language is both a personal and professional endeavour for me. I don't consider my work as a job, but rather as a responsibility to help and do everything in my power to provide opportunities for our community members to be able to learn Kanien'kéha, the Mohawk language. I could easily fulfill my obligation if you, as representatives of Canada, remain true to your word and fulfill your duties that you have laid out in the various sections of Bill C-91, which states that it is an act respecting indigenous languages.

Paragraph 5(b)(iv) states that one the purposes of the act is to:

support Indigenous language learning and cultural activities, including language nest and immersion programs

Within our community, we have been fortunate to have established two immersion schools. Akwesasne Freedom School, although independently run through grants, donations and fundraising efforts, has a tuition agreement with the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education. Even with all the hard work the parents do to fundraise, the dedicated language teachers receive a salary that is not even at par with the poverty level in Canada for a family of four. I read that in December of 2014 it was less than $42,000 per year. This is a reality within many native communities, which struggle to maintain a sufficient level of education and struggle three times as much when it comes to the desire for language implementation.

The emphasis for language funding needs to be placed on immersion programming, as we all are well aware that the 40-minute core language classes do not produce fluent speakers. Am I right?

At present, I work for the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education as a Kanien'kéha Mohawk language curriculum and resource developer. Our struggle is that we don't have a lot of fluent speakers. We just can't find people who speak it to come to teach the language. I can't blame you who are present here today, because it wasn't your fault; you didn't want kids removed from their families and sent to residential schools. However, I can blame you if you don't take any action today and fulfill what you know is required for the people to restore their languages for the future, for the seventh generation.

In clause 9, under “Agreements or arrangements”, it states that the purpose of the act takes into account “the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous groups...in a manner consistent with the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces and of indigenous governing bodies and the rights of the Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by subsection 35 of the Constitution Act,1982”, which states that:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Any treaties and agreements were made with Canada, and the act need to be ratified and omit that the agreements or arrangements must take into account the needs of indigenous groups in a manner consistent with the jurisdiction of the provinces. The treaties were not made at the provincial level. They were made with Canada.

In clause 6, the bill states that:

The Government of Canada recognizes that the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages.

I'm just reading some of the Canadian laws.

Ours were the original languages of “Kana:ta”, the word that became “Canada”, the name of the country. It seems only right to respect the original people of this land by reaffirming the recognition and endowing us with the same status that gave French and English equal status in the Government of Canada as official languages.

It has preferred status in law over all other languages because it is common knowledge that the Indian residential school system was a network of boarding schools for indigenous peoples and that the network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs. The amount of funding that needs to be administered back into the reclamation of our languages should be equal to the funding that was put in to abolish our languages. I don't know the dollar amount, but I can estimate that it would be in the ballpark of billions of dollars. Excuse my estimation if I am wrong.

In clause 7, “long-term funding” needs to be changed to “ongoing funding”. “Long-term funding” implies that the funding will be administered for a questionable length of time. This would not provide the said “adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages” into the next century.

As Onkwehon:we, the real and natural people of this part of the world, I would like to remind you, as representatives of Kana:ta, to go beyond the talk. Words are only words unless a conscious choice is made to act upon them. I'm standing in front of you all today and speaking on behalf of my grandchildren—Rarihwasésta, Tharahkwénhahs, Teiakotshataténion, Raniehtanawénhtha, Roha'ti:io, Iakokari:io, Ieniehténhawe and Rarennenha:wi—so that they and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the faces yet to come, have ample opportunities to continue learning their language.

Niawenhko:wa. Thank you for listening to me.

Eh kati' nikawénnake. Tane' tho.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I call the meeting to order.

We now begin our 148th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are continuing our study of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today Casey Henley and Francyne Joe from the Native Women's Association of Canada. We have with us by video conference Ms. Vivian Ayoungman, coordinator, research and program development, Siksika studies at Old Sun Community College. We have with us Ms. Margaret Peters, Mohawk language curriculum and resource developer.

I will begin with the person by video conference, just in case we run into any technical difficulties. We can begin with you, Ms. Ayoungman.

[André Gagnon]

It's Bill C-91.

[Paul Joffe]

Okay.

According to their own world views, indigenous peoples also embrace, interpret and express their rights in a holistic manner. All of their inherent, pre-existing rights are interrelated and interdependent.

I won't read the seventh preambular paragraph in the UN declaration, but there it makes clear that indigenous peoples' rights are inherent.

Just to finish here, I should mention that the same provision that is in the seventh preambular paragraph is entrenched in the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the Organization of American States in June 2016.

To date, the UN declaration has been reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly 10 times by consensus. Therefore, I respectfully urge every honourable member in both houses of Parliament to support the adoption of both Bill C-91 and Bill C-262.

Thank you.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to thank you for inviting me to appear before this distinguished committee and for your support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. I welcome this initiative to reclaim, revitalize and safeguard indigenous peoples' language rights.

I just want to make clear that I'm not here to speak at a profound level in terms of indigenous cultures. That's not my point here. It's more to discuss some of the legal aspects. The rich dialogue that we all heard before this is not my level.

In my opening statement, I would like to divide my presentation into two distinct parts.

In part one, I will propose some amendments to Bill C-91 that would serve to make the legislation more consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In part two, I will briefly clarify the important relationship between Bill C-91 and Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It is crucial that both bills be enacted as federal law, hopefully prior to the upcoming election.

Let's begin with some proposed amendments.

The ninth preambular paragraph describes “a history of discriminatory government policies and practices, in respect of, among other things, assimilation, forced relocation and residential schools were detrimental to Indigenous languages”. This preambular paragraph should be strengthened by adding that the assimilation was also forced.

We should also highlight the 1960s scoop, and not solely residential schools. Destruction of culture should also be added. This paragraph would then be consistent with article 8(1) of the UN declaration, which affirms, “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”.

The last preambular paragraph highlights “the need to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons”. This provision falls significantly short of article 22(1) of the UN declaration, which stipulates that “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities”.

Rather than simply “take into account the unique circumstances and needs”, it would be much more appropriate to include the phrase “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs” in the last preambular paragraph.

In addition, the term “men” does not belong in this essential paragraph focused on discrimination, nor is the term “men” included in article 22(1) of the UN Declaration.

Under the heading “Rights of Indigenous peoples”, it would be important to add, at the very least, a new provision after clause 3, namely that aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the treaties. This would reflect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 14.

Clause 5 begins, “The purposes of this Act are to:”, and then paragraph 5(g) continues:

advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

In my respectful view, it is not sufficient to simply advance the achievement of the objectives of the UN declaration. The urgency of maintaining, reclaiming, revitalizing, etc., is emphasized twice in the preamble of Bill C-91. Therefore, the purpose in paragraph 5(g) should be no less than to “achieve the objectives”—not “advance the achievement”—of the declaration, consistent with article 38 of the UN declaration.

Now, the preamble of Bill C-91 states that “Indigenous languages were the first languages spoken in the lands that are now in Canada”. Therefore, it is contradictory for the bill to claim in clause 6 that the Government of Canada “recognizes”, rather than “affirms”, that “section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include[s] rights related to Indigenous languages.”

I'd like to turn quickly to part two of my presentation. The main point is that Bill C-91 and Bill C-262 are interrelated, and both bills must be adopted and implemented.

There's no doubt that indigenous peoples' language rights constitute human rights. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, addresses human rights, including language rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that also includes indigenous peoples' language rights.

At the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted as a human rights instrument. This declaration affirms that:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner.... While...various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights....

According—

[Claudette Commanda]

What I'd like to stress is that our national organization is community-driven. Our cultural centres are community-based, and they have been doing this work since 1972.

We operate on very limited funding, which comes from Indigenous Services Canada. It's proposal-driven funding, but we make do. We're not a political entity. We are grassroots. We know the issues. We know the people. We're directed and guided by our elders. Our culture centres are actually the hub of communities.

In the case of this Bill C-91—and I agree with you that it was rushed—if you want to do something, do it right, because this is important. This is critical. We're talking about our lives here. We're talking about our people. We're talking about our ancestors. We're talking about our generations that will come. It's important to get it right.

Work with those existing organizations that have been well established. We have the solutions. We have the ways, and we can do it. If we've been doing it with $1.50 per person, we certainly can do it. We need to have the resources so we can enhance our capacity.

[Claudette Commanda, Executive Director, First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

I've been with the confederacy since 2000. Established in 1972, the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres is a non-profit, first nations-controlled national organization. We have a membership of 50 cultural centres across Canada. We represent 400 first nations communities, and we represent the language and cultural diversity among first nations. Our mandate is protection, promotion, revitalization and maintenance of first nation languages, cultures and traditions.

Our organization supports the indigenous languages legislation; however, we have concerns with Bill C-91. FNCCEC were not co-developers in the drafting of the language legislation, but we contributed by way of a national engagement session. Our organization collectively put forward key recommendations as necessary elements of the language legislation.

The legislation must be indigenous, distinction-based and implemented according to first nations protocols, perspectives and practices. Funding must not be by proposal or project-driven; funding must be legally protected on a permanent basis. First nations communities must have ownership, control, access and possession of the implementation of the legislation, its regulations and its language funding. FNCCEC must be given full participation in the implementation of the legislation and have a vital role in the language commission.

It becomes apparent that Bill C-91 bears little resemblance to the recommendations that we put forward.

The concerns with Bill C-91 are what is and what is not contained in the bill. The bill does not contain a provision that recognizes first nation languages as the first or original languages, but addresses languages as a pan-indigenous approach.

There is no provision outlining the amount of funding to be invested into languages. There is no provision that states that the Government of Canada commits to protect and safeguard indigenous languages. There is no provision stating firm commitment to adequate, sustainable, long-term funding. In essence, the bill does not contain a provision to compel the government to permanently fund indigenous languages.

We have concerns with what is in the bill. Let's begin with the preamble.

There are 18 paragraphs in the preamble that speak about the importance of indigenous languages and indigenous peoples. The preamble is the best part of the bill, but we know that it doesn't have the same authority as the substantive parts of the bill. Actually, there's only one section that speaks about the commitment to funding.

Then there are the must-haves. Five of these paragraphs in the preamble need to be removed and placed in the purposes of the act. These paragraphs are numbers 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and I begin by emphasizing the most important paragraph, number 14, which says:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to providing adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages;

This text must be the opening of clause 5. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 also need to be in clause 5.

Paragraph 5(d) states:

Establish measures to facilitate the provision of...funding.

However, the problem with this section is that establishing measures is not a commitment to funding, and it is unclear who will be eligible for funding and how will it be divided and distributed among the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis.

The bill contains vague wording and uncertainties. For example, in the definitions in clause 2, there are two words, “other entity,” and it goes on to say, “that is authorized.” What is the definition of “other entity”? Who determines what is and who is “other entity?” Does this open the door for anyone to self-identify as an entity? What does “authorized” mean? Who determines “authorized?”

Another example is the word “diverse” in reference to indigenous governments, used in clauses 7, 13, 15 and 16. What is meant by “diverse?” It is unclear who these diverse indigenous organizations or governments are. Here again, the question is whether this is open for self-identifiers posing as indigenous organizations or governments.

The bill makes reference to “minister must” or “may” consult. Consultation is not consent. It may simply mean a discussion, and then government does what it wants. Clauses should be amended to require the consent of first nations for the long-term funding for their languages and the appointments of a commissioner and directors.

The bill also contains inconsistencies, such as clause 25, “Support offered by Office”. It does not include indigenous organizations, yet previous clauses do, such as clauses 5, 7, 8, 13, 15 and 23. Clause 26 now includes indigenous organizations. Why does clause 25 not include indigenous organizations?

The bill should be distinction-based, but it lumps all indigenous peoples together, without distinction. First nations have over 633 communities, with over 60 languages and dialects. First nations have a nation-to-nation agreement with the Crown dating to Confederation, and even before that.

Paragraph 5(c) speaks of establishing a framework to facilitate the effective exercise of rights relating to languages. However, first nations have the right of self-determination and self-governance. Therefore, neither the federal government nor any other body can impose a framework on how first nations can exercise their language rights. It lies with first nations to determine our own language laws and the exercise of rights.

In addition to the FNCCEC's engagement recommendations, we further recommend no duplication of existing structures and that no new bureaucracy be established. It is vital that language legislation support the enhancement of existing organizations and structures and that these existing organizations can access adequate funding. It is critical that funding must not go to political organizations. The funding must flow directly to the communities.

The terminology of the bill must be strengthened to give it legal teeth. There should be indigenous distinct commissioners: first nation, Inuit and Métis. The mandate and the priorities of the office of the commission should come from first nations, not through federal legislation.

Further amendments are required, including an amendment that clearly identifies funding amounts, affirms and guarantees funding, and protects permanent, sustainable funding; an amendment that addresses the disbursement and the distribution of funding to first nations, Inuit and Métis, and the mechanisms on how to flow the funding to communities; an amendment that clearly acknowledges the rights of first nations to pass their own language laws through their own inherent authority; an amendment to include treaties, whereby the honouring and protection of treaties will be in the purposes of the act; an amendment that guarantees the funding is not proposal-driven but is core programming for first nations communities and well-established first nations language and cultural organizations.

In closing, cultural centre expertise is integral to language protection, language development, cultural health and in building strong cultural identities for our children and our youth. The enrichment of community health and self-esteem for first nations youth depends on the transmission of knowledge from elders to youth. This is the paramount reason that the survival of languages and culture is critical.

As stated by an Ojibwa elder, the late Elmer Courchene, “If we do not revitalize our languages, we lose the spirit of the people. We want to save our languages for the future survival of our next generations.” This is why our organization and our work remain steadfast.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[Amos Key Jr., Director of First Nations Language Program, Woodland Cultural Centre, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

I just wanted to thank the Creator in my language as well, who brought us here today to talk about our intellect and our languages. I want to thank the Creator for that.

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

My real name is Taehowehs. My English name is Amos Key Jr. My clan is Turtle. I am from the Mohawk Nation, but my parents were polyglots and they raised us in the Cayuga language. They were multilingual onkwehón:we speakers.

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

I am also a faithkeeper of the longhouse in my community among the Haudenosaunee.

That's where I come from. That's my place in this world. I wanted to start my presentation in giving salutations to the Creator and to us.

I am pleased that I was invited to come and speak to you today. I know that I am on a time limit, so I'm going to go ahead. I have 14 points to ponder, as I call them. I'll go to those that I can get into my eight minutes or so.

I want to say that for the bill as it stands, because I'm a teacher, an educator, I give it a C+ at this point. As an educator, I give it a C+. I wanted to share that with you right now so that I can talk about my points to ponder.

My number one point to ponder is decolonizing the preamble. You might want to ask me a question about that later. We need to do that.

My second one is to decolonize the civil service and justice.

My third point is on the “Whereas” section of the bill on page 2. We might want to talk about that. It leaves out the impacts of our colonization, and our conversion to Christianity and the church are not acknowledged in the preamble, but we acknowledge other things. I think we need to talk about that as well: the impact of conversion among indigenous people in this country.

My point to ponder number 4 is that there is no detail that I could see significantly in the material about supporting the development of community language archives.

My number 5 point to ponder is that there is no mention of e-learning for indigenous languages.

Number 6 is indigenous language literacy and literary arts. There's no mention of it or supporting it.

Point to ponder number 7, on which I want to speak more in depth, is on the office of indigenous language commissioners.

Number 8 is on the parliamentary office of language commissioners, from our position paper that we submitted last July.

The number 9 point to ponder is implementing a framework that supports Bill C-91, which again is from our position paper on the office of commissioners.

Point number 10 is on the immersion education funding anomaly that exists right now for immersion education.

In number 11, I want to look at funding to support the intent and implementation of Bill C-91.

Number 13 is about supports to urban friendship centres in their delivery of language instruction or initiatives.

Number 14, of course, with my colleague, is about the support for the cultural education centres of Canada.

Those are my points to ponder that I have in my remarks. You'll be getting a translation of those.

I wanted to go back to a point. Once the bill is established and approved at some level, hopefully before this session of government is over.... We submitted a position paper called “Tseh ni: dwai: ho' de: Our Civilization's Sacred Thoughts”. The tradition in Canada is for language commissioners to be officers or agents of Parliament, so we propose that there be parliamentary offices of the indigenous language commissioners, similar to the parliamentary office of official languages supporting the Official Languages Act, especially for French language minorities outside of Quebec. This would also give Bill C-91, an act respecting Indigenous languages, a needed profile and teeth.

Why reinvent the wheel when a model already exists? It already exists in Parliament. That is a serious point to ponder.

In number 9, on implementing a framework that supports Bill C-91, again from our position paper, we recommend the office of the Inuit language commissioner, the office of the Métis language commissioner and the office of the first nations languages commissioner should be in place in order to carry out their various roles and responsibilities, each having the structure and framework that I will now describe.

To begin, there should be a central national parliamentary office of languages commissioners in Parliament.

Next is having 13 regional offices in the provinces and territories, national civilization-specific offices, with titles of regional commissioners or regional directors: one for the Métis, one for the Inuit and one for the first nations. These offices would work in co-operation with the local language commissions to ensure that they have adequate funding and provide suggestions and oversight for the reports and audits of the community language commissions on first nations communities.

The third aspect is to re-establish local commission offices on first nations communities. They will liaise with the provincial ones and other institutions such as indigenous cultural centres, friendship centres, the provinces, the Canadian military, the RCMP, the Senate and the House of Commons, where specific liaison arrangements may be required within the provinces and territories. These local language commissions would be responsible for community language planning and for developing annual and multi-year strategies and annual budget estimates to implement annual and multi-year strategic plans. In sum, it would be a three-tiered process or infrastructure that will support our languages from the grassroots up to the parliamentary offices in Ottawa here.

That's what we have suggested.

The Commissioner of Official Languages is an officer of Parliament, as you know, and is at arm's length from the government of the day, with a full set of responsibilities to report on the implementation of specific rights. The office has regional offices across Canada and operates with a staff of some 200 federal civil servants working to ensure that the linguistic vitality of French and English in minority settings is maintained and that the two official languages are not in danger. There's already a model here that we should mirror.

I have time, so I'm going to talk about the anomaly of immersion education funding.

[Ellen Gabriel, Cultural Consultant, Kontinónhstats Mohawk Language Custodian Association, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

Greetings, and thank you.

My name is Katsi'tsakwas. I am Turtle Clan and I am from Kanesatake.

It took over 100 years to get us to this point. It is going to take at least 100 years to bring back our languages to life. These are the words of Hilda Nicholas, director of the Language and Cultural Centre.

[English]

After the Indian residential school apology, an elder said that it took us over 100 years to get us to this point. It may take another 100 to get our languages back to our lives the way it should be.

During my presentation, I want to use intermittently “onkwehón:we” for the term “indigenous people”, because for us it best describes the people of Turtle Island.

I want to say that we are very happy to be able to have this opportunity to discuss Bill C-91 with you.

I want to state for the record that each onkwehón:we language is distinct and that a first nations language does not exist. There is a wide diversity of indigenous languages and peoples across Canada, and therefore each language should be treated as distinct and unique among the world's languages.

In order to find solutions, we need to contextualize realities we face under ongoing colonization and assimilation. Therefore, Bill C-91 must be amended and the vague statements must be revised to strengthen its intent of protecting and respecting onkwehón:we languages. It must remind Canada of its international human rights obligations and uphold the highest standards of human rights.

I want to describe the preciousness of our language. It is the very essence of onkwehón:we peoples, and it is deeper than a form of expression or communication. It contains our cosmology, our constitution, our value system and our history, and traditional knowledge systems are woven into our languages. Our ceremonies follow the natural rhythms of the natural life cycles found in our ancestral languages.

I am part of the Kanien'kehá:ka—People of the Flint—and the language I speak is Kanien'kéha. It is a language that is composed of 80% verbs, is action-oriented and is descriptive. It is a complex language that not only links us to our ancestral teachings but also strengthens our relationships with the environment and natural cycles.

For far too long, the importance of onkwehón:we languages has languished in the dark, as important problems like social problems rooted in colonization remain the priority of the day. Language is a key in the healing of our nations from the genocidal acts of colonization.

As such, since Bill C-91 mentions “reconciliation”, then acts of reparation and restitution must occur. Our languages are intricately and closely tied to the land, our relationship to Mother Earth, and all our relations.

As we all know, one of the tools used to destroy indigenous languages and cultures was lontiontáhkhwa lonteriwaienstakhwa, the Indian residential school system, whose scope, purpose and depravity are well documented in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Revitalization, maintenance and perpetuation of onkwehón:we languages are best done by onkwehón:we people themselves. We feel the urgency of the state of onkwehón:we languages more profoundly in our community.

We can no longer waste any time tolerating the imposition of colonial languages and the ongoing assimilation policies and programs. With each passing year we lose elders who have carried traditional knowledge—the first language speakers. We cannot afford to waste any more time from political posturing either.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues expressed in an expert language meeting on January 19 in 2016 an important message regarding the growing “crisis” and the loss of indigenous languages as being “urgent”, and while statistics help government create policies and programs, they cannot convey the level of urgency felt in communities that are resisting assimilation. They cannot paint a portrait of the grief of our elders as they witness the slow obliteration of our ancestral languages through colonial assimilation.

We need to strengthen some of the wording in the preamble. I'll go directly to some of the words.

In general, instead of just “recognition”, there should be “respect and affirmation of our human rights”.

In paragraph 5, it ignores the Indian reserve system, the ongoing land dispossession from institutionalized racism, a structure that is more akin to an authoritarian state than a democratic society. The colonial agenda and doctrines of superiority have been used as foundations of oppression to justify genocidal acts in lontiontáhkhwa lonteriwaienstakhwa, or the Indian residential school system.

In the 18th paragraph, the preamble should be more in line with article 22 of the UN declaration, which says, "Particular attention...shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth...children and persons with disabilities”.

The bill must take into account the multi-generational impacts of the Indian residential school system and the genocidal laws and policies. Hence, it should be a trauma-informed lens to get back our languages.

I'm not sure how I'm doing for time, but I'm going to go directly to the impacts of Canada's Official Languages Act and Bill 101.

[Wayne Long]

I'll read it again.

Madam Chair, I would like to move that this committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91 on Monday, March 18 at 3:30 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I'd like to move that this committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91 on Monday, March 18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the 147th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We're continuing our study today of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today as witnesses Ellen Gabriel, cultural consultant, Kontinónhstats Mohawk Language Custodian Association. We also have Amos Key Jr., director of the first nations language program at the Woodland Cultural Centre, and from the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, we have Claudette Commanda, executive director.

If I may take just one quick bit of business before we get started, I spoke to all parties about the day for our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. I was wondering if someone could bring a motion so that we could formalize that.

Thank you, Mr. Long.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

I know that Paul Lacerte has done a really wonderful job in developing the aboriginal friendship centres in British Columbia; he expanded them and they're all thriving. He's now off doing his Moose Hide Campaign and is removed from that for this period of time, but he was certainly active in looking at the value they could have.

If you were to place some statement into this legislation that's consistent with the value you've been reflecting, what would you put in, and where would it be? You've put that challenge out there in saying we need to do that. What facts should we use? What data should we use? What should we put in here, given that Bill C-91 is about indigenous languages, yet everyone's telling us there's that strong correlation with this....

Is it wrong to put it in here? Is it something that would be able to help in some meaningful way?

[Jocelyn Formsma]

Through Bill C-91, a commissioner position will lead the implementation and oversight. What is not clear is how it will be rolled out into Canada. It lacks assurance of accountability to indigenous people.

This gap leads to the potential implications for key stakeholders in the community, including friendship centres. NAFC will want to see direct measures clearly outlined to connect impacts of Bill C-91 to the urban indigenous population, including equitable access to resources.

Further, we recommend that the commissioner and three directors be given a special mandate to consider language revitalization within urban indigenous communities, or establish a fourth director whose mandate would be solely focused on urban perspectives.

[Jocelyn Formsma]

I'll speak a little bit to what's in our language discussion paper and some of our review of Bill C-91, before we wrap up for questions.

In March 2018, the NAFC held a two-day, “Our Languages, Our Stories” forum, with representation from all parts of Canada, to discuss and contribute input into the development of indigenous language legislation; in particular, to discuss the urban perspective on the state of indigenous languages.

There were several recommendations and highlights from the gathering that directly speak to the intent of Bill C-91. Participants shared the challenge of learning their language as a second language and the importance of immersive language learning. To quote the discussion paper:

...it must be incorporated into every aspect of peoples' lives in a wholistic way and there must be opportunities to speak the language, at every age, through the cycle of life.

Strong support was expressed for friendship centres themselves acting as central hubs for language revitalization, including providing safe and culturally relevant spaces for language learning.

This gathering provided further affirmation of how proud indigenous people are of their languages and ways of knowing and being. The youth shared how integral language is to their pride and understanding of where they come from.

Our recommendations were to create a national institute of indigenous languages; conduct a national indigenous languages needs assessment and research project; advocate to make all indigenous languages official languages in Canada; support indigenous language signage in urban centres across Canada; establish a federal department of indigenous languages and education; and support friendship centres to be indigenous language learning hubs.

I'll now speak to some of the clauses in Bill C-91 that affect friendship centres and urban indigenous communities.

Reflected in Bill C-91 is the commitment to providing adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages. The Government of Canada realizes indigenous peoples are best placed to take the leading role in reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening indigenous languages.

Friendship centres are indigenous-owned and -operated civil society organizations, operating in urban settings. This is an opportunity to draw upon the extensive NAFC network and expertise in program delivery throughout Canada. There are friendship centres in every province and territory, except for P.E.I., and each of them provides direct services to reach the urban indigenous population.

The definition of “Indigenous organization” in the bill is unclear as to whether friendship centres are considered. “Indigenous organization” is defined as an “entity that represents the interests of an indigenous group”. Friendship centres do not claim to represent the interests of any one indigenous group or its members. In fact, we represent an urban perspective and serve all indigenous groups and all members, whether they are recognized by their communities or not.

What about indigenous media organizations? Many indigenous communication organizations that have provided radio and television in indigenous languages for decades are nowhere reflected in the act.

Under the definition of “Indigenous peoples”, there is reference to subsection 35(2), which is “Indian, Inuit and Métis”. The NAFC would encourage that the definition be expanded to ensure the inclusion of all indigenous people, including non-status Indians and non-beneficiary Inuit, and be clear about what is meant by Métis. Indigenous language revitalization should not be tied to a political affiliation.

Under paragraph 5(b)(iii), under the “Purposes of Act”, it mentions supporting indigenous peoples to “create technological tools, educational materials and permanent records of Indigenous languages”. The NAFC would like to encourage that the purposes be expanded to support the technological tools, educational materials and permanent records that have already been developed. There are indigenous organizations that have databases, tapes, documents, materials and apps that have already been developed.

There are indigenous media organizations that have worked for decades and have reels of language material. If they were able to access funding and support, they would be able to mobilize and, for example, digitize these materials and make them more readily available to the public and indigenous communities and organizations, such as friendship centres.

[Christopher Sheppard, Board President, National Association of Friendship Centres]

Good day.

My name is Christopher Sheppard. I'm the President of the National Association of Friendship Centres. I'm an Inuk. I am a beneficiary of the Nunatsiavut government in Labrador.

We have submitted two copies of both French and English versions of the NAFC discussion paper entitled “Our Languages, Our Stories: Towards the Revitalization and Retention of Indigenous Languages in Urban Environments”.

I will start with some information about the NAFC.

The National Association of Friendship Centres is a network of over 100 members that are friendship centres and six members that are provincial and territorial associations from coast to coast to coast. Friendship centres are Canada's most significant off-reserve, indigenous, civil society network service delivery infrastructure and are the primary providers of culturally relevant programs for indigenous people living in urban environments.

For over 70 years, friendship centres have facilitated the transition of indigenous people from rural, remote and reserve life to an urban environment, and they increasingly support those who were born and raised in the urban environment. For many indigenous people, friendship centres are the first and main point of contact to find community, receive support and obtain referrals to culturally based socio-economic programs and services, which include indigenous language programs.

As NAFC president, I reported on May 9, 2018 to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples that in 2015 alone, NAFC friendship centres saw over 2.3 million client contacts, and provided over 1,800 different programs and services in many areas, including language.

For example, at First Light St. John's Friendship Centre, there is language programming in Mi'kmaq offered to anyone in the community. The classrooms and conversations were also recorded and broadcast, and made available through Webex so that anyone could join in person or online. The proposal we initially put forward was for three indigenous languages—Mi'kmaq, Inuktitut and Innu-aimun. However, it seemed like it was too complex for the department to understand the delivery of three indigenous languages, so they asked us to scale it to one.

Under One Sky Friendship Centre in Fredericton has a “take it outside” head start project that takes children on the land to learn Maliseet in all seasons. The Mi'kmaw Native Friendship Centre in Halifax is a partner in an indigenous-centred training program that promotes bringing language and culture into early childhood education. Native Montréal has for three years held free weekly language classes in Innu, Cree, Anishinawbemowin, Atikamekw, Wendat and Inuktitut for both children and adults. The Aboriginal Friendship Centre of Calgary offers Cree, Michif and Blackfoot classes funded by the province, and the Canadian Native Friendship Centre in Edmonton provides Cree classes.

The Dauphin Friendship Centre provided Michif language, and the BC Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres received $6 million for language programming under the provincial government.

The NAFC is here to speak about Bill C-91, because we are in it right now. We are providing language programming, and we will continue to do it because we are accountable to the indigenous communities that own and operate our centres on shoestring budgets.

Since 1972, the NAFC has built this deep, grass-rooted foundation that forms the very fabric of the urban indigenous population in Canada. We have leadership and a national network that reaches deep into urban indigenous communities that are asking for support for further use and revitalization of indigenous languages.

Urban indigenous people hold a strong connection to their identity while navigating ways to maintain cultural connections outside of their communities. This reality of our urban indigenous issues is ignored or forgotten. This is our critical hour to ensure the urban indigenous voice is heard and upheld in the establishment of Bill C-91, and respecting indigenous languages includes respecting where indigenous language is needed, and this includes Canada's urban landscape.

With the staggering increase of over 60% in the urban indigenous population in just 10 years, it is clear that a national mandate to revitalize indigenous languages must include urban indigenous communities.

[Aluki Kotierk]

I believe we provided it in both English and French, recognizing those are the official languages of this nation. You'll see we're suggesting that some text be included in Bill C-91, and we've numbered them X1 to X4. In addition, we're suggesting an annex related to Inuit languages specifically, so we provided that in written form.

[Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak today about Bill C-91.

First, I would like to applaud the committee for recognizing that indigenous languages must be written into Canadian law. This is essential if Canada is to grow back into its Arctic identity.

lnuktut is one of the healthier indigenous languages in Canada, reportedly spoken by 84% of residents in Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland in Canada. This makes Inuit Nunangat the largest indigenous language area in Canada.

ln Nunavut, the Nunavut Act gives the Nunavut legislature the power to make laws in relation to lnuktut. As a result, Inuktut is an official language at the territorial level. We have a territorial Inuit Language Protection Act and a languages commissioner. Our 1993 treaty, the Nunavut agreement, also contains some limited lnuktut language provisions.

Most importantly and optimistically, Nunavut is the only province or territory in which an indigenous language is spoken by a majority of the public as their mother tongue.

I come from Igloolik. The Hall Beach DEW line site is a distance just longer than a marathon away. The DEW line, an American military installation built across 10,000 kilometres of the Arctic in two years, served as a strategic military position to warn the U.S. of airborne danger from the then USSR. It was built in the days of no runways or hotels. There are still no ports.

Today, the threats are different. Globalization limits innovation and creativity. I am here today, born and raised 70 kilometres from the Hall Beach DEW line site, to give you an early warning from the distance. Despite the existing protections, lnuktut is a language at risk. Every year, the number of Inuit language speakers in Nunavut declines by 1%. It is a devastating reality that Inuit cannot access essential programs and services in our own language. Language barriers between Inuit patients and health professionals are a life and death matter long recognized by Inuit, and now in at least one coroner's report.

The 97% Inuit student body in Nunavut is taught by over 75% non-Inuktut speaking teachers—a virtual death sentence for the language. The people of Inuit Nunangat urgently need a federal language act. The government's initiative in this respect is welcome, and Bill C-91 contains recognition and objectives that NTI supports. ln particular, NTI has long sought the positive interpretive principle contained in clause 3, and is pleased with the recognition of section 35 language rights. Unfortunately, these provisions are not enough to save and sustain lnuktut. The Inuit have offered the government a number of concrete and, we believe, reasonable proposals.

That brings me to NTI's disappointment with the bill, both in terms of process and content. You heard much of this from Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and it bears repeating. Since 2017, Inuit sought to be constructive partners throughout the legislative process, sharing position papers, drafting a comprehensive lnuktut bill and showing a willingness to compromise on legislative content.

On the content of the bill, there are a number of central weaknesses, including that the bill does not contain any funding commitments. Rather, references to funding are included in purposes, consultation and future agreement provisions. 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. Symbols are important, but they fall far short of what is needed, and short of what is called for in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. Our preference is for a stand-alone federal lnuktut act in recognition of lnuktut's unique status as the majority language of the territory.

As it stands, C-91 would be considerably improved by the following amendments: recognition of lnuktut as an original language of Canada and the first language of the majority of Inuit Nunangat residents; a commitment to the delivery of critical federal programs and services in Inuktut in Inuit Nunangat—to the extent that demand requires, capacity allows and numbers warrant; close collaboration with Inuit bodies in meeting the Government of Canada's commitments under the act; and a commitment to funding that will ensure services comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians.

I invite you to see that Bill C-91 couId be so much more. On the basis of Inuit language rights, reconciliation and our nation's ability to remain innovative, Canada must invest in the future of lnuktut. This is achievable.

Thank you. I am happy to take questions.

[Craig Benjamin, Campaigner, Indigenous Rights, Amnesty International Canada]

Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin people, on whose lands we have the privilege of meeting, and I would also like to thank the members of the standing committee for this opportunity to appear before you.

As the chair said, my name is Craig Benjamin. I'm a member of the staff of Amnesty International Canada, where I coordinate the organization's program of work to promote the human rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada.

Like a number of other individuals and organizations who will be appearing before the committee, Amnesty International is an active participant in the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a network of indigenous and non-indigenous organizations and individuals that have been deeply involved with the development of international standards protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, including particularly the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would like to begin by highlighting three passages from the bill that I think are extremely important in the context of living up to Canada's existing commitments and obligations in respect of the human rights of indigenous peoples.

In clause 6, which Roger Jones referred to, Bill C-91 provides explicit recognition that:

the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages.

In its preamble, the bill takes note of the fact that rights related to indigenous languages are also affirmed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Government of Canada has committed to fully implement. The bill appropriately names among its purposes advancing the objectives of the UN declaration as it relates to indigenous languages.

In addition, the very first sentence of this bill is the statement:

recognition and implementation of rights related to Indigenous languages are at the core of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

These various affirmations that the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages is a matter of human rights protected in both domestic and international law are important and welcome. I hope that this understanding of the language rights of indigenous peoples will guide not only future implementation of the proposed legislation, but also how Parliament continues to engage with the question of Canada's wider responsibilities to support indigenous languages.

Unlike others speaking here today, I am not an expert on indigenous languages or language revitalization. However, work alongside indigenous partners in Canada has consistently highlighted the central importance of indigenous languages to the well-being of indigenous peoples and to the survival of their distinct cultures and traditions. It's often said that all rights are interdependent and indivisible. This is amply illustrated by the importance of indigenous language to all other rights that indigenous peoples seek to exercise and enjoy, including rights to identity, to livelihood and subsistence, and to education, health and self-determination.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has used the phrase “inseparable and mutually reinforcing” to describe the relationship between indigenous languages and indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge systems. Another UN body, the expert mechanism on indigenous peoples, has said that indigenous languages contain within them the tools by which indigenous governance, law and jurisdiction are defined and realized.

In this context, Amnesty International has been deeply concerned over Canada's persistent failure to provide adequate and sustained support to the urgent work of first nations, Inuit and Métis organizations to ensure their languages can be protected, revitalized and practised. In fact, colleagues with the francophone branch of Amnesty International in Canada have marked the International Year of Indigenous Languages by launching a major public campaign calling for increased and ongoing supports to indigenous language programming and services.

Certainly, Amnesty International is not alone among international human rights organizations in raising these concerns. The survival of indigenous languages in Canada has been a persistent theme of UN treaty bodies and special mechanisms when they have examined whether or not Canada is living up to its existing human rights obligations.

In 2016, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the independent expert committee that reviews state compliance with the requirements of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, called on Canada to “step up the efforts needed to promote the preservation and use of indigenous languages”, including ensuring the ability to use indigenous languages in schools.

In the report of his 2014 official mission to Canada, the then UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Dr. James Anaya, flagged the underfunding of indigenous language protection and revitalization as a critical part of what he characterized as a human rights crisis facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

As these examples make clear, not only do indigenous peoples have a clear right to protect, revitalize and practise their languages, there is also a corresponding obligation on the part of the federal, provincial and territorial governments to help establish the conditions in which this right can be fully realized and enjoyed.

Article 13 of the UN declaration affirms 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. This same article calls on states to take effective measures to support this right.

Article 14 of the declaration similarly protects the rights of indigenous peoples to provide education in their own language, and goes on to say that 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 education and their own culture and for it to be provided in their own language.

The UN declaration is a highly authoritative source of interpretation of state obligations, having been subject to decades of detailed deliberation and now having been repeatedly affirmed as a consensus global instrument. The declaration, however, is not alone in recognizing these obligations. The declaration was built on the foundations of human rights norms and standards that preceded it.

Critically, I want to highlight the fact that when identified groups are at heightened risk of human rights violations, states have even greater obligations to protect and promote their rights. Where the state itself is responsible for violation of those rights, there is a duty of redress. The standard redress in international law requires states to take every reasonable effort to undo the harm that they have inflicted or allowed to happen and to prevent continued harm in the future.

To live up to the duty of redress, programs and policies adopted by the Government of Canada must be in proportion to the grave harms that were done to indigenous language speakers and to the capacity of indigenous peoples to live in their own languages. Therefore, they must be sufficient to address the real and diverse needs of indigenous peoples across Canada.

The legislation before this committee will not be the entire solution, but it's our hope that its passage will establish a clear intention and a clear direction for the federal government to live up to its human rights obligations when it comes to that crucial stage, as Roger Jones said, of implementation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will now begin the 146th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

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

We have with us as an individual, Mr. Roger Jones, Special Adviser to the National Chief, Languages Act, who was with us just recently.

From Amnesty International Canada, we have Mr. Craig Benjamin, Campaigner, Indigenous Rights.

From Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., we have Aluki Kotierk, President, and Kilikvak Kabloona, CEO.

I would like to begin with an apology to those from the NTI. We tried to have an Inuit interpreter accredited through translation services in time for this meeting. We were unable to find someone accredited. I know we've talked about it, but I did want to formally apologize.

Just so the committee knows, when NTI does their opening statement, it will be in Inuktitut. They will be reading the formal statement, and the translators will be reading it in English and in French. Questions and answers will be in English and in French.

On that note, we can begin with Roger Jones, please.

[Natan Obed]

We have challenges with this legislation and C-91 specifically, based on the codevelopment that was promised to us by the Government of Canada and our expectation of an Inuktut-specific section within the bill.

What happens with first nations or Métis is not within our purview or jurisdiction. I would argue that is more within the Government of Canada's concern.

[Tim Argetsinger]

Sure, I can try to clarify. I apologize that you don't have the submission that was shared with the clerk on Thursday of last week.

What we're proposing, as far as amendments to the bill are concerned, is that a provision be included after clause 11 of Bill C-91, which would state: “The Minister must pursue, in close consultation with relevant Indigenous governing bodies, the development of a separate Annex to this Act in relation to Inuktut.”

We've included a draft annex that we have drafted, and it imagines what those specific provisions in that annex could be. Those provisions fall under a few different categories: status of Inuktut, principles, definitions, funding, education, health, justice and language of work in the federal departments and agencies.

A question came up earlier in relation to education, and I think there may be a misunderstanding of what the rationale is for our comments on education. The specific provision we'd be imagining including in the annex itself would state, or could state: “The Government of Canada must take effective measures to support the advancement and implementation of education in Inuktut within Inuit Nunangat.”

Currently, there is a significant disparity in funding that is provided by the Department of Canadian Heritage to the two territories through the territorial language accords, which the Department of Canadian Heritage negotiates bilaterally with the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. Such a provision could create the opportunity for trilateral agreements being negotiated with the department and the provincial and territorial governments in whose jurisdiction Inuit live, to ensure that adequate funding for education initiatives and activities are provided. Currently, through those existing agreements, those funds, for example, that are provided to the Government of Nunavut for Inuktut are not eligible for use by the public government's department of education; however, the funding for French language instruction is included in that particular agreement.

I'm just providing some background about our comments earlier about the need for equitable support for education throughout Inuit Nunangat.

[Wayne Long]

Do you see Bill C-91, as it currently is, protecting minority languages? Because one of the concerns we've heard from other witnesses is just the fact that there are communities that have infrastructure—schools, systems, things in place—but other areas don't at all.

Do you see Bill C-91 reaching them, or do you have amendments that you would propose to make sure that their rights and their languages are enhanced and protected also?

[Natan Obed, President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Nakurmiik. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to be a witness here before you today. I also want to recognize Duane Smith, the chair of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, a board member for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, who was just a witness before this committee.

Inuit are one people sharing a common language, Inuktut, which has many dialects, and Inuktut is a term that we have decided to call our Inuit language. There are lots of conversations in our community about what that term is defined by, but in the end there are definition of words and etymology of words, but there are also our words that are used for political practice. Ontario might be an indigenous word, but you all know Ontario as something very different, as a political space. We are in the midst of developing our self-determination, and the words that we use in Inuktut are very helpful to that.

The majority of our people live in 51 communities throughout Inuit Nunangat, the term that we use to describe our homeland. Inuit Nunangat is a distinct geographical, political and cultural region that makes up nearly one-third of Canada's land mass and half its coastline.

Eighty-four per cent of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat report an ability to speak Inuktut, making our language the most resilient indigenous language in Canada. However, a more complex picture of our language status emerges when considering conversational ability and language of the household: 58% of Inuit within Inuit Nunangat report being able to speak Inuktut well enough to conduct a conversation, and only 40% report that Inuktut is the language most often used at home.

Inuktut has official language status in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In Nunavut, the rights of Inuktut speakers are further affirmed by the Inuit Language Protection Act. Inuktut has official language status in the self-governing region of Nunatsiavut within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

National legislation is needed to build on existing rights for our language and to complement initiatives advanced by territorial governments and Inuit throughout Inuit Nunangat. ITK therefore recognizes the positive role national legislation can play in closing statutory and policy gaps that enable continued discrimination against Inuktut speakers. The specific nature of this discrimination and its consequential negative impacts on the day-to-day lives of Inuktut speakers is detailed in ITK's written submission to this committee.

Bill C-91 currently falls far short of fulfilling the Government of Canada's own commitment to develop distinctions-based legislation. On the basis of this commitment, ITK agreed to participate in this legislative initiative at the beginning. In the joint statement released when this legislative initiative was launched on June 15, 2017, Minister Joly, I, National Chief Bellegarde and Clément Chartier, president of the Métis National Council agreed to, “work collaboratively, transparently, and on a distinctions basis to codevelop national first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation languages legislation whose content will reflect the distinct geographic, political, legislative and cultural contexts impacting language revitalization, recovery, presentation, protection, maintenance and promotion”.

It was our understanding, all the way through this initiative until very recently, that there would be a common section with provisions within the legislation, and then there would be distinctions-based sections based on the specific needs and realities of first nations, Inuit and Métis. Bill C-91, as it is currently drafted, completely overlooks the unique status of Inuktut and the practical needs of its speakers. In the absence of Inuktut-specific provisions within Bill C-91, ITK is therefore proposing amendments to the bill that would help ensure that our long-standing priorities for our language are reflected in this bill.

Remedying these problems has been a national Inuit priority for more than half a century. ITK was formed in 1971, in large part to advance the statutory and policy measures required to help revitalize, maintain and promote our language. These amendments are necessary to fulfill the federal government's commitment to indigenous peoples and all Canadians to develop distinctions-based legislation.

They would ensure that our people are able to enjoy the human rights and fundamental freedoms that all peoples are entitled to, including in the political, economic, social, cultural and other fields of public life.

In our submission to this committee, ITK has therefore proposed amendments to Bill C-91 that would obligate the minister to develop a separate annex to this act in relation to Inuktut. This annex could include provisions addressing the following areas, among others: use of Inuktut in the delivery of federal programs and services; use of Inuktut in the federal public service; standards to govern federal financial support for Inuktut and specific levels of support; and measures to support the provision of Inuktut language programs and services in relation to education, health and the administration of justice.

The amendments to Bill C-91 that we are proposing are consistent with documents and input provided by Inuit to the Minister of Canadian Heritage throughout the past two years. They are also aligned with the federal government's own priorities, particularly in the area of access to federal services for Inuktut speakers.

Inuit face consequential linguistic barriers when it comes to accessing public services, especially within the majority Inuktut-speaking regions of Nunavut and Nunavik. This problem is particularly acute in law enforcement, where the limited number of Inuktut-speaking RCMP officers contributes to under-reporting of violent crime, and family violence in particular.

Furthermore, the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reported in 2018 on the risks to public safety that exist as a result of the limited number of Inuktut speakers within the Canadian Coast Guard. The committee has recommended that the Canadian Coast Guard recruit people who speak lnuktut. Similar barriers are well documented within Quebec's provincial justice system. The federal government's unwillingness to provide services in Inuktut within Inuit Nunangat has even served to undermine the federal government's ability to discharge its duty to consult and accommodate Inuit. Such was the case in 2017 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Nunavut community of Clyde River and found the National Energy Board's consultation process on seismic testing in the area flawed for, among other reasons, failing to communicate with Inuit in our primary language.

ITK urges this committee to take concrete action to address these long-standing problems by adopting the amendments we are proposing today. These proposed amendments, so necessary to the enjoyment of dignity among our people, are modest in comparison to the rights enjoyed by speakers of Canada's two official languages, both within our homeland and throughout this country.

Inuit are looking to each of you to demonstrate the creativity and political courage needed to help us end the discrimination too many lnuktut speakers face in going about their day-to-day lives and to replace symbolism with effective and impactful federal support for efforts to strengthen and revitalize our language throughout Inuit Nunangat.

Nakurmiik.

[Wayne Long]

Thank you very much, that's a great answer.

You also mentioned three phases that I found very interesting. You mentioned revitalization, stabilization and then extension.

Can you elaborate briefly on how you see Bill C-91 with respect to the extension part of that phase?

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

Good morning to my colleagues.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wiggus.

Much respect.

Awet zeh.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will now turn to the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With that, quyanainni, quyanuq.

Thank you for your attention.

I'll be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

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

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

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

[Wayne Long]

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

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Richard Marceau]

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

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

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

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

Merci.

[Allyson Grant]

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

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

[Richard Marceau]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good evening.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

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

[Witness speaks in Cree]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kinanaskomitin.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

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

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

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

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

We will begin with your presentation, please.

Second reading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to participate in such an important debate, a debate that in my opinion has been a long time coming. It is great to see this legislation being put forward, and it is great to have an opportunity to contribute to this.

It is safe to say that this legislation is coming as a direct result of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report, a report that highlighted and underscored the need for the Canadian government to take action with respect to truthfully and in an honest and sincere way moving toward reconciliation as it relates to the indigenous communities throughout Canada.

I would like to start by acknowledging that we are on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabe people. I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

Over the past two years, Canadians have increasingly learned about the ill-conceived government-led policies, such as the Indian residential schools policy, day schools and child welfare, all of which contributed to the erosion of indigenous languages. We know this through the testimonies given by indigenous peoples, from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures and, most recently, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.

We know that the survivors of residential schools were abused and shamed for speaking their languages, and many did not pass their languages on to their children for fear they would be discriminated against. It is in this context that I acknowledge the dedication and hard work of first nation, Inuit and Métis language speakers and indigenous knowledge keepers who are working to keep their languages and cultures vibrant and have been advocating for support for their languages for over a century.

Many Canadians may not have a deep understanding of why it is so important to indigenous peoples to see their languages reclaimed, revitalized, maintained and strengthened. Through various testimonies from indigenous peoples, we have heard how indigenous languages are core to the indigenous identity: the relationship to self, to family, in some cases to clans, to community, to governance and to land. As reported by elders to the 2005 Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures, language, culture, spiritual values and the sense of identity are inseparable concepts.

That is one of the reasons great efforts are being made in communities to keep their languages alive. The fortitude and dedication of those who work to keep languages spoken in their homes and communities comes from the heart. It comes from who they are. Indigenous languages hold world views that guide behaviours, attitudes and beliefs that reinforce responsibilities to the land and to each other.

Past governments tried to coerce indigenous peoples to assimilate and abandon their cultural practices, including their languages. The results of this have had a detrimental impact on multiple generations where indigenous peoples were made to feel ashamed for speaking their languages. The intergenerational transmission of oral history, storytelling and culture was profoundly interrupted through the imposed prohibitions on languages and on ceremonial and cultural practices.

Language specialist Mary Siemens once conveyed the link between indigenous languages and cultural identity, stating:

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 travelled on. We have specific words to describe the seasonal activities, the social gatherings, and kin relations.

In the words of indigenous knowledge keepers, ancestral languages are the key to identities and cultures. Each of these languages tells us who we are and where we came from.

The 2005 task force on aboriginal peoples and culture re-emphasized that when it said that language is embedded in indigenous peoples' relationship to the land. The languages arose here and are profoundly different from languages spoken and developed elsewhere in the world. The structures of indigenous languages reflect the distinctive philosophies based on relationship to the land. Thus, first nations, Inuit and Métis languages have more words to describe nature through their many references to geography, weather, wildlife and so forth.

Consider the diversity of indigenous peoples in Canada and the various states of language vitality. Compare that to the reports and studies that support the notion that being immersed in language and culture lead to better health and well-being. Fostering indigenous identity through languages is healing indigenous families and communities from the detrimental impacts of colonialization, and gives children and youth pride in who they are.

Whether indigenous languages are supported at home, through adult immersion, on the land, in language camps, in language nests or through master-apprentice programs, more awareness of the richness of indigenous languages is permeated in the young minds who will grow up knowing who they are, who their ancestors were, and where they come from.

It is supporting the reclamation of the languages that we tried so hard to take away. There are times when we hear stories of indigenous youth and young adults who are experiencing the challenges of intergenerational trauma and navigating the transition from youth to young adulthood. We hear how becoming more involved with their language and culture is positively contributing to their self-esteem, self-worth and pride in who they are.

There is so much to be said about the healing aspects of learning the languages and ways of one's ancestors. Language is so important to our identity and culture. In the Anishinabe context, for example, there are ceremonies to mark each stage of life, from birth to end of life on this earth. Their importance is to help young people find their purpose in life and learn their responsibilities as daughters or sons, parents, grandparents, aunts or uncles.

To add to this complexity and to highlight an example, there is a different terminology used for aunt and uncle that links one as a sister or brother of one's mother or father, thus defining the kinship role and responsibility to the family.

These languages are both profound and complex. There are differences from the English and French languages that simply get lost in translation. There are concepts that do not exist in other cultures or, by extension, in their languages.

On a more spiritual level, a late elder underscored the relationship between language and the ability to understand and take part in ceremonies, by saying that if one is going to do something about languages, indigenous people should be able to do their ceremonies. If they cannot do the ceremonies of their people, there cannot be a spiritual basis for their language.

Indigenous children and youth have a rich cultural and linguistic heritage to be proud of. This means that supporting the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages contributes to preserving indigenous cultural identity and enhancing well-being.

lt is also important to note that the preamble of this legislation acknowledges indigenous languages as fundamental to the identities, cultures, spiritual beliefs, relationships to the land, world view and self-determination of indigenous peoples. The fundamental concepts to seriously consider and appreciate are the nuances expressed in indigenous languages that tie so closely in relation to the land, family, community and nation that is often lost in translation.

This is why elders and fluent speakers of indigenous languages are crucial in helping those wanting to learn their languages. Their wisdom is especially needed in decoding terms and phrases to the root words to reveal the true meaning and cultural relevance that lend themselves to the importance of indigenous identity.

Teaching the languages must be done with awareness of the important values these languages carry. That is why the provisions of this legislation intend to do that, through providing support for establishing culturally appropriate methods of teaching and learning the language.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for the opportunity to speak about indigenous languages as the core to indigenous identity, and about the importance of supporting this bill.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-91—Time Allocation Motion

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out how disappointed I am. I could hardly wait to speak about this bill today, mainly for personal reasons. I have an Inuit first name, Alupa, which means “strong man”. My entire family is very aware of and attuned to indigenous matters. My wife is an anthropologist who has worked with the Inuit for many years, and my father is a forensic historian, who has defended indigenous people in many cases by locating treaties or doing research for them.

The minister said that this is an extremely important bill that will protect and promote indigenous languages, some of which are dying out. That much is true. The Liberals have also said that no relationship is more important than the relationship with indigenous peoples. They have said it over and over, but this bill was introduced only a few months before the election, at the end of their mandate and four years after they were elected. Yes, it is urgent that we take action, but it is not true that we will all be able to state our position and discuss it in committee. As there are only three spots for opposition members, I do not think I will have the opportunity to debate the bill or to suggest amendments in committee.

Although we support this bill on the face of it, it deals with some very serious issues. There is a very clear reason why we support this bill, and that appears in the last paragraph of the preamble to the Official Languages Act, which states that the government 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.

This bill is therefore perfectly aligned with Canada's political doctrine. However, there are some very important issues that need clarification, and I will talk about them now. Why is the Official Languages Act quasi-constitutional? That is because it is linked to sections 16 to 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The minister told us that Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages, is linked to section 35 of the Constitution. Does that mean that this bill will become quasi-constitutional legislation like the Official Languages Act? If so, we will have to discuss this for weeks because it will have a major impact on our society. It will be a very positive impact, to be sure, but when we say that the bill could be quasi-constitutional we need to know where that takes us.

The bill also states that there would be a commissioner of indigenous languages. Will this commissioner have duties similar to those of the Commissioner of Official Languages? Will they have a joint office?

The bill also talks about funding to protect, preserve and promote indigenous languages. Will that involve developing action plans as we do for official languages? Will this cost billions of dollars over five years every five years, as is the case with the action plan for official languages? Will the department also receive $1 billlion in recurring funding every five years?

There are all kinds of questions to which we have no answers today. Could we maybe get an inkling of an answer right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring us all back in time. I feel that we have to do this before we move any further. I want to bring us back to, I think, day 10 of the previous election in 2015, when the Prime Minister, then the member for Papineau, said in his campaign promise to Canadians that he was going to do things differently. He said he represented real change. One of the things that he was going to do was to let debate reign, and he was not going to use parliamentary tricks such as time allocation to pass legislation. However, I would hazard a guess that this is about the fiftieth time that the government has actually used time allocation to pass legislation.

I will also offer this. This is an important piece of legislation. The Liberals have the support from our caucus on this side of the House, the opposition, but I will offer this because I feel it is necessary to say this at all times when they do these types of tricks: This House does not belong to them. It does not belong to you, Mr. Speaker. It does not belong to me. It belongs to the electors, those electors who elected the 338 members of Parliament to be their voice here in this House.

For those who are listening in, what is happened with this piece of legislation is that the government has basically said, “We have had enough debate. This is going to committee.”

At committees we do good work, but for the most part it is essentially like speed dating. Consultation happens when witnesses from all over Canada come to speak to legislation. I do not know how many meetings there will be, but I can speak to my experience at the fisheries committee. Sometimes we will have three or four guests over maybe three or four days. Each witness gets seven to 10 minutes to give their thoughts and their views on such legislation. It is only through full debate that we can move legislation as important as this.

Now I am going to bring this to the personal side. I have mentioned in this House a number of times that my wife and children are first nations people. They do not know their language. They are not familiar with their culture. This is an important piece of legislation, and any member of Parliament who may not be able to have a constituent or a person from a first nation come here deserves to be able to come before the committee to bring their stories and their voices here to this floor.

It is shameful that on this bill we are again seeing time allocation.

The beautiful thing about this House is that sounds travel. On one of the earlier questions, one of the members across the way had shouted out, perhaps thinking that it would not be heard on this side, that the reason this is being pushed through so quickly, as it was mentioned on the other side, is that an election is coming this way.

We have to do whatever we can to make sure that the voices of Canadians and of indigenous peoples are heard about the meaning and importance of indigenous languages. Bill C-91 is another one of those bills that the Liberals place such great importance on that they place their hands on their chests, and yet they ram them through with little to no consultation.

The hon. minister likes to say that the government has done a year and a half of consultation. I can tell my hon. colleagues that in my neck of the woods, in Cariboo—Prince George, not many of our first nations have been consulted on this bill, and they would like to have their say.

I would urge our hon. colleague, the minister, to rethink this. Why does he feel the need to once again break a campaign promise and force time allocation on this legislation?

[Tracey Herbert, Chief Executive Officer, First Peoples' Cultural Council]

We acknowledge the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. We thank you for the invitation to discuss this important bill.

I am Tracey Herbert from St'uxwtews First Nation of the Secwepemc Nation in B.C. I have the privilege of being the CEO for First Peoples' Cultural Council, and I'm here with my colleague, Dr. Suzanne Gessner, to offer recommendations to the standing committee for consideration.

Let me start by saying that for many years, indigenous peoples have had a strong desire for legislation to protect our languages. I'm so happy to be here today with you to discuss how we can work together to strengthen Bill C-91 so it can support the work we need to do as Canadians to revitalize the languages that come from this land we now call Canada.

The First Peoples' Cultural Council is a first nations-led provincial Crown corporation with a mandate to support the revitalization of first nations languages, arts, culture and heritage in British Columbia.

The organization provides funding, resources and training to communities. We monitor the status of first nations languages. We also provide technical advice and policy recommendations for first nations leadership and government.

The introduction of Bill C-91 is a concrete step towards reconciliation by the Government of Canada. We're very pleased to see this bill. We support legislation for languages.

I'm going to speak to a few key amendments that could strengthen the bill to make it more responsive to the needs of indigenous communities and languages. A full list of amendments has been submitted to the committee in writing.

I want to start with the preamble, which states:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that all relations with Indigenous peoples must be based on the recognition and implementation of their right to self-determination, including the inherent right of self-government;

In contradiction to this recognition, the bill specifies that powers, duties and functions resulting from the act will be carried out by the minister or the commissioner. We therefore recommend the establishment of a national indigenous language organization governed by indigenous experts at arm's length from the Department of Canadian Heritage and the office of the commissioner.

This organization can support this work and would develop a national strategy for indigenous languages. I'll underscore three main reasons for its creation.

An organization is needed to provide broad, comprehensive management of the bill's implementation. A national organization can protect funding and programs into the future if government changes, for example, based on the model of the tri-agency, the CBC or the Canada Council for the Arts. I also see the development of an organization as a strategy for ensuring ongoing investment in indigenous languages.

As well, it will keep the implementation of Bill C-91 at arm's length from government, political organizations or the commissioner, and empower language experts and technicians to lead the work.

First Peoples' supports the creation of a commissioner to raise the profile and the value of Canada's indigenous languages, modelled after the Commissioner of Official Languages, with primary roles of ombudsperson, auditing and reporting.

While these roles are already specified within the bill, it seems that the commissioner is also meant to play a role in supporting efforts to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen languages. In order to effectively monitor the work, the commissioner needs to be independent from those supporting and carrying out the work.

The commitment to providing adequate, sustainable, long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages in clause 7 is crucial. However, this clause currently describes a non-specific consultation process to be undertaken by the minister in order to meet the objective of funding. This denies indigenous self-determination, and the process as described will prevent effective and efficient distribution of funding.

As we see it, the biggest challenge with Bill C-91 as it's currently written concerns the provision of funding. Bill C-91 creates only an obligation for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to consult on the subject of funding. It does not create any obligation for any amount of funding to be provided. We want to see long-term financial support for our languages. Our elders, knowledge keepers, speakers, language teachers, learners and those with expertise and commitment must have access to resources. Ultimately, the bill must guarantee investments that respond to the needs of indigenous communities and are protected from shifting government interests.

We recommend that the minister must fund a national indigenous language strategy in order to meet the objective of providing adequate, sustainable, long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of each indigenous language in Canada. The proposed national organization could work in collaboration with the minister to develop a strategy and funding framework.

First Peoples' also wants to shed light on some omissions.

First, indigenous languages in Canada include sign languages, which have been marginalized even more than spoken languages. They must be given explicit recognition.

Second, more than 50% of indigenous people in Canada live away from home communities. Indigenous peoples have the right to their language no matter where they reside. This point needs to come across strongly in the bill. Urban-based programming must be included in a national strategy.

Third, the ownership of intellectual property rights of each language must be protected. For example, clause 24 of the bill discusses research activities that may be undertaken by Statistics Canada or Library and Archives Canada. We do not support this clause of the bill. No non-indigenous entity should hold or curate indigenous knowledge. We recommend that the principles of ownership, control, access and possession with respect to indigenous languages be clearly outlined in the bill.

Finally, what are the indigenous languages being given recognition? A schedule should be added that lists the languages to which the bill applies. Regulations could set out the criteria and processes for adding languages to the schedule.

We support legislation to recognize and revitalize languages. We respectfully ask that you consider our recommendations to strengthen Bill C-91. We have outlined several key points for consideration of amendments. Our two main arguments are that the implementation of Bill C-91 must be led and directed by indigenous people, which we suggest could be done through the creation of a national organization. The wording of the bill must obligate adequate, sustainable, long-term funding. It is not enough to consult about funding. We need a commitment to funding to make this work happen. In our experience, working in partnership with community, we know that language revitalization is entirely possible when supported by sustainable long-term funding.

Kukwstsétsemc for listening. First Peoples' has a web page with multiple resources on legislation. We also have research providing detailed costing estimates. I know that there was some discussion about how much this is going to cost. We're very happy to assist the standing committee and the minister in any way we can.

Thank you.

[Wayne Long]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good evening to my colleagues. I can't believe I'm saying good evening, but it is good evening.

Thank you for your presentation.

I'm fascinated by this. I still feel somewhat of a rookie on heritage, but the study of indigenous languages absolutely captivates me. I tried to do some background reading. I learned that there are more than 90 indigenous languages, apparently, across this country.

I saw a quote from Armand McArthur from Pheasant Rump First Nation. He speaks Nakoda. He talked about his pride and passion and how he feels it has been his responsibility to teach others, to preserve his language.

I am thrilled that Bill C-91 recognizes the constitutional rights of indigenous people, including indigenous languages.

Can you touch on how important Bill C-91 is to you? What will it do to strengthen the culture, passion and history of indigenous groups and their languages right across the country? Perhaps you could start with that for me.

[Wayne Long]

Good afternoon. Thank you for being here.

Bill C-91 is a profound bill that I think will do so much to revitalize indigenous languages, communities and culture. It will instill pride in different communities right across this country. I commend our government for moving this forward.

The bill would establish the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages, consisting of one commissioner and up to three directors. That is in clause 12(1). Clauses 13 and 16 stipulate that the commissioner and directors would be appointed by the Governor in Council after the minister has consulted with diverse indigenous governments, other indigenous governing bodies and diverse indigenous organizations.

Can you describe what level of consultation you foresee with diverse indigenous governments, other indigenous governing bodies and diverse indigenous organizations?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, colleagues.

Good afternoon, Minister Rodriguez. Thank you, Pablo, for coming in, for leading the department, for being a wonderful minister, for having a great vision and for moving bills forward, especially this bill, Bill C-91, which will preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages.

I have a short story to tell you about my days in aquaculture when I travelled extensively around the world. I visited Scotland, the Isle of Harris, I believe. We were there talking about salmon farming and such, but we were out one night and there was a language spoken that I had never heard before. I was quite curious about the language. It was Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic. I was very surprised. I didn't understand it all, or very little of it, but I was fascinated by it. I was fascinated by the pride with which it was spoken, by just how people in that community were so very proud of the history of the Gaelic language, and by how they were preserving that language.

I'll fast-forward to two years ago. I was at my mother's house for Christmas dinner, and my nephew was there. My nephew is a student at StFX, and he started speaking Gaelic. I was shocked by that, that StFX offers a course in Gaelic; it is in Nova Scotia. The fact that the university, StFX, is offering courses in the Gaelic language, teaching that language.... Again, it is about preserving that language and educating the youth in those communities about how important that language was, Scottish Gaelic.

With respect to Bill C-91 and the preservation of indigenous languages, I absolutely respect and understand what our government is doing there. As you said earlier, is the bill perfect? No. Is there an opportunity to look at amendments or other scenarios? Sure. There is one thing you did say that was of interest to me. I want to go back just to the funding side because, obviously, there have been different questions, I think, from all three parties with respect to the funding. Will there be long-term funding over years to preserve the languages, Minister? Is there a commitment for long-term funding?

[Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, distinguished committee members and colleagues, thank you for inviting me to appear as part of your study of Bill C-91.

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Hélène Laurendeau, Deputy Minister of Canadian Heritage. I thought I was also going to be accompanied by Stephen Gagnon, but he is not here. He must be going through security. He will join us shortly.

I want to start by recognizing that we are gathered on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinaabe. Two weeks ago, on the same lands, I had the privilege of introducing this historic legislation in the House of Commons. This is legislation that's long overdue. That's because, according to UNESCO, three-quarters of the 90 indigenous languages spoken in Canada are endangered, and if they die, so will a huge part of our identity.

Since work began on this bill, many indigenous groups and people have told us how critical this legislation will be for them, their children and their grandchildren.

Just the other day, we heard from Olive, an elder from the Oneida Nation of the Thames in southwestern Ontario. Olive's mother tongue was Oneida. It was the only language she spoke until the age of seven, when she started school. At school, Olive was punished for speaking her language. The shame it brought wounded her deeply. It was then that she decided she wouldn't teach her kids Oneida so she could spare them the humiliation she felt.

Today, there are only 45 fluent Oneida speakers left in Canada, and none of them are under the age of 65. The indigenous languages act is for people like Olive, whose community is losing its language at an alarming rate.

So we must therefore act with urgency to revitalize and strengthen indigenous languages. We have already waited too long.

Today, I will focus on two key matters related to the bill. First, I will speak about our dialogue and engagement efforts. Second, I will speak to the question of funding: how our government is going to support the revitalization of indigenous languages.

Madam Chair, let me start with engagement and co-development. This legislation had to be developed with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples.

From the outset, my departmental officials asked indigenous groups how they wanted to be engaged to participate. We did not impose a structure. We designed a process together. To achieve that, we worked with our partners: the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council.

Each of the partners launched their own independent engagement with indigenous language experts, practitioners and academics across Canada. During that period, Canadian Heritage officials conducted 20 roundtables.

The feedback from all of these sessions, along with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's Calls to Action 13, 14 and 15, helped create the 12 principles used to co-develop this legislation.

The Department of Canadian Heritage then held intensive discussions with about 1,000 first nations, Inuit and Métis people. This included working respectfully with key indigenous organizations and governments, such as the Council of Yukon First Nations in Whitehorse, the Manitoba Metis Federation in Winnipeg, the Nunatsiavut government in Nain, and self-governing and modern treaty governments across the country.

Our online portal also connected over 200 questionnaires and electronic submissions.

We also provided funding to the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, the Native Women's Association of Canada, and the National Association of Friendship Centres to conduct their own research in engagement.

These voices—the voices of elders, knowledge keepers, indigenous women and young people—are echoed in the indigenous languages act.

Participants told us that indigenous languages should be recognized as a right; that each indigenous language, culture and history is distinct and unique;

that the needs of elders, women and children must be addressed. That a language commissioner should be created. That communities need sufficient, predictable and long-term funding. And that each of the groups and nations were at a different place in their path to the revitalization and preservation of their languages. This is exactly what the legislation contains.

For example, some communities would like to focus on training teachers. Others want to prioritize immersion programs or developing dictionaries. Indigenous peoples told us clearly that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work and that they are best placed to determine what will work, not government. We agree with them. Our legislation incorporates all of these considerations and elements, and more.

Madam Chair, I'd like to turn our discussions to funding.

For the first time in our history, there is legislation that commits to adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for indigenous languages. We're exploring funding models to decide how funds would be best used and distributed.

Again, it is indigenous peoples, not the Government of Canada, who know what is best for their communities. We know that they do not want project-based, annual funding. They want the flexibility to determine their own priorities. The latitude to define concrete approaches that will allow them to reclaim, revitalize and maintain their languages.

This bill is not about creating national bureaucracies and bigger project-based programs. Instead, it is about getting the investments to the people and organizations in a long-term and sustained manner through multi-year agreements that will ensure reports on progress. In fact, the bill states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage must consult with diverse indigenous governments and other indigenous governing bodies, to provide sustainable, adequate funding. This is important and it demonstrates our commitment to indigenous peoples, their communities and their future.

The indigenous languages act was developed in close partnership with indigenous people. It is truly their legislation. Its impact will be felt by many generations, including people in Olive's community. Despite the odds, Olive has worked hard to retain and maintain her language and she's helping her people regain a language that was taken from them.

The students have gone from speaking no Oneida to being able to carry on a six-minute conversation in their language. People in the neighbourhood are starting to speak to each other in Oneida, and that gives a strong feeling of pride that comes from knowing who they are. This is why this legislation is so important.

Five generations of harm inflicted upon indigenous peoples have brought us to where we are today. Reconciliation is a long and difficult journey and it requires a broad approach, one that includes improving access to clean water and reducing the number of indigenous children in foster care. The indigenous languages legislation is another step toward helping the next five generations and beyond.

I welcome feedback and amendments that could make this legislation even stronger. We must, however, move forward with purpose, and we look for support from all parties to pass Bill C-91 without delay.

Thank you.

I'm now ready to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Given that it's 3:30 p.m., we will begin this meeting.

This is the 142nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are doing a study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

This afternoon, we welcome Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism. He is accompanied by Hélène Laurendeau, Deputy Minister. Stephen Gagnon, Director General of the Aboriginal Affairs Directorate, may be joining us later.

Mr. Minister, you can begin.

Bill C-91—Notice of Time Allocation

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I inform the House an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2), with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage. I really do hope we find a better way forward.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in the House and speak for the first time in our new chamber. It is an honour to get up and speak to such an important bill, one that will probably have historic meaning as we go through it.

I do not totally support the bill the way it is written. I have concerns with some of the language. However, I very much appreciate the need to bring it before the heritage committee and study it as soon as possible. Indigenous languages are so important to our first nations people. They must be recognized, respected, revitalized and retained. With over 70 dialects, this makes this portion of the bill so important.

I am speaking to this bill today because I feel so strongly about the need to protect our heritages. This bill would create an independent commissioner for indigenous rights, confirm the government's belief that indigenous language is part of section 35 of the charter, and allow the translation of federal services into indigenous languages. What a wonderful thing it is. It has been too long.

Over two years ago, the Liberals promised an indigenous language act. With just 60 days left in this parliamentary session, it is quite unlikely this legislation will become law before the upcoming fall election, unless we all work together in earnest. This is another failed promise by the Liberal government.

This is just another portion of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's findings that the government failed. The Liberals promised much, but failed to deliver. They promised language legislation in December 2016, and we are still not there. They promised child welfare legislation by the end of January. Where is it? It would be difficult for any of the Liberals' indigenous-related legislation priorities to receive royal assent before the next election.

They have botched consultation. There are legislative flaws in Bill S-3, and they have botched consultation on the Trans Mountain expansion project. They cancelled the Enbridge northern gateway project without consulting the bands who had equity agreements. They brought in the tanker ban without consulting the pro-energy first nations groups on the west coast.

The missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry is stuck in bureaucratic red tape. They extended its time, commissioners resigned, and nearly 30 staffers left or quit. There have been three non-compliance orders regarding Human Rights Tribunal rulings on first nations child welfare since the Liberals have been in government. One of the most important issues is studying the First Nations Financial Transparency Act.

That is as far as I am going with my partisan attack against the government. Right now, I want to focus on the tradition and heritage of the aboriginal people.

I was fortunate through my working career to spend my service in aboriginal policing. I got to understand and appreciate the differences in the different groups, such as the Shuswap nations, the Dakelh nations, the Nuu-chah-nulth first nations, the Dene, the Cree and the Slavey. I made many friends over the years and spent a lot of my off time, when I was not working as a police officer, socializing with my aboriginal friends and associates.

My wife Nancy and I loved going to aboriginal gatherings such as at Taylor on the Peace River, the Petitot River gathering in the Northwest Territories and the Paul First Nation in my riding of Yellowhead. In these surroundings, we really get to know and understand the importance of the heritage of our aboriginal people.

I remember when I used to travel Highway 77 from north of Fort Nelson, B.C. into the Northwest Territories, back in the 1980s. It was part of my patrol area. I was the commander of the Fort Nelson detachment at the time. I used to go over there quite often.

I used to stop at what we called traditional native camps along the highway, where the Dene people of the Liard River band would move from their homes on the reserve and move their families onto the land. They would set up temporary shelters and live in their old traditional ways. It was their way of teaching the young ones how it was and how important their heritage was.

Probably the only time they would speak English while they stayed there for the full summer was when I arrived. I have a grasp of the languages but not enough to have a good conversation. They would tell me why they were there. It was so good to see those young children learning about their history, learning how to live off the land and keeping their heritage alive. They focused on speaking their native tongues. It was so good to hear these kids speaking that way. They would not speak English when I was there, unless they were talking to me directly.

I am of Ukrainian descent. Both my grandfathers came over from Ukraine in the late 1800s. They settled as farmers in northeastern Alberta. Both raised large families, who in turn raised families of their own. I am a third-generation descendant. When they came here, one of my grandfathers could speak English, and the other could only speak Ukrainian. Both of my grandmothers could only speak Ukrainian.

Over the years they learned how to speak English. My parents' generation, the second generation, grew up speaking more and more English in school. In fact, like in the residential schools, they were forbidden to speak Ukrainian while in school. They were punished. They would get the yardstick or maybe the strap. They were encouraged to learn the English language. Sadly, our language slowly got lost as people began to speak more English. This is what we are talking about today in Bill C-91, the loss of indigenous languages.

We have 11 major dialogues in 70-some different forms. That is why this legislation is so important. It is important that we work together to get it passed. We do not have much time. We need to protect those languages, because the people who know how to speak them are getting older. As someone said earlier, the live dictionaries are getting older.

I wish I could speak my native tongue, because like so many people I want to go back and research my heritage. I want to go back to the Ukraine to see where my grandfathers came from, in order to get a better understanding of why I am here today.

I mentioned I spent a lot of time during my working life meeting some very special aboriginal people. We have become friends and acquaintances.

We only have 60 days left, and that is not enough time for me to sit here and tell members about the great aboriginal people I have met over the years, the interesting stories I have about them, and the things they have done that I would like to tell the House about. We just do not have enough time, and 60 days would not be enough. However, I am going to talk about two of them, one of whom I have known for many years, and the other who I just met yesterday.

The first one is a constituent of mine. He was a friend of mine for many years before he was ever a constituent. His name is Harry Rusk. I first met him in the Fort Nelson area of British Columbia during the late 1980s.

Harry was born in 1937 in a little hamlet called Kahntah, a Slavey first nations community located in the northeast corner of British Columbia. Many of us have spoken about having remote Indian communities in our ridings, and this one is remote. Even to this day, there are no roads or railroad tracks into this community. One can fly in or take a canoe or boat and go up the Kahntah River. It is about an hour by air from the community of Fort Nelson. Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately, as our country progressed, an oil company doing exploration put in an airstrip about two miles from the Kahntah reserve. Therefore, we can be flown in now.

Unlike a lot of people we have talked about many times in this chamber who went to residential schools, Harry was not that unlucky, but he was not lucky either. He contracted tuberculosis in this remote little community that lay in the northeast corner of British Columbia. As a young man, he was sent to the Camsell Hospital in Edmonton for treatment. He probably thought that he would never return, because in those days tuberculosis was a very deadly disease, especially for our aboriginal people.

Harry stayed there from 1949 to 1953, and miraculously recovered. However, he watched his brother, mother and father succumb to the disease. The whole family was wiped out, except for Harry.

While at the Camsell Hospital in 1952, something happened to Harry. Harry met Hank Snow, a country and western singer. Hank had come to Edmonton to perform, and someone asked if he would come over and talk to some of the kids and people at the Camsell Hospital. Hank agreed. There were a lot of kids there, about 300, I understand, but Harry was one of the lucky ones and Hank came over and talked to him. They took a liking to each other. As Harry says today, Hank inspired him with some simple words. He said, “Always look up,” referring to God and getting religion.

This changed Harry's life. He began to play guitar while in the hospital, and after leaving, as a young man, he joined the Canadian Armed Forces. As he was in the armed forces, he was eventually transferred to Vancouver. While there, he formed several bands and continued to play and learn his music. He had a love for gospel music and the old songs, and eventually went on to play for many years in the Grand Ole Opry. He is in the Country Music Hall of Fame. He received many awards over the years and became an ordained minister, which he is today.

Why am I talking about Harry? In the late 1980s, when I met Harry, I used to do a little moonlighting and flew for a small bush pilot operation. Harry asked me to fly him into Kahntah, which I did. He wanted to visit his roots.

As we went to the Kahntah village, which is very small, with only two or three buildings, Harry spoke to me about how important his heritage was to him. He spoke of the importance of his father, Edward, and his mother, Mary. He wanted to know where he came from and what it was all about. He spoke of the importance of the language he was losing and how he wanted to keep it alive.

That is what is so important about this bill: keeping the aboriginal language alive in Canada.

Yesterday I met Bill Adsit, an original member of the Tahltan Nation, who came from the northwest corner of B.C., the opposite side from where Harry came from. He was moved into a residential school at approximately the age of six, and never really had contact with his family after that. Bill spoke to a group of us yesterday about his harrowing experiences in the residential schools and his rebellious nature as a young man.

He turned his life around. I should say that before he changed his life around, he was put in jail on an outstanding warrant. While he was there, he did some soul-searching. He changed his life around. He joined the Canadian military and then went on to spend over 30 years working for the federal Government of Canada in many different government roles. He went on to get a university degree, and today Bill is part of the reconciliation team working on the Trans Mountain pipeline.

Bill's speech yesterday at the Château was very heartwarming, and he left us with a powerful message of determination to do well. He also spoke so deeply about his heritage.

The message I want to pass on to everyone here today is the determination to do well. We need to get this bill passed to save the aboriginal languages, and we need to pass it as soon as possible. This brings me back to the study.

We need to protect the languages of Canada's aboriginal people. As I travelled throughout most of British Columbia in my working career as a police officer, I visited first nations communities from one end of the province to the other. First nations reconciliation is not new, and respecting their traditions and retaining their language is not a new idea. They have been promoting, recognizing, respecting, revitalizing, and retaining their culture for years. They have been working. In the 70s, I remember different groups working to promote their culture in the neighbouring white communities, but in such a way as to make sure their youth understood the history of these great people.

Many years ago I was stationed in Gold River. The Malahat First Nation was in Gold River. I remember the first time I walked into the band office. There was a group of native ladies working there. They asked if I wanted to share in a birthday cake. I blurted out, without even thinking, “What colour is it? I only eat white cake.” I realized what I had said and I turned red. They looked at me with a little shock, and then they all started laughing. Over the years I was stationed there, I spent more and more time in that band office, getting to know those ladies and learning about the Malahat culture.

When I left that community some four years later, they invited me there for a party. During the party, they had a cake. The cake was covered in red icing, the inside was white, and on the top of it was a garlic sausage. We mixed our cultures. We learned cultures together over the years that I was stationed there.

In many communities across Canada, we have places called friendship centres, where the aboriginal people living in urban centres gather and encourage the community to come to visit with them and learn their ways and culture. It is so very important that we recognize that. If members have a friendship centre in their area, they should visit it. The work they do in the urban centres of Canada is amazing.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this legislation. It is probably one of the only opportunities I will ever get to talk about far-reaching legislation, if it moves in the right direction, that will be very historic for a riding like mine.

As members know, I represent 42 first nations in my riding. A majority of those first nations live in isolated communities. There are three distinct cultural groups, but there are also dialects within these communities that are not necessarily reported by all.

I represent a large population of Ojibway, Cree and what we call Oji-Cree. Within these groups, there are subgroups. This is what I found out very early on in my political career, in the late 1980s, early 1990s, when I travelled up north to visit the communities. I used to bring an interpreter with me when I was talking to the elders. They would speak in their own language because they felt more comfortable. Sometimes I brought an interpreter who would tell me that the community we were going to was hard to understand, even though it was 100 miles away from the previous community I was at, because of its unique isolation and the fact that its language had evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years.

Therefore, Bill C-91 is absolutely critical for a riding and a region like mine if we are to build the kind of society, a diverse and culturally-appropriate world, for indigenous children and their parents.

If we go to northern Ontario, we will find that in a lot of the communities the older people and the elders still speak their language. However, there is a struggle in the communities for the children to continue to learn their language. As I said in one of the questions I asked, modern technology, like TV and satellite, has brought the English language into their home and more young people are speaking that language versus their own.

I would like to also acknowledge the efforts of members who brought forward changes to have indigenous languages translated in the House. That is absolutely important to all of us.

I will spend my time today talking about the role of the commissioner, which is extremely important. That person will have the obligation under the act to ensure that as we move forward, the preservation and promotion of indigenous languages is one of the paths going forward.

Language falls under the branch of education. We know that a high quality, culturally-appropriate education is one of the elements in further developing a modern relationship with indigenous peoples across Canada. Yes, to foster a learning environment, children must have access to clean water, safe and affordable housing, social infrastructure and health services. Creating and maintaining this type of environment is key to providing a supportive space for children and youth. I think we are all committed in this place to ensuring that happens.

Within the Kenora riding, which I have represented since 1988, then took a break and came back, we have many examples of language revitalization efforts. The Kwayaciiwin Education Resource Centre in Sioux Lookout is an example of that. I would ask my colleagues who will be looking at the bill in committee to think about the role of this resource centre and others across the country in bringing these languages back into existence and full use. Therefore, I want to speak directly about what the resource centre does.

Not only does the resource centre provide educational opportunities and services for indigenous children and youth for 21 first nations communities, but it also publishes educational materials, children's books and instructional resources in a variety of indigenous languages, including titles such as “Ariel's Moccasins”, published in Oji-Cree and “Signs of Spring”, published in Ojibway.

We cannot bring a bill like this into the House of Commons without understanding the process of how we teach young people. Just like we teach English, French or any other language across the country, we need resources, like books that cannot be bought anywhere else in the world but have to be built one book at a time in Canada. This resource centre has been delivering that job and the opportunity to bring books to young people all across those 21 first nations. It gets many calls from across the country to look at how to translate into the individual languages of the communities across the nation and put them into books, so we can start at kindergarten age, at grade one, and on it goes. Therefore, the resources are available in their language in order to be successful.

I have visited the resource centre many times and can attest to the true passion it has for working with indigenous languages.

The other example I want to bring to the attention of the House is Kiizhik School. It is located in the city of Kenora. It opened its doors in 2015, with 15 students. It has continued to grow exponentially ever since. As the first school of its kind in Ontario, it works to close the educational gap for indigenous students in the area by implementing curriculums that include indigenous heritage as a subject of study, rather than a framework for education.

I have had the opportunity to visit the school. This is the example I was referring my colleague from Edmonton to, about a school in an urban centre that has the opportunity to have young people, whether they live on reserve nearby in first nations communities or in the city of Kenora, to learn and be educated in their own language. That is unique and is obviously another form of education. Like French immersion, this is an Ojibway immersion school. The kids are starting off in kindergarten, and the school is getting bigger every year.

The school provides access to traditional languages and elements of indigenous culture that public schools are currently unable to provide. By teaching Ojibway, using an Anishinaabe sound chart, holding vibrant powwows, interacting with the Anishinaabe community and integrating the Ontario mainstream curriculum, students are going past surface learning and truly learning about the culture of who the Anishinaabe people are.

Education is crucial to the revitalization of indigenous languages, and the work being done by organizations like Kwayaciiwin Education Resource Centre and the Kiizhik Education Corporation are leading the way.

When the Truth and Reconciliation Commission issued its final report in 2015, the government committed to implementing all 94 calls to action. Through Bill C-91, the government is pleased to be delivering on a number of the calls to action related to indigenous languages.

Call to action 15 calls upon the federal government to appoint, in consultation with aboriginal groups, an aboriginal languages commissioner. It goes on to specify that the commissioner should help promote aboriginal languages and report on the adequacy of federal funding of aboriginal languages initiatives.

I have been to every school in every first nation in my riding, and this is one of the main topics of discussion with all the teachers and school boards in those communities. They would like more resources, more language teachers, more opportunity to teach in their language. This gives us the opportunity to go down that path to see this can happen for our young people, now and in the future.

Canada has never before had a national indigenous language commissioner. The indigenous language act, and all that it would establish, including a commissioner of indigenous languages, is a significant step forward in Canada's efforts toward reconciliation with indigenous peoples. The importance of this undertaking cannot be overstated.

I have talked about the new commissioner today because it represents a path. As we all know, it is going to take a number of years, not just weeks or days, to put forward the kind of process that will make a difference. This is true even with respect to languages like Ojibway or Cree, which are not disappearing anytime soon. They are very vibrant, strong languages with a lot of speakers. Nevertheless, a lot of young children are not speaking these languages because of where they happen to live.

The government spent the summer engaging with indigenous peoples at the community level through direct workout-type sessions with first nation, Inuit and Métis peoples across Canada. I am very interested in the way the commissioner will work with the Métis people, as there is large group of Métis in my region. I am looking forward to seeing how that process will work. Generally speaking, in my area, and I think in yours as well, Madam Speaker, Métis people go to public school and separate school and they do not necessarily live in first nation communities. We must have an understanding about how the education process will work for them.

Many indigenous peoples who were engaged by Canadian Heritage felt that the role of an indigenous languages commissioner should be to support local and regional indigenous institutions and not duplicate existing resources. I look to my colleagues who will be working on this legislation to remind themselves that not one size fits all. What we do in northern Ontario and how our education system functions is not the same as for the Cree in northern Quebec, a place in which I have travelled extensively. I understand that its system is set up in a particular way. I like the idea that we are here to support local initiatives. We will find ways to make things happen.

That is why the commissioner and his or her work is absolutely critical to the success of this legislation, as well as to the success of building up indigenous languages, which we all think are important to our culture and our Canadian society. Going forward, it will make a difference in our relationship with indigenous people. They will feel very much at home in their own land when they are able to take courses and speak their own language in school. The first time they take science in Oji-Cree, I would like to be in the room, That will be an interesting story to tell, of a book about science that is written in an indigenous language.

The commissioner will acknowledge that indigenous languages are best reclaimed, revitalized, maintained and strengthened by indigenous people, and will create a framework for a flexible, sustainable approach to funding Indigenous languages.

I wanted to ensure that I had the chance to speak to this, as this is the most important legislation we in the House will pass this term. This will have far-reaching implications for society long after we are gone, and young people are given the opportunity to speak their language.

I suggest very strongly for the House and its members that we move the legislation very quickly and that we find ways to work together. I think we all agree, in principle, that this is important legislation. Some say it is historic. For me, as a member of Parliament who represents a riding in which 40% of constituents are indigenous, the bill is one of the main reasons I came here.

I look forward to working with all colleagues. I am not on the aboriginal affairs committee, but I know it will do a very good job of reviewing this to ensure we get it right, so young people can learn in their own language and so we can provide the kinds of materials and resources, like books, that reflect their own culture. That is a very important part.

That is what I wanted to say. I am thankful for the opportunity to say a few words today.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is great will in the House. I have heard it today and I started my speech by thanking a lot of the passionate speakers.

For Bill C-91, there is a great will in the House to get this done, to get it passed fast, to get it to committee fast, and hopefully, against all odds, to have it be made into law before the House breaks.

With this issue on first nations, as with everything else, we need to hold the government, at the time, responsible. It is not necessarily the people sitting in the House today, but the government at large, the bureaucrats, the deputy ministers. We have to hold them responsible for the will of the House, and I do see strong will in this House to make Bill C-91 succeed. We have to make sure we are holding them accountable to make sure the will of the House happens in Canada.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for what was really quite a scathing summary in terms of the ability of the government to execute, in the indigenous services department, on its many priorities.

Looking at Bill C-91, could the member make further comments in terms of how we need to carefully monitor what is happening in order to make sure that what the government says it is going to do will be accomplished?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a fantastic question and I thank the member opposite for that. I hope some of the ideas and suggestions on how we can do that will come out in committee.

In Edmonton there is a lady who is a trustee on the Catholic School Board, Debbie Engel. If Debbie is watching, I am giving her a shout-out. She has helped start a fantastic program through the Catholic school system, where they introduced a mentoring program for first nations students to keep young indigenous people in school. They have also tried to get funding for programs that will actually teach indigenous languages.

The member has an excellent suggestion. I hope we will reach out to the various public and private school systems throughout the country, and invite them in as witnesses so they can testify and give information on how we can make Bill C-91 a success.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my answer is absolutely not, and what a ridiculous question.

The issue we are discussing today is Bill C-91, but it does tie in to all the failures of the government. It has stated repeatedly that no relationship is more important than its relationship with first nations, but we have seen, time and time again, that it has tabled documents in this Parliament that contradict everything it says.

The Liberal government lives, breathes and eats hypocrisy. This is another example. I just hope it will take Bill C-91 seriously and work with the people on this side of the House to send it to committee and actually accomplish something for first nations for a change, instead of just standing here making empty promises and empty announcements.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. We, of course, support the bill and support sending it to the heritage committee after it gets through the House.

I want to thank all the speakers today. There were a lot of well-thought-out comments on the bill.

We believe that the bill before us is both pragmatic and reasonable. My colleague from Bow River said that “the Government of Canada was part of the destruction of indigenous languages and we need to be part of the solution.” Hopefully, Bill C-91 will be a step toward that.

The Right Hon. Stephen Harper said in his June 11 residential school apology that:

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.

That is very true.

The legislation before us was first promised in 2016, so I have to ask, as has been asked by previous speakers, why the delay? Why is it so late in this session that it is finally introduced? We have just 13 more sitting weeks before we break for the summer and the election. Although, I am sure that there will be hopes otherwise, there appears to be very little chance that the bill will actually become law before the House rises.

Over a year ago, the government seemed to place a higher priority on other bills instead of this one, and I will give the example of Bill C-24, which was called the Seinfeld bill about nothing. What was Bill C-24? Basically it was to codify the name change from Public Works to Public Services and Procurement, and also to change the accounting within the appropriations on how we pay the old ministers of state. That is it.

I have to ask, if no relationship is more important to the government, why was a bill codifying a name change of a ministry more important than bringing this bill forward? This issue encapsulates the lie about the government's claim of no relationship being more important.

I will talk about the issue of safe drinking water on reserves. The government has promised to eliminate the drinking advisories by 2021, which is fantastic and we support that. However, government members stand time and time again in the House and say how far they have come, and that they have take so many off, but they never mention the fact that for every two they have taken off since coming to power, one has been added.

In fact, it was even on its June website that 62 had been lifted but 33 had been added. If we go to the website today, we will see that it has actually taken off that portion of how many water advisories have been added. I have to ask, as the government members stand up again and again touting their success, why have they taken this off the website? What are they are trying to hide?

On the fiscal transparency issue, one of the first things the government did was lift the law for first nations to have fiscal transparency for their members. If we go to the government's departmental plan for Indigenous Services, which is the plan the government has to fill out, publish and table in the House and that the minister herself signs off on, one of its goals states that it is going to reduce the number of first nations complying with the First Nations Financial Transparency Act. Literally, the goal that is stated right in the departmental plan is to reduce the number of first nation bands complying with the transparency act by 23%. Now, I have to give the government points, as it actually succeeded partly on that. The departmental results plans that were just published show it reduced it by 8%.

The Auditor General Michael Ferguson who recently passed away, in his 2018 report, commented about the government splitting Indigenous Services and Northern Affairs. He stated that splitting the department into two different departments could be a step forward toward improving services for first nations, but that we won't know unless there's a way to track outcomes.

This goes back to the departmental plans. The departmental plans tabled in the House show what the government's priorities are, where it will be spending the money and what its planned outcomes and targets are going to be for the money spent and the actions for the year. In Indigenous Services, 50% of the targets set are to be determined.

In his report, the late Michael Ferguson stated that if we want to move forward in serving first nations, we need to see planned outcomes, but the government's response is to table a report where 50% of the goals for Indigenous Services for the year, their targets, their planned outcomes, are left blank. As well, 55% of the dates in their planned outcomes are left to be determined and 61% of the previous year's results are left as not applicable. Here is the government, again, with no relationship more important, stating the goals for Indigenous Services but that the government is not going to say what it did last year for comparison.

Again, I bring my colleagues back to what the late Michael Ferguson said, which was that we are not going to get better services unless we can judge the outcomes.

Remember that 50% did not have any targets at all. When they did set them, 21% of the targets show a decline or no improvement over the previous year. How are we going to move forward and help improve indigenous services when the government, for half of the Department of Indigenous Services, says it will not set a goal, and when it does set a goal, fully 21% show a decline from previous years?

For Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, one-quarter of their departmental plans show no goals for this year and 92% would not state what it was the previous year. Again, we have nothing to compare it with. I am going to give colleagues a couple of examples.

For the percentage of on-reserve, department-funded first nation drinking water systems meeting required standards, there was no improvement over three years. The government is planning to spend, I think, $1.2 billion in the budget. There was $400 million in the Liberal slush fund of vote 40, but their own plan shows it will not improve.

For the percentage of on-reserve, department-funded first nation wastewater systems being treated according to guidelines, there was about a 20% decrease from the previous government.

For the percentage of first nations living on reserves and reporting being in excellent health, there is a decline from the previous government.

Here is a great one, the percentage of DPC requests, which are predetermination requests for dental services, that are handled within the required service standards. Remember this is the government that spent $32,000 on legal bills to fight a first nations teenager from Alberta who needed dental work. The government's goal was to have 95% solved within the predetermined guidelines. Do members know what the government achieved last year? It was zero, not one. The government has time to sue people and time to fight a teenager in court but it cannot even accomplish its own goals.

The percentage of increase of indigenous businesses includes the money that is set aside for government procurements. It has dropped since the previous government.

We have heard from the NDP and others that there is a mould crisis in indigenous housing. In budget 2017, the government set aside $20 million a year for indigenous northern housing. Do members know what the government set aside for Tesla charging stations for rich millionaires, like the Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister? It set aside $30 million a year. Thus, we are putting more aside for Tesla charging stations than the money to handle the crisis in first nations housing.

Again, I support Bill C-91. It is a great step forward but we have to do what the late Michael Ferguson stated. We have to set up a system where we can actually hold the government to account for its promises to deliver services to the first nations.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to stand today in this place and add my voice to the discussion around Bill C-91.

The House may not be aware that today is End It Movement Day. It is a movement to end modern-day slavery in our country and around the world. The people who participate wear a red X on their hand. Many may not know that within Canada, human trafficking probably happens within 10 blocks of where they live if they live in the city and within 10 miles of where they live if they live in the country.

Modern-day slavery has many faces in Canada, but the vast majority of cases, about 50% of them, involve indigenous women and girls. That is why I am wearing a red X on my hand today.

Bill C-91 is about respect and about protecting indigenous languages here in Canada. Many bills have been brought up about this issue, and the government has spoken in length about it as well.

Back in December 2016, the government said it was seized with this issue and would table some legislation. Now, at the eleventh hour of this Parliament, the government has tabled a bill, and here we are, discussing it today.

I find it frustrating to see the government's approach to supporting something. Supply management is a good example. It says all the time that it supports supply management, but it has very narrowly cast that support. The support is purely for the two words, “supply management”. It is the same in this case as well. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but that is really just the two words, “indigenous languages”.

Many times when we support something, the actual thing that needs to be supported needs the entire surrounding infrastructure or the surrounding society to support it. Only supporting the end result does not necessarily help the actual goal we are trying to achieve.

Let us use the case of supply management as an example. It is really great for the government to say it supports supply management, but when it takes milk and dairy products and animal proteins out of the food guide, it is not supporting supply management whatsoever.

A couple of people who work in my office are coffee connoisseurs. They always ask me why I put cream in my coffee. They think I am ruining the coffee by doing so. I tell them I support supply management, so I put cream in my coffee. Supporting supply management means actually supporting supply management and targeting the actual issue.

We are seeing that again with this indigenous language bill. It says we are going to support indigenous language and we are going to have an ombudsman and all of these things, but if we do not support communities and do not support the culture of these languages, they will become dead languages.

I know a bit about dead languages. I know a bit of Latin. It is a language that is used all the time, but it is not a spoken language. There are records of languages that have been brought back. I understand Hebrew is one of those languages that has been brought back from being a dead language to a language that is now alive and well.

I failed to mention at the beginning of my comments that I will be sharing my time with the member for Edmonton West.

This is a great bill. I am sure that we will take the language, codify it and keep a record of it. Many organizations around this country are working on translating the Bible into all indigenous languages.

The House may be aware that both the German language and the English language were codified when the Bible was translated into those languages. There is a language known as High German. It was not really a language spoken by anybody, but it was the language that the Bible would have been translated into for a big swath of the world that spoke Germanic languages. It codified the whole language into a common language.

We are seeing work being done on that around the country. The funding that will be coming through this legislation will probably support many of those initiatives. I support that idea.

The point I am trying to make is that we would like these languages to be living languages, not dead languages, and in order to do that, we need to support communities. What does supporting communities look like? For one thing, we have a rich heritage in this country around the fur trade. Canada was built on the fur trade. I always say Canada was built on a number of things, such as the fur trade, the railway and other things, but the fur trade for indigenous peoples was a major part of the economy. It is a shame that today we do not champion the fur trade in this country.

Representatives of the fur trade association were in my office the other day, and they told me that fur will not even be on the winter Olympics uniforms. I do not know if anyone saw that Canada Goose recently came out with a new lineup of jackets designed by an Inuit designer. They are amazing jackets. They have nice fur on the hood. I am sure there are more fur products on the inside as well, though I could not see. The fur trade is what made these communities sustainable. Their languages were able to survive with or without government funding, and the Inuit are a prime example of that. Most them still have their languages because it is a vibrant community.

Where I am from, many of the Woodland Cree people still speak the language, and their communities are thriving. Why are they thriving? It is because the economy is thriving. No doubt a generation has lost the language due to the residential schools, but when communities come together and operate well, the language continues to thrive, so we see that bills like Bill C-69 do nothing. We say we want to support languages and indigenous communities, but then the government introduces a bill like Bill C-69, which hamstrings all of the northern Alberta communities that rely on the economy that pipelines, the oil patch and resource development bring to northern Alberta. The government says it supports indigenous languages, but it supports them in a very narrow way. We need to ensure these communities have a good economy; then the language will flourish.

Another area that is frustrating to me is the language around firearms that the Liberals in particular use all the time. They seem to be very suspicious of people who own and use firearms on a regular basis. It is our indigenous communities that use, own and work with firearms on a regular basis. The language and laws coming from the Liberal government, particularly Bill C-71, are onerous to all first nation communities for sure. Firearms are a big part of their culture. Firearms are a way of life for them, so to say we are going to support their languages and culture and then make it more onerous to own a firearm is not supportive of the culture whatsoever.

Lots of people say we already have languages and ask me why I think it is so important. We all have a world view, a narrative, a place that we belong in the world, and being part of a culture that has identifiable languages and creeds and those kinds of things gives us our sense of belonging in the world. A language does that to a large degree. Studies bear out the idea that when people feel they are tied to a language, a people, a land and a culture, they are much more successful in nation building and culture building.

For all of those reasons, I support this bill, but I find it ironic that we are here at the eleventh hour debating a bill to support indigenous languages.

[Jim Eglinski, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-91 will be a historic move toward healing and rebuilding of our indigenous identities and pride across Canada. We as a nation made a mistake in our actions on residential schools and the forcing of young aboriginal youth to speak only English. We now can make right what we made wrong.

There are 13 weeks left in this session. Do you commit to working co-operatively with the opposition parties to get this done?

[Yvonne Jones, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today and speak on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabeg people. I know that if Algonquin Elder Commanda were here today, as she was on the day when she opened our new chamber, she, too, would be happy to speak to a bill that speaks to preserving the languages of Canada's indigenous people. Many indigenous people across Canada are happy to see it.

In my own language, the language of my ancestors, the Inuit language, Inuktitut, I say nakurmiik or “thank you” for allowing me the opportunity to serve in this place and to speak to the bill today, and to speak in strong support of it.

Bill C-91 , the indigenous languages act, is aimed at supporting indigenous people all across our country and for doing what they have been trying to do for a long time in the absence of government, which is continuing to carry forward the language and culture they had been accustomed to and were born into.

In particular, it is appropriate that we are providing this language bill in Canada at this time, simply because it is the year of languages for the United Nations. If we go back in time and look to see when people started advocating for the bill, it was in 1995.

In 1995, Canada was moving in that direction. UNESCO had found that many languages within the world were disappearing. Canada, like other nations around the world, was called upon to preserve language and to preserve the language of indigenous people in particular.

Over that period of time, very little attention was being paid to what was happening. In fact, no action was taken whatsoever.

Also in 1995, the royal commission called upon Canada to begin working, right away, with indigenous people across the country; to start revitalizing language; to start establishing a foundation on which we could support indigenous efforts that were already taking place to preserve language within the country. However, no action was taken.

A colleague across the House asked why it took so long to get where we were. It is a question best asked to that side. In 2005, there was an indigenous-led task force on aboriginal languages. It recommended, very clearly, to the Conservative government of the day that it include initiatives to do just that. It would include legislation, such as what we have brought forward today, that recognized the Constitutional status of indigenous languages in the country, that would be funded, that official languages would also have a national council to coordinate their efforts and that a full strategy be designed, whose only goal was to ensure that indigenous language was revitalized and carried on in the country.

It is 25 years since the time those things happened. Nevertheless, we are here today. We are here because we have listened to what indigenous people have said to us. They have said quite clearly that the Government of Canada needs to do more to preserve indigenous languages in our country.

Over the last two years, in particular, we worked very hard with indigenous groups, first nations, Inuit and Métis, to ensure we would get this right, that we would bring to the House of Commons the very first bill to preserve indigenous languages in Canada and do those things that they had asked. I am very proud today to be part of a government that is acting and doing just that.

I think my colleague from the Northwest Territories probably said it best when he talked about why the languages of indigenous peoples had disappeared over the years.

I come from a region of the country where we are very proud of our indigenous and northern roots. In Labrador, we have two very distinct indigenous languages, Inuktitut and Innu-aimun. A lot of work has been done on preserving those languages, by communities, by the people who live there, by the elders, by generations of people. Over the last couple of years, we have been able to help them by investing in the tools they need, by investing in preserving the language within their schools and after school programs and by helping them prepare the products they need to continue to teach and carry on in that way. It is very difficult.

The area I come from, while I grew up not knowing the language of my ancestors, many others grew up in communities where people continued to speak the language on a very small scale. However, there are huge generational gaps between those who speak it as their mother tongue and those who are just starting to learn the language again. The gap is under 14 and over 65. That is basically where we see the language gap in most of the indigenous languages in my region. In other parts of the country, people do not even have that. Even that has disappeared. Therefore, so many people out there are really starting with the basics.

They lost their language as a result of assimilation and the residential schools, which we have talked about and have heard about in that unfortunate chapter of history that affected so many indigenous people. They lost their language because they were never permitted to speak it, as my colleague from the Northwest Territories said. That opportunity was removed from them, and not throughout just one or two decades but throughout many decades of our history.

Canada will never allow that to happen again. That is why we support bills like Bill C-91 before us today to ensure it does not happen again.

When we look back, we know that three times over the past 25 years the issue has come to the attention of government at certain points in time without action. The last call was through truth and reconciliation. When the prime minister of the day made his commitment on behalf of the government and to all Canadians that we would honour the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, this was one of the very things he committed to do.

I am really pleased that we are able to bring this legislation forward. I am also pleased that in so many regions in the country, many people still speak their mother tongue, like the people of Nunavut. Of over 33,000 people in that territory, most still speak their mother tongue, their language of Inuktitut. They are an example for all of us to live up to. However, we also know it will take early intervention and support to make this happen.

Today, as I conclude my comments, I want to thank all of those who had a hand in making this happen. I want to thank all indigenous people in Canada for not giving up and having the resilience to carry on. I want to acknowledge that this is certainly a great step forward in what has been a long journey for indigenous people.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Labrador.

First of all, I want to say mahsi cho.

Today is a great day. It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in support of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. This legislation supports a revitalization of indigenous languages, which have deteriorated over the years because of the racist and discriminatory policies of successive governments.

Three languages were spoken in my home when I grew up: English; the language of the Dene, the Dehcho Dene; and the language of the Métis, Métis French, Michif. It all kind of came to an end when I started school, because during that era, we were not allowed to speak anything except English. If we were caught or reported for speaking anything but English, we were strapped with an 18-inch, three-inch wide rubber strap.

There was no defence. We were guilty. It did not matter if we did it or not. A lot of my colleagues would sometimes falsely report their fellow students. They wanted to see them get strapped. There was no way to get away from it. If the principal came out, grabbed us and brought us to the front of the class, and we fought back, he would hit us wherever he could. However, if we let him, he would just strap us on the hands. Usually it was four straps per hand. The only time we could get him to stop was if he drew blood. A lot of my colleagues would take a piece of their hair and put it on their hands to see if they could get their hands to bleed so that after the first strap, they would not be hit anymore.

Why did this happen? Why did we have to go through this? It is because past policies were designed to strip away indigenous identity and discourage the use of traditional languages.

This bill is intended to support and promote the use of indigenous languages. It recognizes that languages are fundamental to the identities, cultures, spiritual beliefs, relationships to the land, world views and self-determination of indigenous peoples.

Throughout the government-led engagement sessions on this legislation, which I think took a total of two years, it was stated that language was integral to who one is as a person, to who we are as a people and to individual and collective pride and strength.

Indigenous youth across Canada need to be exposed to their histories through language and must be supported in their efforts to learn their languages and have pride in their cultures. If they park their languages to survive, they also park a big part of their culture, which is something I have learned from my experience.

Acknowledging the importance of indigenous languages in Canada will allow for healthier indigenous people and communities and a healthier country as a whole.

There have been many studies done on the use of indigenous languages and their role, or lack of a role, in the issue of suicide. Many studies have shown that indigenous communities in which a majority of members report conversational knowledge of an indigenous language also experience low to absent youth suicide rates. By contrast, in those communities in which fewer than half the members report knowledge of the language, suicide rates are up to six times higher.

The Assembly of First Nations' report on its national engagement sessions regarding this act states:

Language learning and identity reunification can be sources of healing. Schooling—residential schools, day schools, public schools, technical schools—were sources of disrupting Indigenous language use as a natural process. These institutions made us ashamed to speak our languages and parents were made to believe that their languages would harm their children and keep them from succeeding. Language revitalization can be used to help mitigate other issues such as addictions; people with a strong sense of language have better physical and mental health.

Past studies and reports have acknowledged the importance of youth and intergenerational learning to the revitalization of indigenous languages.

The 2005 report “Towards a New Beginning" by the Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures calls for funding for immersion programs for children and youth. The task force report reminded indigenous communities to be more mindful of children and youth by stating:

Go home to your communities and do not forget the youth. They sometimes get forgotten and shouldn’t be. They’re important and they’re the next generation. We need to ask the youth what they need and want, and get them involved and get them excited about this.

I have heard chiefs in my riding talk about encouraging people to talk to youth and talk to their children, to say one word or one sentence in their indigenous language, because it does not cost anything.

In the report, elders urge educational institutions to encourage youth to take leadership roles in language preservation. It is important to recognize that youth need access to sufficient financial support to assist in their language journeys so they can learn, use and promote their languages.

Through this bill, the Government of Canada has committed to supporting the efforts of indigenous people to reclaim, revitalize, preserve and maintain their languages in a variety of ways, including by implementing measures that would facilitate the allocation of funding.

A recent report published by the First Peoples' Cultural Council, entitled “Indigenous Languages Recognition, Preservation and Revitalization”, stated:

Youth energy is a driving force for language revitalization. It needs to be encouraged.

Young people need to be encouraged to take control over their languages, as they are the future of this country and will be responsible for the future of indigenous languages.

In 2016, Canada officially adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which proclaims:

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.

The declaration also asserts:

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.

The bill recognizes the urgent need to support the efforts of indigenous people to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and also strengthen their languages. Indigenous youth and all peoples in Canada need to be supported in their efforts to reclaim their languages. Indigenous communities have been working diligently to revitalize and reclaim their first nations, Inuit and Métis languages, and it is important to acknowledge their work. The role of elders and language keepers is also very important to the languages of indigenous people in Canada, and their efforts should not be overlooked.

This legislation must be implemented with urgency to provide the necessary support for indigenous people before the language keepers are gone. I urge all hon. members to respect and honour the energy and perseverance of indigenous youth by acting swiftly to adopt this legislation.

I will conclude by reminding members that this bill is long overdue. We must continue to recognize the importance of indigenous language revitalization and the invaluable effects it has on indigenous youth, indigenous communities and Canadians. We have to hurry, because many of our indigenous languages depend on it.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C-91.

We are in the last stages of this Parliament. It may seem like the election is far off in October of this year, but legislation being introduced right now is on the clock, as we say. It is not unusual for even government bills to take more than a year to pass.

This legislation on indigenous languages was promised by the Liberal government three years ago. It was promised to be introduced last year. It was introduced just this week, and it is going to take a certain determined effort and a willingness, maybe a newfound willingness, on the part of the government to negotiate and make accommodations. While the bill is a good first step towards protecting indigenous languages in Canada, there are some significant and real opportunities the government missed in designing it.

The Prime Minister talks often, certainly more than any previous one, of the need for reconciliation in this country. I would say it is an inconsistent message on the ground, because many of the indigenous people I represent in northwestern British Columbia have heard the words but not seen actions that have taken us along that way.

For many years since coming to office, I have argued for support for indigenous languages and for the proper, stable funding of language programs. Much as we worry about the rare and beautiful species around the world that are becoming extinct or endangered, we are watching ancient and profound languages disappearing before our very eyes, within our lifetime, here in Canada. I have heard ministers talk about this as a crisis many times, yet we do not treat it like a crisis.

Let me start with the good, because it is important to try to give credit where it is due. While the bill is late and has yet to specify funding, the fact that we are now speaking about indigenous languages is something important and needs to be sustained.

We have a piece of legislation that is not necessarily very large but could potentially have a profound impact. It would perhaps allow for stable funding. The reason that is important, as anyone who has tried to acquire a second or third language would know, is that taking a week's course is insufficient. Taking a week's course once a year or every few years is not going to be enough.

What gives a person the capacity to speak with the range required to truly understand and incorporate a language is sustained effort over time, having instruction, and having materials there from the earliest stages of life right through. Learning to express oneself in one's own language in a proper way requires that kind of sustained effort.

While we see statutory funding made available in this legislation, there is no amount indicated. All the legislation points to in clause 7 is that consultations will be undertaken with indigenous groups to establish funding. One has to wonder what the government has been doing over the last three years.

The Liberals have talked about consultation a lot, and we would have assumed that there was a figure attached to this. We have a budget coming in a short while, but Canadians familiar with politics would know that budgets that are introduced in an election year are sometimes worth the paper they are written on, but not always.

The government has grown an addiction to what is called back-loaded funding. It announces a large number. Housing or transportation would be good examples where the number is large but it happens in the eighth, ninth or 10th year of the program. If anyone can predict what the government is going to look like, much less the budget, 10 years from now, I sure would like to talk to that person about the stock market and Vegas.

It cannot be done. These are promises that cannot be committed to. While statutory funding is outlined in the bill, no figure is given by the government even though we have asked several times.

It is frustrating, because that is not treating a thing like a crisis. When the Liberals say they want to consult after being in power for more than three and a half years, indigenous groups and leaders and maternal language speakers will ask what exactly the Liberals have been doing and why it has taken so long.

I need to talk about home a bit, because this is how I can relate to this type of legislation.

In the northwest of British Columbia are some of the most ancient and vibrant indigenous cultures: the Tahltan and Taku River Tlingit in the north, up to the now Yukon border; the Haida and Haida Gwaii down the Tsimshian coast to Bella Coola and Bella Bella, the Nuxalk, all the way up through the interior to the Carrier Sekani, Wet'suwet'en, the Haisla, Tsimshian, Wet'suwet'en, Gitxsan and others.

These languages are something to behold. When I am attending and observing a traditional ceremony in the feast hall, from naming ceremonies and weddings to funerals, smoke feasts and headstone feasts, I am reminded that central to any culture, and in particular indigenous culture, is the ability of a community or a nation to speak its own language to itself in those important moments in life: the passing on of an elder, the naming of young people or a chief acquiring her or his name. It is the ability to tell the stories and the ability to describe the meanings behind the words and locations.

I think of the court case that is often referred to in this place. The case of Delgamuukw and Gisday’wa took place at the Supreme Court of Canada, just a few blocks from here, when two chiefs of the Gitxsan and the Wet'suwet'en, appeared before court day after day to establish an important thing in our law and precedents, that oral tradition and oral evidence counted as evidence.

One of the great corruptions of colonial empires was to dismiss any legal authority of indigenous peoples in order to acquire the land, terra nullius, to say that there was nobody here and that anything that had existed in law here, in some cases for thousands upon thousands of years, was somehow done away with.

At the Supreme Court, the challenge was for the Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan chiefs to be able to describe in their languages, in Wet'suwet'en and in Gitxsan, the place names and histories and stories of their nations. By doing it consistently and over and over again under brutal cross-examination by the Crown, that case was successful. Because they were speakers of their traditional languages in their original form, they were able to establish in front of the highest court in the land their territorial rights and the ability to have some influence over what happens in their homes. That is the most basic concept of human rights we have.

Unfortunately, this is where I struggle with the current government, and I think many indigenous peoples do as well. If we look to the Wet'suwet'en and what is going on right now on their territory and the Unist'ot'en territories, there is a challenge and debate, with conflict from time to time, over a proposed pipeline. One of the things we are trying to establish with the government is that very ability to have some say over the land. We have called upon the Prime Minister and the government just to be involved in what is happening in the Wet'suwet'en territory. From the Prime Minister's Office on down to the indigenous affairs minister, we have been told it is not our business.

On the one hand, Liberals claim reconciliation as a priority. The Prime Minister often says there is no more important relationship than that with indigenous peoples. When there is a moment of conflict, we are able to engage the municipality; we are able to engage the police and we are able to engage with the company and the provincial government, but we cannot engage with the federal government under acts that exist that were created in this place.

The government suddenly wants to wash its hands of any implication and say it believes in reconciliation, except when we need reconciliation, when we need to reconcile things like the Indian Act and the hereditary governance system of the Wet'suwet'en. This would be an important thing to the government if it cared about reconciliation. Let us reconcile.

My family heritage is Irish. I was the first in my family to be born here after they immigrated, back in the 1950s. When I look through the Irish history, particularly the colonial history of Great Britain in Ireland, one of the tactics used by the colonial power was to extinguish language, to extinguish stories and history and where people come from, because if we cannot tell our stories, we do not know who we are. It is an attempt to erase a people. To truly subjugate them requires the colonial power, in this case, to try to remove their history and language.

We saw it in Ireland over centuries, and the British picked up that model and applied it when they were the colonial power in this country, to eliminate the language, stories and history. The settlers could pretend that there were no people here. There was no land taken because it was not in possession of anybody, as they were nomadic people without laws, traditions, language or culture.

Through the residential schools and the sixties scoop, which is not mentioned in the bill, and other oppressive tactics designed in parliaments, in this place, explicitly by successive prime ministers, they tried to extinguish indigenous people entirely and subsume them into the colonial melting pot. We can only imagine the courage and energy required from those indigenous elders to insist, even though it was against the law of the day, on speaking their language.

I was recently at a funeral where an elder was relaying stories of what it was like for him to go to school and the beatings he took any time he spoke Gitxsan. If the teacher, the nun in this case, heard the Gitxsan language spoken at any time, in excitement, in sorrow, in explanation to another student, he would be beaten.

This was a story my grandmother was able to tell from her Irish past. If she spoke Celtic in front of the British nuns, she was beaten as well. Therefore, across oceans and across time, we are able to see the influences. Now my family speaks hardly any Celtic at all, and I wonder what that robs me of as a son of the Irish, that I am unable to access my history, culture and traditions because of decisions made by the mother of parliaments in London.

Much like it is with species, once extinct there is no going back. When I look around at the indigenous communities I represent, I know the effort that has been put in, first when it was illegal, but even now that it is no longer forbidden. It is very difficult to ensure that indigenous languages are being practised.

In some of our communities, we can count on one hand the number of fluent speakers left, and fluency is critical in this. I urge the government to please understand, when designing the spending and ensured programming for the bill, that just knowing a few words, phrases, expressions and counting to 10 is a good start, but fluency is what is required.

As anybody who has attempted to learn another language knows, if one is not fluent in that language and cannot understand the depth and breadth of the language, then one does not understand its people. If that is true for native speakers of that language, they cannot understand themselves, and while that was a government design in the past, we cannot skim the surface of this effort. We have to be able to do it properly.

I will tell the story of being at a Haida feast, which was incredible. It was the chief's naming feast. It was a big deal. A friend of mine, Guujaaw, was getting his name, and it was a long feast. It was done in proper Haida style, with lots of food, song, gifts, performances and speeches. When I was there, I got to be an observer. That is hard for a politician, but I was not there to speak at all. I was just there to bear witness, because that is how a feast is held up, by those who bear witness.

At the very end of the speech, it was gift-giving time. It is a beautiful tradition of many indigenous peoples, and certainly the Haida, to offer gifts to those who have come and witnessed what has happened in the feast hall.

As the gifts were being passed out and there were so many it was taking a long time, one of the young Haida got up in the middle of the hall and said, “We'd like to sing a couple of songs. Does anyone want to come up while we're gifting? It's our tradition to sing songs.”

One by one, these young Haida were coming out of the crowd. By the end, there must have been 30 or 40 young Haida, singing song after song for an hour or more. I marvelled at this, knowing some of the history of the Haida, of the smallpox blankets and the almost extinction of their culture entirely. I was watching a renaissance, a rebirth of the language, particularly among the young people.

I was sitting beside one of the Haida elders and I said, “There's a lot of wealth here.” There were a lot of gifts being given, and the Haida, and this chief in particular, my friend, was able to describe his wealth and stature to the community, but the real wealth was happening in the middle of the floor. Their young people are able to speak with each other and their elders in Haida. It is so inspiring as someone who represents the Crown, who represents not just our present but our history. I know that people who previously held my office held the implicit racist views that indigenous people were less than and that their languages were barbaric. Those words were said in Parliament time and again. How barbaric are they was the debate of the day 100 years ago.

We watched the determination of the Haida, the Tsimshian, the Gitxsan, the Wet'suwet'en and on down the line, maintain their understanding of language, without support, and in fact, with aggression from the federal government.

We are here in Parliament. It means “to speak”. We hold and guard jealously our ability to speak in the two official languages. It is against the rules in this place to ever criticize or suggest someone speak in either English or French. We are free to express ourselves as well as we can. That is the rule of the House. We have a whole stack of books protecting that right to speak in Parliament, to express ourselves. If the bill can help move the country forward just a little to say one has the right to protect these languages, to express oneself in indigenous languages, then we will be doing a good thing.

My friend from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has spent his life facing challenges, political and personal, and a state determined to ignore him. His generosity and determination has stayed true to this cause, to allowing Parliament to hear speeches in indigenous languages and to seeing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples brought into law in Canada.

That part of the bill needs to move out of the preamble and into the substance of the act. If we believe in section 35 rights, if we believe in the UN declaration, and that should inform our law-making, then let it form our law-making. Allow it to express itself fully, because if Canada ever seeks to be the nation it is promising to be, then we certainly must do these types of things, and more, and do them together.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we should be focusing on what we are accomplishing with the introduction of Bill C-91.

As I pointed out, it is historic legislation. Indigenous leaders from all regions of our country, as well as non-indigenous people, recognize the critical importance of a language heritage. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission came up with a call to action, and this legislation deals with three of the calls that I am aware of. I see this as a positive.

I would not want to take anything away from the value or significance of this legislation. I do believe that at the end of the day, for the residents of Winnipeg North and beyond, this Parliament as a whole can come together to recognize the value of this legislation and allow it to go committee. We can then hear from the different stakeholders who want to voice their thoughts, expressing concerns they might have or how they would support the legislation or would suggest ways we can improve upon it.

This is a good piece of legislation. It has been a long time coming. I look forward to it ultimately going to committee so that we can get it that much closer to receiving royal assent.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the second reading debate of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. We hope to see that referred to committee by the end of the day so that the committee can do its important work. We understand that we have a lot of support, but we do need to consider amendments.

Tomorrow we will start debate at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-85, the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.

Next week we will be working with our constituents in our ridings.

I would like to note that Tuesday, February 19 will be an allotted day.

On Wednesday, we will begin consideration at report stage and third reading of Bill C-77, on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights.

Indigenous Languages Act

[Arif Virani, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and to the Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

Chi-meegwetch, which means “thank you very much”. I start my remarks in Algonquin, cognizant that I speak today in the House of Commons, which is located on unceded Algonquin territory and also cognizant of this occasion.

Today, I rise to speak in support of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. This legislation is the first of its kind in Canadian history. It begins to turn the page on 400 years of colonialism in this country and systematic efforts by successive governments to sever the ties of indigenous people to their mother tongues.

I will start with a preliminary comment, which is that all of us fortunate enough to be elected into this place come here with a sense of purpose or an objective in mind. For me, given my background in human rights and constitutional law, I came here wanting to work on issues that relate to fighting for and promoting equality and inclusion. I had in mind certain policy goals that I wanted to pursue. However, I quickly realized that sometimes in this place, we seek out an issue and sometimes an issue seeks us out. I will explain.

In January, 2017, I was asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of heritage. I was then asked by the minister to assist her in the co-development of Canada's first-ever indigenous languages act. I will admit to everyone in this chamber that at first I was very puzzled by this request. I am not a linguist nor am I an expert in anything related to indigenous persons. However, in retrospect, that one request actually changed the direction of my parliamentary career. Why? It is because it simply opened my eyes.

On arrival here, because of my legal background, I fancied myself a pretty knowledgeable fellow about most human rights issues. However, the reality was that I actually knew very little about the plight of indigenous persons on this land. Tasked by the minister to engage with indigenous leaders, elders, teachers and experts right across the country about what they would like to see in the new legislation, I actually learned a great deal. Most of all, I learned about how little I actually knew and had been taught about indigenous persons, their histories, traditions, languages, and most importantly, their trauma. I learned about the size, scope and extent of the residential school system, its pernicious impact on indigenous people in Canada and the lasting trauma it created.

Like many in this chamber, I am a parent. Together with my wife, and like many parents in this diverse country, I try to inculcate a sense of culture and tradition in our own little kids, Zakir and Nitin. As a south Asian household, we made efforts to connect our two little boys to the Indian subcontinent by teaching them some language skills, which in our case is Hindi. While the results have not always been perfect, and I will readily admit that the kids still prefer subtitles when they watch Bollywood films, it has not been for a lack of effort on our part.

Our experience is not any different from countless parents of all different backgrounds around this country, such as Greek, Italian, Arab, Somali, Tibetan, Ukrainian and Polish parents. All parents in this country strive to do much the same in this multicultural nation. However, there is one glaring exception to that list, and that is the experience of indigenous parents and their children in this country, because for indigenous people on this land, their efforts for 150 years to impart their language, and through it their culture, to their children were actively obstructed by the federal state.

The Government of Canada made it a policy to remove their children from their homes and put them in schools, sometimes hundreds of kilometres away, where those kids were forced to assimilate. If they dared speak Algonquin, Cree, Ojibwa, Dene or Inuktitut, they were beaten. That is the horrible legacy of the residential school system in this country. It is a system that was constructed to literally “take the Indian out of the child”.

That is where this legislation comes in. The proposed indigenous languages act has, as its express goal, the objective of supporting, promoting and revitalizing indigenous languages in this country. It is an effort to start the long journey toward restoring the vitality of indigenous languages on this land and reversing the ugly legacy of colonialism.

The teaching of language by any parent in this chamber, by settlers or indigenous persons, is always motivated by the same rationale, that in providing children with language, we connect them to who they are, to their culture. We make them knowledgeable of who they are and where they come from, knowing that in doing so we build up their self-esteem and confidence, and empower them for success. It is so intuitive that we take it for granted that by teaching a child about their culture, they will inevitably do better in terms of their education, economically, and even their health.

However, in my time spent working as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of heritage on the development of this very bill, I also came across empirical evidence. It was so startling that it has stayed with me for well over two years.

We have heard many times in the House about the crisis of mental health and in particular the grave concerns about youth suicide in Canada, particularly indigenous youth suicide.

One study put all of this into very sharp focus. Conducted in British Columbia, the analysts determined that indigenous youth in that province with a conversational knowledge of their indigenous language had a suicide rate of 13 per 100,000, a number well below the provincial average, which includes non-indigenous youth.

However, when the researchers removed indigenous language knowledge from the analysis, the youth suicide rate jumped sixfold, to 96 per 100,000, a number exponentially higher than the provincial average. This amply demonstrates that language knowledge not only connects indigenous youth to their culture but can actually help save lives.

For parliamentarians, there can be no stronger impetus than this for getting on with the critical work of passing this bill into law, yet there are other imperatives that inform this proposed legislation.

For one thing, there are the sentiments expressed to me by my constituents and by people I heard from right across the country. People in Parkdale—High Park told me they want reconciliation not to be simply a symbolic term, but rather one that materializes in concrete legislative action.

As well, there is the sheer weight of the statistics. Some 90 different indigenous languages are spoken in this country, and shockingly, not a single one of them is considered safe by UNESCO. Fully three-quarters of them are critically endangered. In addition, there was a near 50% drop between 1996 and 2011 in the number of indigenous persons in this country who reported knowledge of an indigenous mother tongue. This clearly illustrates the threat to the survival of many languages posed by an aging population of fluent elders.

I can also speak directly to what I heard when I was given the opportunity as parliamentary secretary to engage with indigenous communities across the country. From Halifax to Victoria to the Northwest Territories, what I heard was very similar. It was the sense of rupture, the sense of disconnection from one's culture experienced by so many indigenous persons victimized by the residential school system.

I recall very vividly a meeting in Saskatchewan during which an indigenous man, who may have been about 50 years old, told the group about being forcibly taken from his family and his community at the age of five, and how he was prohibited from speaking his mother tongue. When I asked him what success would look like a few years after legislation came into force, he said to me simply, “Success would be being able to enter the sweat lodge and actually understand the words being spoken by the elders.”

Make no mistake, it is indigenous persons that are the focus of this law. Much discussion has taken place in Canada and in this chamber about raising the awareness of indigenous languages among settler populations in this country through the passage of this bill. While that would be commendable, it remains a secondary, corollary aspect of this proposed legislation. The goal of this bill is not, for example, the promotion of Ojibwa fluency among non-indigenous folks in my riding or in any other riding in this country; the goal of this legislation is and has to be restoring language fluency and capacity among indigenous people in Canada so that indigenous people, by reclaiming their language, can reclaim their culture and overcome that sense of rupture I spoke about, the rupture caused by the official policy of assimilation that characterized the residential school system for 150 years.

This bill also relates to the TRC's calls to action, in particular calls 13, 14 and 15, which call for, among other things, an acknowledgement “that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights.” That is precisely what proposed section 6 of this bill does.

The focus of this bill is also on fulfilling the promise of UNDRIP, a document we as a government have committed to implementing. The UN declaration speaks to the right of self-determination of indigenous peoples, which includes “the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages [and] oral traditions”. That statement is entrenched in the preamble to this proposed legislation.

This is precisely why we took the step of co-developing this proposed legislation with indigenous leaders and national indigenous organizations. The patriarchal days of the federal government telling indigenous people what is best for them are thankfully gone. It is indigenous people who know what is best for indigenous communities, and in this International Year of Indigenous Languages, it is high time we as parliamentarians all started listening to them.

I will conclude where I began. The protection and promotion of indigenous languages is not something that I ever contemplated working on, but it is an issue that found me. I am tremendously grateful for that, because on this journey I have learned that while there are many social justice causes worthy of pursuit in this country, all of them pale in comparison to the obligation we have as parliamentarians to redress the historical injustices perpetuated against indigenous persons on this land over the last 400 years of colonialism. The indigenous languages act is one small but very significant step on the path to reconciliation, and it deserves all of our support.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Chilliwack—Hope.

Today I rise to speak to Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. It is a bill that would, among other things, establish the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages, an office that would have the purpose of strengthening and supporting indigenous languages across this country.

Indigenous languages and cultures are numerous and diverse across Canada, and they form part of our great multicultural mosaic that certainly exists throughout this country.

UNESCO has launched a website devoted entirely to the International Year of Indigenous Languages. The website's homepage reads:

Languages play a crucial role in the daily lives of people, not only as a tool for communication, education, social integration and development, but also as a repository for each person's unique identity, cultural history, traditions and memory.

Data from the 2016 census shows that over 70 indigenous languages are spoken throughout this country. It is probably more like over 90. They represent about 260,000 people in this country. These languages reflect unique and rich indigenous cultural heritages, which should be valued by all members of Canadian society. However, under its horrific and brutal system of residential schools, the Canadian government pursued a policy through which the teaching and passing on of indigenous languages from one generation to the next was stamped out. Community knowledge of indigenous languages was severely harmed as a result of this shameful policy.

Back in 2008, on behalf of the Government of Canada, former prime minister Stephen Harper apologized to the former students of residential schools and acknowledged the terrible harms inflicted on the indigenous people of Canada through this system. At the time, he stated that the government recognized that the consequences of the Indian residential school policy were profoundly negative and that the policy had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language.

Our previous Conservative government recognized the damage residential schools inflicted on indigenous communities and on indigenous culture and heritage. The effects on indigenous languages were devastating, as we now know, but our former Conservative government chose to work toward a better future, alongside the indigenous peoples of Canada, by launching the Truth and Reconciliation Commission back in 2008.

There is much work that certainly needs to be done to support the strengthening and revitalization of indigenous languages, and Conservatives remain committed to supporting the work of indigenous communities to protect and reclaim indigenous languages. The protection of indigenous languages is valuable to all Canadians, as we all know, as part of our shared Canadian heritage.

Conservatives recognize the inherent value that comes from the preservation of rich and diverse indigenous languages and cultures. However, the Liberal government seems to have introduced the legislation as if it was an afterthought. The Prime Minister promised legislation back in 2016. That was almost two and a half years ago. Now, with only 12 or 13 weeks left in the current parliamentary session, he has decided to table it. He sat on this promise for over two and a half years. During all that time, no such legislation was introduced. Unfortunately, this is a common tactic of the Liberal government, which promises much yet fails to deliver.

Time and time again, the Liberals have failed in their commitments to indigenous communities across this country by constantly adding to their list of broken promises.

Last February, the Prime Minister made a promise in the House of Commons to pursue a new legal framework that would give greater recognition to indigenous rights. He said, “We need to get to a place where indigenous peoples in Canada are in control of their own destinies and making their own decisions about their futures.”

However, not even a year after making the promise while standing on the floor in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister himself, standing before the Assembly of First Nations, had to apologize for his Liberal government's utter failure to meet its duty to consult with first nations over the Trans Mountain expansion project.

As we all know, right now the current Liberal government has no plans at all to move forward with any legislation before the next election to implement the legal framework the Prime Minister promised to indigenous communities just last year. These broken promises to indigenous peoples are not only irresponsible, but very harmful as well.

Speaking on the failure of the Liberal government to introduce its promised legal framework before the next election, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond, formerly of Saskatchewan but now director of the University of British Columbia's Indian Residential School History and Dialogue Centre, stated, “Promising people transformative change and failing is not only disappointing, it's also inhumane. It is a kind of pain and trauma that just gets compounded.”

Unfortunately, the current Liberal government has a long record of making promises to indigenous communities across this country, only to break those promises as soon as they are made.

I am going to share some interesting and encouraging facts on indigenous languages from the province of Saskatchewan, the city of Saskatoon, and my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood.

Before I became a member of Parliament, I served for nine and a half years as a trustee on the Saskatoon board of education. At that time, we certainly celebrated indigenous language around our board table. I was proud to be involved in the expansion of the indigenous language training program in Saskatoon—Grasswood. In my riding, many students are fortunate to participate in indigenous language instruction. I will name a few schools.

I will start with Confederation Park Community School, which offers language instruction in Cree. About 280 students are involved, from pre-kindergarten all the way up to grade 8. These students benefit from the Nêhiyâwiwin Cree language and cultural program.

Westmount Community School provides a Métis cultural program that includes Michif language instruction for students from pre-kindergarten all the way up to grade 8.

The Charles Red Hawk Elementary School also offers Cree language instruction from pre-kindergarten all the way up to grade 4.

Mount Royal Collegiate, Princess Alexandra High School and even King George elementary school all provide Cree language instruction.

The Saskatoon public schools offer instruction in three indigenous languages: Cree, Michif and Dakota. Dakota language and cultural lessons are offered at the Chief Whitecap and Charles Red Hawk schools, and I should mention that Chief Whitecap is a major participant with the Saskatoon board of education on a new education formula.

St. Frances Cree Bilingual School in my riding of Saskatoon—Grasswood offers Cree education to 440 students from pre-kindergarten to grade 5, and to another 150 students in grades 6 to 8. Because of the growing demand for Cree bilingual education, St. Frances Cree Bilingual School is now serving students at two locations.

At the Oskayak High School in a neighbouring riding, Cree language instruction is offered to grades 9 to 12, where approximately 70 students are receiving Cree language instruction.

The Greater Saskatoon Catholic Schools offer core Cree language to some 348 students, from pre-kindergarten all the way up to grade 8, at St. Mary's Wellness and Education Centre.

In conclusion, the Conservatives will support this bill going forward to second reading. We stand committed to reviewing Bill C-91 in committee to ensure that the current Liberal government once again lives up to the promises it has made to all indigenous peoples of Canada.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

I come from the land of the Coast Salish people, namely the Kwantlen, Katzie and Tsawwassen first nations.

For me language is like one's mother. It nourishes, heals, embraces and caresses us. For this country, language has been one of its defining legacies, both good and bad. When it comes to French and English, the protection of these languages is part of our Constitution, and debates on how to protect them, particularly where either speaker is in a minority, have been robust. For French and English language rights, we have become a beacon, an example and a standard for others to use and see.

However, our history is not so great when it comes to the indigenous languages of this nation. This country took young children from their parents, incarcerated them in prison-like environments, took away their names and re-named them, punished them for speaking in the language of their peoples, and stole their identities from them.

This was done in full sight of the governments of the day and with the blessings of both church and state. However, this was a much more sinister plan, one designed and concocted to eliminate and exterminate a people, a culture, a society that was rich, humane and in harmony with the land.

Civilizations and societies, however great, do this from time to time. They commit to actions that they see as right and justified, and do heinous crimes because they usually fail to see how their actions will affect the people they are created for. Sometimes it is deliberate, and sometimes it is out of ignorance, but at no time is it acceptable.

However, Canada, and to some degree the world, has come a long way from the days of forced assimilation and residential schools to, now, truth and reconciliation, and recognizing indigenous languages as a right.

This bill will put into place actions 13, 14 and 15 of the Truth And Reconciliation Commission of Canada and put the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into effect. It will require the federal government to fund indigenous languages and create an office of the commissioner of indigenous languages. This is very important, as currently only 20% of indigenous people can converse in their language, and in B.C. that number is even less, with only one in 27 being able to converse in an indigenous language.

If one doubts the value and power of language, then just look to how it affects youth suicide rates. With those who spoke their indigenous language, the rates were one-sixth of those who did not. Those with no ability to speak their language had a rate of suicide that was six times higher. Today all 90 indigenous languages are in danger of extinction.

This is only the beginning. Languages help people understand the richness of their culture and the history of their peoples, and see the world through a different and more colourful lens. It helps people appreciate their ancestry, history and lineage. While this country has had its fair share of shortfalls and misdeeds when it comes to language, culture and people, it has also learned from them and created some of the greatest policies on diversity and human rights, both of which have shaped me and who I am.

In 1978, this country adopted a policy of multiculturalism, which for me was going to be one of the most defining pieces of legislation, along with the charter, that would allow me to grow up and be the person I am today. Let me tell the House why.

When I was in kindergarten in 1980, I was a child of an immigrant. I was brown, had long hair, which was tied in a bun on the top of my head, and I looked nothing like other people in my class. All I wanted to do was look like everyone else. I wanted to be Canadian. Little did I know that, under multiculturalism, being Canadian was exactly what I was and how I should be.

I was lucky enough to have a teacher who knew this legislation, the timing and appropriateness of it. She decided to share this with me and my family. She called my parents, brought them over and, for me, at first, it was a dreadful moment. I thought this was when I was going to be put into ESL, English as a second language, that dreadful place from where one never got out. However, it was different. She spoke to my parents and said, “It seems you are teaching him Punjabi at home, and I want you to know that this is going to be an asset and a gift, something you should cherish and even do more of. Let me take care of the English at school, and I will make sure he does not lag behind.”

It stuck with me. My white Caucasian teacher was telling me to learn the language of my parents. She also said to make sure that I learned to read and write it, because it would be an asset in the future. I had no idea, because at that time, everyone was under pressure to change their names to make them more anglicized and to learn English and forget about their ancestral languages. However, it stuck with me.

In grade seven, I registered in an evening Punjabi school at the Khalsa Diwan Society in Vancouver, and I learned to read and write the language. In grade eight, I fell in love with the language and started listening to British Punjabi bhangra and hip hop, and from there, there was no stopping. I loved reading newspapers, history and sometimes literature and listening to Punjabi poetry. It helped me understand what my parents went through, what my aunts and uncles appreciated and listened to and how flavours of foods really tasted. Today it gives me great honour when people tell me my Punjabi is great and ask when I came to Canada. I say I was born and raised in Canada. It is the reason I speak this language and can read and write it.

Fast-track to 35 years later. I serve in a government led by a Prime Minister who himself was brought up in a home with a similar language upbringing. I read at one point that his father made a rule in the household that if they were on the main floor, they were to speak French with their friends and parents. If they were upstairs in their bedrooms or downstairs in the rec room, they could speak English with their friends, but on the main floor they were to speak French. That is why the Prime Minister is fully bilingual and cherishes that right. It was very encouraging for me to read that it was not only my parents who had those rules at home. Other people across this country also shared those same rules.

I sometimes feel like a failure when it comes to my home, because I probably breach a lot of those rules. I speak English to my kids when I should be teaching them other languages at the same time. For that, I am sorry. However, I have given them the gift of learning Punjabi at evening school and at day school as well.

I hope this act will give our indigenous children the same right, the same sense of pride and belonging and the same tools to preserve their languages, joke in their languages and dialects and sing in their beautiful rhythms. I hope the House quickly ratifies this legislation so that never again will our indigenous people have to fight for their right to preserve their languages. May they always be able to cherish and speak their languages, and may Canada become a beacon for indigenous languages around the world.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my friend from Surrey Centre.

I am deeply honoured to speak this afternoon in support of Bill C-91, the indigenous languages act. I want to start by acknowledging that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.

Our language is at the core of who we are as a people, as a community and as a nation.

Before I speak to the important aspects of the bill, I would like to explain to the House the major challenges that I face as a first-generation immigrant to Canada.

Every day, I struggle to make sure that my two daughters understand and speak their mother tongue, Tamil, at home.

For me, the ability to be part of this community is at my core. The ability to understand this language allows me to understand this community. I want my two children to be able to have the opportunity and the right to understand the language and be connected to the people. Likewise, all families want their language to be spoken and understood, be it English, French, Finnish or Tamil. It is who we are as a people.

However, these languages are not at risk of extinction, nor are the speakers and keepers of these languages dying. Most indigenous language speakers do not have the privilege and protection that is available to other languages in Canada. Sadly, the legacy for indigenous people in Canada is that every one of the 90 languages spoken here prior to colonization is at threat of being lost. According to UNESCO, 75% of these languages are in danger of becoming extinct. Imagine the languages, dialects and voices of many communities lost forever. I cannot fathom it. We cannot fathom it, and we cannot understand it.

This happened because successive governments undertook the process of colonization that Madam Justice McLachlin has called “cultural genocide”. This meant that the government took children from their homes and their communities and put them in residential schools. The children were forbidden from speaking their languages and practising their spirituality and were often abused for practising who they were.

Some communities were forceably moved from one geographical location to another. Some children from indigenous homes were taken and placed in foster homes or put up for adoption through the sixties scoop. We have a modern-day version of the sixties scoop, whereby children are taken by child welfare agencies and put in foster care.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report outlined many experiences of residential school survivors, and I want to share two such stories.

One is from William Herney, who spoke Mi'kmaq with his brother at residential school. He said:

And she says, “What are you two boys doing?” “Nothing, Sister.” “Oh, yes, I heard you. You were talking that language, weren't you?” “Yes, Sister.” “Come here,” she said. I went over. She took a stick. She leaned me over to the bathtub, the bathtub, grabbed me by the neck, and I don't know how many whacks she gave me over my bum, and I was crying like I don't know what. Then, she took a piece of soap, and she washed my mouth in it. I can still even taste that lye soap. All my life I tasted that taste. And she said, “You don't talk that language here. That's a no, no, no, you don't, you understand?” Looks at me straight in the eye. She said, “Do you understand that?” And I said, “Yes, Sister, I understand.”

Rose Dorothy Charlie, who was at an Anglican school in Carcross, said:

They took my language. They took it right out of my mouth. I never spoke it again. My mother asked me why, why you could hear me, she’s, like, “I could teach you.” I said, “No.” And she said, “Why?” I said, “I’m tired of getting hit in the mouth, tired of it. I’m just tired of it, that’s all.” Then I tried it, I went to Yukon College, I tried it, and then my own auntie laugh at me because I didn’t say...the words right, she laughed at me, so I quit. “No more,” I said. Then people bothered me, and say, “How come you don’t speak your language?” And I said, “You wouldn't want to know why.” So, I never speak, speak it again.

The depth of the loss of indigenous languages cannot be quantified. The eternal links to language, and by extension culture, have been broken. Generations of indigenous people in Canada have been shamed into losing their language and culture because of the policies and practices of successive Canadian governments and many institutions.

A patchwork of programs and initiatives exist to support the preservation, protection and revitalization of indigenous languages.

Not all languages face the same risk of extinction. Some have better odds of survival than others, but it is all relative. We need to do more to protect, preserve and revitalize all indigenous languages.

We cannot change the past. The past is done. However, we can and must change the course of the future.

In this moment in time, the 42nd Parliament has made enormous strides in advancing equality, human rights and indigenous rights. In 2015, our government committed to implementing all 94 calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Calls to action 13, 14 and 15 require the entrenchment of legislation and a framework that will ensure the protection, preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages.

Our government adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and this past year, this House adopted Bill C-262 to ensure that the laws of Canada are in harmony with UNDRIP. UNDRIP requires state parties to take effective measures to support indigenous languages.

In 1981, section 35 of the Canadian Constitution enshrined a full box of rights to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples. Such rights include the right to language.

Our Prime Minister affirmed that Canada would move forward on a relationship that nation to nation, Inuit to Crown and government to government, all based on the recognition of the rights framework. Bill C-91 does this, and this year, as we mark the United Nations Year of Indigenous Languages, we bring this bill forward to change the trajectory of indigenous languages and, once and for all, commit to ensuring the long-term protection, preservation and revitalization of these languages.

Permit me to outline some major features of Bill C-91. This bill was codeveloped with the national indigenous organizations, including the AFN, ITK and the MNC. This bill offers a distinction-based approach to languages. That is, it recognizes that not all languages are in need of the same level of protection. It respects the principle of self-determination. It envisions a national framework and commission that will monitor and report on the progress made.

Let me offer one additional reason for the urgency in passing this legislation. Three weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit Prince George, British Columbia. I met with members of the Lheidli T'enneh first nation. There were five fluent speakers of Lheidli T'enneh with the dialect of Dakelh. I met the chief and several members of council, none of whom spoke the language, but all were striving to preserve the language itself. The loss of this language is imminent if a concerted effort is not made to preserve it.

Last week, elder Mary Gouchie, one of the native speakers, died. In marking her passing, the MP for Cariboo—Prince George said this of elder Mary Gouchie:

Mary understood that our words connect us to our past. Our words and our music are two of the foundations of the human experience. Without them, we have no past. Without them, we have no future, and without them, we have no awareness of who we might be.

In closing, I want to conclude by recognizing the keepers and teachers of all indigenous languages like elder Mary Gouchie. Notwithstanding that so many indigenous languages are endangered in Canada, the mere fact that so many of these languages still exist is due to the brave unsung heroes who have worked so hard to protect and preserve these languages.

Let us do right by them. Let us do right by future generations, and let us just do this.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. This is my first time standing in this new House of Commons. It is an honour and a privilege to speak in this historic building, the House of Commons for our country. It is also an honour to continue representing the hard-working constituents of Bow River in this place.

I have a deep respect and appreciation for language. I speak English, that is my background, but I have two grandchildren that have spent 13 years in French immersion and are fluent in both languages. The time that I had the opportunity to learn a second language was much more limited than what is available to our youth today.

It concerns me that so many languages are going extinct around the world. By at least one estimate, 90% of spoken languages will be extinct by 2050, if action is not taken soon. Languages have long, proud histories that are fundamental to culture. Their etymologies provide clues into a culture's distant past and their dynamic nature reflects their speakers' present-day lives. Their present-day lives are affected by the language they spoke historically.

English is the language most familiar to me. Through its evolution we can chart the history of those who inhabited the British Isles. For example, in the pre-Roman period, we can see the influence of Scandinavian invaders, the Norman conquest in 1066 and a thousand additional years of historical evolution since. I trace my family back to 1200 in Scotland but I doubt today whether our language would be similar. I might have a difficult time understanding my Scottish ancestors of 1200. Language changes and evolves.

Indigenous languages have many more words for certain things than English do. Things that are important to indigenous culture are described in a way that would be unfamiliar to someone not familiar with their culture. It is an amazing example of how language and cultures are interwoven. For example, the Inuit have extensive different words to describe the weather, the snow, the ice, as it is so critical to their culture. They have many more words to describe those elements in their culture than we have in English.

There are approximately 7,000 languages remaining in the world and I am certain all are the product of incredible cultural legacies. According to 2016 census data from Statistics Canada, over 70 indigenous languages are spoken in Canada and 260,550 first nations, Métis and Inuit people speak these 70 different languages.

However, the percentage of people that say they can speak these languages has declined significantly in the last few decades. This is a trend that should be reversed. These proud languages unquestionably deserve to be preserved in the future wherever possible. It is important to note that in far too many cases, their continued existence is threatened by globalization and former colonial policies.

Our previous Conservative government recognized through our residential schools apology that such schools had a damaging impact on indigenous languages. I have met with elders of the Siksika of the Blackfoot Confederacy and they have told me stories of how they were treated for speaking their indigenous language in the schools. As my colleague the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo has stated, the Government of Canada was part of the destruction of indigenous languages and we need to be part of the solution.

The legislation would create an independent commissioner for indigenous rights. It seeks to affirm that indigenous language is part of section 35 of the Constitution. It would allow the translation of federal services into indigenous languages.

These are laudable goals. I note the commissioner would have a mandate to take many of these measures to help promote indigenous languages. They would support the efforts of indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize and strengthen their languages and thus their culture.

I would like to highlight that fantastic efforts are already under way in my riding to do just that. Siksika Nation, which is part of the Blackfoot Confederacy, has decided to take the first steps to offer immersion programs in Blackfoot language this September for the first time. To start, the immersion program will be offered to kindergarten and grade 1 students. This is a huge challenge, but one Siksika has undertaken in its education department. This is an incredible step to ensuring its language and culture are strengthened through future generations. I hope this program is a great success.

Siksika has been a leader in many things as part of the Blackfoot Confederacy, and education is an area where it is gaining strength in teaching its culture and providing its youth with a link to its past. Using this format in education, immersion in the Blackfoot language will strengthen students' connection to their elders and their past.

The commissioner would also promote public awareness and understanding of the link between indigenous languages and the cultures of indigenous people. As I have noted, I strongly share the view that language is a fundamental component of culture. For indigenous people in Siksika, I know very well that oral history is a critical piece of their culture. The elders still know the language and the culture, but communicating that oral history to the generations that have come next, their grandchildren, is so difficult when the names and the words they use are not part of the English vocabulary the youth know.

It will affect their culture when this indigenous generation of elders is lost. When they pass on, the knowledge they have will be lost, because the indigenous words used in their culture will also be lost unless they are taught to the youngest generation.

The elders of the Blackfoot Confederacy Siksika talk about their language being a tonal language. The Blackfoot Confederacy language is a different language in North America. It is not related to most of the other indigenous languages on this continent. It is mostly related to other languages that are tonal. The elders who speak to me about this language are very proud of the distinction between their language and other indigenous ones, as well as the culture it represents.

I was happy to see this acknowledged in the commissioner's mandate. I am pleased to support sending this bill to committee. As a member of the heritage committee, I look forward to carefully reviewing its contents. I also look forward to hearing from stakeholders and learning about the possible ways it could be improved. We need to do more than listen. There has been a lot of listening by the government in preparing the proposed legislation with indigenous people, but the action needs to follow.

I must note this legislation was first promised in December 2016, but it is now 2019. What are the chances of this legislation agenda being finished in this term? There are just 13 sitting weeks remaining. It is late in this mandate.

I also note that ITK has stated that it does not approve of this bill. The day the bill was tabled, ITK president Natan Obed released a statement that read:

Despite being characterized as a reconciliation and codevelopment initiative, the Government of Canada engaged Inuit in bad faith throughout this legislative initiative. The absence of any Inuit-specific content suggests this bill is yet another legislative initiative developed behind closed doors by a colonial system and then imposed on Inuit.

Despite three years having passed, I am disappointed Liberals have failed to accommodate such an important aspect as the one this leader has identified.

The Conservatives believe protecting Canada's indigenous languages is protecting our shared Canadian heritage. We recognize the importance of preserving indigenous language and culture. I hope this bill will be successful in achieving these objectives, and I look forward to studying it further at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question is an important one.

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

I would like to let the member know that before we send it, we should all sit down and look at it. It could help to make the bill stronger. What the member just told us, I understand that it is written.

[ English]

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does make reference to it in the preamble and also under subclause 5(g). Let me read 5(g) for the House, “advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.”

First, and as I said, advancing the achievement with the objectives is very different from fully implementing the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Second, clause 6 is important. According to how I interpret the bill, clause 6 is the founding principle of Bill C-91 and the founding principle is based only on section 35 of the Constitution of Canada, 1982.

The fact is that you promised indigenous peoples in the country that the new relationship, which you talked a lot about but did nothing, would be based on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. That principle should have been added under clause 6 and it is not there, and that disappoints me.

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

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to speak Cree in this House and to be given that privilege. It makes me really proud to speak my own language in the House, and I thank everyone for this opportunity.

Before I speak to Bill C-91, I would like to begin by offering thanks to my parents. I would like to thank my mom for teaching me how to speak Cree. I would also like to thank the people of Waswanipi, who helped me to make it here and speak my language. I am really thankful to the people of Waswanipi.

I also want to thank all the Crees across the Cree nation, as well as all aboriginal people across Canada. They also helped me make it here so I could speak about the things we have gone through in the past and will be facing in the future. I would like to thank all the people who have stood by me so I could be given the privilege to speak my language. I always think about the people who came before me and have passed on. I always remember them.

Members know a lot of us speak our indigenous language, and it is something that helps us in our lives. In things one thinks about and goes through, one's own language is something that helps. When I first came here eight years ago, I asked if I could speak my native language to ask questions or when I rose to speak to bills. It is something I asked for, and I was told that I could only speak English. That was all I was told.

I felt really sad when that happened, but I did not let it go. I kept asking to speak my language, and now I am able to speak my own language in the House, and everyone can hear me speak it. It really touches my heart to be able to speak my language in front of everyone, and I want to thank all members for helping me achieve this.

Regarding Bill C-91, there are things I agree with, but there are also things that have not been included. I will speak about those today. I will stand by all members in order to make this bill pass, but if we want things to go well, we are going to have to do it the right way. We are going to have to try to bring in the things that have not been included in this bill. These things are needed to make it right, and this is what I am going to try to do before the bill is passed. This is what I am going to ask. I am going to help.

I remember when the Prime Minister spoke to us about a year ago. He spoke to us for a while, and I stood to answer, and when I was done speaking, I went up and spoke with him. I thanked him. I even told him I could help him if he needed help. I would allow myself to, with all of us working together, when it involved indigenous rights across Canada or our people who are still struggling.

I remember when he spoke to the chiefs in Gatineau and talked about the bill. It has almost been three years since he spoke about it. I remember when he brought it up. Everyone stood up and thanked the Prime Minister. When I saw that happening, I stood too. I was really happy when he brought that news to the chiefs. I was happy when he said that the bill would be written, that we would try to speak our indigenous languages. I was really happy, but I was not sure if he understood what was going on when everyone got up, that he had made everyone proud. I do not know if he understood that part.

[English]

Those were some words in Cree as an introduction to my speech. I will come back to Cree in my concluding remarks, but I see that the time is moving fast.

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.

It is important for the future of indigenous languages. As I said in Cree, I was there when the Prime Minister, almost three years ago, made the announcement and promised legislation. I feel it has arrived here almost too late.

I remember, after 30 years of attending Assembly of First Nations meetings, that I had never seen a standing ovation like the one I saw. Never. As I was watching from the back, I stood up too. I said to myself that I hoped the Prime Minister understood what was going on. I hoped the Prime Minister got the cue.

We know that communities such as the Inuit expected the bill to reflect their needs and submissions and to respect what they call co-development. What I understand of the situation right now is that co-development does not mean co-drafting. There seems to be a major distinction.

The government had expert advice from language experts who made recommendations. I personally know some of them who made submissions to the government.

The creation of the indigenous languages commissioner is not as good as it sounds. Having a national commissioner fulfills TRC call to action 15 on paper, but we also must address call to action 14.

Let me read call to action 14. It states:

We call upon the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act that incorporates the following principles:

i. Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society....

ii. Aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the Treaties.

iii. The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for Aboriginal-language revitalization and preservation.

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.

I would add urgency, because that is where we are today, given the situation.

As the minister proudly quoted, the Assembly of First Nations praised this legislation, saying it had been co-developed with it, and that parliamentarians must support the bill. Yes, I think we will all support it at second reading.

The Inuit organization ITK said that there should be Inuit-specific legislation. It said that the proposed indigenous languages commissioner would be “little more than a substitute for the Aboriginal Languages Initiative Program”.

I have heard from many indigenous leaders throughout the country on this proposed legislation over the years. We have been talking about it for a long time.

The bill fails to define aboriginal languages. We have two official languages in this place and in this country. They are called “official”. Should indigenous languages be considered official languages in this country? That is one option. I admit there are pros and cons. Should indigenous languages be given special status, given their historical value? That is another option.

I also want to raise the point that while the bill recognizes that the right to indigenous languages stems from section 35 as the basis of that recognition, it fails to mention articles 11 to 16 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We know that the concept of aboriginal rights is vague and general. However, we have a precise document in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Let me read article 13, which states:

1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions....

2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected....

It is a clear concept. On one hand, we have in clause 6 of the proposed legislation recognition that this right exists, but one might certainly ask if the bill protects those rights. That is a fair question.

I see that my colleague from Rouge River is nodding with approval.

I know my time is limited, but I want to mention a few things I would have liked to see in the bill. First, there is a glaring omission in the preamble. The preamble paragraphs are clear and strong, but the ninth paragraph says this:

Whereas a history of discriminatory government policies and practices, in respect of, among other things, assimilation, forced relocation and residential schools, were detrimental to Indigenous languages and contributed significantly to the erosion of those languages;

What is glaring is that it forgets the sixties scoop survivors. I have many sixties scoop friends, and none of them speak their languages. I know a lot of Indian residential school survivors like me—I attended for 10 years—still speak their languages. However, the sixties scoop survivors had less of a chance.

Second, my friend referred to subclause 5(g):

advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

Advancing does not mean implementing. It is a very subtle distinction.

Third, the bill should have included the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in clause 6.

There are many other omissions, but my time is running out.

[Member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows:]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak my Indigenous language again. I would like to ask my friends if they have any questions.

[English]

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to Bill C-91 today. I want to start with a very personal story. The reason is not directed to the indigenous peoples who have worked so hard to see the reality of this bill being presented in the House. It is for my colleagues who will be supporting the bill, but really do not understand why is it important as well as other people and for people who may be listening at home, thinking this sounds important, but really do not know what it is all about.

I am a shama. I learned that word when I was 25 years old. I had a degree under my belt and maybe two years of nursing experience when I went in search of adventure. My adventure took me to an indigenous community where I was hired as its nurse. I was one of the first nurses hired by the band, as opposed to the federal government. That in itself was very unique, because it was the first step in the devolution of services.

What was the experience of that 25-year-old, urban, white person who had a university education and lived in a big city, going to a community? It was quite a shock to be quite honest. As a nurse, the first week I was in that community, there were three suicides, and it was devastating. In this case, it was three young men who took their lives.

I would visit homes, perhaps very small homes that needed a lot of work, in which up to 16 people would live. They were very poor living conditions. I witnessed some of the abuse, some of the destructiveness of alcohol. That was my initial experience and impression. It was devastating to see what was happening in the community.

It did not take very long though before I had some great mentors. A drug and alcohol worker took me under his wing as did the youth probation officer. Also community health reps made sure I saw more than just the devastation. They made sure I was part of the feasts, where the communities would come together and enjoy food together. Every fall, there were the fishing camps, where they would fish and hang the salmon up to dry. There was the berry picking. Of course nothing was more special than the drumming, the dancing under the moonlight and stars and the jokes.

I saw two worlds: a community that was devastated and the beauty and richness the people were trying so hard to recreate in their community.

That community gave more to me with respect to knowledge and life experience than I could ever give to them as a young nurse with two years' experience. Maybe I was pretty good at vaccinating the babies and giving a little information, but truly that experience gave me a life education.

I want to talk about the elders. In 1980, the elders of that community had been born pre-residential school time. When I would visit the elders, I would witness the beautiful cedar bosquets and the giant gardens. I had an interpreter with me because many of the elders did not speak English. That was my opportunity to interact with the elders. What was really important about that experience was when their children would return home from residential schools and could not speak the language.

Imagine a mother whose children have been taken away to residential school, and when they come come back, she cannot communicate with them anymore. For many elders, their knowledge of English was very limited and they lost the ability to talk to their children when they came home. The children had no interest, because when they were in the residential schools, they became ashamed of their language. Many were not able or did not want to relearn their language again because of their experiences in the residential school.

We saw the pain of grandparents who could not talk to their children or their grandchildren. We saw the pain in their eyes as they witnessed what had happened to their children, with some lost to alcohol and all sorts of other destructive areas. Therefore, it was an opportunity like none other to see what has happened and understand the actual destruction that occurred in these communities.

In the residential school apology from the previous prime minister, he talked about the residential schools being a place where languages, culture and practice were prohibited. He said, “The government now recognizes that the consequences...that this policy has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language”.

We acknowledged in 2008 that we were 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 back, and part of that is Bill C-91.

We absolutely support Bill C-91 in principle. We recognize that we are going to need to do our due diligence. Of course, our due diligence means examining whether the bill will accomplish what it sets out to accomplish, which is promoting the protection and revitalization of languages.

The example I have in terms of my nursing experience is that the percentage of these language speakers in the community is 3%. In the 1980s, it might have been significantly higher, but it is now down to 3%. However, people in this community do have a plan and are working very hard to get that back. Bill C-91 needs to support them in moving that work forward.

There are many different languages that we are talking about here, but we need recognize that it will be the communities who will drive how they renew and revitalize their languages. Certainly, when there is only 3% of the community speaking the native language, the strategy has to be very different from some of the more commonly spoken languages where there is a larger number of fluent speakers. Therefore, we need flexibility within the bill to recognize that different strategies will be needed for different languages. However, the goal is the same.

There are a number of components in Bill C-91. The rights would be affirmed in section 35 of the Constitution Act. Therefore, at committee, I think it would be good to have some constitutional lawyers to help us understand what that would actually mean. Also, we need to make sure that the office of the commissioner's powers and duties have been laid out. However, not only will we have to look at the powers and duties, but we will have to make sure that we monitor this office in the long term to make sure the bill would do what we have asked it to do. Therefore, the ability to research and monitor will be absolutely critical.

I have talked about the bill and about language, but I want to note Kukpi7 Ignace in the riding that I represent from the Skeetchestn Indian Band. I would note others as well, but he is from my riding so I want to give a special shout-out to Kukpi7 Ignace. He has made this his life's work. I run into him regularly, at times on an airplane because he is coming to Ottawa to do important work around language, and also in the riding. He is another teacher for me in terms of the importance of language and the importance of culture. I want to give him a special shout-out because I know for him today is important.

I came in today and wanted to talk completely about Bill C-91, but I have to say that I am terribly disturbed by the reports in The Globe and Mail today that speak to the government's veneer. The government has a veneer that this relationship is the most important relationship to them. I really appreciated my colleague's comment that, no, its most important relationship is with SNC-Lavalin. I thought of how appropriate that was, in terms of his comments. I think we need to be absolutely worried.

What we had was great pride in 2015. I mean we were, of course, disappointed to be on the opposition bench but I think we greeted the former attorney general of Canada and justice minister, the first indigenous woman, into her role and celebrated. We celebrated with Canada. We celebrated with British Columbia in terms of her taking on that very important role. We were all very curious because we saw a minister who negotiated the very difficult legislation about medical assistance in dying through the House. We saw her move a number of important initiatives. I would suggest if any minister needed a demotion it might have been the finance minister for not following through on his promises.

However, I think there was great puzzlement when the former attorney general of Canada and minister of justice was moved to veterans affairs. She talked about truth to power and she also, in a speech of October 30, talked about how even though she was in one of the most powerful positions in this country, she still had a feeling of marginalization at the cabinet table. The Liberal government is responsible for that feeling that she had. What is happening when someone in a powerful position is getting pressured by the Prime Minister's Office to make decisions that are absolutely inappropriate for a justice minister to make?

Again, I am repeating from a very comprehensive article today. It is widely reported in The Globe and Mail that the business interests of the Prime Minister's friends at SNC-Lavalin were more important to him than the integrity of his justice minister doing the job that she was supposed to do. That is absolutely shameful and showing a pattern by the Liberal government in terms of neglect and marginalization.

That is one example there and I think we have other examples of what the government has done. The Prime Minister stood up. He promised rights and recognition legislation. I am not sure where it is.

Gender equity legislation was another promise by the Liberals. Bill S-3 was an absolute mess and it is still a mess. It did not do what it was supposed to do. We have not seen any fixes come back, although it passed. The government did the bare minimum and had consultations. However, it did not fix Bill S-3 in terms of any of the fixes that it needs.

What is happening to the child welfare legislation? It was the Prime Minister who said that child welfare legislation will be tabled in the House in January. It is February 7. There are 12 weeks left in the House and there is no child welfare legislation. I do not see any conceivable way the government will get the child welfare legislation done before the House rises.

What we have is, again, a bill that we absolutely support. We support the revitalization of languages and Bill C-91 moving forward. However, I think if we look at the government and its record, for all of its stated promises, it is abysmal. The Liberals should be ashamed. They should be ashamed of how they treat women. They should be ashamed in terms of the ethics and the immoral depths to which they have gone.

I would like to close by moving out of this negative frame. It was such a stunning revelation today. It is a very concerning revelation. It is a moral and ethical failure of the government, and there will be more heard and said on it.

However, I want to go back to the communities. I want to go back to the communities that have taught me so much. We are now in 2019 and we still have a long way to go. The bill might be a step in the right direction, but we need to move forward. We know that the revitalization of language and culture is integral to the success of people as humans. It will also be integral to the success of communities. Economic opportunities will be another critical piece in terms of working towards success in communities, because jobs are important.

We have one piece of the puzzle with the legislation. We will be supporting it at second reading. I do think the government needs to be very reflective about its overall record in all the other areas.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

moved that Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in this House today to discuss Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

I want to begin by acknowledging that this House sits on the ancestral lands of the Algonquin Anishinabeg.

I also want to acknowledge the significant role indigenous people have played in Canada's history, and the importance of our relationship, as a government, with indigenous people. The importance of that history and relationship underpins our indigenous languages legislation. The indigenous languages act is historic. Its impact will be felt by many future generations.

This indigenous languages act is a historic piece of legislation. It will have a profound impact on future generations. I am honoured to have a small role to play in moving this legislation forward.

Before going any further, I want to remind the House why this act is so important.

Before European contact, indigenous people spoke about 90 different languages. These vibrant languages and cultures defined people's identity, customs and spirituality. This changed in a significant and very negative way as European settlers began colonizing the country. This began a process that can only be described as forced isolation and assimilation.

We should not take lightly what assimilation meant. It was a conscious act of taking away a people's identity—their languages and cultures—and replacing it with another. Much of this happened through Indian residential schools.

On June 11, 2008, the Government of Canada acknowledged these mistakes in a statement of apology. That apology stated:

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 dominant culture. ... Indeed, some sought, as was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”.

Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country.

Over the span of 130 years, more than 150,000 indigenous children were sent to residential schools. Their parents, often threatened with jail time, were forced to give them up. In these schools, indigenous children were abused, neglected and isolated from their culture. They were beaten or humiliated for talking to each other in their own language. Many children grew so afraid that they just stopped speaking altogether, and in losing their language, they lost a part of themselves. It is a sad legacy and a dark part of the nation's history.

There are other factors that have had a detrimental impact on indigenous languages and cultures. They include creating reserves and relocating people away from their traditional homelands and ways of life; moving indigenous communities to non-indigenous communities, such as big cities where there were limited supports in place; separating children from their families and communities and placing them with non-indigenous foster parents; and putting a disproportionately high number of indigenous people in the corrections system, a place where youth and adults had limited support for their languages. This period in our history has led to a loss of culture, identity and language.

According to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, of the roughly 90 indigenous languages spoken in Canada, none is considered to be safe. In fact, UNESCO has designated three-quarters of the living indigenous languages in Canada as endangered.

The state of indigenous languages in Canada has been the subject of much research and many reports. In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reported that speakers of an indigenous language formed a small percentage of the indigenous population itself; that indigenous language speakers were aging; and that with fewer and fewer young fluent speakers, even the languages heard most frequently were in danger of disappearing.

In 2004, the government of the day created the Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures. This task force included representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis Nation.

In 2005, the task force released a comprehensive report containing 25 recommendations, which were submitted to the Government of Canada. These recommendations were aimed at preserving, revitalizing and promoting First Nation, Inuit and Métis languages and culture. Sadly, the response to this report was muted, and the vitality of indigenous languages continued to deteriorate.

In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission challenged Canada to act on these issues. The TRC had three specific calls to action addressing languages. Call to action 13 was to acknowledge that aboriginal rights include aboriginal language rights. Call to action 14 was to enact an aboriginal languages act founded on a number of principles, including that aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, that the federal government has a responsibility to adequately fund the revitalization and preservation of aboriginal languages and that this work is best managed by aboriginal people themselves and their communities. Call to action 15 was to appoint an aboriginal languages commissioner, in consultation with aboriginal groups, and that this commissioner would help promote aboriginal languages and report on federal funding of language initiatives.

Clearly there is a need for urgent action. We have to act now, because as we all understand, language is who we are. It is our identity. The Prime Minister recently said that languages are the fundamental building blocks of our sense of self. It is how we transmit our heritage and culture. It is how we tell our own stories and connect to the world.

As someone who is lucky enough to speak three languages, while trying hard to learn a fourth, I know just how strongly related our language and identity are. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be prevented from speaking my mother tongue, the only language I spoke for several years, Spanish.

However, that is exactly what happened to thousands of indigenous children. They were prevented from speaking their language. They could no longer use it. We cannot change the past, but we can and must work together to change the future.

As national chief Bellegarde said to me a couple of days ago, “We've drawn a line in the sand—no more indigenous languages lost.”

Restoring and strengthening indigenous languages is a fundamental part of reconciliation, and reconciliation drives much of our work. That is exactly why, for example, every minister's mandate letter includes direction to renew our relationship with indigenous peoples, a relationship based on the recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership.

As we speak, our government is working in partnership with indigenous peoples to improve their access to clean drinking water, fight poverty in indigenous communities and reunite families that have been separated by discriminatory policies.

That is also why, in Budget 2017, we allocated $90 million over three years to help preserve, promote and revitalize indigenous languages.

Most recently, members of Parliament agreed to support interpretation services so that indigenous languages can be used in this House. That is huge.

Although these are positive steps, more work is needed, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to improve the lives of indigenous peoples. Increasing the vitality of indigenous languages requires a framework designed with the long term in mind, and I am proud to say that this bill would do just that. It would do exactly that.

This is a historic bill. It is absolutely essential, not just for indigenous peoples but for all Canadians. This bill draws a clear line in the sand. It is the product of two years of hard work with indigenous peoples across the country, in every region. It all began with a promise made by the Prime Minister in December 2016 that Canada would enact a law to preserve, promote and revitalize first nations, Inuit and Métis languages. He also promised that the law would be developed in co-operation with indigenous peoples.

To that end, in June 2017, my hon. predecessor and the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council stated their very firm and clear intention to work together to draft this legislation. Following that declaration, the government took action and we began to work together.

In over eight months, the Department of Canadian Heritage led more than 20 round tables across the country with a wide range of experts, practitioners and academics of indigenous languages. The feedback from those sessions, as well as those conducted by each of our partners, was used as the basis of the 12 fundamental principles that set the foundation for this legislation.

My officials also conducted some 30 intensive engagement sessions across Canada with first nations, Inuit and Métis participants. Our online portal collected some 200 questionnaires and electronic submissions. Sessions were held, and presentations were made, as requested, with self-governing and modern treaty groups.

Other organizations that provided feedback include the Native Women's Association of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres and the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, and the list could go on.

My colleagues in the House have also worked hard, talking with Canadians and indigenous people about the need for this very important legislation. As members can see, the process leading to the legislation has been very robust.

As I said, the bill is based on 12 principles that were established and approved by the four partners. The bill reflects and embodies these principles.

This bill provides a concrete framework to help meet the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which covers indigenous languages. Furthermore, I want to remind the House that our government committed to implementing the 94 calls to action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This bill directly addresses three of those calls to action directly relating to indigenous languages. These calls to action have the support of indigenous peoples, and our government clearly and sincerely committed to implementing them. I am pleased to say today that this promise has been kept.

Now, I want to talk about the mechanisms set out in our bill. To start, the bill recognizes that the rights of indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by the Constitution Act, 1982, include rights related to indigenous languages. This is fundamental.

Our bill also includes measures to facilitate the transfer of adequate, stable and long-term funding to support the reclamation, revitalization, strengthening and maintenance of indigenous languages. It obliges me, as minister, to consult various governments and indigenous governing bodies so that we may achieve this goal together. This is a testament to our commitment to investing in indigenous peoples and their communities, to investing and working together for their future.

Our bill also establishes an office of the commissioner of indigenous languages. This office will help promote indigenous languages, conduct research and help indigenous peoples defend their language rights. The bill also presents a legislative framework that will enable the Government of Canada to enter into agreements with provincial, territorial, indigenous and other governments. This will ensure that we can take the unique needs of various indigenous peoples and communities into account.

The ultimate goal of the bill's provisions is to help indigenous peoples recover and preserve proficiency in their language, to ensure the survival of their culture. It is important to note that this bill was intentionally drafted so as not to be either restrictive or exhaustive. On the contrary, it was designed to be flexible, so that it may be adapted to every possible reality.

This past Tuesday, the Métis National Council said that this bill is a “giant first step in Canada’s support for our longstanding struggle to preserve, revitalize and promote the use of Michif”. The Assembly of First Nations described it as “landmark legislation” and said that because of it, “now there is hope”.

Some might say that this legislation does not go far enough. In fact, it was drafted in such a way that it can be built upon. It offers the possibility of incorporating agreements that will be developed in line with the aspirations and needs of each indigenous nation. These agreements will guarantee that the unique circumstances of each distinct group, the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis, can be reflected and addressed. This bill is flexible and takes into account the needs of different groups, different communities, different regions. As I said many times, we are committed to keep talking and working together until this legislation is fully implemented.

I recently learned that the word “Dakota” means allies. I believe that this is a good way to describe how we have approached this proposed legislation. It is as allies, as partners with indigenous people. While it is my voice being heard in the House today, the voices of indigenous peoples are here too. Their voices are here with us today as our partners, our Dakota.

This proposed legislation is about all indigenous languages in Canada and all indigenous people. It is meant to benefit all indigenous people, regardless of their age, gender, linguistic or distinction grouping or where they live.

Five generations of harm inflicted upon indigenous peoples have brought us where we are today, but today we are making a real difference. The message is clear: It is time to act. Let us do it together.

[Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)