Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 19th, 2019

[Clément Chartier]

Our governments and their institutions do try to take advantage of the program that's there, but it's such a small amount. My understanding is that we were lucky to get a few thousand dollars over the past number of years until just recently. This is why there is such a need for this languages legislation, such a need for Canada to give the importance and the weight that are not only desired but also deserved, in terms of preserving the languages.

In terms of how much is necessary to revitalize these languages, this is where our experts are going to need to be able to make that assessment, but I know it's going to take a substantial amount of money, at least at the outset, if we're going to capture revitalization of all the indigenous languages that are currently under threat of extinction.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I have one last question. In your opinion, which are the various indigenous governments, other indigenous governing bodies and various indigenous organizations that should be consulted in the process for appointing the commissioner by the Governor-in-Council and on recommendation of the minister, in accordance with clause 13 of the bill?

[Clément Chartier]

My position, the position of the Métis nation, is that there are three national representatives of indigenous peoples and nations, and these are the three that the Prime Minister invites to first ministers conferences. We believe that we should be dealt with on a government-to-government basis on these intergovernmental relationships and that, at the end of the day, we, Métis nation government, have the responsibility to consult our people to come up with solutions that will benefit our people.

I would believe that the way to do it is to work through the respective governments or representatives of indigenous peoples and nations. We have the mechanisms, and those mechanisms should be used. We should no longer not recognize section 35 and the inherent right of self-government.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you, Mr. Breton.

It is now Mr. Shields' turn for five minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great to have you here at committee again. I appreciate your knowledge and your passion.

One of the things that you have talked about is the consultation that did occur prior to the legislation being drafted. You've alluded a little bit to the consultation that comes after. For my part, what might you think of the process afterwards, in particular the financial aspect? How do you see the system working in the sense of, three years from now, how do you think that system would look in the sense of financially working? What would be the process? How would it get to where it needs to be? Could you describe what you think might happen three years from now as far as the financial aspect goes?

[Clément Chartier]

Of course, a lot depends on the outcome of the election this year and who the people are controlling the Commons, but I think we have a process currently in place, the permanent bilateral mechanism, which I would hope will become permanent regardless of which party is in power.

We have agenda items that we deal with. This process has brought us to the stage where the Métis nation, through its governments, has been able to access monies for programs and services in the budget, and we're looking at this year's budget for education, for health and a few other things.

There's no reason that same process cannot be used in terms of languages. For the Métis nation, it's much easier because we're one people, one nation. We have one government, national government and five provincial governments. We have the infrastructure. Everything is in place that needs to be in place. I would hope that in three years there will be a substantial amount allocated to the Métis nation in terms of language preservation.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That money and the need for it.... You describe yourself—and I understand—as one body. Would you identify the need, or would somebody else bring that need to you? Would the money flow to you and then to others, or would it flow directly to those who established the need specifically?

[Clément Chartier]

The need is by our people, by our nation. We have a system. We've been meeting on this for at least 25 years, and we've had some pretty good conferences. That was cut back to practically nothing during the previous administration, and we're rebuilding once again. What we see is our governments—and these are governments—getting the resources. We would then, within our governance infrastructures, our systems....

In Saskatchewan, as I say, we have the Gabriel Dumont Institute, which is a champion of the language. You have different initiatives like the Île-à-la-Crosse school. They work together. They know where the need is. They know how to get things done.

We wouldn't want to have 100 places all acting independently. We need to have a national approach that is carried out on the ground, the same way as Canada does. We have national programs or the provinces have provincial programs. We have the infrastructure. We just need to implement that. We know best where the services are required.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You still have two minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

That's good.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That will bring us to the end because we're going to need to have a bit of time to set up for the next group.

I would really like to thank you for appearing before us once again and helping us out with this legislation.

[Clément Chartier]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're going to suspend for a couple of minutes, because it's going to take us a little while to get to the next panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're going to get started. Thank you, everyone, for being here.

We have with us today, from the First Peoples' Cultural Council, Tracey Herbert, Chief Executive Officer; and Suzanne Gessner, Language Manager.

We also have with us Marsha Ireland and Max Ireland. I'm going to try signing “welcome”. I think that was welcome.

[Marsha Ireland, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Oneida Sign Language, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you. That's awesome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will begin with the First Peoples' Cultural Council, and then we will go to you.

Thank you.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Marsha Ireland, please.

[Marsha Ireland]

Shekoli.

[Witness spoke in Oneida Sign Language, interpreted as follows:]

I am Teyuhuhtakwiku. I am Haudenosaunee. I am Oneida Nation, and I am Turtle Clan.

I have been working with the Oneida Language and Cultural Centre in revitalizing Oneida Sign Language.

I will share with you that through colonization my language, my culture and my identity have been lost. Our language, our culture and our identity have been strengthened through the revitalization of Oneida Sign Language. We live here on Turtle Island and we need to consider all of the languages of Turtle Island, including sign languages. Through decolonization, I'm able to reclaim my identity, reclaim my people and reclaim my cultural ties as an Oneida person.

When we work within the two row, there is respect given for each other and we don't cross each other's paths, but respect that each brings different things to the table and also that we move along through this journey side by side.

I will share with you in comparison some of the differences between American Sign Language, which is used with the majority of deaf people in Canada, and Oneida Sign Language. The first one I will give you is “a celebration” or “a ceremony” in ASL, which is like so. However, in OSL, it is identified by showing a fire, the people around the fire and calling to the Creator, which really is what identifies with our culture.

I've jumped ahead in my speech, but I'll come back a bit and share with you our thanksgiving address. In our thanksgiving address, we give thanks for Mother Earth and for the strawberries and medicines, sacred tobacco, the water, trees, animals, the birds, and Grandmother Moon, the sun, the stars, the thunders and the four beings. We give thanks to the Creator.

We need to encourage all those within Turtle Island to develop their indigenous sign languages and work together.

Again, we come back to that two row wampum, where we work together side by side, but our paths do not cross.

Thank you for inviting me here today to share with you my experiences.

Yaw?'ko.

[Max Ireland, As an Individual]

Good evening.

Marsha's father was a chief in a longhouse. When she was a young girl, she would attend a lot of ceremonies, when she was available, because she went to the school for the deaf in Milton, Ontario, but that's another sad story.

When growing up in that society, as she showed you, the celebrations would carry on, much to her chagrin and her non-understanding because there was no person there to explain to her what was going on because it was spoken in the Oneida language. Even if—much like with Debbie today—there were an interpreter there, when the Oneida language was spoken, her hands would just drop and then wait until English was spoken again. That part of being that close yet so far removed from our language, our culture, our traditions, our songs and our dances has impacted Marsha a great deal.

We have five children who are deaf: three girls and two boys. We have nine grandchildren; seven are deaf and two can hear. When Marsha was a child growing up, there were many instances when she was alone. She was the only native girl at Milton, so you can imagine the treatment she got there. She was never good enough and always was looked down upon.

Look where she is today. I asked her the other day, “When you were a little girl, did you ever envision coming to show the Oneida language to a standing committee on Parliament Hill?” She said, “No, never.” But we are here today, through her commitment, her effort, her being an elder within the deaf community who is looked up to, and her strength to keep going on this route, to walk this road that no one has ever walked before.

We've travelled across Canada. Marsha is the eastern Canadian representative for indigenous deaf women in Canada. That honour was granted to her two years ago in Edmonton because they've seen the qualities that she has shown here tonight: her commitment and her love for the language and for her people.

It's like when she said shekoli a while ago. It's not evasive. It's not in your face. It's down and it's away. It's a sweeping hand gesture. A lot of our gestures are like that. We've taken from the natural world and incorporated it into what we do to be non-offensive, to encourage you to come, look and learn. We've provided those opportunities for ourselves and our family.

Our family has driven this because, like I said, the number of our people is 14. However, in our community, it might add up to 20. The Oneida has a high number of deaf people, and we've been encouraged by them. Now the hearing population of Oneida is coming through, as well, with its teachings of the language. People are saying that they can remember more easily when they use sign language, that it helps them. We can see a definite improvement in the revitalization, in the fire, the rekindling of our flames for our language.

What I was saying earlier was that shekoli is like that. That's “hello”, and the next words, when you meet someone, are sk?'na’ko: k?, and that means, “Are you well?” That's the beauty of our language. The love in our language is that almost immediately you ask a person how they are, truly, and not just how are they doing and walk away. No, it's “How are you? Are you well?” In return it is asked of you, “Are you well?”

We have come to a point where our youth are picking that up again. For a period of time I got mad at my dad, when I was younger. I said, “How come you never spoke the language to us, to my brother and me?” We had to go with our grandparents to really get an understanding of our language. I was really mad. He said, “I never wanted to teach you something another man could beat out of you.” After he said those words, I wasn't mad anymore.

That's the direct effect that colonialism has had within our people, within our families, within our structure.

Now we're regaining that back to the point that whenever anybody talks about youth, not only our youth, but other youths as well, having no respect, well, in learning that language and learning to put those words together, that teaches you respect right there. You carry that out. Elders respect you and they encourage you to learn more, because that's the way they were brought up. Their first language was Oneida. That's why it's so important that we can carry this on and Marsha can share that with her grandchildren.

I say that because she was such a lonely little girl. Now, together, we've made our own little tribe where she is not alone anymore. The strength, the compassion, the understanding, and the caring that are in our language we try to incorporate into our signs.

She showed “animal”. An animal will paw for its food, and it will paw at the ground. In American Sign Language a bear is this way; ours is this way. He will leave his mark on a tree and you'll know he's there, so you'd better watch out unless you want to meet him.

Insect, bug, in American Sign Language is this way, and ours is like this, because that will draw your immediate attention: “Oh, there is a spider on me, there is something crawling on me, and it's probably an insect.” We have tried to take our natural world and combine it into our gestures, into what we can present to Wka' niwahnya, the smallest, to Wka niwahyot, the biggest of our people.

I hope with the demonstration we have put on here today we will help you to understand that.

Yaw?’ko Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We are now going to begin our period of questions and answers.

We are going to begin with Mr. Hogg for seven minutes, please.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you very much.

I'm not going to ask, “Are you well?” because by your actions and your words, you sound very well.

[Max Ireland]

It's just my throat.