Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 20th, 2019

[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.

[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]

Thank you very much.

The bells are ringing. I said that I would seek unanimous consent to continue. We have 23 minutes left.

I would propose that we can try to go until we have about nine minutes left, which would allow us to have two questions for seven minutes. Then we'll come back right after the vote.

Would that work for everyone?

That's perfect.

We will begin with Mr. Badawey for seven minutes.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the representatives.

With respect to some of the efforts that are happening off-reserve as well as integrating, hopefully, some efforts with the expertise from on reserve to off reserve, I have the following comments.

In Niagara we have a process called Landscape of Nations 360. We've established 10 essential undertakings as we're moving forward with indigenous education and, therefore, languages.

Mr. Bellegarde, with respect to, first, finding out if we're going in the right direction, and second, trying to attach an action to the overall legislation network to move it forward, some the themes that we established included the following: indigenous peoples' cultures, including languages; time continuity and change; people, places and environments; individual development and identity; individuals, groups and institutions; power, authority and governance; production, distribution and consumption; nature, science and technology in society; global connections; and civic ideals and practices. A lot of this has been discussed in your presentation.

To attach an action to this overall legislation what would be some of your thoughts for both on reserve as well as off reserve?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

That's a good question. The whole idea of this act is to bring back fluency. That's the intention of this act. You have 634 first nations right across Canada. There are over a million first nations people and 90 indigenous languages right across. It depends on what territory you're from: it could be Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy, Mohawk, Dene, Cree, Tlingit or Blackfoot. There are different nations and tribes.

Your question is good because half of our people live on the res, in their communities, and half live off. The intention of this act, for example, the monies to be spent on things like preschool curriculum development, things like teacher training, mentor-apprentice models, things like documentation and digitization—so it's really accessible—bilingual development.... Those things can happen out on the reserves, but as well, half of our people live off reserves. I have to be respectful as well, because in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, there are no reserves. We have to be mindful of our language so that everybody has access.

The use of technology is a key part of reaching citizens, not only in Little Black Bear; our members live in Regina, Saskatoon, Toronto and right across Canada. We need technology.

There also has to be an aspect of provincial government involvement as well because the provinces decide the curricula. The provinces can also make investments. I lift up British Columbia as one example. That provincial government put $50 million into indigenous language revitalization in British Columbia. That's huge.

You have to look at technology and provincial government involvement, but you also have to embrace this concept from the Corbiere decision. It's a recent Supreme Court decision whereby every first nation citizen has the right to vote for their chief and council, regardless of residency. The chiefs represent all their membership, whether they live in or away from their first nations community. This raises the issue of portability of services and programs, portability of rights and portability of services.

Between those three things—technology, provincial government involvement, and even, in some cases, involvement with the municipalities and governments in the big cities—and the extension of services and programs that allow the chiefs and councils themselves to look after their citizens, you should be able to address the issue of how to get services and programs to people living away from the community and territory.

[Vance Badawey, Liberal, Niagara Centre, ON]

That is a great answer, in particular as it relates to the recognition of those who are off reserve and who want to participate.

Having said that, I'll go a bit deeper into those who would actually communicate the message—teachers—and those who would bring the curricula together. What we've done in our small part of the world is ensure that world studies—geography, history, civics and politics—is included at every level of grade 9, 10, 11 and 12 Canadian history.

In your opinion, how would we facilitate and encourage the involvement, not just of students but also of those who would be the educators?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

It's a good question, again. What has to happen?

There has to be a greater focus on dealing with the provincial premiers and with the provincial and territorial governments. We've asked for changes to the curricula to teach, in all the schools, about aboriginal rights and treaty rights.

For example, in Saskatchewan, it's law: You have to teach treaties in the classroom, from kindergarten to grade 12. You also build on that the impact of the residential schools. You also build on that the impact of the Indian Act, which has been in place since 1876. We need to change the curricula. That comes under provincial government jurisdiction, if you will, so there has to be a very concerted lobby effort at those levels. It's starting to happen across Canada, but that's how you get the curricula changed.

Again, focusing on the territory reserve is one jurisdictional piece, but a lot of our people reside off, so you need a two-pronged strategy. The federal government can do something, and it is through this act, but the provinces have a role to play as well. To address the issue there, that's one piece.

Going one step further, if these curricula are changed such that these rights have to be taught from kindergarten to grade 12, what about the teachers coming out of these institutions, who get their B.Ed. and their teaching degree? Those universities don't teach these teachers how to adequately teach about the spirit and intent of treaty, nor do they teach how to incorporate some of our ceremonies into these mainstream institutions in the Catholic schools, the public schools or the private schools. You have to have that as well.

Change the curricula, but the universities and all their education faculties still have to be brought up to speed. They have to incorporate traditional knowledge and elders' knowledge at that level so the young men and women coming out with their teaching degrees will know what the spirit and intent to treaty means. The words [Witness speaks in indigenous language], “cede, surrender and relinquish”, for example, I don't understand. I don't think Chief Little Black Bear understood them in 1874. He never had a good legal counsel to explain what it meant to put his four-direction mark on that treaty. The spirit and intent about sharing the land, the spirit and intent about a good education—all these things have to be taught.

Yes, we need curriculum changes and universities will also have to adapt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That's the end of your time, Mr. Badawey, so we'll be going to Mr. Yurdiga for seven minutes, please.

[David Yurdiga, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Chief Bellegarde, for coming here and expressing your opinions. I agree with you totally; there has to be involved education, whether it's in elementary school or in university. There has to be a holistic approach to this. Many languages are on the verge of collapsing. I've heard of some cases where only nine members can speak the language.

Urgency is paramount in this. We have to start quickly. I know that we can't do everything at once, but we have to do what we can to preserve what's there to ensure future generations can enjoy the language and the culture.

I was told by one elder that culture and language are one and the same, that you can't have one without the other. From your perspective when we talk about culture and language, do they have to be taught together? I don't think you can separate them, because you'll do an injustice to one or the other.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Yes.

[David Yurdiga]

Can you tell me what you think about culture and language having to be together?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Thank you for the question, because they're linked. It's a direct link.

Again, we're using English, this beautiful English language.

However, I speak a little French.

These are two beautiful, wonderful languages, but apisis nehiyawewin, I speak a little bit of Cree as well. It's important, because in our ceremonies and our lodges, when you pray—ehkakisimot—when you smoke with the pipe, you're supposed to use your language, the gifts given to you by the Creator. That's a teaching from our elders. If you're in a sun dance lodge, or in a sweat lodge, or in any kind of ceremony, we're supposed to use those gifts from the Creator. They're tied. Your language is tied to ceremony. They're inextricably linked. They can't be separated.

We say it this way: that what was given to us is good this way. Our old people said that they would never disrespect the churches, that the churches are a good way, and go to God. That's what the Creator gave to these people over here, the good way, and they would never say anything negative. This way, our way, is not about that way, and that way is not about this way. For years, the residential schools and the Indian Act said that our way was no good. Now that pride is coming back, that language is coming back, and the ceremonies are coming back strong, and they're linked, because that's what the Creator gave us. They're totally linked.

I go to ceremonies all across Canada. I had the big honour of being with Haudenosaunee peoples in their longhouse. It's all Mohawk. Everything's in Mohawk. Then I go to our lodges and it's all in Cree in the sun dance lodges. You go to the Saulteaux and it's in Ojibwe. It's a big honour to see that.

That's one of the teachings. They're linked, so you must have those two. It's who you are. It's who we are. You can't avoid it. You have to have them.

[David Yurdiga]

Yes, and I'm struggling with how we do this in the post-secondary setting. Obviously we can't just have someone who has knowledge of the language or speaks the language, because there also has to be the ability of someone who comes from the culture in order to teach it correctly.

There are challenges there, and I don't know what we can do here to mitigate the challenges. Do you have any ideas about how we can encourage people and get them interested in becoming the teachers? But they have to be culturally linked, in my opinion.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Oh yes: the elders councils. Bring in the elders and the knowledge-keepers. They don't need to have a doctorate. They are our doctors. Our elders have that traditional knowledge and they've earned that right to teach and pass on these things if it's done in a respectful way. Utilize the elders councils. Utilize traditional knowledge-keepers. Incorporate that coming in.

[David Yurdiga]

My niece and nephew learned Cree from their kohkom. They didn't learn from mom and dad. They learned it from their grandmother, their kohkom.

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Yes.

[David Yurdiga]

You're right. There's so much opportunity in using the resources that are already available, which are the elders and grandmothers or kohkoms, depending on how you want to refer to your grandparents.

What initial steps would you like to see? What should we do? Off the bat, what should we concentrate on?

[National Chief Perry Bellegarde]

Pass this legislation before June and make sure it receives royal assent. That's what this is all about. If we don't get it done by June, well, my goodness gracious, we've lost an opportunity.

We don't know what's going to happen in October. Even if there is a continuation, there might be a change. We don't know. Will anybody be supportive of another indigenous languages revitalization act? We don't know, so we miss an opportunity. There is a sense of urgency to get this done now. Royal assent is key.

[David Yurdiga]

Madam Chair, I'll share the rest of my time with my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Okay.

I'll warn you that you have less than two minutes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just quickly, I know you said to get it done, to get it passed, but in a sense, part of this is what has to be built afterwards. We asked in the last panel about the funding mechanism. We had a couple of different versions from witnesses, who talked about one establishing another and about one bureaucracy. What's your view on how this funding could flow?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

And that brings you to the end of your time.

I will now suspend for a few minutes.

I would ask the MPs to just sit for one second after we suspend. I need to ask you one thing.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will restart our meeting. We are continuing the first part of the meeting with National Chief Perry Bellegarde and Roger Jones, special adviser to the national chief at the Assembly of First Nations.

I propose that we have another round to finish off our questions and then start with our second set of witnesses a bit late, to make up for the time we lost on the vote.

I think we were at Monsieur Nantel.

Mr. Nantel, is it your turn or Ms. Jolibois'?

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It is Ms. Jolibois' turn.