Evidence of meeting #144 for Canadian Heritage in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.
A video is available from Parliament.
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
The recommendation that I am making is not “by and for”, but rather “by and with”, which is an important distinction.
I'm not clear about your question. Are you asking about the three directors who are named in the bill under the office of the commissioner, or are you referring to the recommendation for a national organization with regional hubs? Could you clarify?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I'm referring to the commissioner and the directors who will have operational responsibility for carrying out this legislation.
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
It's unclear. Because I wasn't part of the co-development, I don't know what the thinking was behind the number three. When I saw that number, initially I wondered if it was because there are first nations, Métis and Inuit. Is that how they're going to divide these three directors? It's not specified in the bill.
Three directors for the size of the country, the number of languages, and the kinds of complexities that Blaire and I are pointing out to you today, I think, is on the low side. I think the recommendation that you're hearing from your expert witnesses is that.... Our recommendation is for a national organization with regional hubs, which would exceed three directors.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
I think the information we've received so far is that there was a consultation and that these are the recommendations they came up with as a result of that consultation. You're describing that somewhat differently to me.
3:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I would actually boldly say that I'm not sure that's fully accurate.
I think there was a consultation process. There were reports written. There was a co-development process, and there were decisions made about the final bill and how it was drafted. I've been a part of some of the subsequent meetings where there's been great surprise that there isn't a national organization listed in the bill, based on the consultations process.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
Ms. Gould, do you have any comments with respect to the carrying out or the operationalization of this, which I think occurs primarily between clauses 12 and 30 under “Office of Commissioner of Indigenous Languages”?
Do you have any comments with respect to how the directors should be pointed out, whether there should be regional representation or the three directors who are highlighted in the legislation?
3:55 p.m.
Director of Programs and Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
I understand the role of the commissioner in the legislation. I do reiterate Onowa's point about missing a clause with regard to a national body or institution. Again, building that foundation for our languages is important, and that comes from many people. I don't believe that comes from three individuals in a commissioner's office.
I would entertain the idea that these commissioners from each of the distinctive language groups would be advisers to the regional hubs, as Onowa stated earlier in the conversation. I would like to see more support on the ground.
Again, when we go back into that pre-engagement and the engagement that took place, the idea of a national body was a centre of excellence, controlled and led by first nations or indigenous people. It was a place where you could go if you were at a particular state in your language situation in x community so that you did not have to reinvent the wheel time and time again on curriculum development and strategy development. There would be an institution in place where you could go and collectively work with like-minded individuals to allow the language back in your home community to thrive, and not to have to redo the work time and time again.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Gordie Hogg Liberal South Surrey—White Rock, BC
My interpretation of the testimony provided by the minister and his staff when they were here providing this outline to us and explaining how they had reached this as a draft of legislation was that he was quite open to looking at changes. We've also heard of the urgency that exists with this and are trying to balance that sense of urgency for completion, about which we've heard from every witness who has been before us, with being able to look at how we move forward with this.
With the five-year reviews and the ability to review things being added to it, I want to be sure that in the legislation, at least the values are being reflected appropriately.
Subsequent to that, vested within the operational part of it is this whole role of whatever it might be by way of regional hubs, commissioners and directors. That becomes the operationalizing of the whole process.
I think this also reflects the principle you made reference to, Ms. McIvor, with respect to the research. It should be indigenous people who are making decisions with respect to how it is carried out. I think government is wanting to set the values in the legislation, which we're constitutionally responsible for, and then turn authority for operationalizing it over to indigenous peoples.
Pardon me?
4 p.m.
Liberal
4 p.m.
Liberal
February 21st, 2019 / 4 p.m.
David Yurdiga Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you so much.
I thank the witnesses for coming out today.
Obviously, this is a subject that has many twists and turns. I mean, we're looking at the educational jurisdictional issues.
Moving forward, we have to address the way we're going to roll out the funding and put the mechanisms in place. In my community, from first nations to Métis groups and settlements, one program is not going to fit everyone. I think we have to build flexibility into whatever we do, and I'm not sure what that is.
How important is flexibility for each community to address their needs? A need in one community is not exactly the same in the next.
Ms. Gould, can you give your opinion on what flexibility you believe there should be?
4 p.m.
Director of Programs and Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
Flexibility should be around readiness and where you are in any particular state of your language in x community. We should not draft three priority areas of low-readiness or emergent, developing communities in setting the standards for language reclamation. It should not displace those communities who are far advanced in language reclamation and recovery, making them wait or be slowed down waiting for everybody else. I agree that there is no one-size-fits-all model.
That view is of course shared by Onowa, and I'll ask her to get into more detail about readiness and the states of readiness.
I believe this bill allows for flexibility of funding. I would encourage that the commissioner's office support the establishment of certification standards to develop and implement plans for reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening the languages.
The issue I have is with “At the request of an Indigenous community”. If we have 90 languages and 90 come to request support, who is more important? I think everybody is equally important, and I would never take away from that.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I've heard the word “flexibility” come up quite a bit regarding the bill. I'm really glad you've brought up that word. It's so important.
I agree with Blaire and the words that you said. There's a wide range for all communities.
The one part that I could say is consistent across all communities concerning the state of scholarship for indigenous language revitalization concerns planning. Something that all leading indigenous language organizations are promoting is the view that all communities should undergo a planning process that is an honest assessment of the state of their language.
Great models have been developed for the spectrum of activities and what the right place is for your community to engage. Sometimes it may involve concurrent initiatives. There doesn't have to be just one entry point; there can be parallel initiatives. Some evidence of a planning process is needed.
There is some language in the bill around community assessment, and as long as it's community-driven and has some way of being monitored and collected....
4:05 p.m.
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Thank you very much.
Another thing that concerns me is what kind of oversight you think is necessary. Obviously, we have 90 different indigenous languages on different scales. I heard that one community has only nine speakers of their language.
I'm not sure who should be doing the oversight. Is it a separate body? That's something I can't wrap my mind around. Who is going to be that body, the oversight body that looks after all indigenous languages within our borders?
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
I think the national organization that we're all advocating for is the organization that would be concerned with all indigenous languages.
4:05 p.m.
Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
I'm just thinking about the priorities. How do you set priorities? Obviously, every indigenous language is important, but some are in a different state. If we don't do something now, some will be lost to history. There has to be somebody deciding that certain groups need attention right now, because if we wait any longer, we might lose them to history.
I really think that has to be established in the planning. There has to be a priority for some of these communities that will lose their identity because of that.
4:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
It's a complex issue that you're bringing up, but I'll try to say this very quickly. In the field of scholarship of language revitalization, we talk about three ways of categorizing indigenous language communities: recovery, which is usually no speakers or very few; revitalization, which is the majority of communities in Canada; and maintenance, which means communities where the first language is still thriving.
We have been advocating for studies and funds to be put in place to at least start with the categorization of our languages that way, rather than by linguistic similarities, which doesn't really help us that much.
To answer your question, I think you have to start by categorizing languages and then ask what the right strategies and funding parcels are for these kinds of languages. What about these languages that are off and running? What about maintenance communities, the Inuit communities? That's part of why they're not here. There are situations—
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin
Thank you very much for that answer.
Unfortunately, we've run quite a bit over the time on that one.
I'm going to move over to Mr. Anandasangaree for five minutes.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'd like to thank the panel for being here.
Professor McIvor, if I may just delve in a bit more on the UNDRIP, I know you've indicated that you would like specific reference to UNDRIP in clause 6. Are you suggesting that paragraph 5(g) also be amended and, if so, with specific reference to article 14 of UNDRIP, or was that for clause 6?
4:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
My first preference is a recommendation to move the clause to a paragraph 6(b) and strengthen the language to have it recognized under the rights.... I'm not a lawyer, but you have people on your team who can write it in a way that doesn't interfere with any other processes. I'm just suggesting that there's a way that you could recognize that UNDRIP exists. You don't have to say “uphold” or “affirm”; it could be just a recognition.
If that's not possible for legal reasons—and that's for your committee to decide and not for me—then I would recommend a rewording of paragraph 5(g) to be stronger. I think it's vague. There are five different words there that I think are trying to get at one thing. It reminds me of an undergraduate essay of somebody who's not sure what they're trying to say. I think it could be clearer.
Also, regarding specific articles, one of your members has recommended perhaps an expansion on the two articles that I mentioned, and I think that would be good for your committee to consider as well.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Gould, just with respect to the Mi'kmaq Education Act, I know that's had some significant successes with respect to overall education attainment. Can you maybe give us a sense as to...? The numbers you spoke about relating to language speakers I think are quite disturbing. What are some of the challenges you've had, as a self-regulating education authority in preservation of the language?
4:10 p.m.
Director of Programs and Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
It all boils down to funding and having adequate, sustainable, multi-year funding to be able to focus on the initiatives that are led by communities. One of the greatest things about Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey is that we're a collective. While we do have, in the language sense and on the language side of things, communities that are stronger than others, we believe in leaving no one behind. Our efforts are greatly emphasized into those communities with no or few language speakers. I think that's very important.
One of the things that we always fall back to in education is the cost of immersion schooling. We have three communities now that have instituted immersion, but again, with no separate funding in that, they have sacrificed OSR and have just made that happen. This has happened through curriculum development, teacher development and teacher certification that we've done, but there is an effort to do things right across the country.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I think, Professor McIvor, that earlier you indicated with respect to immersion that it's oftentimes not funded adequately.
Are you familiar with the Saskatoon school board? I believe there's a bilingual program there, if I'm not mistaken. I'm not sure if they call it immersion. Can you comment on the effectiveness there and whether there are lessons for other language instruction boards where this can be adopted or looked at?