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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Onowa McIvor  Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual
Blaire Gould  Director of Programs and Services, Mi'kmaw Kina'matnewey
Wayne Long  Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.
Steven Blaney  Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC
David Yurdiga  Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC
Chief Edward John  Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit
Graham Andrews  Seventh-Generation Michif Knowledge-Keeper, Member of the Métis Nation, As an Individual
Cathy McLeod  Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC

4:10 p.m.

Associate Professor, Indigenous Education, University of Victoria, As an Individual

Onowa McIvor

Yes, I'm very familiar with that school. Many of my students are teachers at that school. It's a crowning jewel in Saskatchewan. It's certainly something that the government is proud of and first nations people are proud of, and it's a start.

It's not really my position to speak to the quality of the program or assess the outcomes for the students, but what I would say is that it's an anomaly, and that's the point of the comments I've made today, that it shouldn't be. It should be the norm, and it shouldn't have been so difficult. It shouldn't be, “Oh, look at this amazing thing that we did. Look at all the ways that we worked around. Look at this workaround and this workaround. Look how we found our way around the Education Act, which says that no other language can be taught more than 50% of the day in the province of Saskatchewan.” That's absolutely ridiculous.

My point is that, yes, there are examples. Of course there are examples across the whole country of tremendous immersion and bilingual education, but it's the exception, and it's because of the hard grassroots work, as Blaire was talking about, people just making it happen and the workarounds rather than the norm.

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you very much. Thank you to both witnesses for their helpful evidence and for giving us some ideas as to what people might want to look at as amendments.

We're going to suspend briefly so that we can bring up our new set of witnesses.

Thank you very much.

4:23 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

We'll start up again because we have a second set of witnesses.

We have with us Grand Chief Edward John, Political Executive Member of the First Nations Summit; and Graham Andrews, Seventh-Generation Michif Knowledge-Keeper, Member of the Métis Nation.

We will go in the order that you appear on the agenda, so we can begin, please, with Grand Chief Edward John.

4:23 p.m.

Grand Chief Edward John Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

[Witness spoke in Dakelh]

Today I want to share at least one indigenous language that comes from this continent, a language that belongs to my people. It's a Dene language. We call ourselves Dakelh. We come from the northern part of British Columbia in the west. We share that language with other Athabaskan Dene-speaking people in Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories; in the northern parts of all the provinces pretty much over to Manitoba; south to northern California, southern Oregon, with the Hoopa and the Yurok; and the southwest United States, with the Apache and Navajo. We share that same language family.

What I said is that this is a very big issue that we're talking about, the status of our languages. We have come before you to speak about it in the hopes that you will listen and help us with our languages. There's a plea in our hearts to you to reach out, as this country of Canada, to hold up our people with dignity and honour, and the well-being that we have, for the survival of our languages, as the original languages of this great land.

I am an elected member of the First Nations Summit executive, and have been for 30 years. I know both Cathy and Gordie Hogg—Gordie Hogg in particular, as a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. He and I shared the same Ministry of Children and Family Development as ministers.

The number of children in care.... Those children in care who are indigenous, even though it's recognized in the legislation that their cultural heritage is to be protected, there is no way the Government of British Columbia can provide the services for them to retain or learn their languages, even though it's a legislative requirement. So we can't fool ourselves simply because there's a legislative requirement that it will be done.

The resources, the planning.... I really appreciate the two ladies who were witnesses here before I was, and their presentations. They're dealing with these issues in our communities on the ground.

For me, I wanted to say that I'm hoping this bill is approved in this Parliament, that it's made into law. It has been long-awaited, as we said. I certainly support the tone and the direction of this bill. Our languages are in a very serious situation, so this bill is both welcome and urgent. This Parliament should not go into an election before this bill is approved, both in this House and in the Senate.

I wanted to acknowledge the Algonquin people on whose ancestral homelands we meet.

I wanted to say thank you to you, members of the committee, for the invitation. I think this is a pivotal year. The United Nations has declared this year the International Year of Indigenous Languages globally. There are 370 million indigenous peoples. Out of the 7,500 languages, some 4,000 are indigenous languages, and many of them are endangered. But there are others whose languages are doing relatively well.

On January 28, in Paris, UNESCO officially launched the International Year of Indigenous Languages. UNESCO has been given the mandate by the General Assembly to convene the year and to develop and implement plans in support of indigenous languages. That launch was on January 28 in Paris. UNESCO has established a steering committee of 14 members, including seven indigenous members from across the globe. I am one of the seven, from the North America region. I'm also the co-chair of the steering committee charged with the responsibility for the international year.

On February 1, the president of the General Assembly, Madam Espinosa, convened a one-day session of the General Assembly for state parties and indigenous peoples to speak to the issue of indigenous languages globally.

For example, the representative of the Government of Paraguay stated that Spanish and Guarani are official languages in that country, and that some 85% of all of the population speak Guarani—the indigenous language. To me, it was astounding to hear that there would be such a large uptake of learning, speaking and using Guarani as a language. It speaks to the political will of the country, the political will of the state to address this particular issue.

The presentation that was made by the First Peoples' Cultural Council is a submission that I certainly support. Our organization has been in close collaboration with the First Peoples' Cultural Council and the First Peoples' Cultural Foundation. We have to say thank you to the Government of British Columbia for setting aside some $50 million, which has been transferred to the First Peoples' Cultural Foundation to hold for the development, support and revitalization of indigenous languages.

That resource is fundamentally important. There is a drawback, though. Communities that require funding have to submit proposals on a year-to-year basis to be funded. I think a better approach to funding language development is to fund directly to the communities. The federal government already has a long pattern of working with communities and providing funding directly to the communities to provide services in education, in K to 12 as well as in post-secondary. Resources should be put directly into the communities for the communities to be able work and establish priorities. That is essentially one fundamental requirement that I see as important and should be reflected in commitments in the bill.

I provided a copy of my presentation to the clerk of this committee. I'm not sure whether you have received it, but I'm expecting that you have it or will soon have it. It was submitted yesterday.

I am a product of the residential schools era. As young children of four, five, six and seven, we were taken from our communities and sent to English immersion schools. You can call them residential schools, because essentially the language of instruction and communications in those institutions was English. In other cases, maybe in Quebec, it was French. In the province where I come from it was all English. We were not allowed to speak our own languages. Certainly, there was no way to learn our languages in these institutions.

We now see the intergenerational impact of that. In the three communities that I come from, those who are fluent in the language would be those who are elderly, from the age of 50 onward. They are making efforts for the young people to learn their language. In my three communities, we counted probably 65 people who can speak the language to various degrees of fluency. We think we're lucky because we have that small foundation to work from.

We developed a plan in our nation that the first priority for us now is going to be revitalizing our languages with our cultures and our traditions. We have something to build from.

It came about not as a result of the dire situation of our languages but as a result of the number of children and youth who were on a suicide watch. We were very concerned. Our elders and young people got together. We talked about what would help these youth to be strong Dakelh. What came up, to everyone's surprise, was language, culture, songs, our history, our way of life on the land, fishing, hunting and knowing the mountains and lakes through our own language. That's where we are now, and that's what we intend to do.

I fully welcome the measures included in this particular bill, dependent children and families—

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Excuse me, Grand Chief Edward John.

I've let you go over by a couple of minutes already.

4:30 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

Okay.

You didn't give me a time, so I didn't know how much time I had.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

I believe the clerk provides the times.

In any event, if you would be able to—

4:30 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

I never talked to the clerk. I'm sorry.

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

It's absolutely fine.

I was going to ask if you could close in a minute. You'll have a chance to bring things out in the questions.

4:35 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

I'm just getting started.

The information that I wanted to speak to is in black and white, but in English. I'm sure it can be translated for you into French, for those who speak only French, or who are bilingual, which is a luxury we don't have for indigenous languages.

There are many recommendations, of course, that have been made. I have a list of recommendations that is built into the presentation.

Perhaps I will leave it at that.

The bill, for all intents and purposes, is moving generally in the right direction. As I said, the tone is right, but there are a lot of technical issues that need to be sorted out, some of which you spoke to and asked questions about with the earlier panel, which I was happy to be able to listen to.

Thank you.

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Graham Andrews, please.

4:35 p.m.

Graham Andrews Seventh-Generation Michif Knowledge-Keeper, Member of the Métis Nation, As an Individual

[Witness spoke in Michif]

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you today in the home of your government.

My colonial name is Graham Andrews, but my traditional or true name, as I was taught, is “Stands and walks with a ceremonial pipe”.

I am a Michif by birth. My father, Garry Andrews, is the last of his generation, the seventh in a once proud, then ashamed, now pride-reclaiming Michif bloodline.

lt is with his approval that I speak to you today—in English and the language now called Michif—on behalf of the seven generations of my family who came before me and the seven generations to come.

Nipaapaa, my father, first heard our language while in my grandmother's womb. Nohkom first heard our language in her own mother's womb, as did her mother and father, and their mothers and fathers, and so on. Mine was the first generation that didn't have pre-natal exposure to our language.

As is the shared experience of the indigenous people in this land, Nohkom's Michif pride was beaten out of her in the early 1900s at one of your government's many outsourced religion-based schools. This was not long after several of my grandparents were raped, killed, arrested and dehumanized by an army that took its direction from the very hill upon which we sit right now.

Many of my aunties, uncles, and much older cousins were fluent but closeted speakers of our language until they died. ln the frequent times when Nohkom and her older sister were sufficiently numbed by rye and beer, they recounted the nuns' schoolhouse punishments when they spoke our language—the only one they really knew.

Sometimes it was “just” a beating with a leather strop. Other times, they were also forced to kneel barelegged in prayer on the piping hot metal skirt around the classroom's furnace. Their knees blistered from the heat, but they kept quiet for fear of “real trouble”.

I can't blame Nohkom for protecting us from her experience, and I can't blame her for needing liquid courage to openly speak about it in any language.

But our languages saved my own life, because this is what our languages do. At the age of 11, in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, I subscribed to the myth that I was just a dirty half-breed kid. l hated myself for my pale skin and blue eyes—my colonial appearance, if you will—and I envied my brother and many close cousins who, with their dark hair and eyes, looked what I imagined to be the part.

Like so many in my family—and many indigenous families—I descended into suicidal addictions that, it turned out, could only be defeated by the genuine love expressed through the languages of my ancestors.

[Witness spoke in Michif]

My grandmothers and grandfathers spoke many different languages: Michif, Cree, Saulteaux, Chippewa, Dakota, Nuu-chah-nulth. To me, they're all heritage languages; it just so happens that a certain dialect of Michif resonates most strongly in my heart. I was raised Michif, with uniquely indigenous values but no real idea how to express them.

ln the early 1990s, a university professor named Janice Acoose saw that I was struggling, and she gently urged me to find and reclaim my language, just as she was doing with her own. That planted a seed.

By the time I nearly succumbed to self-hatred, two Nuu-chah-nulth elders, Beulah Sayers and Jesse Hamilton, showed me a love I couldn't understand at the time. lt was auntie Jesse who first suggested that maybe I was born fair-skinned so that mamuthny, white people, might not be so quick to judge.

Janice's seed began to sprout.

Auntie Beulah and Auntie Jesse introduced me to their children, who were blood relatives, it turned out. They took me out on the lands of their traditional territory until I was ready to go back to my own. Back in Prince Albert, I spent hours with my auntie, Rita Parenteau, at her kitchen table, poring over dictionaries so that we could both connect with languages dismissed as savage in the residential schools. She took me out on the land and encouraged me to become the kind of person we are all meant to be—people who share with one another and care for one another.

I call her Tunwin, which in Dakota literally means “my father's older sister”. It's a word for “mom” as well, because our languages are based on relationships that modern society either ridicules or doesn't understand. Cousins in the European way are brothers and sisters. Aunties and uncles are the same as moms and dads. A fifth great-grandfather is no further away than a grandfather.

The earth is my mother. Who dares to poison and disrespect their own mother? Who dares to sit idly by while it happens?

By getting to know even tiny parts of these languages, I got to know my ancestors, and my ancestors introduced me to myself. All I needed to do was be quiet enough to listen and it was freely given. Many years ago, Tunwin told me to keep the fire going at a ceremony just across the river and a bit north of Batoche. “Keep the fire low,” she said. “It's probably on Crown land.”

Sitting across the river from where my grandmothers and grandfathers lived, fought and died, it hit me: We Michif have no land. In 1870, your government tricked us into the Manitoba Act with great lies of land and rights. After 1885, we were punished for standing up to you, so we squatted in fear on so-called Crown land that was stolen from all of western Canada's indigenous people.

We were, and continue to be, a nation without territory.

Your bill gives great deference to “indigenous governing bodies”, “indigenous organizations”, and the undefined collective of “indigenous peoples,” but there's no room for the individual or the knowledgeable outcast. That, frankly, terrifies me.

Who speaks for the non-status? Are they less worthy of representation because their status grandmothers married non-indigenous men? Alberta is the only place in the world where land has been set aside for Métis people, and yet I understand that the Métis settlement's general council weren't consulted. In Alberta—and I suspect in much of the rest of the country—there are thousands of unclaimed or unused acres of land. These are so-called Crown lands that have been designated for traplines, for example, yet we fight in your courts for harvesting rights.

If language revitalization is as vital as your political parties have all now publicly said, then give us a place to teach our children about their relationships with themselves, each other and their mother. Tracey Herbert of the First Peoples' Cultural Council, who appeared before you on Tuesday, suggested the creation of a body similar to the Canada Council for the Arts. It could oversee these otherwise brilliant initiatives that, as it stands, will be poisoned by political plays.

A few others around this table said last night that no legislation is perfect. It should be thought out. Given Minister Rodriguez's repeated commitment of $90 million in funding over the next three years, 5% of that budget would pay 20 indigenous employees almost $80,000 a year to work as grants managers.

Our languages have spirits and souls. I experience that with every word of them that I learn and speak. I cherish those moments when I see someone reconnect with their ancestors through a single word.

That is my truth, and without truth, reconciliation is just public relations.

Marsi.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

We will now begin our question and answer period. We will begin with Mr. Anandasangaree for seven minutes.

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Thank you both for your very powerful presentations.

I'd like to start with the grand chief. I know you have a list of recommendations. I'm wondering, given that I have only seven minutes, if you could highlight the top three for us. I'll have other questions as well.

4:45 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

The purposes of the legislation are generally fairly broad. The important provision in the bill is clause 6, dealing with rights related to indigenous languages, talking about Canada recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples, and speaking to article 35.

I agree with the notion that there needs to be built into that provision that these rights are also recognized in articles 13 and 14 of the UN declaration. I think a simple drafting amendment could be incorporated to expand that.

I'm concerned about the way the courts have interpreted article 35, narrowly in my opinion, and the way governments are indifferent to the implementation of court decisions. There is another foundation for the rights, which is that these rights on languages are not granted to us by Canada's Constitution. They're recognized by Canada's Constitution, but they're inherent. That would be one provision.

The second recommendation would be to ensure that whatever resources are made available, and the $90 million from the minister that my friend here talks about, should go directly to the communities for the priorities of helping and preserving, revitalizing, normalizing and stabilizing our languages.

The third recommendation would be consistent with Canada's commitment to the UN World Conference on Indigenous Peoples to establish national action plans. One specific action plan that any government should establish is a 10-year action plan on indigenous languages that would go beyond year-to-year, something more substantive to ensure that the government, in collaboration with indigenous peoples, is able to establish that as a way to lay a solid foundation on the way forward. The two ladies who spoke in the earlier panel...that we achieve the objectives they spoke about, the tremendous work they do in the communities and on the ground with children.

February 21st, 2019 / 4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Thank you, Grand Chief. I appreciate those comments.

You both speak to the sense of urgency for such legislation.

Grand Chief, I know you've been working on this for many decades and, Mr. Andrews, you've indicated the enormous amount of work that you've done in reclaiming the language. Can you tell us what responsibility you think this Parliament has to make sure that this legislation goes through? What is the option if we don't get this legislation through?

4:50 p.m.

Seventh-Generation Michif Knowledge-Keeper, Member of the Métis Nation, As an Individual

Graham Andrews

I think the obligation of this Parliament is to get it right or to get it as close to right as it can be. I hear a lot of people saying that this is urgent, that this needs to be done now. Unfortunately, to me, that smells of trying to find a political win. And that's what you do by virtue of what you do.

For me, we see this much goodwill in what happens to be the United Nations International Year of Indigenous Languages. What happens if it turns over to 2020 and all of a sudden all the members of Parliament who stood up yesterday and endorsed this bill on second reading disappear?

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Grand Chief.

4:50 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

Yes. I think we should get it right and get it done.

As I read the bill, there is a good foundation for our communities to be able to build what is necessary. In and of itself, the legislation will not answer the questions that we have or the concerns that we have. What we need is the resources and the capacity in our communities to be able to develop fluency.

I think the first priority, if you talk to those who teach language, is not literature. It's not more books or more dictionaries, but it's fluency and the ability to speak the language, supported by literacy, which is absolutely critical. I would say, fluency through immersion. Where would you put your resources? Where would you put your money? Immersion, with children....

We've seen the successes in other parts of the world. In Hawaii, where the language was virtually dead some 20 or 30 years ago, they adopted the “language nests” approach of the Maori in New Zealand. Now, they teach courses at the university level in Hawaiian, even at the Ph.D. level. That's where they've gone in a relatively short period of time: from a handful of speakers to where they have thousands of children who are fluent in Hawaiian.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Thank you, both.

4:50 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

We will now go to Mrs. McLeod for seven minutes.

4:50 p.m.

Cathy McLeod Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC

Thank you.

Thank you to both speakers for all the work you've done over the last years.

Mr. Andrews, you were asking what the vote in the House meant yesterday. The vote in the House, of course, meant that we all recognize how important this is and now, of course, our job is to try to get it right and to try to make it the best we can to move forward.

I was concerned when you indicated that.... I understood that there was enormous consultation and that it was co-developed. It took a long time to actually get it to the table, but you're saying that there are groups that were completely excluded from the process.

4:50 p.m.

Seventh-Generation Michif Knowledge-Keeper, Member of the Métis Nation, As an Individual

Graham Andrews

I wouldn't say excluded, as any sort of a calculated movement on behalf of anyone, but I was paying attention on Tuesday night when this was being discussed, and the question came up about the Alberta Métis settlements. Those are the only land-based Métis in the world that are called Métis.

I was at one of the consultation sessions in Edmonton, back in July. I only found out about it the night before, so I dropped everything to go to that. There was no one there from the Métis Settlements General Council.

4:50 p.m.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC

Cathy McLeod

I would expect that we probably have witnesses, but if we don't, that would be a gap that probably should get filled, if we haven't had anyone speak to it, so I appreciate that comment.

I want to go to the testimony that we heard previously around clause 24. I was hearing what the witnesses were saying, but I wasn't reading in clause 24 what they were reading in clause 24. I interpreted it as “may do some research”. They felt it needed to be strengthened and there needed to be lots of work, similar to the granting councils. I think the language there is such that it allows for the research capacity, but it doesn't erode the respect for communities or the respect for intellectual property.

Have you looked at that section? Do you have any comments on that?

4:55 p.m.

Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit

Grand Chief Edward John

Certainly I do. I think that research that is required should be directed through the first nations community. I'm talking first nations here, the indigenous communities, whether they be Métis, Inuit or first nations. From a first nations perspective, the research should be largely for the purposes of preserving, stabilizing, normalizing and revitalizing indigenous languages. At this period in British Columbia, all of the indigenous languages—and there are eight language families with some 30 languages altogether—are endangered.

Research is really the last of our priorities, put it that way, but it's still needed. What we need is money for fluency development through emergent programs. That's where our priority is. The other thing about research is this. We've seen a lot of research being undertaken by academics, and now we see the documents, and they're copyrighted in the name of the researcher. It doesn't do us any good, even though it's about our languages and our future, unless the researchers or whoever has the copyright decides that the copyright should be transferred to indigenous people.

It's a big undertaking, but these are the safeguards that we require. It shouldn't be just holus-bolus research for the sake of research. It has to be directed toward the purposes that we establish, not somebody else's purposes.