Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 21st, 2019

[Cathy McLeod]

Do you see clause 24 as needing some massaging to make it reflective of what you just indicated? Again, I sort of see it as more flexible in terms of how it's written. I didn't see it in the same light, so I guess it doesn't need massaging.

[Grand Chief Edward John]

Maybe I'll just add to the earlier comment that I made. In paragraph 24(1)(b) in particular, there's “the use of Indigenous languages...for the purposes of measuring the vitality”. In this country, people throw their arms up when they see fish endangered, birds endangered or plants endangered. We have a monitoring system so plants, fish or animals are red-listed when they're endangered. We need to see something of this nature.

In every first nations community in this country, already there should be a measuring of the vitality of the language in that community. If there's a community of 100, and there are two speakers, then we should list that. We should know that in every single community right across this country so we know the status of the languages and we know what it is we need to do. If we need to red-list languages, not to put it in a negative way to think about it, but if it's seriously endangered, we should know about it. This particular office can help us understand the status of indigenous languages in this country.

[Cathy McLeod]

I think one of the witnesses suggested that there be an addendum attached to the bill that would list the languages. Would you suggest that we also create something more specific, or is this sort of the framework and all that work needs to be done down the road?

[Grand Chief Edward John]

It needs to be done. I think so. To list them would be a constructive step.

[Cathy McLeod]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Nantel for seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. John and Mr. Andrews, thank you for being here.

Mr. Andrews, how do you interpret the nebulous mandate? For example, in terms of language and education, instead of being given directly to the various nations, it should be filtered through the provinces. How do you see that?

It is not clear in the bill. Do you think that's dangerous?

[Graham Andrews]

I find it dangerous for a few reasons, and I apologize for using the loaded word “dangerous”. If I understand the question.... Sorry, I was having a little bit of trouble with my earpiece.

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

I was simply saying that in the bill.... People came up and evoked the fact that it had to be provincially relayed in many ways, but it is not clear. Is it dangerous to you, this unclear aspect?

[Graham Andrews]

When my grandmas and grandpas were hunting, they didn't stop at the border between Manitoba and Alberta. They didn't stop at the border between the United States and Canada.

I get very nervous about parsing any of this. We now have the Daniels decision, which states that the federal government has a responsibility to consult with us. Obviously, some work is going to need to go on between the federal government and the provincial governments and all of that. However, if you're asking me the question as a Michif man, no offence, but I don't really subscribe to your delineations of province and country.

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

Is this why you've shown support for an idea introduced to us a little earlier this week—I think it's interesting, I must say—about an “arts council” approach to first nations, Inuit and Métis languages?

[Graham Andrews]

I mean, this needs to be driven by indigenous people. I'm just here today as a speaker on behalf of someone who was raised in the tradition and someone who may have just enough ability to articulate it in a way that you may understand.

I'm going to stay away from that. That's a political question and I'm not a politician.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Can I ask—

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

Oh, yes. Please go ahead.

[Georgina Jolibois, NDP, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Can you clarify...? You say “driven by indigenous people”. You've been following us these last few days, and we've had witnesses in the political field. We've heard from the AFN, the Métis Nation and the Métis National Council. Are you thinking of them or of someone else?

[Graham Andrews]

With all due respect to the national indigenous governing bodies, the bill as it sits right now.... Those are the people who determine the fate of our language. They hold the fate in their hands. I can be a little bit outspoken. That's not 100% popular with people who are in a political position when I'm coming from a spot that is right here. This is what I was taught to do. What happens to the people who run afoul of the powers that be?

This is why I support the idea of a Canada council for indigenous languages. Let's talk about that. Let's put some land aside for us to be able to take our children.... When I take my children out to teach them my language, I take them out to my community's trapline. It's the difference between scholastic knowledge—knowing it up here—and knowing it in here. That's a big concern for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You have one minute.

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

I think it's very exciting. I know I'm out of scope, but I truly.... Chair, you sound surprised I'm out of scope. I don't know why.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

I think it's very interesting. I don't know if it's been explored, and I don't know if it's a good inference, so I'll make it short because I'd like to have your input, Mr. John. Obviously there are two ways here. Do you see it as something that's going to be part of the educational curriculum and blah blah blah, or do you see it totally as a heritage issue—an issue of culture, cultural survival and resurrection in many cases?

[Graham Andrews]

If I may, I don't see it as necessarily one or the other. Classroom learning has its place. But let's face it, if you ask me to sit down and read a textbook, I'll be asleep before I'm through the introduction. But if you take me out on the land and show me a different plant or how to trap a different animal and pay honour and respect to that, it's a completely different thing for me. But not everybody lives that way. Not everybody likes to get their boots full of snow.

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

Yes. There's no one-size-fits-all.

I have a question for Mr. John. If such a bill had been effective 20 years ago, would it have changed your relationship with your own language?

[Grand Chief Edward John]

I think so. If the resources are there....

If you recall, a number of years ago there was a significant amount of federal funding available. It was cut to a bare-bones minimum of around $5 million a year, I believe, for all indigenous peoples in Canada, which was crazy.

With respect to the provinces, I heard an earlier question around whether whatever federal funding is available should flow through the provinces for them to use or distribute. I think the provinces should stay out of this. It should go directly to the communities as education funding is done, for example, to first nations communities. It doesn't go through some third party. It goes directly from the federal government to the first nations community so they are able use the resources for the purposes designated.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. John.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Mr. Hogg for the final seven minutes.