[Witness spoke in Cree]
Greetings to you all.
My name is Onowa McIvor. I am a Swampy Cree woman. My family is from the Norway House and Cross Lake Cree nations in northern Manitoba, Treaty 5.
I offer gratitude and acknowledgement to the WSANEC and the Lkwugen people, whose land I am on today.
I am living proof of the indigenous resilience of our people. My grandparents were speakers of our language but did not pass our language down to my mother and her siblings, and so she did not have this gift to offer to me. And yet, here I am, a language warrior, recoverer and scholar of indigenous language revitalization, because of their strength and resilience. I come to this work from a deeply personal place, as many indigenous people do, and this family and community history drives my scholarly life.
I believe in the power of policy and what it can achieve, and I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.
I have four main points I would like to speak to, and others I have included in my written submission that I hope will be considered by the committee in that form.
The first point relates to UNDRIP. There is a direct contradiction between the preamble, which includes, with clause 3, the Government of Canada's commitment to implementation, and paragraph 5(g), which shifts to the more obscure wording of “advance the achievement of the objectives”.
First, I would recommend that the bill match the preamble and add UNDRIP as paragraph 6(b): “the Government of Canada recognizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages”, with the additional specific reference to articles 13 and 14.
The point of adding article 14 to the UNDRIP clause is not only for consistency with paragraph 5(f), which refers to the TRC calls to action and names the specific calls to action, but it also leads to my next point, which relates to the responsibilities around education.
I have included UNDRIP articles 13 and 14 for reference but will just highlight a couple of lines that refer to my next point.
Article 14 says, “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages”. Article 14(3) says, “...indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities [have the right] to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.” This leads to my second point about rights protection and the link to education.
Specifically in paragraph 5(e), and in clauses 8 and 9, there is concerning language that equates the federal government's obligations to respect “the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces” with upholding “the rights of Indigenous peoples”. These two obligations should not be equated as one. The rights of indigenous peoples are pre-existing and supersede the federal government's obligation to comply with “the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces”.
Besides the legal and rights-based arguments for this, it's an important practical implication regarding education established and controlled by indigenous people and provided in their own language, as referred to in UNDRIP article 14.
One of the critical areas of damage to our languages in Canada has been schools, but increasingly it's one of the areas that we look to as a solution, especially as the place where many of our children spend six to seven hours a day, five days a week, 10 months of the year.
To bring clarity to this point, I would like to refer to Jordan's principle. This is in no way to bring disrespect to this tragic event, but rather to emphasize the parallel jurisdictional complexities that exist in the education sector as it relates to indigenous peoples, as was acknowledged to exist in the health sector between federal and provincial governments. Both instances have to do with indigenous children's rights. In this case, it is about the life and death of our languages, and I would argue that the situation and potential effects are equally serious.
The basis for Jordan's principle is the memory of the late Jordan River Anderson, a five-year-old boy from Norway House Cree Nation, my nation, in Manitoba, who died waiting for the care he needed. His care was caught in disputes between the federal and provincial governments, which could not agree on who should pay for his care.
These disputes are rooted in various agreements, but are essentially founded in the Crown's fiduciary responsibilities to indigenous people. The reality that Canada divided itself into provinces and territories and devolved some health responsibilities and, in this case, education, particularly off-reserve education, to those entities does not supersede or replace these pre-existing agreements or indigenous rights therein. The reality of our demographics is also that the majority of our people do not live on reserve, or in the case of the territories, and for indigenous people, reserves have no meaning.
This is a separate but circular argument for the changes to the above-mentioned sections, to separate the federal government's obligations to recognize and affirm indigenous rights, apart from and before they are concerned with delegated provincial jurisdictions, and also to ensure that UNDRIP, and particularly article 14 as it relates to the effects on education, is affirmed in this bill.
Third, creating lists that are neither summative nor exhaustive is detractive and potentially dangerous. I want to highlight paragraphs 5(b) and 23(e), and clause 25. All include lists of sorts in the bill. Lists convey a sense of comprehensiveness, as in, “These things are important or will be supported.” They are often listed in order of importance.
None of these lists appear to me to have been developed by indigenous language revitalization scholars with a deep understanding of the field, its current state and foreseeable directions. I would strongly encourage eliminating these lists, or an earnest revision. I've included suggestions for revision in my written submission, and I would be happy to consult further on this issue if desired by the committee.
My fourth and final point, for my opening comments, references clause 24, regarding research to be undertaken by the office of the commissioner. As somebody who makes their living as a researcher, and who believes very deeply in the power of research, I want to highlight for the committee that we are in a new era regarding research. Indigenous communities will no longer tolerate being researched. The tri-council funding agencies are nearing the end of a two-year consultation process on how to enact the calls to action relating to research by and with indigenous peoples.
I would suggest that clause 24 come in line with what has already been established by indigenous peoples, as well as the tri-council funding agencies, as acceptable. I've included a simple suggested revision, to add the words “indigenous-led” or “indigenous-governed”. I have additional suggestions in my written submission for your consideration.
In my closing comments, I would just say that I am very pleased to see this bill come forward, after 50 years. It is a form of what we've been fighting for. It is a bill, as the minister has said, that we can at least make changes to in the future. The time is now. The time is actually overdue, and there does seem to be cross-party political will to see this through, which is refreshing. However, if this bill is successful, we will live with this act for at least five quite formative years, and possibly longer, as it can be difficult to convince new people to change a bill once it's initially approved.
It is in this spirit that I ask you to consider my recommendations and advice herein.
Ekosi, hai hai.
