Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 25th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will bring everyone to the table, this is our 145th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are continuing with our study of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today, from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Duane Smith.

We have with us, from the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society, Ron Mitchell and Jennifer Wickham.

We will go in the order that you appear on the agenda, and we will begin with Mr. Smith, please.

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith, Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation]

Greetings. Ublaami. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee.

As the chair has mentioned, my name is Duane Ningagsiq Smith, and I am the chair and CEO of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. It's in the very far northwest portion of Canada but still in the country. I represent almost one million square kilometres of Canada within my region.

My Inuvialuit name was given to me by my grandparents. It's a custom process in our system.

In regard to the language issues, when you understand it so well that it is in your heart and your mind, it is not only a means to convey information and obtain things; it is a source of strength, pride and belonging. It is the caretaker of our history and our culture.

I do want to say thank you for this opportunity as well. It's taken us 151 years for me to sit down here in front of you, and I hope we can develop that much more quickly in regard to reconciliation.

I wish I could share more of my language with you. I wish I could help my extraordinary heritage become our extraordinary heritage as Canadians. When I say that I wish that I could, I am the third generation of assimilation within this country, where we were not allowed to speak our language. If we did try to, then we were either beaten, etc., or put into certain conditions where we would learn not to speak our language. I am the third generation of that. I grew up in the wake of Canada's mission to make us all the same, and I have lost something fundamental because of those policies and the laws that entrenched them.

I'll now give you a quick description of our region and the state of our language. In the Inuvialuit settlement region, ISR, the Inuvialuit are the Inuit of the western Arctic. It's nine hours by jet, but like I said, it's still in the same country. I welcome you to come to visit us sometime.

The ISR is one of the four regions of Inuit Nunangat, our homeland. There are six communities located in the ISR, and we have over 6,000 Inuvialuit registered and enrolled with us.

In response to Canada's accelerating development agenda and assimilation policies in the Arctic, the Inuvialuit negotiated the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, which was signed and brought into effect in 1984. One of the three principal objectives of both Canada and the Inuvialuit under the IFA is to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society. When I say “both”, we're both signatories to this treaty, so we're both obligated to make sure it's implemented to the greatest extent that we can together.

Regarding the state of our language, later today you will hear the president of ITK, Natan Obed, talk about Inuktut, which is the language of Inuit Nunangat. For clarity, Inuvialuktun is the name we give to Inuktut in our region. We have three dialects within the Inuvialuktun: Sallirmiutun, Uummarmiutun and Kangiryuarmiutun The speakers of Inuvialuktun are able to converse with Inuktut speakers right across Inuit Nunangat as well as into Alaska and Greenland. We have been tied together by our language and culture for millennia.

A long period of contact along with Canada's past assimilation policies and inequitable funding for language have extensively corroded the vitality of Inuktut in the western Arctic. Compared to the high percentage of individuals able to speak Inuktut in Nunavik and Nunavut, only 22% of Inuvialuit have conversational ability in our language. We still have a small window of opportunity to see Inuktut preserved where it continues to thrive and to see it rehabilitated in our region.

I will now turn to the bill.

In terms of comments on Bill C-91, my fellow Inuit presenters will discuss the process in which we were engaged on this bill as well as the draft text that our working group has proposed in support of this process. I will not repeat these comments due to the time constraints. My intention today is to identify those aspects of Bill C-91 that are of particular importance for our regions where the vitality of Inuktut is more severely diminished.

Bill C-91 is a positive start. The bill includes Canada's acknowledgement that the rights of indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, include rights related to indigenous languages. This is absolutely correct and reflective of Canada's existing obligations under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Bill C-91 sets as a main purpose to support the efforts of indigenous peoples to reclaim, revitalize, maintain and strengthen indigenous languages. Related to this, the bill sets out the purpose of the act to establish measures to facilitate the provision of adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of indigenous languages. These measures are absolutely necessary.

It is our view, however, that to achieve these purposes for Inuvialuit we will need to continue working together to refine the legislation.

First, it will be necessary to acknowledge that Inuit Nunangat is a distinct linguistic region within existing laws that recognize Inuktut as an official language. This would allow for sophisticated measures that have a real chance of success to be implemented.

Second, it will be necessary to re-evaluate the creation of the office of the commissioner of indigenous languages and its role in jurisdictions like the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which already have a similar office.

Third, it will be necessary to impose a requirement to enter into bilateral agreements with our organizations to further the purposes of the act rather than leaving this as a mere option. As we have observed over the last few decades in my territory, funding that has flowed through the territorial government is not distributed in an equitable or even a logical fashion. It tends to go where the voting populations are greater and where the chance of success is weak.

Due to the time lag, I'll stop my comments and I will entertain your questions as we proceed.

With that, quyanainni, quyanuq.

Thank you for your attention.

I'll be happy to take questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Wickham, please.

[Ron Mitchell, Hereditary House Chief Hagwilnekhlh (Likhsilyu Clan), Office of the Wet'suwet'en, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society]

[Witness spoke in Witsuwit'en]

[English]

My name is Ron Mitchell. My hereditary chief name is Hagwilnekhlh.

Witsuwit'en is my first language. In the Delgamuukw court case, I was one of the translators and the only one who could write the language back then. I walked 22,000 square miles with my pencil and named places, hills, creeks, mountains, all in Witsuwit'en. I named all our laws in Witsuwit'en and our feasts, potlatches, protocols and all the chiefs' names.

Thank you.

[Jennifer Wickham, Executive Director, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society]

Hadih. I am Jennifer Wickham. I am from the Gidimt'en clan and am the executive director of the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society.

I would like to start by acknowledging that I am an uninvited guest here in Anishinabe territory.

We thank you for the invitation to discuss Bill C-91.

I am here with Hagwilnekhlh Ron Mitchell, house chief of the Likhsilyu clan, as represented by the Office of the Wet'suwet'en. We are here on behalf of the Wet'suwet'en First Nation.

Our territory spans 22,000 square kilometres, as Ron was saying, from Burns Lake to west of Witset, formerly known as Moricetown, in British Columbia.

In our nation, our Witsuwit'en language is reaching a critical point. Only 3% of our population currently speak our language fluently. The average age of speakers is 70 years old.

Bill C-91 is a significant step toward helping us revitalize our language, but it must have measures that will empower our nation to lead the language revitalization work and research for generations to come. This means having guaranteed funding to build our own capacity to create immersion programs for Wet'suwet'en living within and outside our territory.

After consulting with some members of our Wet'suwet'en leadership, language champions and community members, we have the following feedback regarding the legislation.

First is an inclusive definition of indigenous governments and organizations. In the interpretation section, section 8 and section 5, which is purposes of act, we want to ensure that the definition of “indigenous governing body” includes traditional hereditary governance systems that are not defined by the Indian Act, like our own Wet'suwet'en house and clan system.

If the spirit of the act is truly to respect indigenous self-determination, an inclusive definition is required for meaningful nation-to-nation negotiations regarding funding. We want to ensure that indigenous organizations include nation-based, non-profit societies like the Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society.

In the past, we have been denied federal funding because we were not considered a “national organization” based on the Canadian state's definition of “nation”.

We suggest the following changes: “Indigenous governing body means a council, government or other entity—including a traditional hereditary government of unceded lands, not defined under the Indian Act—that is authorized to act on behalf of an Indigenous group...” and “...Indigenous organisations, including non-profit societies, or other entities....”

Second, we would like to address guaranteed long-term funding for generations to come. Clause 7 needs to demonstrate that guaranteed long-term funding, secure from changes in government, will be available to indigenous nations and communities for what we foresee as the three phases that our language will undergo, which are as follows:

The first is language revitalization: research, mobilization of resources and communities, human and technical capacity-building, implementation of revitalization strategies and programs, and health and wellness strategies.

The next would be language stabilization: production of new generations of fluent speakers, growth and stabilization of programs and human resources that meet their growing needs.

The third is extension of language programs and services to the broader, non-indigenous community. To support the self-determination of any indigenous nation and promote co-operation within our territory, financial means and infrastructure need to be in place.

These phases all require significant, long-term financial commitments that will span many generations. The Wet'suwet'en people should be the ones leading these endeavours. Section 5(e) should facilitate nation-to-nation agreements. Should a provincial body be considered as the means to negotiate agreements and disburse funding, this should be done with the political support of the indigenous nations of that province.

Since education funding flows from Indigenous Services Canada, the bill needs a clear statement facilitating coordination and co-operation among all levels of government to guarantee that language revitalization funding will increase our capacity to achieve full immersion in our schools, and that one funding source will not offset another.

British Columbia is home to the majority of indigenous languages, all of which are endangered. Language funding needs to reflect this reality. Equal division of funding among provinces will only lead to inequality and create competition and division where needs are high.

On official language status and legal protection, for an indigenous nation to attain full self-determination, it needs the ability to assert itself through its language. An indigenous nation's language is intrinsically tied to its territory. The ongoing colonization and alienation of indigenous peoples and languages from their lands are unacceptable. For the UNDRIP to become meaningful, this needs to be addressed. Indigenous languages need official language status equivalent to French and English. This is essential to nation-building.

In the “Purposes of Act” section, this should be included as follows: “...facilitate and legally protect the ability of Indigenous nations or governments to declare their unique languages as the official languages of their traditional territories and implement their use in the public domain (i.e. the reclamation of traditional place names on maps and signage) and public education.”

Next I will address minority language rights of indigenous children. A large proportion of Wet'suwet'en children receive their education through the public school system. Bill C-91 must include a declaration protecting the right of indigenous children in minority situations, within and outside their home territories, to receive an education in their language, similar to article 23 of the Constitution relating to French and English minorities. Without legal protection of that right, there is no real means to implement indigenous language education in the public school system, and our ability to start immersion programs or schools outside of our territory is limited.

Also, on the selection of the indigenous languages commissioner and directors, we want Bill C-91 to ensure that the people selected are qualified and recognized as competent representatives of indigenous peoples. We suggest that the commissioner and directors selected be indigenous language champions with demonstrated experience and expertise working in indigenous language revitalization within indigenous communities. As to the location of the language commissioner's office, since British Columbia has the highest concentration of indigenous languages, we think the commissioner's office should be located in that province.

On indigenous languages and intellectual property, we consider all Witsuwit'en language research materials and documentation to be the intellectual property of the Wet'suwet'en nation. We are in opposition to clause 24, which would give Statistics Canada and Library and Archives Canada any authority to conduct research and store indigenous language content. The only role we see for Statistics Canada and Library and Archives Canada is to facilitate access to information and resources on language and culture in their existing collections and databases. We are entirely capable of collecting our own statistics and archiving our language. This legislation should be empowering all indigenous nations to build their own capacity, not delegating this work to federal institutions.

In closing, if Canada is truly committed to respecting the rights of indigenous peoples, then the recommendations that we bring forward to you—and have throughout the regional consultations—should be reflected in Bill C-91. Wet'suwet'en people and other indigenous nations have been fighting to keep our languages alive since colonization began hundreds of years ago. We expect this government to live up to its promises and begin addressing the injustices that continue to harm indigenous peoples in this country today. This legislation must reflect a new way of thinking that is not founded on paternalism, tokenism and archaic colonial structures.

We appreciate the opportunity to have our voices heard, and we'll be watching carefully to see how well this government is listening.

Wiggus.

Much respect.

Awet zeh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We'll now begin the question and answer portion.

Mr. Breton has the floor for seven minutes.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here to participate in our study of this important bill.

My first question is for you, Mr. Smith.

We all know that preserving Inuktitut is a big challenge. I'd like you to tell us in greater detail about your corporation's experience as it endeavours to preserve the language in the Northwest Territories.

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith]

Where will I begin? Well, as I said, it starts with the third generation of assimilation. When the government first came into our region, we were required to send our kids to an education system that put them into facilities that strictly enforced speaking in English only. When you look at the education system today, there is no obligation or requirement of the government of the region to provide any education within the indigenous languages.

You ask me where the issues are and what can be improved. I think we need to get it as a requirement in the education system. Work with us to develop some of our own people to become the teachers who can provide it in our own language. We're not saying we don't want to teach them English, French or anything else, but we do think that in our region, Inuktut should be part of the curriculum.

I have to agree with my colleagues from B.C. in regard to how we can collaborate better with each other on signage. We are on our way, in collaboration with different departments of Canada, in regard to identifying traditional place names within our region. That's a positive aspect in that regard, but when we have an education system that's still partly being imposed on us without adequate engagement, involvement and participation of our organization in the delivery, then we still have a problem here.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

How many indigenous languages are spoken in the Northwest Territories? Obviously, there's Inuktitut, but are there many others?

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith]

There are 11 official languages within the Northwest Territories. In my area it's primarily English, French, Inuvialuktun and Inuktitut. In the capital area, many more first nations have their indigenous languages recognized. That's the extent of what the government has done; they've only recognized these indigenous languages.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

I'd like to hear your take on the challenges of preserving Inuktitut.

You've no doubt read the bill. Do you think it addresses those challenges?

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith]

The sound was fading out a bit, but I think I caught the question.

I have looked through it. As I said in my opening statement, I don't think it fully addresses the issues. That's why I said we should be working together to improve the legislation moving forward. I don't think it is adequate enough in regard to areas where it should be mandatory. We need a tool moving forward. We see this an an opportunity for us to work directly with the federal government, in this case, to develop processes where we can improve the language and the use of it, not only as individuals but throughout the different governance processes. In terms of health and education, the primary people who are being serviced are the Inuit in my region. That's where I see a lot of need for improvement as well. Make it a requirement, but also provide us with the adequate tools and resources for us to start to implement this once we develop—we together develop—an implementation process and plan.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Breton, you have less than a minute remaining.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Very well. I have two quick questions for Mr. Smith.

Overall, do you support the bill? I didn't catch it if you mentioned it already.

[Duane Ningaqsiq Smith]

In a general way, yes, I do. I see this as a tool, but it needs a lot of improvement.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Very good. That's what I thought.

My last question is for Mr. Mitchell and Ms. Wickham.

The bill was co-developed with indigenous peoples. Do you think the approach worked? Would you say it was successful? Were you consulted as part of the co-development process?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

If I could jump in quickly, you have already gone over time.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Oh, really?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Yes, I told you you had less than a minute left.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

My apologies, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

If you can, just briefly answer that, then maybe bring it out through other answers as well.

[Jennifer Wickham]

The Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society was part of the consultation process. I believe you all have a copy of our position paper on the draft legislation. In that letter, we address the fact that the feedback we gave while it was in consultation was not reflected in the bill.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

I'm going to clarify. We have it, but it's in translation. While I have a copy, everyone doesn't have it yet. You will all have it.

We'll go to Ms. McLeod, please.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for presenting. To those from British Columbia, I'm also from British Columbia, so I appreciate the complexity, all the different languages in our community.

Essentially everyone voted at second reading, and our job now is to make sure the legislation is technically right. I want to make a comment, and maybe the analysts will be able to follow up on it. A witness questioned this: he said to proclaim on the Constitution as they did in clause 6 had never been done before to his knowledge. He wondered if it was constitutional. I'm curious.

Could the analysts research if it has ever been done before? I think it's a piece of valuable information. That particular witness did not know.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Yes.