Evidence of meeting #145 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 within.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Duane Ningaqsiq Smith  Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
Ron Mitchell  Hereditary House Chief Hagwilnekhlh (Likhsilyu Clan), Office of the Wet'suwet'en, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society
Jennifer Wickham  Executive Director, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society
Wayne Long  Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.
Natan Obed  President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
Tim Argetsinger  Political Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami
William David  Legal Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Noon

Executive Director, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society

Jennifer Wickham

Years.

In order to get to extension we would have to first have stabilization, and our current population that is fluent is declining rapidly. As I said, the average age is 70 years old, and we are only at 3% of fluent speakers within—

Noon

Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.

Wayne Long

Do you think you could get to the extension part in 10 years?

Noon

Executive Director, Witsuwit'en Language and Culture Society

Jennifer Wickham

Optimistically, yes.

Noon

Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.

Wayne Long

Okay, thank you.

Noon

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

The bells looked like they were flashing for a second there and then they stopped, so I will figure out what that was all about.

That brings this first hour to an end. I would really like to thank all of the witnesses for your testimony today. It was very helpful and you've brought a lot of interesting ideas for everyone to be considering.

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

Thank you.

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

We're starting up again and we now have with us, for the second hour, president Natan Obed from the ITK; Tim Argetsinger, political adviser; and William David, legal adviser.

Please begin with your opening statement, and then we'll go to the questions after.

12:05 p.m.

Natan Obed President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Nakurmiik. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, members of the committee, for allowing Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to be a witness here before you today. I also want to recognize Duane Smith, the chair of the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, a board member for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, who was just a witness before this committee.

Inuit are one people sharing a common language, Inuktut, which has many dialects, and Inuktut is a term that we have decided to call our Inuit language. There are lots of conversations in our community about what that term is defined by, but in the end there are definition of words and etymology of words, but there are also our words that are used for political practice. Ontario might be an indigenous word, but you all know Ontario as something very different, as a political space. We are in the midst of developing our self-determination, and the words that we use in Inuktut are very helpful to that.

The majority of our people live in 51 communities throughout Inuit Nunangat, the term that we use to describe our homeland. Inuit Nunangat is a distinct geographical, political and cultural region that makes up nearly one-third of Canada's land mass and half its coastline.

Eighty-four per cent of Inuit in Inuit Nunangat report an ability to speak Inuktut, making our language the most resilient indigenous language in Canada. However, a more complex picture of our language status emerges when considering conversational ability and language of the household: 58% of Inuit within Inuit Nunangat report being able to speak Inuktut well enough to conduct a conversation, and only 40% report that Inuktut is the language most often used at home.

Inuktut has official language status in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. In Nunavut, the rights of Inuktut speakers are further affirmed by the Inuit Language Protection Act. Inuktut has official language status in the self-governing region of Nunatsiavut within the jurisdiction of Newfoundland and Labrador as well.

National legislation is needed to build on existing rights for our language and to complement initiatives advanced by territorial governments and Inuit throughout Inuit Nunangat. ITK therefore recognizes the positive role national legislation can play in closing statutory and policy gaps that enable continued discrimination against Inuktut speakers. The specific nature of this discrimination and its consequential negative impacts on the day-to-day lives of Inuktut speakers is detailed in ITK's written submission to this committee.

Bill C-91 currently falls far short of fulfilling the Government of Canada's own commitment to develop distinctions-based legislation. On the basis of this commitment, ITK agreed to participate in this legislative initiative at the beginning. In the joint statement released when this legislative initiative was launched on June 15, 2017, Minister Joly, I, National Chief Bellegarde and Clément Chartier, president of the Métis National Council agreed to, “work collaboratively, transparently, and on a distinctions basis to codevelop national first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation languages legislation whose content will reflect the distinct geographic, political, legislative and cultural contexts impacting language revitalization, recovery, presentation, protection, maintenance and promotion”.

It was our understanding, all the way through this initiative until very recently, that there would be a common section with provisions within the legislation, and then there would be distinctions-based sections based on the specific needs and realities of first nations, Inuit and Métis. Bill C-91, as it is currently drafted, completely overlooks the unique status of Inuktut and the practical needs of its speakers. In the absence of Inuktut-specific provisions within Bill C-91, ITK is therefore proposing amendments to the bill that would help ensure that our long-standing priorities for our language are reflected in this bill.

Remedying these problems has been a national Inuit priority for more than half a century. ITK was formed in 1971, in large part to advance the statutory and policy measures required to help revitalize, maintain and promote our language. These amendments are necessary to fulfill the federal government's commitment to indigenous peoples and all Canadians to develop distinctions-based legislation.

They would ensure that our people are able to enjoy the human rights and fundamental freedoms that all peoples are entitled to, including in the political, economic, social, cultural and other fields of public life.

In our submission to this committee, ITK has therefore proposed amendments to Bill C-91 that would obligate the minister to develop a separate annex to this act in relation to Inuktut. This annex could include provisions addressing the following areas, among others: use of Inuktut in the delivery of federal programs and services; use of Inuktut in the federal public service; standards to govern federal financial support for Inuktut and specific levels of support; and measures to support the provision of Inuktut language programs and services in relation to education, health and the administration of justice.

The amendments to Bill C-91 that we are proposing are consistent with documents and input provided by Inuit to the Minister of Canadian Heritage throughout the past two years. They are also aligned with the federal government's own priorities, particularly in the area of access to federal services for Inuktut speakers.

Inuit face consequential linguistic barriers when it comes to accessing public services, especially within the majority Inuktut-speaking regions of Nunavut and Nunavik. This problem is particularly acute in law enforcement, where the limited number of Inuktut-speaking RCMP officers contributes to under-reporting of violent crime, and family violence in particular.

Furthermore, the Senate Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans reported in 2018 on the risks to public safety that exist as a result of the limited number of Inuktut speakers within the Canadian Coast Guard. The committee has recommended that the Canadian Coast Guard recruit people who speak lnuktut. Similar barriers are well documented within Quebec's provincial justice system. The federal government's unwillingness to provide services in Inuktut within Inuit Nunangat has even served to undermine the federal government's ability to discharge its duty to consult and accommodate Inuit. Such was the case in 2017 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in favour of the Nunavut community of Clyde River and found the National Energy Board's consultation process on seismic testing in the area flawed for, among other reasons, failing to communicate with Inuit in our primary language.

ITK urges this committee to take concrete action to address these long-standing problems by adopting the amendments we are proposing today. These proposed amendments, so necessary to the enjoyment of dignity among our people, are modest in comparison to the rights enjoyed by speakers of Canada's two official languages, both within our homeland and throughout this country.

Inuit are looking to each of you to demonstrate the creativity and political courage needed to help us end the discrimination too many lnuktut speakers face in going about their day-to-day lives and to replace symbolism with effective and impactful federal support for efforts to strengthen and revitalize our language throughout Inuit Nunangat.

Nakurmiik.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

We will now begin our question and answer period.

We'll begin with Mr. Anandasangaree for seven minutes.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

Thank you very much, President Obed, for your presentation.

I'd like to get a sense from you of the service provision in Inuktut, with respect to, for example, the current education system.

How many teachers are available to teach Inuktut to children right now in the different regions?

12:15 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

I don't have specific documentation about the numbers, but I will give a general sense of the education system as it stands.

In a number of our 51 communities, Inuktut is the primary language of instruction between kindergarten and grade 4. It fluctuates in that in some communities there isn't that opportunity. In many communities it's K to grade 2 or maybe just kindergarten. My children, in Iqaluit, took Inuktitut as the first language of instruction in their education between kindergarten and grade 4.

There have been efforts for public governments to increase the number of Inuktut-speaking teachers through specific Bachelor of Education programs for Inuit within specific jurisdictions. This is all done on the margins. This is done not as a primary concern to get us to a language of instruction from K to 12 in Inuktut but to ensure that the small gains we have made over time continue to exist.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

I think you mentioned four very specific areas: education, health care, the justice system and policing. Are there enough speakers right now who are able to provide those services in the different regions?

It appears that the gap we have.... Many of your recommendations suggest there should be provision, in the different regions, in Inuktut. Do we have enough people who can fill those roles if we do go that route?

12:15 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

If you continue to systemically starve our language to death, then yes, that is a prophecy that will be fulfilled.

In the Official Languages Act, in terms of the rights for minority situations where there is a francophone or an anglophone community in a dominant community of the other language, once you hit a certain threshold, the minority linguistic population then has rights in terms of their own education and the ability to access government services. We don't have those. To come at this conversation saying that our capacity is limited, therefore our rights will not be exercised or upheld is not the way this country looks at its Official Languages Act for francophones or anglophones, and I'm not willing to enter into that conversation.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON

To look at it the other way, it may not be responsible for the government to commit to legislation if it can't necessarily implement that right. An example is language of service. It may be very difficult to implement that. All of this requires a plan. I think that's what it comes down to. It requires a plan to build fluent speakers and to recruit them to the different areas of work, for example, in the public service. For us to put it in the legislation right now could be problematic in the sense that we're committing to something that is not immediately feasible. It's likely to be feasible in the longer term.

How do we bridge that gap?

12:20 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

Our language rights exist today. This legislation is an attempt to allow Canada to respect its own obligations under international law, under the Constitution. That is not necessarily the same as having a conversation about capacity. The ability to exercise our rights versus the ability for us to fill all positions needed to do that are two completely different concepts.

In the legislative space we're operating in today, we are fighting for the ability to have the space to build capacity. That goes against the last 151 years of a lack of respect for our rights in relation to language. It's no surprise that our language use is declining in an environment where it doesn't have the same level of rights and respect as the two official languages in this country have. This country has been systematically trying to wipe out indigenous languages, and this is still a great opportunity to push back against that. The legislation and the ability for codevelopment was an opportunity we thought we were entering into that would go beyond symbolism and try to figure out how to practically implement our rights. We still have a hope that this innovation can happen, and our submission shows that path forward.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you.

We can go to Ms. McLeod, please, for seven minutes.

February 25th, 2019 / 12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

Thank you, Mr. Obed, for presenting today.

You didn't mince words in your press release after this legislation was introduced. I think you were quoted as saying that this legislation was symbolic, in bad faith, that it was done behind closed doors in a colonial system, that it was being imposed. Those are very strong words, and they speak to your disappointment.

The government talks about codeveloping legislation, and it might be as it was with the Trans Mountain pipeline when they talked about consultation with the communities that were going to be impacted, but the words didn't actually match what was happening. We're not privy to what was happening behind closed doors.

What happened that made you so uncomfortable that you were not mincing words in terms of the outcome?

12:20 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

I'll reference again the June 15, 2017 joint statement made in the foyer at Centre Block, where we all pledged to work collaboratively, transparently and on a distinctions basis to codevelop legislation. We had a list of different things within the legislation, including distinct geographic, political, legislative and cultural contexts impacting language revitalization, maintenance and promotion. This had been preceded by a number of conversations led by the Canadian heritage minister, but also underpinned by the Prime Minister in the statements that he had made publicly about the ambition for an indigenous languages act.

All of that led to us agreeing to codevelop. We could have said no at that point. This is a really key point within this. There is an Inuit democracy in this country. Indigenous peoples have rights. We have the right to self-determination and self-government. The Government of Canada does not have exclusive domain on the political space that we occupy. We chose to come to this table. We chose to codevelop, and we chose to spend countless hours of our time at the national level and with our regions to provide our best positions that would practically implement the existing language rights we have and that would make a better future for Inuit. What we didn't have throughout the process was a response to our proposals nor, ultimately, a respect for any of the foundational principles that we had all agreed to within the bill you see that has passed first and second reading.

The preambular language talks about the importance of indigenous peoples, the importance of our language and the wrongs that have happened. Yes, it is meaningful to have that in a preamble of a piece of legislation. If an indigenous language commissioner was within the context of distinctions-based sections of an act and that was a component of an act, we probably would be thinking very differently about it and would be much more at ease with it.

For this act to basically be an act that creates a federal commissioner is far short of the expectations we had. In relation to codevelopment, we do not see codevelopment as the same as consultation. If it was truly codeveloped, there would be segments of this act that we could point to and say these were the segments that Inuit wanted within this.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

As you are aware, the AFN and MNC do support it. The question is, will the bill, as written, do harm? If nothing is changed, will it do harm, in your opinion?

12:25 p.m.

Tim Argetsinger Political Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

I can answer that to some degree.

Currently, in two of our four regions—Nunavik and Nunatsiavut—the main sources of formal, dedicated language funding that exist are through the aboriginal languages initiative program that is administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As far as we can determine, the bill proposes replacing that program with a languages commissioner's office. The language commissioner will have duties that may or may not positively impact Inuit and Inuit language efforts to revitalize, maintain and promote our language. With an absence of the only current source of dedicated federal funding in at least two of those regions, you could argue that the proposed provisions in the current bill would, in fact, be a step backward for those two regions.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

I asked a question in the first panel and I'll ask the same question again. If nothing is changed to meet the recommendations that you put forward, would you suggest that this bill should not be supported?

12:25 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

We still remain optimistic that the codevelopment process is not over and that the provisions that Inuit have put forward can somehow find their way into an annex of the legislation or be incorporated in further readings of the bill. We're not willing to give up on this yet.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Cathy McLeod Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC

That was a good political answer. Thank you.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Julie Dabrusin

Thank you very much.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Georgina Jolibois NDP Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK

Thank you for coming, I appreciate your presentations.

Other witnesses have told us that there are 11 official languages in the territories. This bill, as written, is not clear about how the provinces and territories will be included in the funding model. I am also concerned how a province or territory will incorporate languages into curriculums.

Can you comment on how this process worked in the north, and how you think languages should be included in provincial and territorial education programs?

12:30 p.m.

President, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami

Natan Obed

Your last witness, Duane Smith, talked about the way in which jurisdictions with multiple indigenous languages have historically underfunded indigenous languages and how fundamental change is necessary. This is the reason we're talking about an Inuit Nunangat approach within this legislation that would see our needs met through specific policy and legislative provisions and regulatory processes that fall under it to ensure that our 51 communities are serviced in exactly the same way and that our rights will be upheld on a consistent basis, no matter where you are in Inuit Nunangat.

I think part of the challenge has been that the way Confederation is imagined does not have space for Inuit Nunangat. When we introduce this topic and this idea, this advancement of our rights in a consistent way to this government wanting to renew its relationship with us, we don't find acceptance or innovation. We can't then get to the practical solutions that are being proposed through sometimes a very logical, simple approach, mainly because it's novel.

Breaking up the old way of doing business, especially within the aboriginal languages initiative, which for most of the last 10 to 15 years has operated basically with indigenous peoples competing with one another, and with Canadian Heritage deciding which indigenous projects they like best, versus having the proper funding and authority for language promotion be with the indigenous peoples themselves in a way that we choose to structure the interventions.... This is what we're trying to get to.

The concerns we have had are many in relation to the lack of respect for our language rights. This legislation is not going to solve every last one of them. It is also going to require additional considerations with provinces and territories, but this can be a really good place to start. We hope the amendments we're proposing can be incorporated into the bill.