Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 25th, 2019

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

I'm glad to hear you're optimistic, as I am too.

We have a chance to ask questions and we have a chance to bring forward our ideas and our suggestions to the government. Have you had the chance to communicate with a minister regarding the recommendations you are making here today?

[Natan Obed]

We've had a number of different opportunities to speak with Minister Rodriguez and, previously, we had regular meetings with Minister Joly for the entirety of the initiative. Our access to the minister and to provide advice to the minister is not the challenge.

Some of the senior technical processes that we have engaged in have not been as constructive when you look at them as a whole. We've had amicable conversations in many different rooms. As I have mentioned before, we have spent an inordinate amount of time providing our perspectives and our positions to Canadian Heritage on this bill and in the development of the provisions that you see here. We don't see the product of those conversations in the bill itself. At some point, when we get beyond talking about how important indigenous languages are and how great they are to be recognizing our rights and implementing them within legislation, that's where it seems to have fallen apart.

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

Our previous witnesses said that official languages need to be recognized and that indigenous languages need to be included in the federal government's definition of official language in Canada, as you were saying here this morning.

Can you comment on why that is so important again, to re-emphasize your perspective?

[William David, Legal Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

With official languages status comes recognition of rights, which here is actually relevant because there's a remedy that flows from that. With official languages status comes the opportunity for federal supports for Inuit, and for provincial and territorial governments as well.

I would just point out, on official languages status, that this was held out as a possibility at the outset of this exercise. By demonstrating flexibility from the Inuit side, rather than simply asking for official languages status, we had developed a fairly extensive articulation of what we might be seeking as an incremental step to eventually achieving that. I believe we provided that to the committee. It's a very lengthy series of legislative provisions, and it's not necessarily the achievement of official languages status. It's what we would see as the necessary precursors and incremental steps to avoid the amount of disruption that would come from a simple declaration at the outset.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We'll now go to Mr. Long for seven minutes.

[Wayne Long]

President Obed, thank you so much for coming in and giving us your presentation.

I think we can all agree that the goal is to ensure that we address as many of your concerns as possible. I certainly respect the fact that you have some concerns and some differences. Obviously the hope is that through amendments we can build capacity so that language rights, your main concerns, are protected.

The first thing I want to talk about is this. I've heard your concerns regarding Inuktut, but I want to hear your thoughts on the other indigenous languages spoken in Inuit Nunangat. Do you think the bill would help protect them?

[Tim Argetsinger]

I just want to clarify, what languages are you referencing, because Inuktut is the only indigenous language spoken throughout Inuit Nunangat.

[Wayne Long]

I apologize. It just says your thoughts on other indigenous languages spoken in Inuit Nunangat. Is there only the one?

[Natan Obed]

Within the definition of Inuit Nunangat, it is the sum total of the four land claim settlement regions. So within that space, it is a dominant Inuit population. There may be individuals who are not Inuit who do speak an indigenous language and live in our communities, but as far as the way in which, say, minority francophone rights exist within the jurisdiction of Nunavut, there are no such indigenous peoples who exist within Inuit Nunangat who would make up a majority population in that way.

[Wayne Long]

Do you see Bill C-91, as it currently is, protecting minority languages? Because one of the concerns we've heard from other witnesses is just the fact that there are communities that have infrastructure—schools, systems, things in place—but other areas don't at all.

Do you see Bill C-91 reaching them, or do you have amendments that you would propose to make sure that their rights and their languages are enhanced and protected also?

[Natan Obed]

I would expect that first nations and Métis would constructively work with the government on the distinctions-based needs of their populations. I can only speak for the Inuit-specific considerations within this piece of legislation.

That being said, if you look at the legislation now, you see there are two main components. One is the creation of a language commissioner and the other, which is novel in the eyes of government and to us, is the ability for the government to make language agreements directly with representatives of indigenous peoples. We would argue that this exists without the piece of legislation. The way in which the commissioner's office will work and the roles that it is meant to play.... The ability for a commissioner to tell the Government of Canada that it continue to not implement the rights of indigenous peoples in relation to language is just a continuation of the conversation that we are having with you here today. The ability for the language commissioner to actually fix that problem and compel the Government of Canada.... I'm not sure where that power lies, but we don't see it within the powers of the commissioner.

[Wayne Long]

Would you care to comment, Mr. Obed, on statements from other indigenous leaders such as Perry Bellegarde, who said it was “landmark legislation”? We had him in last week. He said that no legislation is perfect, but it's a great start, and now we need to work to make that better. President Clément Chartier said it was “reconciliation in action”. Can you give me your viewpoint and your comments on what they said?

[Natan Obed]

Under section 35 of the Constitution, there are three indigenous peoples in this country: first nations, Inuit and Métis. What you're running into here is the idea that we are not homogeneous. We have different societies and different needs. I think Ontario has a very different outlook on the world, sometimes, than Alberta, but Ontario and Alberta are both Canadian jurisdictions. They're part of Canada, but have very different perspectives and underpinning ideologies about what is important and why.

I have talked extensively with the National Chief and also President Chartier. They are supportive of Inuit within this exercise, and they are supportive of an Inuit annex. Other considerations for first nations and Métis may follow, but they have been supportive throughout of the approach the Inuit have taken.

[Wayne Long]

Would you say that you are seeking official language status for Inuktut at the federal level?

[Tim Argetsinger]

We've provided proposed amendments in our submission. In these, you will not see official language status as one of the provisions we're putting forward. We'd encourage you to focus on those 10 provisions that are within the submission we've provided.

[Wayne Long]

Thank you very much, President.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will go to Ms. McLeod. She'll be sharing her time with Mr. Shipley, I believe.

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

I think this would be for Mr. Obed or Mr. David. I think clause 6 has been welcomed by groups from across this country, but there was a witness who flagged concerns, saying this is the first time there has been a recognition within a piece of legislation and wondering if there would be some challenges to the constitutionality regarding not having a broader approach. They thought it would be more appropriate in the preamble. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I would love to have a constitutional expert's opinion on that.

I know it's welcome, but when you have legislation where people question whether there will be a constitutional challenge, it always raises a flag to me. Mr. David as the lawyer in the room or Mr. Obed, I'd appreciate any comments you might have.

[Natan Obed]

I will start and then hand the floor to Will. I was in the room in New York City when Minister Bennett forcefully stated that Canada was in full support, without qualification, of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. In that declaration, there are specific sections on rights related to indigenous languages.

The Government of Canada has existing obligations in relation to indigenous peoples and indigenous people's languages, whether the crown recognizes them or not. We are in a positive space where the crown has recognized—and has been very forceful in stating their support for—key international instruments that link back to this issue.

I'll pass this on for further comment.

[William David]

I think you'd be well advised to get some further analysis on this.

The only real point I would make is that with clause 6, like much of the act, it's very difficult to see how it would operate in practice. The reason I say that is because the rights of aboriginal peoples are recognized and affirmed broadly in section 35, and then there's a framework for defining what those rights are, either through the common law or through treaty-based mechanisms.

A narrow reading of clause 6, which is likely what would be offered by the Department of Canadian Heritage, would simply state that rights related to languages are not excluded from the definition of section 35. They are already not excluded from the definitions in section 35, so it could actually be quite redundant.

On the other hand, someone like me would try to read that as broadly as I could, to suggest that where there are existing aboriginal rights, they have a linguistic element to them. I don't think that would necessarily lead to the life or death of the bill. I do think it could contribute to ongoing disputes about the scope of the interpretation of that section.

The only other thing I would point out there is that recognition does not run through the act, which is really interesting. It's almost like there's this blanket recognition of section 35 rights there, but then our organization, and Inuit broadly, are complaining that the act itself doesn't provide any vehicle to implement those rights. It's an odd provision.

It's not something that I would consider to be fatal, but I would say that the ambiguity itself is potentially concerning to some.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Mr. Shipley, you have 45 seconds.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

I have a quick question, and it's to follow up on an earlier one.

In terms of the education—I think it was talked about that there would be a degree or certification courses—are there enough educators? How would that actually come together across the country?

[Natan Obed]

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami is working with various federal departments to work on improvements to our education system writ large. We have a national strategy that we're trying to implement, from early learning and child care to K to 12 to post-secondary.