Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 26th, 2019

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Where did this clause come from?

[Roger Jones]

I think the clause comes from the fact that if there are indigenous parties or indigenous groups or communities out there who would like the support from external entities that perhaps they can ask them to help, which is really a capacity-building measure, as I would understand it.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

If there was wording in that clause for facilitation where needed, would it strengthen that clause to what is needed?

[Roger Jones]

Clarity is always useful, which is what I spoke to in implementation. We would prefer clarity to the extent it can be produced in the bill.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Then in a sense that's one of the challenges with it, getting that clarity into that section, because it has been brought up a number of times.

[Roger Jones]

Yes, and I can totally affirm that this was a cause for concern expressed by our people.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I understand what you're saying about facilitation when needed. That expertise might be of use in some places, while others already have it.

[Roger Jones]

Yes.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Okay, good.

Another issue that has come up is under clause 25 or 26, where there's a list—“Indigenous government or other Indigenous governing body, an Indigenous organization or the Government of Canada”. Some say that might not have been representative of the groups out there. Have you any thoughts on that?

[Roger Jones]

Yes, we did encounter in the engagements the views that, for instance, traditional governments may not be reflected in the language. We heard that view, that the legislation should be expansive in terms of contemplating with whom governments should engage, let's say with respect to matters of funding. Some communities believed they wanted to do this on a nation basis versus an individual community basis. At best, our reply to them was that the legislation should be flexible in being able to accommodate that. Now, does this language do that? That's the big question, right?

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Yes.

[Roger Jones]

You will note that in the definitions section perhaps the definition of “Indigenous government” isn't broad enough for people's liking. I'm sure they would prefer to see that reflected in the legislation as well, the recognition of traditional governments as they exist.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I think that clause will be a challenge, in the sense of further defining it, and it could slow the process down. I hope not.

For the president of Nunavut Tunngavik, you mentioned funding, and you said “adequate”, but then you said “equitable”. In this piece of legislation it says “adequate”. You used a different word. Why?

[Aluki Kotierk]

In my view, this legislation as it's currently presented is merely creating a commissioner's office. It's not explicitly said, but there's probably a cap on the amount of money that will be provided to the commissioner's office. Then the expectation that I foresee is that indigenous groups who speak different indigenous languages will be fighting for the same pot of money, rather than looking at it in a way of asking how we provide services in an indigenous language to the population, to serve it, similar to the way in which French minority language speakers are provided that funding.

I guess in Nunavut, where the majority of the population speaks Inuktut as their first language—and it's the only jurisdiction in Canada where there's a homogenous indigenous population of which 70% speak their mother language, Inuktut—the expectation is that we should be able to get essential services in education, in justice and in health in Inuit languages.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I got that, but you used a different word, and you don't have that in your amendments. You didn't use “equitable”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Sorry, you are out of time.

I just wanted to let everyone know what you're received. The amendments were distributed by email, but the witnesses were kind enough to bring paper copies, so you have paper copies in front of you as well.

Mr. Nantel, you have the floor for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll speak English; no worries.

First, thank you all, of course, for being here. Please allow me to express that I am not at all a specialist in first nations, Métis and Inuit questions, but I hope all Canada deeply wants to answer all the TRC recommendations. We are talking here about a bill that clearly.... Actually, I shouldn't say “clearly”; I should simply ask. Isn't this bill about the actions to take so as not to lose first nations, Métis and Inuit first languages? As you say, Inuktitut remains super-spoken. It's a bit out of scope. You would need a different bill. Am I right to say that? It's not the same at all.

[Aluki Kotierk]

I don't think we would necessarily need a different bill. One of the things that we advocated right from the outset was to have our own Inuktut language bill. When we realized that the federal government was going to have an indigenous language bill, we said, “Okay, we're reasonable people. We're going to work with this process, and we're going to advocate for Inuit specific provisions in there.”

I think, even if there was an omnibus indigenous language bill, there are ways to address the Inuit concerns. I think that's what we've been proactively trying to approach in that manner.

I want to to say, to Martin Shields' question, why I used a different word.

In the amendments, we're using “comparable” as the language. I know in English there's a word “synonym”. When I speak English, I think “comparable” and “equitable” are similar in the sense of what they mean. I know in Inuktut, when we speak, we can use many different words for similar meanings, so I don't know what the hang-up is about that.

I just want to say the point is, we expect to be able to receive equitable, comparable services as other Canadians. Currently we do not, even though we are Canadians in Nunavut.

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

That's a good clarification.

Especially in this case, to me it speaks volumes. You come and say you want to have services in the language of the majority, which makes total sense. But on the other hand, we're talking about all these other languages that are being lost to English, mostly, maybe French sometimes in Quebec, but mostly to English. To me it's like we're talking about totally opposite situations.

You are saying we have a majority language, and it's surely not being lost. Well, that's great. We value that, and we should encourage it and give you proper services in that language, but the other two sides are saying that they are losing their languages. This opposition is fascinating me.

[Aluki Kotierk]

If I may, I want to clarify. I came to say I am here with a warning bell. Inuktut is being lost.

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

Is it?

[Aluki Kotierk]

At the rate of 1% per year in Nunavut, Inuktut is being lost. I have seen it personally in my own family. I am the oldest of seven children. The older members of my family speak Inuktut. My younger siblings don't.

Two years ago, I went to the homeland of my father. He took us where he grew up, not in the community, on the land. He said to me, “Aluki, come with me so you can be my interpreter.” Then he sighed and said very quietly to my own children....

When I hear and talk about language legislation, it is a matter of life and death when people are unable to get services in the health system. It is being killed by the school system when 75% of the teachers are non-Inuktut speaking teachers in our schools. When there are 43 schools, one school is a French school funded by the federal government.

We wonder why Inuit are not as bitter or as angry as they should be when they see the inequities in their homelands where their children are being taught in English.

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

Is this...?

[Aluki Kotierk]

To me, it's not that we're safe. I have always been so fearful that this language legislation would make assumptions that Inuktut is safe, because we know it's declining.

If we don't do something, we will be like any other indigenous language across this nation. I do not want to see that.

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

I understand.

This is why to you the funding remains a very—