Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 26th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will now begin the 146th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

Today, we are continuing our study of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous languages.

We have with us as an individual, Mr. Roger Jones, Special Adviser to the National Chief, Languages Act, who was with us just recently.

From Amnesty International Canada, we have Mr. Craig Benjamin, Campaigner, Indigenous Rights.

From Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., we have Aluki Kotierk, President, and Kilikvak Kabloona, CEO.

I would like to begin with an apology to those from the NTI. We tried to have an Inuit interpreter accredited through translation services in time for this meeting. We were unable to find someone accredited. I know we've talked about it, but I did want to formally apologize.

Just so the committee knows, when NTI does their opening statement, it will be in Inuktitut. They will be reading the formal statement, and the translators will be reading it in English and in French. Questions and answers will be in English and in French.

On that note, we can begin with Roger Jones, please.

[Roger Jones, Special Advisor to the National Chief, Languages Act, Assembly of First Nations, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Meegwetch.

[Witness spoke in Anishinabek]

[English]

Thank you for the invitation to come and speak to the committee.

I can speak primarily to the codevelopment process, which I was involved in, and I do want to point out that I am here on an independent basis.

I am an independent contractor with the Assembly of First Nations and was assigned to the indigenous languages initiative to provide leadership on behalf of the AFN in the codevelopment process. My views about the process and the outcome are mine and are not attributable to the Assembly of First Nations.

There was no definition of “codevelopment” as the process got under way and evolved along the way, but it was methodical, in my opinion.

The AFN has its own structure and organization around the process, including a chiefs committee made up of representatives from across the country and, likewise, a technical committee similarly representative of the regions across the country. The national chief chairs the chiefs committee and has provided leadership on this matter overall.

The most important element of the AFN structure and organization is the chiefs in assembly, and they provided authorization and direction along the way based on the information provided to them stemming from the rights holders engagements that we conducted as part of this process.

Insofar as the interaction between the parties is concerned, one of the first significant steps taken was the parties agreeing to some fundamental principles relating to the process and the desired outcome of indigenous languages legislation.

The principles did establish that we would work collaboratively, transparently and on a distinctions basis to develop the legislation and that the legislation would address revitalization, recovery, preservation, protection, maintenance and promotion of first nations, Inuit and Métis languages.

We operated on a couple of levels. There was a multilateral process, but there were also bilateral processes between each of the parties and the federal government.

The principles firmly established that the intended outcome would respect and implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the federal government's commitment to nation-to-nation, government-to-government or Inuit-Crown relationships.

The principle was also established that the legislation would recognize that indigenous languages are fundamental to indigenous self-determination and that such legislation would, among other things, further affirm and address the right of indigenous peoples to revitalize, use, develop and transmit their languages to future generations, including through the control of their educational systems and institutions. It also established that each of the parties would conduct their own engagements in relation to getting the instruction and the direction about input and contributions to the process.

With respect to engagement, last week the national chief shared with you the engagement report we produced as a result of the meetings we held across the country. The basic question we asked people was what their expectations were about what the legislation should say. We didn't predetermine or prejudge anything. It was wide open.

The people who participated in it worked in this area of language revitalization: the champions, the teachers and the academics but also the rights holders and elders who came to our sessions and told us what their expectations were. The contributions we got from these sessions were very consistent across the country, from British Columbia through to the Maritimes and with respect to first nations communities in the north.

The engagement report generally captures the voices we heard, and then we turned the engagement report into a set of 11 principles, which was the direction that was provided from the chiefs in assembly, reflecting what the engagement report said about what people had said in relation to what they wanted the legislation to say. That was our direction and now it's our measure: Does the legislation in fact cover these issues, these points and these expectations?

We did make sure that the people understood that not necessarily everything gets into the legislation in terms of what needs to happen in relation to federal support for language revitalization, that some might have to find its way into regulations; some of it might actually have to find its way through policy work or through funding work in terms of the expenditure authorizations that will be necessary to support this work; and that work is going to take place, has begun and will continue through to ensuring that the intentions that are expressed and set out in the legislation actually materialize.

I've been involved in other processes where, after the legislation was developed and processed in Parliament, the engagement between the indigenous party or parties and the federal government was discontinued. Thus, the work around implementation did not produce the kinds of changes and supports that people had in mind in designing the legislation. Therefore, we believe it's critical for that codevelopment work to continue. Where there might be questions or uncertainties in relation to what the legislation says in parts, we hope we're going to be able to clarify that with greater certainty in terms of the work on regulations or policy, or as I alluded to earlier, funding—the funding regime that needs to support implementation.

We had our fundamental set of principles that we got from our engagement process, and we forwarded that into the codevelopment process, which again produced a set of 12 principles, which then were intended to inform the development of the legislation itself. Then we went from consensus principles to the development of something called “the technical discussion paper”. The technical discussion paper took the form of a framework or outline of what this legislation now says. We worked together on formulating the broad framework and outline.

Obviously there was a memorandum to cabinet that we weren't involved in, and that's a challenge that we would have liked to have overcome but didn't. We were somewhat involved in some of the drafting work. We had access to the earlier drafts of the bill, by signing confidentiality agreements and by getting the executive to provide that access for us.

There were challenges, mostly with respect to the transparency area, because we did not see some products that resulted from the discussions, and yes, there are improvements to be made. We had desired a further elaboration of clause 6 in relation to section 35. That would have included further elaborating what the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has to say about these issues.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Craig Benjamin, from Amnesty International Canada.

[Craig Benjamin, Campaigner, Indigenous Rights, Amnesty International Canada]

Thank you.

I would like to acknowledge the Algonquin people, on whose lands we have the privilege of meeting, and I would also like to thank the members of the standing committee for this opportunity to appear before you.

As the chair said, my name is Craig Benjamin. I'm a member of the staff of Amnesty International Canada, where I coordinate the organization's program of work to promote the human rights of first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples in Canada.

Like a number of other individuals and organizations who will be appearing before the committee, Amnesty International is an active participant in the Coalition for the Human Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This is a network of indigenous and non-indigenous organizations and individuals that have been deeply involved with the development of international standards protecting the rights of indigenous peoples, including particularly the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

I would like to begin by highlighting three passages from the bill that I think are extremely important in the context of living up to Canada's existing commitments and obligations in respect of the human rights of indigenous peoples.

In clause 6, which Roger Jones referred to, Bill C-91 provides explicit recognition that:

the rights of Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include rights related to Indigenous languages.

In its preamble, the bill takes note of the fact that rights related to indigenous languages are also affirmed in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which the Government of Canada has committed to fully implement. The bill appropriately names among its purposes advancing the objectives of the UN declaration as it relates to indigenous languages.

In addition, the very first sentence of this bill is the statement:

recognition and implementation of rights related to Indigenous languages are at the core of reconciliation with Indigenous peoples

These various affirmations that the preservation and revitalization of indigenous languages is a matter of human rights protected in both domestic and international law are important and welcome. I hope that this understanding of the language rights of indigenous peoples will guide not only future implementation of the proposed legislation, but also how Parliament continues to engage with the question of Canada's wider responsibilities to support indigenous languages.

Unlike others speaking here today, I am not an expert on indigenous languages or language revitalization. However, work alongside indigenous partners in Canada has consistently highlighted the central importance of indigenous languages to the well-being of indigenous peoples and to the survival of their distinct cultures and traditions. It's often said that all rights are interdependent and indivisible. This is amply illustrated by the importance of indigenous language to all other rights that indigenous peoples seek to exercise and enjoy, including rights to identity, to livelihood and subsistence, and to education, health and self-determination.

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues has used the phrase “inseparable and mutually reinforcing” to describe the relationship between indigenous languages and indigenous peoples' traditional knowledge systems. Another UN body, the expert mechanism on indigenous peoples, has said that indigenous languages contain within them the tools by which indigenous governance, law and jurisdiction are defined and realized.

In this context, Amnesty International has been deeply concerned over Canada's persistent failure to provide adequate and sustained support to the urgent work of first nations, Inuit and Métis organizations to ensure their languages can be protected, revitalized and practised. In fact, colleagues with the francophone branch of Amnesty International in Canada have marked the International Year of Indigenous Languages by launching a major public campaign calling for increased and ongoing supports to indigenous language programming and services.

Certainly, Amnesty International is not alone among international human rights organizations in raising these concerns. The survival of indigenous languages in Canada has been a persistent theme of UN treaty bodies and special mechanisms when they have examined whether or not Canada is living up to its existing human rights obligations.

In 2016, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the independent expert committee that reviews state compliance with the requirements of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, called on Canada to “step up the efforts needed to promote the preservation and use of indigenous languages”, including ensuring the ability to use indigenous languages in schools.

In the report of his 2014 official mission to Canada, the then UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Dr. James Anaya, flagged the underfunding of indigenous language protection and revitalization as a critical part of what he characterized as a human rights crisis facing first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples.

As these examples make clear, not only do indigenous peoples have a clear right to protect, revitalize and practise their languages, there is also a corresponding obligation on the part of the federal, provincial and territorial governments to help establish the conditions in which this right can be fully realized and enjoyed.

Article 13 of the UN declaration affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. This same article calls on states to take effective measures to support this right.

Article 14 of the declaration similarly protects the rights of indigenous peoples to provide education in their own language, and goes on to say that states shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access when possible to education and their own culture and for it to be provided in their own language.

The UN declaration is a highly authoritative source of interpretation of state obligations, having been subject to decades of detailed deliberation and now having been repeatedly affirmed as a consensus global instrument. The declaration, however, is not alone in recognizing these obligations. The declaration was built on the foundations of human rights norms and standards that preceded it.

Critically, I want to highlight the fact that when identified groups are at heightened risk of human rights violations, states have even greater obligations to protect and promote their rights. Where the state itself is responsible for violation of those rights, there is a duty of redress. The standard redress in international law requires states to take every reasonable effort to undo the harm that they have inflicted or allowed to happen and to prevent continued harm in the future.

To live up to the duty of redress, programs and policies adopted by the Government of Canada must be in proportion to the grave harms that were done to indigenous language speakers and to the capacity of indigenous peoples to live in their own languages. Therefore, they must be sufficient to address the real and diverse needs of indigenous peoples across Canada.

The legislation before this committee will not be the entire solution, but it's our hope that its passage will establish a clear intention and a clear direction for the federal government to live up to its human rights obligations when it comes to that crucial stage, as Roger Jones said, of implementation.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Aluki Kotierk and Kilikvac Kabloona of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

[Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation:]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the committee for inviting me to speak today about Bill C-91.

First, I would like to applaud the committee for recognizing that indigenous languages must be written into Canadian law. This is essential if Canada is to grow back into its Arctic identity.

lnuktut is one of the healthier indigenous languages in Canada, reportedly spoken by 84% of residents in Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland in Canada. This makes Inuit Nunangat the largest indigenous language area in Canada.

ln Nunavut, the Nunavut Act gives the Nunavut legislature the power to make laws in relation to lnuktut. As a result, Inuktut is an official language at the territorial level. We have a territorial Inuit Language Protection Act and a languages commissioner. Our 1993 treaty, the Nunavut agreement, also contains some limited lnuktut language provisions.

Most importantly and optimistically, Nunavut is the only province or territory in which an indigenous language is spoken by a majority of the public as their mother tongue.

I come from Igloolik. The Hall Beach DEW line site is a distance just longer than a marathon away. The DEW line, an American military installation built across 10,000 kilometres of the Arctic in two years, served as a strategic military position to warn the U.S. of airborne danger from the then USSR. It was built in the days of no runways or hotels. There are still no ports.

Today, the threats are different. Globalization limits innovation and creativity. I am here today, born and raised 70 kilometres from the Hall Beach DEW line site, to give you an early warning from the distance. Despite the existing protections, lnuktut is a language at risk. Every year, the number of Inuit language speakers in Nunavut declines by 1%. It is a devastating reality that Inuit cannot access essential programs and services in our own language. Language barriers between Inuit patients and health professionals are a life and death matter long recognized by Inuit, and now in at least one coroner's report.

The 97% Inuit student body in Nunavut is taught by over 75% non-Inuktut speaking teachers—a virtual death sentence for the language. The people of Inuit Nunangat urgently need a federal language act. The government's initiative in this respect is welcome, and Bill C-91 contains recognition and objectives that NTI supports. ln particular, NTI has long sought the positive interpretive principle contained in clause 3, and is pleased with the recognition of section 35 language rights. Unfortunately, these provisions are not enough to save and sustain lnuktut. The Inuit have offered the government a number of concrete and, we believe, reasonable proposals.

That brings me to NTI's disappointment with the bill, both in terms of process and content. You heard much of this from Natan Obed, President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, and it bears repeating. Since 2017, Inuit sought to be constructive partners throughout the legislative process, sharing position papers, drafting a comprehensive lnuktut bill and showing a willingness to compromise on legislative content.

On the content of the bill, there are a number of central weaknesses, including that the bill does not contain any funding commitments. Rather, references to funding are included in purposes, consultation and future agreement provisions. Unlike Nunavut's Official Languages Act, Bill C-91 contains no actual rights or duties respecting the delivery of federal services in lnuktut. The bill does not ensure that essential services and programs required for a healthy Inuit population and a prosperous northern economy, such as education, health and the administration of justice, will be available in lnuktut where numbers warrant it.

ln short, with the greatest respect for the intentions behind it, Bill C-91 is largely a symbolic effort. Symbols are important, but they fall far short of what is needed, and short of what is called for in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's final report. Our preference is for a stand-alone federal lnuktut act in recognition of lnuktut's unique status as the majority language of the territory.

As it stands, C-91 would be considerably improved by the following amendments: recognition of lnuktut as an original language of Canada and the first language of the majority of Inuit Nunangat residents; a commitment to the delivery of critical federal programs and services in Inuktut in Inuit Nunangat—to the extent that demand requires, capacity allows and numbers warrant; close collaboration with Inuit bodies in meeting the Government of Canada's commitments under the act; and a commitment to funding that will ensure services comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians.

I invite you to see that Bill C-91 couId be so much more. On the basis of Inuit language rights, reconciliation and our nation's ability to remain innovative, Canada must invest in the future of lnuktut. This is achievable.

Thank you. I am happy to take questions.

[Cathy McLeod, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, CPC]

Sorry, we were having interpretation issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We're now going to begin our question and answer period.

We'll start with Mr. Breton.

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

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Wasn't Ms. Kabloona going to give a presentation?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

She's part of the same organization.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I apologize. I thought that she had been added at the end.

I want to thank our guests for joining us today.

I'll start with you, Mr. Jones. At the start of your presentation, you spoke briefly about the co-development process. I want you to elaborate on it. Have you been included in the process? What do you think of the process, which I believe is quite important and quite unique?

[Roger Jones]

We worked in a codevelopment context that perhaps benefited from some earlier work that has taken place between governments. Whether those were elected as Liberal governments or Conservative governments, there have been instances of some joint work and variations on that.

In my view, because I have been involved in other initiatives, this effort was probably my best experience in terms of working in a joint process, but I can only speak for myself and my experience with it. We went from a commitment that was expressed by the Prime Minister in December 2016 about working at developing an indigenous languages act on a codevelopment basis that wasn't prejudged or predetermined.

As I said at the outset, the working relationship did evolve over the course of the past 18 months. For us, the measure of whether this working relationship over the past 18 months did produce what people desired by way of legislative content went a long way towards being able to meet people's expectations. There are challenges, and I'm sure if it were left up to us to draft the bill for you to consider, it probably would look a bit different from this. However, I'm sure there are many elements of this bill that we would also find favour with in terms of exactly how it's laid out, and the contents and the substance of it.

For the most part, since we didn't have a specific road map going into what “codevelopment” meant, we figured it out as we went along and this is where it has brought us.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Benjamin, you mentioned some aspects of the bill that could be amended or improved. We don't think that the bill is perfect. Nothing is perfect in this world. In general, do you support the bill? Do you have a positive view of the bill? I couldn't quite grasp whether you or your organization support the bill.

[Craig Benjamin]

We certainly do see it positively at a high level. We do not have the expertise of other organizations, and I'm not in a position to speak for indigenous peoples themselves, obviously, so there's a level of detail around the bill where we would rely on the judgment of others.

The essential framework, as we heard from the president, the recognition in law of a legislative framework for the protection and the promotion of indigenous languages, the recognition that this is a matter of human rights, we see at a high level to be a very positive development.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Ms. Kotierk, can you tell us more specifically what type of support is needed, whether or not it concerns the bill, to ensure the protection and promotion of your language?

[Aluki Kotierk]

Qujannamiik.

I neglected to ask whether or not you had a copy of the text amendments we provided.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

All the members—

[Aluki Kotierk]

I believe we provided it in both English and French, recognizing those are the official languages of this nation. You'll see we're suggesting that some text be included in Bill C-91, and we've numbered them X1 to X4. In addition, we're suggesting an annex related to Inuit languages specifically, so we provided that in written form.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Okay.

[Aluki Kotierk]

If I may, I can say generally what we're looking for is that there be recognition of Inuit languages as the original language of Inuit Nunangat, that we're expecting to be able to receive essential services in Inuit languages, and we're expecting this would require adequate and equitable funding to be able to provide for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Your time is up, Mr. Breton.

[Pierre Breton, Liberal, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Now we're going to Mr. Shields for seven minutes, please.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Jones, you've been with the process as you described it, so I have an idea you're fairly familiar with the bill. We've heard in proposed subclause 24(3) some concerns about Statistics Canada and Library and Archives Canada. Do you have an opinion on what you may have heard from others on that particular piece of the legislation?

[Roger Jones]

In the course of our engagements, people expressed concern about this kind of activity and measure being lodged outside their own communities. I believe it stems from the fact that people believe the languages are theirs, and if there's going to be recording, archiving and preservation it should be done by them. There is provision for that with respect to the purposes of the act, which says part of it relates to being able to support the efforts of indigenous peoples to create technological tools, educational materials and permanent records of indigenous languages, including audio and video recordings of fluent speakers, and so on.

The desire is for indigenous peoples to be able to do this themselves. There is capacity out there for people to do this themselves, so rather than place it in the hands of external bodies, like Library and Archives Canada, why not ensure that these measures are in the hands of the indigenous peoples themselves who own these languages?