Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I call the meeting to order.

This is the 147th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We're continuing our study today of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today as witnesses Ellen Gabriel, cultural consultant, Kontinónhstats Mohawk Language Custodian Association. We also have Amos Key Jr., director of the first nations language program at the Woodland Cultural Centre, and from the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, we have Claudette Commanda, executive director.

If I may take just one quick bit of business before we get started, I spoke to all parties about the day for our clause-by-clause consideration of this bill. I was wondering if someone could bring a motion so that we could formalize that.

Thank you, Mr. Long.

[Wayne Long, Saint John—Rothesay, Lib.]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I'd like to move that this committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91 on Monday, March 18.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

All right. I believe we can go straight to a vote.

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

Is there a time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We hadn't set a time on that, but I believe that we were going to be aiming for the afternoon slot of 3:30 p.m., which was what the parties had agreed to.

I don't know, Mr. Long, if you would like to put that into your motion.

[Wayne Long]

I'll read it again.

Madam Chair, I would like to move that this committee commence clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-91 on Monday, March 18 at 3:30 p.m.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will now begin with our witnesses. I want to thank you for your patience while we had our votes.

Why don't we jump in right away with Ms. Gabriel? Ms. Gabriel, you may begin your presentation.

[Ellen Gabriel, Cultural Consultant, Kontinónhstats Mohawk Language Custodian Association, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

Greetings, and thank you.

My name is Katsi'tsakwas. I am Turtle Clan and I am from Kanesatake.

It took over 100 years to get us to this point. It is going to take at least 100 years to bring back our languages to life. These are the words of Hilda Nicholas, director of the Language and Cultural Centre.

[English]

After the Indian residential school apology, an elder said that it took us over 100 years to get us to this point. It may take another 100 to get our languages back to our lives the way it should be.

During my presentation, I want to use intermittently “onkwehón:we” for the term “indigenous people”, because for us it best describes the people of Turtle Island.

I want to say that we are very happy to be able to have this opportunity to discuss Bill C-91 with you.

I want to state for the record that each onkwehón:we language is distinct and that a first nations language does not exist. There is a wide diversity of indigenous languages and peoples across Canada, and therefore each language should be treated as distinct and unique among the world's languages.

In order to find solutions, we need to contextualize realities we face under ongoing colonization and assimilation. Therefore, Bill C-91 must be amended and the vague statements must be revised to strengthen its intent of protecting and respecting onkwehón:we languages. It must remind Canada of its international human rights obligations and uphold the highest standards of human rights.

I want to describe the preciousness of our language. It is the very essence of onkwehón:we peoples, and it is deeper than a form of expression or communication. It contains our cosmology, our constitution, our value system and our history, and traditional knowledge systems are woven into our languages. Our ceremonies follow the natural rhythms of the natural life cycles found in our ancestral languages.

I am part of the Kanien'kehá:ka—People of the Flint—and the language I speak is Kanien'kéha. It is a language that is composed of 80% verbs, is action-oriented and is descriptive. It is a complex language that not only links us to our ancestral teachings but also strengthens our relationships with the environment and natural cycles.

For far too long, the importance of onkwehón:we languages has languished in the dark, as important problems like social problems rooted in colonization remain the priority of the day. Language is a key in the healing of our nations from the genocidal acts of colonization.

As such, since Bill C-91 mentions “reconciliation”, then acts of reparation and restitution must occur. Our languages are intricately and closely tied to the land, our relationship to Mother Earth, and all our relations.

As we all know, one of the tools used to destroy indigenous languages and cultures was lontiontáhkhwa lonteriwaienstakhwa, the Indian residential school system, whose scope, purpose and depravity are well documented in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Revitalization, maintenance and perpetuation of onkwehón:we languages are best done by onkwehón:we people themselves. We feel the urgency of the state of onkwehón:we languages more profoundly in our community.

We can no longer waste any time tolerating the imposition of colonial languages and the ongoing assimilation policies and programs. With each passing year we lose elders who have carried traditional knowledge—the first language speakers. We cannot afford to waste any more time from political posturing either.

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues expressed in an expert language meeting on January 19 in 2016 an important message regarding the growing “crisis” and the loss of indigenous languages as being “urgent”, and while statistics help government create policies and programs, they cannot convey the level of urgency felt in communities that are resisting assimilation. They cannot paint a portrait of the grief of our elders as they witness the slow obliteration of our ancestral languages through colonial assimilation.

We need to strengthen some of the wording in the preamble. I'll go directly to some of the words.

In general, instead of just “recognition”, there should be “respect and affirmation of our human rights”.

In paragraph 5, it ignores the Indian reserve system, the ongoing land dispossession from institutionalized racism, a structure that is more akin to an authoritarian state than a democratic society. The colonial agenda and doctrines of superiority have been used as foundations of oppression to justify genocidal acts in lontiontáhkhwa lonteriwaienstakhwa, or the Indian residential school system.

In the 18th paragraph, the preamble should be more in line with article 22 of the UN declaration, which says, "Particular attention...shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth...children and persons with disabilities”.

The bill must take into account the multi-generational impacts of the Indian residential school system and the genocidal laws and policies. Hence, it should be a trauma-informed lens to get back our languages.

I'm not sure how I'm doing for time, but I'm going to go directly to the impacts of Canada's Official Languages Act and Bill 101.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You have about three minutes.

[Ellen Gabriel]

Okay. Thank you very much.

Bill 101 and the Official Languages Act have affected us in the schools and have marginalized our indigenous, ancestral languages in our communities. The bill has to take into account the various levels of racism, societal indifference, racist attitudes and institutionalized racism from colonial laws, policies and programs that contribute to the opposite of enjoying our rights or participating in Canadian society.

Linguistic rights scholar Tove Skutnabb-Kangas coined the term “subtractive language education” in which she explains how it “subtracts from the child's linguistic repertoire, instead of adding to it”.

UNESCO has estimated that more than half of the world's 6,000 to 7,000 languages that are spoken today will become extinct by 2100. A great majority of these languages under threat are indigenous languages. Statistics can only describe the loss abstractly; the real loss is felt by indigenous peoples themselves.

I'm going to skip to funding now, for the sake of the translators.

We can no longer tolerate project funding. Imagine if your languages were at the sense of urgency that we feel today and that you had to do exhaustive reporting measures and write project proposals for your language when you have very limited human resources.

We have to provide for activities, but not for human resources. That's project funding. We have to provide for classes, but not for curriculum and development. That's project funding. While project funding has changed and while we do appreciate it, nevertheless the urgency consists of the challenges of continuity in indigenous languages revitalization remaining in project funding.

We emphasize the necessity for core, long-term, sustainable funding for experienced—I emphasize experienced—indigenous organizations that have led the way in indigenous languages preservation and revitalization, etc. Core funding must be provided for all levels of immersion classes.

I have a written presentation. I want to emphasize that onkwehón:we peoples have preserved their languages up to this point pretty much on their own. While the Constitution Act of 1982 is mentioned quite often, it has never been implemented. No province, nor even the federal government, has respected our inherent rights, and it's time to change that. If there's reconciliation, then reparation and restitution have to happen.

Our rights are consistently violated; they are not protected and they're not respected. Therefore, it is the duty of Canada and its provinces and territories to respect and not interfere any longer in our enjoyment of our rights. As the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights explains, all human rights are universal, interrelated, indivisible and interdependent, and the denial of one right affects the enjoyment of another.

Do I have any more time left?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I can give you another minute if you'd like.

[Ellen Gabriel]

Okay.

I'll just go through some of the recommendations.

We recommend core funding, of course, for all levels of immersion, and to eliminate silo funding models. Adult immersion must be funded as a stipend, similar to that of post-secondary students, so we can get every level of our community speaking.

In 1996 RCAP, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, mentioned a $100-million endowment fund to create a language foundation. A national entity already exists in Canada, which is the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres. We recommend that this be the entity to provide funds to indigenous communities, although this would require an infusion of both human and financial resources.

I'll end it at that.

Thank you very much for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Amos Key, Jr., please.

[Amos Key Jr., Director of First Nations Language Program, Woodland Cultural Centre, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

I just wanted to thank the Creator in my language as well, who brought us here today to talk about our intellect and our languages. I want to thank the Creator for that.

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

My real name is Taehowehs. My English name is Amos Key Jr. My clan is Turtle. I am from the Mohawk Nation, but my parents were polyglots and they raised us in the Cayuga language. They were multilingual onkwehón:we speakers.

[Witness spoke in Cayuga]

[English]

I am also a faithkeeper of the longhouse in my community among the Haudenosaunee.

That's where I come from. That's my place in this world. I wanted to start my presentation in giving salutations to the Creator and to us.

I am pleased that I was invited to come and speak to you today. I know that I am on a time limit, so I'm going to go ahead. I have 14 points to ponder, as I call them. I'll go to those that I can get into my eight minutes or so.

I want to say that for the bill as it stands, because I'm a teacher, an educator, I give it a C+ at this point. As an educator, I give it a C+. I wanted to share that with you right now so that I can talk about my points to ponder.

My number one point to ponder is decolonizing the preamble. You might want to ask me a question about that later. We need to do that.

My second one is to decolonize the civil service and justice.

My third point is on the “Whereas” section of the bill on page 2. We might want to talk about that. It leaves out the impacts of our colonization, and our conversion to Christianity and the church are not acknowledged in the preamble, but we acknowledge other things. I think we need to talk about that as well: the impact of conversion among indigenous people in this country.

My point to ponder number 4 is that there is no detail that I could see significantly in the material about supporting the development of community language archives.

My number 5 point to ponder is that there is no mention of e-learning for indigenous languages.

Number 6 is indigenous language literacy and literary arts. There's no mention of it or supporting it.

Point to ponder number 7, on which I want to speak more in depth, is on the office of indigenous language commissioners.

Number 8 is on the parliamentary office of language commissioners, from our position paper that we submitted last July.

The number 9 point to ponder is implementing a framework that supports Bill C-91, which again is from our position paper on the office of commissioners.

Point number 10 is on the immersion education funding anomaly that exists right now for immersion education.

In number 11, I want to look at funding to support the intent and implementation of Bill C-91.

Number 13 is about supports to urban friendship centres in their delivery of language instruction or initiatives.

Number 14, of course, with my colleague, is about the support for the cultural education centres of Canada.

Those are my points to ponder that I have in my remarks. You'll be getting a translation of those.

I wanted to go back to a point. Once the bill is established and approved at some level, hopefully before this session of government is over.... We submitted a position paper called “Tseh ni: dwai: ho' de: Our Civilization's Sacred Thoughts”. The tradition in Canada is for language commissioners to be officers or agents of Parliament, so we propose that there be parliamentary offices of the indigenous language commissioners, similar to the parliamentary office of official languages supporting the Official Languages Act, especially for French language minorities outside of Quebec. This would also give Bill C-91, an act respecting Indigenous languages, a needed profile and teeth.

Why reinvent the wheel when a model already exists? It already exists in Parliament. That is a serious point to ponder.

In number 9, on implementing a framework that supports Bill C-91, again from our position paper, we recommend the office of the Inuit language commissioner, the office of the Métis language commissioner and the office of the first nations languages commissioner should be in place in order to carry out their various roles and responsibilities, each having the structure and framework that I will now describe.

To begin, there should be a central national parliamentary office of languages commissioners in Parliament.

Next is having 13 regional offices in the provinces and territories, national civilization-specific offices, with titles of regional commissioners or regional directors: one for the Métis, one for the Inuit and one for the first nations. These offices would work in co-operation with the local language commissions to ensure that they have adequate funding and provide suggestions and oversight for the reports and audits of the community language commissions on first nations communities.

The third aspect is to re-establish local commission offices on first nations communities. They will liaise with the provincial ones and other institutions such as indigenous cultural centres, friendship centres, the provinces, the Canadian military, the RCMP, the Senate and the House of Commons, where specific liaison arrangements may be required within the provinces and territories. These local language commissions would be responsible for community language planning and for developing annual and multi-year strategies and annual budget estimates to implement annual and multi-year strategic plans. In sum, it would be a three-tiered process or infrastructure that will support our languages from the grassroots up to the parliamentary offices in Ottawa here.

That's what we have suggested.

The Commissioner of Official Languages is an officer of Parliament, as you know, and is at arm's length from the government of the day, with a full set of responsibilities to report on the implementation of specific rights. The office has regional offices across Canada and operates with a staff of some 200 federal civil servants working to ensure that the linguistic vitality of French and English in minority settings is maintained and that the two official languages are not in danger. There's already a model here that we should mirror.

I have time, so I'm going to talk about the anomaly of immersion education funding.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You have about a minute.

[Amos Key Jr.]

I have a minute.

I've had the privilege of organizing an immersion K-12 education system at Six Nations. Our graduates get an OSSD, an Ontario Secondary School Diploma. It's been going for some 30-plus years. It still functions at the back of a lacrosse arena.

It's a funding anomaly, we're told by civil servants, because they're proactive in English education within the Department of Indian Affairs. That's what they told us. With his grin, the civil servant said, “We are doing you a favour.” This was in the eighties. How uncivilized we were then. “We are doing you a favour.” I remember that day.

I'll stop there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Claudette Commanda of the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres, please.

[Claudette Commanda, Executive Director, First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

I've been with the confederacy since 2000. Established in 1972, the First Nations Confederacy of Cultural Education Centres is a non-profit, first nations-controlled national organization. We have a membership of 50 cultural centres across Canada. We represent 400 first nations communities, and we represent the language and cultural diversity among first nations. Our mandate is protection, promotion, revitalization and maintenance of first nation languages, cultures and traditions.

Our organization supports the indigenous languages legislation; however, we have concerns with Bill C-91. FNCCEC were not co-developers in the drafting of the language legislation, but we contributed by way of a national engagement session. Our organization collectively put forward key recommendations as necessary elements of the language legislation.

The legislation must be indigenous, distinction-based and implemented according to first nations protocols, perspectives and practices. Funding must not be by proposal or project-driven; funding must be legally protected on a permanent basis. First nations communities must have ownership, control, access and possession of the implementation of the legislation, its regulations and its language funding. FNCCEC must be given full participation in the implementation of the legislation and have a vital role in the language commission.

It becomes apparent that Bill C-91 bears little resemblance to the recommendations that we put forward.

The concerns with Bill C-91 are what is and what is not contained in the bill. The bill does not contain a provision that recognizes first nation languages as the first or original languages, but addresses languages as a pan-indigenous approach.

There is no provision outlining the amount of funding to be invested into languages. There is no provision that states that the Government of Canada commits to protect and safeguard indigenous languages. There is no provision stating firm commitment to adequate, sustainable, long-term funding. In essence, the bill does not contain a provision to compel the government to permanently fund indigenous languages.

We have concerns with what is in the bill. Let's begin with the preamble.

There are 18 paragraphs in the preamble that speak about the importance of indigenous languages and indigenous peoples. The preamble is the best part of the bill, but we know that it doesn't have the same authority as the substantive parts of the bill. Actually, there's only one section that speaks about the commitment to funding.

Then there are the must-haves. Five of these paragraphs in the preamble need to be removed and placed in the purposes of the act. These paragraphs are numbers 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14, and I begin by emphasizing the most important paragraph, number 14, which says:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to providing adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages;

This text must be the opening of clause 5. Paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 also need to be in clause 5.

Paragraph 5(d) states:

Establish measures to facilitate the provision of...funding.

However, the problem with this section is that establishing measures is not a commitment to funding, and it is unclear who will be eligible for funding and how will it be divided and distributed among the first nations, the Inuit and the Métis.

The bill contains vague wording and uncertainties. For example, in the definitions in clause 2, there are two words, “other entity,” and it goes on to say, “that is authorized.” What is the definition of “other entity”? Who determines what is and who is “other entity?” Does this open the door for anyone to self-identify as an entity? What does “authorized” mean? Who determines “authorized?”

Another example is the word “diverse” in reference to indigenous governments, used in clauses 7, 13, 15 and 16. What is meant by “diverse?” It is unclear who these diverse indigenous organizations or governments are. Here again, the question is whether this is open for self-identifiers posing as indigenous organizations or governments.

The bill makes reference to “minister must” or “may” consult. Consultation is not consent. It may simply mean a discussion, and then government does what it wants. Clauses should be amended to require the consent of first nations for the long-term funding for their languages and the appointments of a commissioner and directors.

The bill also contains inconsistencies, such as clause 25, “Support offered by Office”. It does not include indigenous organizations, yet previous clauses do, such as clauses 5, 7, 8, 13, 15 and 23. Clause 26 now includes indigenous organizations. Why does clause 25 not include indigenous organizations?

The bill should be distinction-based, but it lumps all indigenous peoples together, without distinction. First nations have over 633 communities, with over 60 languages and dialects. First nations have a nation-to-nation agreement with the Crown dating to Confederation, and even before that.

Paragraph 5(c) speaks of establishing a framework to facilitate the effective exercise of rights relating to languages. However, first nations have the right of self-determination and self-governance. Therefore, neither the federal government nor any other body can impose a framework on how first nations can exercise their language rights. It lies with first nations to determine our own language laws and the exercise of rights.

In addition to the FNCCEC's engagement recommendations, we further recommend no duplication of existing structures and that no new bureaucracy be established. It is vital that language legislation support the enhancement of existing organizations and structures and that these existing organizations can access adequate funding. It is critical that funding must not go to political organizations. The funding must flow directly to the communities.

The terminology of the bill must be strengthened to give it legal teeth. There should be indigenous distinct commissioners: first nation, Inuit and Métis. The mandate and the priorities of the office of the commission should come from first nations, not through federal legislation.

Further amendments are required, including an amendment that clearly identifies funding amounts, affirms and guarantees funding, and protects permanent, sustainable funding; an amendment that addresses the disbursement and the distribution of funding to first nations, Inuit and Métis, and the mechanisms on how to flow the funding to communities; an amendment that clearly acknowledges the rights of first nations to pass their own language laws through their own inherent authority; an amendment to include treaties, whereby the honouring and protection of treaties will be in the purposes of the act; an amendment that guarantees the funding is not proposal-driven but is core programming for first nations communities and well-established first nations language and cultural organizations.

In closing, cultural centre expertise is integral to language protection, language development, cultural health and in building strong cultural identities for our children and our youth. The enrichment of community health and self-esteem for first nations youth depends on the transmission of knowledge from elders to youth. This is the paramount reason that the survival of languages and culture is critical.

As stated by an Ojibwa elder, the late Elmer Courchene, “If we do not revitalize our languages, we lose the spirit of the people. We want to save our languages for the future survival of our next generations.” This is why our organization and our work remain steadfast.

Meegwetch. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you to all three of you.

We will now go to our question-and-answer period.

We'll start with Mr. Miller.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

[Member spoke in Mohawk].

[English]

I want to acknowledge our presence on traditional Algonquin territories.

Thanks for coming.

I want to focus on one specific issue that I want to take up with people working in grassroots organizations.

Katsi'tsakwas, I know your work: I know you fought tooth and nail in Kanesatake to revitalize the language. I want to focus on the funding repercussions and the issues surrounding the scope of the ILA funding, the criticisms you have with it, and the necessity for persistent, consistent and wide-scope funding, and then focus on some of the challenges that students, particularly in the immersion stream, have with getting from non-fluency to a stage of fluency that allows them to start perpetuating or at least self-learning. Can you touch on those specific aspects as they touch on the financing and the flaws with the current ILA funding?

[Ellen Gabriel]

I'll try.

The problems and the challenges we've been having concern project funding. At the end of March, my project will be over. We have teachers who are 65 and older who are teaching. They're the first language speakers in my community. It's a small community that speaks the oldest dialect of Kanien'-kéha. You cannot have continuity in your language programs if you have project proposals with exhaustive reporting, both financial and activity reports.

The other thing I wanted to address is the challenges among our own people, who feel that French and English are much better for youth to have, because that way they'll have a job. It's been marginalized even further, therefore, by our own people. That mentality has to change. We have over 400 words in Kanien'-kéha that talk about and describe the state of the mind. When we talk about a trauma-informed lens, we are seeing where we've come from and why we're the way we are today.

The challenge is not just funding, although that is a major one; in order to have a language program you need human resources. You need your human resources to be paid, so that they can pay their bills and buy their food at the grocery store, because we don't live like our ancestors. We need to be able to provide children with the language mentorship and apprenticeship programs that they need. It's really difficult if you don't have the money for it.

One recommendation I didn't mention was that we want a guarantee that the provinces and territories will not use the notwithstanding clause, if this bill passes and there are amendments, as we've all said today, and that they will not try to shirk their obligations to help us protect our languages.

The challenges we have are enormous in a very small community, but I think the heart and the passion of the people who have been revitalizing the language and trying to maintain it are so great that we're at the point—a critical juncture, I would say—that it's going to be second language speakers who will be teaching the children and youth, when we really need them to be first language speakers, as you know.

We need the experts. If we were talking about economics, you would have economic experts. We're talking about languages, and the first language speakers and the experts on language are not the ones leading the way. They should be leading the way throughout this whole bill. It should be the ones with the expertise. Whether it's the language commissioner, the program, the establishment of a framework or of measures to facilitate the provision of adequate sustainable funding, those should go to the people on the ground, but they're not going to them.

As for political will, our programs have been contingent upon whether or not the government feels that it's a priority or even whether the band council feels that it's a priority. In our community we don't have that kind of support, so we are struggling constantly. That's why we have been saying that we don't want any political bodies to have anything to do with it. It needs to be the experienced first language speakers and teachers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You have two minutes.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Amos, Cayuga is a language that is in a much more threatened state, even compared with Kanien'kéha. How would the question I posed to Ellen apply to Cayuga, particularly in its current state of vitality? What do you think the additional measures would be to even begin to close a gap, if that's even the proper comparison?

[Amos Key Jr.]

For our community, Oshweken Six Nations, as I said, we have an immersion school called Gaweni:yo. If you want to say it's faith-based, it's faith-based, but it incorporates all the sensibilities of a civilization.

I try to debunk the term “culture” even in my university courses, and I manage to do it. That's why I say we need to decolonize the preamble and get rid of the term “culture”.

Hockey is a culture. Figure skating is a culture. When we identify first peoples, they say that's their culture. We need to understand the essence of civilizations here. That's what we do within Gaweni:yo.

Now when I hear my young people speaking—after 30 years—they're bilingual. They have the essence of the language and they sound like seasoned speakers. It took one generation to do that, after the civil servants saying, “We're going to do you all a favour.”

I got to see that in my lifetime. Those people are leading our ceremonies. Some of them are educators. Most of them are self-employed, employed or in post-secondary education.

The last time I did a report on our school, just 2% were on social assistance. These are graduates of an immersion bilingual school system. That's what you want for your society. I don't know what the push and tug is about when we know what we need for our communities. That's the relevance of that for our community.

However, we need more funding. We need a school. We need a plant, a safe and healthy plant for our students, not something in the back of an arena.

In the meantime, we've built four brand new English-streamed schools in our community. The poor immersion cousin has to make do in an arena. That's what I'm saying here today. Can you imagine if we had a gymnasium for them? Who knows? Still we do our best.

With our Cayuga language, we have hundreds of speakers who are basically bilingual. That reflects the efforts of the community, of families, in making sure that they want this as part of their life, and looking at civilization in a healthy way, as onkwehón:we civilization rather than onkwehón:we culture. I debunk that term.

I'm glad, folks, that I can do a whole lecture at the university without using the term “indigenous culture”. My students get it. They understand what I'm saying when I talk about, in our province, the Mushkegowuk, Anishinaabe and onkwehón:we civilizations.

It conjures up another self-image: that we have intellect, intelligences, our own health and social determinants, all of our own ethics, our virtues. All of that is incorporated in our languages—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to cut you off there. I let you go a couple of minutes over. I need to make sure that we have time for other questions.

We'll be going to Mr. Shields, please.