Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 27th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

You don't actually have the time for that, although generally, I've tried to let everyone have a bit more time.

You have the ability to put in extra submissions in writing, and we will circulate them, if there is something else you wanted to say.

I want to thank you very much for your testimony today. It was very helpful.

We are going to suspend briefly so that we can move to the next panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We're going to start back up.

For the second hour, we have with us Bridget Fanta, who is an aboriginal language consultant; Paul Joffe, who is a lawyer; and Dorothy Anderson, the elected secretary for the Métis Settlements General Council.

We will go in the order in which you appear on the agenda, beginning with Bridget Fanta, please.

[Bridget Fanta, Aboriginal Language Consultant, As an Individual]

[Member spoke in Cree]

[English]

I thank everybody for this honour today of being here, being invited to Ottawa to speak on behalf of my nation, my culture and my Woodland Cree people, whom I represent, in northern Alberta and in Alberta.

I come from the community of Fort Vermilion, Alberta. I was born and raised there. My parents were fluent in my Cree language. My father was fluent in Cree and English, and part French.

I come from a Métis background; however, I consider myself a first nations person. I honour my culture and heritage as a first nations teacher, and now aboriginal language consultant.

I come to you today with great honour to be part of this indigenous languages act that's being presented by our government at this time.

I did have a short bit of time to go through it, but not in as much detail as I would have liked. However, there was one thing that jumped out at me when I was going through it. It was that there seems to be a land-based component that's not part of the bill at all.

Land-based learning is huge. It's a new concept that's very important. The students, the young people, learn hands-on our traditions of trapping and hunting and fishing and so on. Those are parts of who we are as aboriginal people, as indigenous people. Those are from the heart, and we need to honour that with our students and our people.

Also, in terms of our traditions, our languages are orally based. We didn't learn our languages through anything written. They all came from our minds, from our speaking, from our listening. As a child growing up, I remember sitting in front of the stove, listening to my father speak with his friend about his hunting stories. That was my own television, being able to understand my culture and understand his stories. I grew up in an era when, as a small child growing up in the north, I didn't have running water, power or any of those modern facilities. I had a rich upbringing, and I honour that. I'm able to attest to the fact and stress how important language is, how oral language is, in our world and in our country.

With this indigenous languages bill, I'll make a strong point about orality. Orality is where it's at. When we start to write the language with a standard Roman orthography, it is no longer unique. Anyone can decipher it.

Those are the teachings of our elders. This is not me speaking; these are my elders. I'm speaking through them. I've been honoured enough to listen to them. Kakeesimowin or praying, healing, teaching—those are important things that are really huge, and passing on the tradition orally is really critical, because when we start to write down our language, that is not inherently who we are: That is somebody's text.

We did not have text. My mother could not speak a word of English. However, to me she was a brilliant woman. She taught me a lot about life and how to survive and how to be resilient.

That's who we are as aboriginal people. We're resilient. We have a lot of resolve to carry on, to carry on forward, to carry on to bring our culture and our language forth for our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren and our great-great-grandchildren, who our ancestors have brought on for us, to bring us here today.

I honour our ancestors, our people, who have been through so much in our history in this country. We don't need to go into details about how we've been through the mill, and yet we're here. We're still here. We're still forging ahead. We're still going. We're still here fighting for our rights as individual indigenous people, as aboriginal people, as first nations people, to honour our language.

I think this is a great bill that is being proposed. I'm honoured to be a part of it. There are probably a lot of critical things that need to be addressed. There were some good points in the presentation prior to mine. I'm not that prepared in the sense that I don't have any logistics of how things can be proposed in a more positive way, other than the fact that it's important to honour our culture and our traditions and to make sure that “oral-based” is put into the bill. I did not see the oral tradition included as part of the bill.

Again I'd stress the land-based learning as well. I've been a teacher for five years. I taught Cree for 10 years; prior to my teaching degree, I was a language teacher. The minute you have children, students, young people doing hands-on work, going out to a trapline and helping an elder snare something as simple as a rabbit, that really brings so much more to life for them in terms of who they are as aboriginal people. That brings them some pride. It gives them the resilience to carry on, the hope and the pride. I think pride is really what's missing in a lot of our young people. A lot of things are going wrong with them, and they don't feel good about who they are.

Language is the crux to feeling good about who you are. I grew up in a society where I felt good about who I was, because as a child, I grew up in two languages, Cree and English, which is really critical. If we can bring those back to the drawing board for our young people in our country, with every language.... It's not just Cree; it's every indigenous language in our country. We're a vast country, a huge country, and we have many languages. We have many languages that are dying. We have many languages that are thriving, but if we don't keep going, they will start dying off more.

Every time we lose an elder, there goes a whole lot of culture. A whole lot of knowledge is gone. That has to keep going. The only way it can truly go forth is through orality, through listening, through observing, through speaking, because that is who we are. We are an oral-based people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Ms. Fanta, I just wanted to let you know you have gone a couple of minutes over your time already.

[Bridget Fanta]

I'm done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will go to Mr. Joffe now, please.

[Paul Joffe, Lawyer, As an Individual]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and honourable committee members. I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people. I would also like to thank you for inviting me to appear before this distinguished committee and for your support of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages. I welcome this initiative to reclaim, revitalize and safeguard indigenous peoples' language rights.

I just want to make clear that I'm not here to speak at a profound level in terms of indigenous cultures. That's not my point here. It's more to discuss some of the legal aspects. The rich dialogue that we all heard before this is not my level.

In my opening statement, I would like to divide my presentation into two distinct parts.

In part one, I will propose some amendments to Bill C-91 that would serve to make the legislation more consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In part two, I will briefly clarify the important relationship between Bill C-91 and Bill C-262, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. It is crucial that both bills be enacted as federal law, hopefully prior to the upcoming election.

Let's begin with some proposed amendments.

The ninth preambular paragraph describes “a history of discriminatory government policies and practices, in respect of, among other things, assimilation, forced relocation and residential schools were detrimental to Indigenous languages”. This preambular paragraph should be strengthened by adding that the assimilation was also forced.

We should also highlight the 1960s scoop, and not solely residential schools. Destruction of culture should also be added. This paragraph would then be consistent with article 8(1) of the UN declaration, which affirms, “the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture”.

The last preambular paragraph highlights “the need to take into account the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous elders, youth, children, persons with disabilities, women, men and gender-diverse persons and two-spirit persons”. This provision falls significantly short of article 22(1) of the UN declaration, which stipulates that “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs of indigenous elders, women, youth, children and persons with disabilities”.

Rather than simply “take into account the unique circumstances and needs”, it would be much more appropriate to include the phrase “Particular attention shall be paid to the rights and special needs” in the last preambular paragraph.

In addition, the term “men” does not belong in this essential paragraph focused on discrimination, nor is the term “men” included in article 22(1) of the UN Declaration.

Under the heading “Rights of Indigenous peoples”, it would be important to add, at the very least, a new provision after clause 3, namely that aboriginal language rights are reinforced by the treaties. This would reflect the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action number 14.

Clause 5 begins, “The purposes of this Act are to:”, and then paragraph 5(g) continues:

advance the achievement of the objectives of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages.

In my respectful view, it is not sufficient to simply advance the achievement of the objectives of the UN declaration. The urgency of maintaining, reclaiming, revitalizing, etc., is emphasized twice in the preamble of Bill C-91. Therefore, the purpose in paragraph 5(g) should be no less than to “achieve the objectives”—not “advance the achievement”—of the declaration, consistent with article 38 of the UN declaration.

Now, the preamble of Bill C-91 states that “Indigenous languages were the first languages spoken in the lands that are now in Canada”. Therefore, it is contradictory for the bill to claim in clause 6 that the Government of Canada “recognizes”, rather than “affirms”, that “section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 include[s] rights related to Indigenous languages.”

I'd like to turn quickly to part two of my presentation. The main point is that Bill C-91 and Bill C-262 are interrelated, and both bills must be adopted and implemented.

There's no doubt that indigenous peoples' language rights constitute human rights. For example, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, addresses human rights, including language rights. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international human rights instrument that also includes indigenous peoples' language rights.

At the World Conference on Human Rights in June 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action was adopted as a human rights instrument. This declaration affirms that:

All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner.... While...various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights....

According—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I'm just going to give you the heads-up that you've already gone over your time, so if you could try to wrap it up, that would be great.

[Paul Joffe]

Okay.

According to their own world views, indigenous peoples also embrace, interpret and express their rights in a holistic manner. All of their inherent, pre-existing rights are interrelated and interdependent.

I won't read the seventh preambular paragraph in the UN declaration, but there it makes clear that indigenous peoples' rights are inherent.

Just to finish here, I should mention that the same provision that is in the seventh preambular paragraph is entrenched in the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which was adopted by the Organization of American States in June 2016.

To date, the UN declaration has been reaffirmed by the UN General Assembly 10 times by consensus. Therefore, I respectfully urge every honourable member in both houses of Parliament to support the adoption of both Bill C-91 and Bill C-262.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

We will now go to Ms. Dorothy Anderson from the Metis Settlements General Council.

[Dorothy Anderson, Elected-Secretary, Metis Settlements General Council]

Thank you.

My name is Dorothy Anderson. As mentioned, I am the elected secretary for the Metis Settlements General Council.

Most people don't know that the Metis Settlements General Council is the government of the only legislated landholding Métis in Canada. We are governed by the Metis Settlements Act, enacted in 1990. We have a 44-member general council that is solely responsible for governing the Metis Settlements, in collaboration, in many ways, with the provincial ministry of indigenous relations, but the Metis Settlements General Council itself is the government for the Metis Settlements.

[Witness spoke in indigenous language]

[English]

I was born with my language, which I can't call Michif, because it's Cree-influenced. I can't call it Cree, because it's Michif-influenced. What I call it is the Metis Settlements language, and it really is a hybrid of the cultures in the regions.

That was my first language. I remember starting to learn English when I was about four years old. I specifically and clearly remember the day I was dropped off at a preschool. I think it was a preschool of sorts. I had two ladies looking over me and hovering over me, and they were saying something. I didn't know what that something was, and they didn't know what my response was. I was asking them what they were saying.

It was a 100% communication breakdown on day one. At probably four years old, I ended up walking out the back door of that school and going home, because it was not my language. It was something that I didn't know.

[Witness spoke in indigenous language]

[English]

I come from Gift Lake, one of the eight Metis Settlements in Alberta. Our little corner of the world is somewhere in the Lesser Slave Lake area, if you're familiar with it.

It was not that long ago that people in Gift Lake started learning English. The first language of everybody my age is the Metis Settlements language. Everybody up to about 25 years old, in the present day, speaks it or understands it to varying degrees.

I noticed in the news release issued by Heritage Canada that there are statistics about the Metis Settlements that are false. In our exclusively Métis communities, speaking our Metis Settlements languages, our stats are actually higher. About 50% of our 8,000 people speak or understand it to varying degrees, and about 25% of our people are fluent.

I do need to shore up the comment that was made by Bridget. I have always been really confounded by the notion of writing our language in English. It's a very baffling notion, and it has contributed to the destruction of the language, because we don't spell out our language; we have syllabics. I think they're really almost extinct. I think I counted about eight people who can read syllabics in our areas.

What has happened, and what I've noticed very clearly, very predominantly, is that when children learn the language in the classroom, they come home and say a word you actually don't understand; they're not saying it the way it's supposed to be orally said, because there is an error in the notion of spelling it out and sounding it out—pronunciation and so on. I could go on for days on that subject.

I wholeheartedly agree, then, that the act does not say enough about oral learning and does not say enough about the importance of interconnecting the way of life with the language.

The Metis Settlements General Council conducted the first community health assessment that has ever been done in these hundred-year-old communities. That was in 2016. What our community members told us loud and clear is that they recognize that our culture and our health are dependent on our knowledge of the language. They didn't say they are intertwined; they said that our way of life and our health are dependent on the ability of our people to speak their language, because it's in our DNA. Our language is a living thing; it has adapted.

I said earlier that it's not Michif and it's not Cree; it's the Metis Settlements indigenous language. I would be concerned about a broad national effort being more of an imposition on what we already know, because we have practised our language. Many of us are practitioners. Many of us knew that language first, before we learned anything else.

When I see a bill that speaks, in my opinion, to what looks like a looming bureaucracy, it doesn't make sense to me. The answers are in our communities. If our language is going to be revitalized; if we're going to enjoy a reconciliation and, dare I say, a repatriation of our language, it's going to happen on the ground. We know that, and our community members actually said that in the community health assessment.

I was really debating mentioning this here at this table, but the Metis Settlements almost weren't here today. We had not been part of everything that led up to this. A couple of years ago I heard there was going to be a languages act. I think that's pretty much it. I haven't heard about what I know now to have been consultations or engagement sessions—some high-level coordination—going on. The Metis Settlements did not speak to the issue, and they did not inform the bill.

I think that the parties would be remiss in proceeding without making it about the community. I think it needs to be a little bit less about bureaucracy and a little more about people. It needs to be a little bit more about the resources that we need on the ground to rescue our language.

In the Metis Settlements, as I said, about 50% of the people know the language to some extent. What's tragic at the moment is that we are losing the language. We're watching our language dissipate. It's happening in real time. It's not something that happened a long time ago that shows a statistic of 2% knowledge today. It's something that's rapidly happening right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I'm only nodding at you because I've also let you go over your time. Perhaps you can try to wrap it up.

[Dorothy Anderson]

Okay, sorry.

Can I just say that I have to apologize? If we go beyond 5:30, I actually have to take off, because I'm on a flight to head back home.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Okay. Yes, you can absolutely say that. We'll try to keep it moving along.

I'm just looking at my watch, and it is 5:22.

Go ahead, Ms. McLeod.

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

Madam Chair, I propose that we do three five-minute rounds over 15 minutes. That would just take us a few minutes over, if that would work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

That is fine with me if I have the consent of people around the table, and with the understanding that Ms. Anderson may have to leave. I apologize for that. I'll try to keep it rolling.

Why don't I jump right into it? We'll go to Mr. Hogg for five minutes, and I'll be strict.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

I'm sharing two and a half of my five minutes with Mr. Miller. We'll move as quickly as we can.

Thank you very much to all of the people providing testimony today. It has brought new concepts and new ways of understanding and feeling to the submissions and testimony we've had up till this day. I think that as Mr. Shields and Mr. Nantel reflected, there's a much more visceral, connected-to-the-ground reality to what you're providing us, with the answers in the communities and the challenges we have. I think Ms. Gabriel said there are 400 words to describe “state of mind”. I think I've gone through 350 of them while listening to the testimony today and the conflicts I'm seeing.

Most of the testimony so far has been fairly consistent. There's a sense of urgency from everyone that we have to get something done. There's a concern that if we don't get it passed quickly, then it may be lost for a while, so there's that sense of urgency.

I want to go quickly. Focusing on the legislation that's here, recognizing that there are a lot of problems with it, as you have expressed, do you feel that if in the introductory part of it, the preamble, the values you stated were reflected and we could pass legislation around those values, then we could reflect the actual operationalization through orders in council and through referring things to the commissioner?

I think there have been clear statements that the commissioner, if we follow this model, would be indigenous, with directors around that. Is that a way of getting through this? Is that a way of us being able to deal with a myriad of issues and conflicts that we're hearing from so many groups?

Okay, I brought on a really good silence with that.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Paul, with respect to your submissions around UNDRIP, Grand Chief Ed John, our representative at the United Nations, has clarified some of those issues and has proposed some changes that I think address the issues that you brought forward. My question is whether there is something we can salvage out of this.

I'll go to Dorothy and then I'll turn it over to Marc quickly.

[Dorothy Anderson]

I couldn't tell you if there's a fix that would be that easy. I think, very importantly, I would emphasize that the Metis Settlements General Council was recently recognized by the Crown. They always have been, since 1938, in the Metis Population Betterment Act of Alberta and, in 1990, in the Metis Settlements Accord of Alberta, but more recently we also signed a bilateral MOU and a bilateral framework with the Crown. I would implore that there be some very decisive and clear wording about organizations and communities that are not otherwise represented by the national bodies that took the helm here in the drafting of this case.

[Gordie Hogg, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you.

Marc, I'll turn it over to you.

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

Okay. I'd like to note that Gordie is colour-blind, which explains the pink jacket. Actually, it is an initiative to underline efforts against bullying. There is a reason for the colour.

What's always confounded me in this legislation is the imperfect attempt to try to encapsulate the diversity and richness of 60 or 70 languages into a piece of legislation, with imperfect consulting. Money may be attached in a budget conferred to people who know best how to do it, who are outside legislators in Parliament. By the nature of the legislation itself, it's always been an imperfect endeavour, while important symbolically and important in terms of real rights.

Mr. Joffe, you have much more experience in this field as a lawyer than I have. In a vacuum, absent money and cognizant of the fact that governments are catching up with courts and there is much work to do, what is the value in and of itself of the rights recognized under this piece of legislation—all in a minute?

[Paul Joffe]

Indigenous peoples have gone through history not having their rights recognized—actually it's not “recognized”, but “affirmed”. If one does not begin by recognizing that these rights pre-exist, if one doesn't recognize that the rights are attached to the land, as some speakers have mentioned, then what one gets is a very narrow focus, and it could be very much a non-indigenous focus.

If everyone else has human rights that are recognized or affirmed, it is extremely important now that indigenous peoples be put at the same level.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

We will now go to Mr. Yurdiga, please, for five minutes.

[David Yurdiga, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for making the journey to testify to us.

During one of the first meetings, we had the bureaucracy in, and they referred to it extensive consultation. Some of the questions we asked were on who was consulted.

I come from the Lac La Biche area, where we have the Kikino and Buffalo Lake Métis settlements, so I knew that wasn't true. That was a challenge for me.

Another thing is it's opportunity. This municipality in Alberta is over 80% indigenous, whether first nations or Métis. There is a whole group of people who missed an opportunity to describe their uniqueness. I know Buffalo Lake very well, and in their language they have some Ukrainian words, because that's a Ukrainian settlement. Every settlement has a slightly different twist. We can't really say we did a good job of consulting, because we didn't do any, at least in my opinion.

From your perspective, what would you like to see in this legislation? Obviously I prefer the grassroots. The bureaucracy will just spend money consulting too many others, and the people who actually need it will not get anything, or very little.

How would you like the government to proceed as far as the funding model goes, with grassroots-driven funding or the bureaucracy telling you what you're going to get?