Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 28th, 2019

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I call the meeting to order.

We now begin our 148th meeting of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We are continuing our study of Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

We have with us today Casey Henley and Francyne Joe from the Native Women's Association of Canada. We have with us by video conference Ms. Vivian Ayoungman, coordinator, research and program development, Siksika studies at Old Sun Community College. We have with us Ms. Margaret Peters, Mohawk language curriculum and resource developer.

I will begin with the person by video conference, just in case we run into any technical difficulties. We can begin with you, Ms. Ayoungman.

[Vivian, Siipiisai’pia’ki) Ayoungman (Coordinator, Research and Program Development, Siksika Studies, Old Sun Community College, As an Individual]

[Member spoke in Siksika ]

[English]

Good afternoon. I bring you greetings from the Siksika Nation in southern Alberta. I'm very grateful to have this opportunity to add to this important discussion.

I have been in education for 50-plus years, since getting my undergraduate degree from the University of Calgary and then three graduate degrees. As I worked in education over these years, I have been involved in curriculum development. When I started teaching, I quickly realized that the curriculum wasn't getting to the hearts of our students. It wasn't reaching them, so I was always developing curricula voluntarily.

I've always tried to promote these initiatives. Over the years, I developed this passion because I knew we were robbed of our heritage. We were robbed of the right to be who we are, to learn our culture, to learn our language. I was separated from my large extended family at the age of seven. I went to the boarding school and did not speak a word of English. I feel very cheated and very robbed, and so I have tried in earnest to contribute to the knowledge our people need.

In the 1980s, at Siksika we began efforts in earnest to revitalize the use of the Siksika language. We knew it was in decline. When we spoke to the local school principal, who was a nation member, he told us that in grades 1 to 9 he could count on one hand the number of speakers. That really shook us up. We didn't realize how bad it was, and that was in the 1980s.

It was a real challenge to conduct our work with very little funding, and at the time what was known as the secretary of state asked us how our language could be in jeopardy, since we came from one of the largest tribes in the country. We ended up having to justify why we needed funding. I as a volunteer, together with the team I was working with, did a major study on the status of the Siksika language. We did two studies, one in 1985 and a follow-up in 1991. We tested every child in our schools. We did a random selection of households and we interviewed elders. All of these groups corroborated and triangulated the evidence we were looking for.

We used a proficiency scale, “0” meaning no knowledge of the language, “1” meaning some understanding but not able to speak. Everyone under 21 years of age scored below 1. The majority were 0, with a few having some understanding. We had to do a lot of work, which at the time we considered critical work.

We went back, and because of our study we were able to access some funds from the Province of Alberta. With this little bit of funding that we got, we developed three comprehensive levels of teaching for the Siksika language. We developed comprehensive kits, but we always knew it was just the tip of the iceberg. We had so much work to do.

Then Heritage Canada came up with funding for indigenous languages, but at the time only the most endangered groups were funded at realistic levels. What did that mean for us? We were not on that list, and yet we knew we had critical work to do.

The study we did told us that in 30 years' time our speakers would be in their late 50s, which is the case right now, and that is exactly what's happening. Hardly anybody under 50 speaks the language.

I have developed, as I said, a curriculum over time, over these years, these decades, in my 50-some years as an educator.

I was semi-retired from my work with the First Nations Adult and Higher Education Consortium, and Old Sun Community College at Siksika recruited me to assist with their curriculum development. My doctorate degree is in curriculum development in instruction. As I was a fluent speaker, they thought I would be an asset to the team.

I told them I would do it on condition that I got to work with our ceremonial knowledge keepers. To make a long story short, I worked with this team, and was it ever an eye-opener. I used to say to people that I was a a proud Siksika woman, but in working with these ceremonial knowledge keepers, I really saw just how much of my way of life I did not know about.

I'm a fluent speaker and I found that there was a whole vernacular that I could not understand very well. It was the whole language of ceremony, the essence of who we are as Siksika people. I thought if I as a fluent speaker do not speak that language and understand some of that terminology, we're in real hot water.

It was a really wonderful team to work with, because they really opened my eyes to the really critical work we had to do.

As a result of my work with our ceremonial knowledge keepers, we ended up developing 37 Siksika studies courses, which are all at the college level. Most of these are transferable to public institutions, such as St. Mary's University, Athabasca University.

In implementing these courses, the language is critical to teach the essence of what those topics are. I teach some of those topics, and I find myself saying a lot of the Siksika words that would describe exactly what it is we're talking about. Our young students really long to learn the language.

We have a lot of work to do. We're now looking at immersion programming at all levels. We want to develop immersion curriculum for the little guys, because we've talked to our other indigenous groups from other places and they say the place to start is with the very young ones. Teach them the language, and they'll grow up with it.

However, the reality is we might do that, but what will they go home to? They will go back to homes where they don't hear the language.

We're trying to do work on all fronts, including adult language immersion, so that they're actually learning as families. We're trying to go in that direction, but realistically, when we don't have funding, it's a very tough task, because we don't want to just have our speakers and our ceremonial knowledge keepers volunteer their time. It's really critical to recruit whoever we can, and time is of the essence to do this important work when our treasures are still here with us. Every month, some of our elders are gone, so while we still can, we want to work with them.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission and other entities recommend teaching language culture, but a lot of those funds are being directed to public institutions. Can they realistically develop the important curriculum for us? At our college, we can provide the context. We are with our ceremonial knowledge keepers who speak the language, who live our way of life, and the work that we're developing is very rich, really rich. They cannot get that anywhere else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Ms. Ayoungman, I do have to warn you that you went slightly over time. Could you just wrap it up?

[Vivian (Siipiisai’pia’ki) Ayoungman]

Okay.

With that, I just want to say that it's really important, it's really critical that this funding go to the first nations groups, because that's the heart of where the language and culture are, and if it's not supported at that level.... I can say some four-letter words, but I don't want to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I appreciate that. I appreciate holding back on the four-letter words. Thank you very much, though.

On that colourful note, we will now go to Ms. Margaret Peters, please.

[Margaret, Kaweienón:ni) Peters (Mohawk Language Curriculum and Resource Developer, Ahkwesáhsne Mohawk Board of Education, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

I acknowledge everyone here.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

Thank you for inviting me to provide my voice.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

My real name is Kaweienón:ni, which means “she makes the way”.

[Witness spoke in Mohawk]

[English]

I'm Onondaga Nation and I'm Snipe Clan, but I'm a fluent Mohawk speaker.

First and foremost, I am a mother and grandmother.

The retention, restoration, revitalization and reinforcement of the Mohawk language is both a personal and professional endeavour for me. I don't consider my work as a job, but rather as a responsibility to help and do everything in my power to provide opportunities for our community members to be able to learn Kanien'kéha, the Mohawk language. I could easily fulfill my obligation if you, as representatives of Canada, remain true to your word and fulfill your duties that you have laid out in the various sections of Bill C-91, which states that it is an act respecting indigenous languages.

Paragraph 5(b)(iv) states that one the purposes of the act is to:

support Indigenous language learning and cultural activities, including language nest and immersion programs

Within our community, we have been fortunate to have established two immersion schools. Akwesasne Freedom School, although independently run through grants, donations and fundraising efforts, has a tuition agreement with the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education. Even with all the hard work the parents do to fundraise, the dedicated language teachers receive a salary that is not even at par with the poverty level in Canada for a family of four. I read that in December of 2014 it was less than $42,000 per year. This is a reality within many native communities, which struggle to maintain a sufficient level of education and struggle three times as much when it comes to the desire for language implementation.

The emphasis for language funding needs to be placed on immersion programming, as we all are well aware that the 40-minute core language classes do not produce fluent speakers. Am I right?

At present, I work for the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education as a Kanien'kéha Mohawk language curriculum and resource developer. Our struggle is that we don't have a lot of fluent speakers. We just can't find people who speak it to come to teach the language. I can't blame you who are present here today, because it wasn't your fault; you didn't want kids removed from their families and sent to residential schools. However, I can blame you if you don't take any action today and fulfill what you know is required for the people to restore their languages for the future, for the seventh generation.

In clause 9, under “Agreements or arrangements”, it states that the purpose of the act takes into account “the unique circumstances and needs of Indigenous groups...in a manner consistent with the powers and jurisdictions of the provinces and of indigenous governing bodies and the rights of the Indigenous peoples recognized and affirmed by subsection 35 of the Constitution Act,1982”, which states that:

The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

Any treaties and agreements were made with Canada, and the act need to be ratified and omit that the agreements or arrangements must take into account the needs of indigenous groups in a manner consistent with the jurisdiction of the provinces. The treaties were not made at the provincial level. They were made with Canada.

In clause 6, the bill states that:

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

I'm just reading some of the Canadian laws.

Ours were the original languages of “Kana:ta”, the word that became “Canada”, the name of the country. It seems only right to respect the original people of this land by reaffirming the recognition and endowing us with the same status that gave French and English equal status in the Government of Canada as official languages.

It has preferred status in law over all other languages because it is common knowledge that the Indian residential school system was a network of boarding schools for indigenous peoples and that the network was funded by the Canadian government's Department of Indian Affairs. The amount of funding that needs to be administered back into the reclamation of our languages should be equal to the funding that was put in to abolish our languages. I don't know the dollar amount, but I can estimate that it would be in the ballpark of billions of dollars. Excuse my estimation if I am wrong.

In clause 7, “long-term funding” needs to be changed to “ongoing funding”. “Long-term funding” implies that the funding will be administered for a questionable length of time. This would not provide the said “adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages” into the next century.

As Onkwehon:we, the real and natural people of this part of the world, I would like to remind you, as representatives of Kana:ta, to go beyond the talk. Words are only words unless a conscious choice is made to act upon them. I'm standing in front of you all today and speaking on behalf of my grandchildren—Rarihwasésta, Tharahkwénhahs, Teiakotshataténion, Raniehtanawénhtha, Roha'ti:io, Iakokari:io, Ieniehténhawe and Rarennenha:wi—so that they and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the faces yet to come, have ample opportunities to continue learning their language.

Niawenhko:wa. Thank you for listening to me.

Eh kati' nikawénnake. Tane' tho.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you.

Next we have Ms. Francyne Joe and Ms. Casey Hunley, from the Native Women's Association of Canada.

[Francyne Joe, President, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Weyt-k, bonjour, and good afternoon, Madam Chair.

I am Francyne Joe, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada.

I would like to begin by acknowledging that we are gathered on the Algonquin Anishinaabeg people's traditional and unceded territory.

Since 1974, the Native Women's Association has been the chosen national representative of grassroots indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people. We represent first nations on reserve, off reserve, whether status, non-status, or disenfranchised, and Métis and Inuit. We defend their rights and we advocate for those voices that are not heard.

Today I sit before the House of Commons to outline NWAC's significant concerns about Bill C-91, an act respecting indigenous languages.

The Minister of Heritage and Multiculturalism, Pablo Rodriguez, tabled Bill C-91 without meaningfully consulting NWAC. The co-development process excluded us.

NWAC supports the Government of Canada's efforts to preserve, promote and revitalize first nations, Métis and Inuit languages, and agrees that Bill C-91 is essential. However, NWAC cannot fully support it without major revisions to address these disparities.

First, Bill C-91 does not include a culturally relevant gender-based lens. Intersectional lenses are imperative to every government policy and legislative decision. It reveals the distinct and unique impacts that legislation will have on marginalized and vulnerable groups, especially indigenous women. This is essential to meeting their needs and implementing effective legislation.

Additionally, this must be led by indigenous women. We are the keepers of traditions, of cultures, of languages. We are the hearts of the communities, and we are the mothers teaching our children how to communicate. Indigenous women must be the foundations of all language revitalization efforts, with full inclusion.

NWAC strongly recommends that the government meaningfully consult with us to apply culturally relevant, gender-based analysis and hear the concerns and solutions that indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people have to contribute.

Second, Bill C-91 does not take a distinctions-based approach. You cannot treat the preservation of each language identically with a blanket approach, or it will fail. A distinctions-based approach considers how a specific policy, program, service, or piece of legislation will affect first nations, Métis and Inuit communities across Canada differently.

The act does not specify whether non-status indigenous women and their children have any language rights. It does not state how Métis people living all over Canada, not just in the west, will be represented and included. It does not take into consideration the needs and priorities of Inuit communities. While two-thirds of the Inuit population can speak Inuktitut, this number is steadily declining. NWAC recommends that before Bill C-91 can be passed, it must clearly outline how it will account for the distinct contexts, needs and priorities of first nations, Métis and Inuit communities with regard to language revitalization.

Third, the act must specify its legally binding commitment to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding for indigenous languages. Funding is one of the most substantial barriers to language revitalization.

On February 7, Mr. Virani stated, “over and over again in the consultations—that what we need is supports in terms of resources and what we need is stable, long-term, predictable funding.”

Outside of the preamble, the act does not specify that the government has legal obligations to create adequate, predictable, sustainable and long-term funding. This is not a question of determining a funding amount, but about distributing allocated funding enshrined in Bill C-91. NWAC recommends that before Bill C-91 is passed, it must clearly outline a legally binding commitment to provide adequate, sustainable and long-term funding.

Lastly, the act must specify its commitment to Jordan's principle.

Jordan's principle is a child-first principle aiming to ensure that first nations children have access to all essential public services, regardless of jurisdiction. Language education is an essential public service for all indigenous children.

Currently, every indigenous language in Canada faces potential extinction. We are in an urgent state for language education. There cannot be any delay in services due to payment disputes within or between the federal and provincial governments, because we know that language education is fundamental to identity, culture and the history of our nations. Language education is an essential service, yet indigenous languages ae not treated as essential services. Would anyone deny language services for the cultural survival of French Canadians?

NWAC recommends that before being passed, Bill C-91 must clearly outline its commitment to Jordan's principle, as indigenous languages must be treated as an essential service.

Thank you, and kukstemc.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

Thank you to all of you.

We are now going to begin our question-and-answer period. Questioners will have seven minutes for questions and answers combined.

We will begin with Mr. Long, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our presenters.

Good afternoon to my colleagues.

This, in my opinion, is landmark legislation. I'm a business guy. My background is business, and I'm always more about execution and implementation.

My concern is this, and I'm looking for your guidance, Ms. Ayoungman, Ms. Peters and Ms. Joe. With respect to the rollout of Bill C-91, knowing there are federal, provincial and municipal governments, as well as communities and villages and different ways, shapes and forms, Ms. Ayoungman, you said you wanted the money to flow directly to you and circumvent other layers, if you will. Ideally, how do you see this rolling out? How do you see the funding reaching the appropriate groups?

One of the concerns I have, if you're talking education, health care or what have you, is that there's a lot of infrastructure already there that can apply for money and disburse money and funding, etc. Can you give me your comments, Ms. Ayoungman, as to how you would see the funding rolling out to different groups across the country?

[Vivian (Siipiisai’pia’ki) Ayoungman]

The group I can speak for is the Siksika people. I am from the Siksika Nation. Internally, as a group, we meet about interagency work. We assist each other. That's how we would organize. We would try to see who would be in the best position to do whatever.

We already do that. We work closely with the Siksika Board of Education, because they are in need of developing resources. We at the college assist them. The social services department tries to assist their clients, and they work closely with us.

Where there is a gap is in how we fund the people with the knowledge—the ceremonial knowledge keepers, the elders and all of those people who have the knowledge to give. Yes, we can pool our resources, but usually those resources are already earmarked.

[Wayne Long]

Ms. Peters, would you comment?

[Margaret (Kaweienón:ni) Peters]

In our community, it's almost the same as she said.

When the funding comes through, it's not specifically designated for language. We have the Mohawk board of education, and it's the first time in history, really, that in the past decade or more we've had an immersion program. When the funding has gone out through the Ahkwesahsne Mohawk Board of Education, we're overseeing the whole education system, but at this point we have kind of equal status with the English program. We've never had that kind of support before.

In our community we need to get language training for our people who want to learn the language, and we need teacher training for people who are fluent but need to learn how to teach the language.

That funding would be funnelled through there. As I said, we have a tuition agreement with the independent schools, so any language funding we get stays within the area of language revitalization.

[Wayne Long]

Okay.

Ms. Joe, I'm sorry you feel your organization wasn't consulted. I'm truly sorry about that.

Did you have no avenue to submit? Were you not consulted at all?

[Francyne Joe]

After the legislation was proposed, we received it. That was proposed on, I believe, a Monday. We received the legislation on Wednesday. Staff spent the next 24 hours analyzing the legislation and presented their analysis on Friday. That was the extent of our engagement with this legislation.

[Wayne Long]

To be clear, is it safe to say that you think Bill C-91 is a good start but needs amendments or t needs...? You suggested some amendments.

[Francyne Joe]

I did, yes.

[Wayne Long]

Is that where you would like to go with it?

[Francyne Joe]

Yes.

You were asking about the funding areas. I know our organization—and I'm sure it's the same for the other two ladies—has written many proposals. It's kind of time-consuming to have to write these proposals every year when we know what the community needs. The community knows what it needs. I think we need to have funding that's flexible and fluid, and programs that are codeveloped with community members.

You're right, you know, that there's a lot of overlap. In my own territory I have about five languages. I have Ntlaka'pamux, Stl’atl’imx, Okanagan, Tsilhqot'in and Secwepemc. That's within an hour's drive of Merritt, B.C.

[Wayne Long]

Is it safe to say there are 90 indigenous languages in Canada?

[Francyne Joe]

And then you have the dialects on the side.

[Wayne Long]

Then there are the dialects. Okay.

A previous presenter—I believe it was Jennifer Wickham—talked about three phases of language development, if you will. The first phase she had was revitalization. Then she went to stabilization and then extension.

This would be for you, Ms. Joe, if you don't mind. How long do you think it will take? Again, I'm proud of this bill. I think it's a great start. It's not perfect, but it's something that I think we can build on. How long will it take to see indigenous languages go from revitalization to stabilization to extension? Do you see this unfolding over 10 years? Is it going to take a lot longer than that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dabrusin]

I'd love to hear the answer to your question, but you are already right at your time.

I would like to give Ms. Joe the time to quickly respond to that, if she can give a short answer. I know it's not a short question.

[Francyne Joe]

Right.

In a nutshell, I think it really depends upon the communities. Some of our communities are already working on the revitalization. It also depends on our fluent speakers. My uncle Jimmy Toodlican just passed away last fall. He was one of probably two dozen fluent speakers of Ntlaka'pamux. If we don't do this soon, we're going to be penalizing our children.

[Wayne Long]

Thank you.