Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 19th, 2018

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for their presentations.

I have some questions for Mr. Fizet and Mr. Corbeil.

Mr. Corbeil, when the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was being negotiated in Geneva, one of my colleagues from Alberta and I sometimes spoke Cree so the members of the Canadian delegation could not understand us. It was very effective.

You mentioned Oji-Cree, Swampy Cree, Northern Quebec Cree, and Plains Cree. Who determines those categories?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

At one time, only Cree was included in the census. The census enumerated fewer languages than it does now. Further to consultations, we decided that, as long as there are variations of a language, we will prompt census respondents to specify which language. By asking respondents to specify the language, we became aware of the growth of these various dialects.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Okay.

I have a question and I think it is an important one. Do your statistics show a link between the survival of a language and entering into a treaty such as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

The statistics do not indicate such a link, but we can certainly form hypotheses. Moreover, we have done that with respect of official language minorities, for example, for which there is official recognition and a structure in place.

We conduct surveys about perceptions. The importance of speaking a language is often associated with that language being recognized in treaties and laws. Yet we cannot directly measure that relationship using Statistics Canada data sources.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

It might be helpful to do that at some point, since the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement recognizes that the Cree school board has the right to teach Cree in the first years of school. So I think that would be an important statistic.

Mr. Fizet, in your presentation you said that the use of indigenous languages in the public sphere, in the House of Commons, for instance, would have great symbolic value. In your opinion, should indigenous languages be recognized as official languages of Canada?

[William Fizet]

Allowing young indigenous persons to hear their language spoken in the Parliament of Canada, a country they are part of, is the direction we are going in. As to official languages, we cannot answer that question right now. As you know, a bill is being developed, in cooperation with indigenous groups. I think that idea will have to be developed with the indigenous peoples and not just with someone who represents them.

To answer your question, the whole population should have the opportunity to have their say on that. When I say the whole population, I mean indigenous and non-indigenous communities.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

As a senior official, do you personally think that would be important?

[William Fizet]

Let's say we are about to tackle that.

[Hubert Lussier]

If I may, Mr. Fizet and I have many opinions, but we do not think we are required to share them. We are here to provide facts or factual elements to help you in your work. I think it would be inappropriate for us as public servants to express our opinions.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What is your role then in developing this act on indigenous languages?

[Hubert Lussier]

My team includes a small team led by a federal government official, as part of the current dialogue with the three national organizations representing the three main indigenous groups in Canada, that is, the first nations, Inuit, and Métis. The purpose of the dialogue is to develop this act which, as the prime minister announced, will be developed jointly. That is what Mr. Fizet is referring to.

So our role is to develop the principles that will inform the future act, further to dialogue with the three groups represented.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

What are the broad principles you are currently suggesting to the government?

[Hubert Lussier]

It would be a bit premature to disclose the status of discussions because we have to conduct them entirely jointly with the three partners in question. What I can say is that the Department of Canadian Heritage has thus far begun technical consultations with international experts on indigenous languages, education, learning, and transmission. This summer, once we have agreed on the topics to be included in the consultations, we will consult the communities, in partnership with the three indigenous groups, and we will go into much greater depth. These consultations will include not only experts, but the communities as well.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

To use Mr. Fizet's term, it will be more than symbolic, or at least I hope so.

[Hubert Lussier]

That is certainly our intention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much.

Now we have Ms. Tassi.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Thank you, each of you, for being here this morning, and for your testimony and presentations.

The first couple of questions I have relate to the vitality of the language. We have heard testimony with respect to the number of dialects and how they lead to, potentially, a result where the vitality is lessened. I would just like your comments and advice with respect to how we would deal with that as a government, and I hope they're going to be based on fact and not opinion. Is there action we can take to ensure that languages are preserved?

Dialects are important, people have the right, but at the same time if they become so fragmented, the language is lost. Is there a way to bring people together who are speaking different dialects? Do you think that's useful? Will it ultimately lead to the vitality of language?

[Hubert Lussier]

To answer your question, I'll refer to some things that William said.

We are, in our financial support, very responsive to what comes from communities. Therefore, we haven't dictated to communities what they should apply for, for funding. On the other hand, we know that certain things are very useful, like focusing on language nests. These are initiatives where fluent speakers provide an environment where very young children can grow and learn—in a kind of child care milieu—the language that will become, if not their mother tongue, at least a very early second language.

Another thing we see more and more, and we think are useful initiatives, are indigenous communities developing language plans that provide for a whole community working together. Having initiatives that are not isolated, but made aware of connecting with each other at the band council, at the school level, at the child care level, and at the cultural level. These language plans provide the type of environment that Jean-Pierre and William were talking about, that is propitious to the preservation and transmittal of their language.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Corbeil, do you have anything to add?

[Jean-Pierre Corbeil]

We talk about school. We know that when we think about the future of communities, the fact that children know or are able to speak the language is a very strong indicator of the future and vitality of long-term viability of these languages.

We have seen many times—even among French official-language minority communities—that when there is a school, there is an environment of community centres and associations that are propitious to the transmission and use of these languages. Certainly it helps for a stronger creation of communities. I can't say more than that.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Following the question that Mr. Graham asked with respect to the impact of having translation in the House of Commons, is there anything more specific that you can offer? This goes beyond recognizing a right. I'm looking at the impact it can have. Do you have data that shows the impact that it can and would have on communities if it was spoken in the House?

We don't delude ourselves in believing everybody is watching us. We know that our audiences are slim. Is there evidence that shows that making that step will result in greater preservation and greater vitality of the languages?

[Hubert Lussier]

On this, Jean-Pierre and colleagues have something more intelligent than what I have to say. I'll try.

Every model we've used and worked with about the vitality of language—and the best ones we have are the ones that Jean-Pierre was talking about that have to do with minority language as an official language—involve an element of public use and public recognition in democratic institutions. It's difficult to say whether it counts for 5% or 25% of the vitality, but it is recognized.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

It counts for something, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ms. O'Donnell, do you want to comment on that?

[Vivian O'Donnell]

We don't have a survey question that asks if there was simultaneous translation, so I can't say directly.

We do measure exposure to indigenous languages on the Aboriginal Peoples Survey, which reaches off-reserve first nations people, Métis, and Inuit. It asks: How often are you exposed to an indigenous language at home, and outside the home? In previous versions it was, “Are services available at school, in the community?”, and things like that.

I'm trying to think of research that's been done using that content. The one that comes to mind looks at children's exposure to indigenous language and positive outcomes in education. That's getting to—