Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2023

[Ed Schultz]

Merci. Mahsi cho.

You covered a lot of ground in your questions and observations, and I thank you for them. Many of our people think there are many parallels between the francophone language and our indigenous languages. However, our observation here has been that over the course of the last 100 years, there have been mostly deliberate colonial practices and policies that were designed to weed out our language and weed out our practices. In many cases, it's on the law books that some things were outlawed, whether it was dancing or singing or in some cases speaking the language.

We're trying to reverse a trend that's well over 100 years old. The colonial system spent billions of dollars to get the language out of our people, and we are saying, in the spirit of reconciliation today, that as much of an effort should be brought forward to help us reintroduce it or sustain it while it's still alive. Like all languages from any place anywhere, there is sustained funding for its continued use, growth and development over the course of time. Unfortunately, it's not unique to Canada that indigenous languages are vastly underfunded or not funded at all. It's usually through volunteer efforts and the sincere hearts of others who are trying to make sure that language survives.

Just quickly, I want to share with you why that's so important. It's related to your question. In Canada and as first nations, we deal with a lot of negative social indicators of our peoples—low education rates, incarceration rates, low health conditions, low employment and so on—and those negative social conditions have been around. The summation by many of the first nations and SGIGs is that we are dealing with a lost people, a people trapped somewhere in between two worlds—a modern western world and our way. They have been deliberately moved away from that and are lost. Why are they lost? They're lost because embedded in our language are the values, the customs, the traditions and the beliefs that we have as indigenous people and that really ground us in who we are, as all languages do for all people.

So we're in this weird place and time, and we believe long-term sustained funding is necessary not just for the sake of helping to preserve indigenous languages; it's also to bring other values and healthy families back to our communities, where we really will make a difference on the symptoms—I call them the negative social indicators—and really start making some true, good relationships here in Canada.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

One minute left.

[Mark Nelson]

Am I able to follow up?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Go ahead, Mr. Nelson.

[Mark Nelson]

Thank you.

I apologize if I cut you off.

About the need for consistent funding, I'd like to tie that in to the previous question about outcomes as well.

As Ed touched on, the need for consistency in community programs on the ground so that you can build momentum and get people involved and build on success, and being able to do that without having to worry year to year about proposal-based funding, is really key. You need to do it in intensive programs that have results on the ground.

A great example would be these adult immersion programs in which people commit to full-time learning over a period of a couple of years, and they are paid for their time to do that. They take it on as a full-time job to become the learners of the language so that they're passing it on to the next generation. This has been proven to work on the ground and to create very high-level intermediate to semi-fluent speakers in a couple of years, but it needs intensive effort and resources to do it. It's very clear now that spending a couple of hours a week and maybe reading some storybooks in the evening are not enough to take a language from being used inconsistently to being the living language of the community.

This goes to the question of the level of resources that are needed to put those kinds of intensive programs into effect. The resources committed so far are substantial, but when you spread them out over the vast number of indigenous communities, they don't amount to enough to implement those intensive programs on the ground. That's what we've costed out in our modelling.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Bérubé.

Ms. Idlout, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you to all our presenters.

I'm so happy to see our two witnesses here, because we can speak in our language. Our language is made understandable by our interpreters. We are so blessed, because our language is precious to us, and we have to keep reiterating how precious our language is and how important it is to who we are and to our culture.

When others begin to understand how precious our language is, they will be more encouraged and more inspired to keep giving us support in areas where we need it, and when acts and bills are proposed—many bills and proposals or acts are developed—and bills and acts will keep being made, I'm pretty sure, in the future, because it declares we can get support and we can get funding according to the acts or the bills that have been passed.

I want to ask if the bill suffices. Do you have adequate funding? If you don't have adequate funding, how much more is needed to be allocated to indigenous peoples?

We have been told over and over again that there's limited funding. There's not enough money. This is beginning to sound like a scratched record, because that's all we hear.

We have to come up with a way to form our questions. How can we get more support? How can we get more funding to implement these programs to revive our language? I'm pretty sure that there will come a day when the federal government will finally be able to meet our needs and hear what we're saying, because our descendants are relying on us today to make sure that our language is not getting lost. How much more funding do we need to implement the programs of revitalizing our indigenous languages?

Karliin or Kitty, it would be great if you could answer that question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You'll have two and half minutes between the two of you.

[Kitty Gordon]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Perhaps we can do research globally to see if there are some countries where there are indigenous peoples who lost their language and if they've managed to revive it. That would be a great area to start: to conduct a study on indigenous peoples globally.

[Karliin Aariak]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I cannot give a specific number, but I can say there are a lot.

Now, one example I want to bring up is that for federal government agencies, although we do get funding, there's no additional funding. If someone, say, is bilingual in French and Inuktitut, yes, they get additional funding, but they go through the same struggles to keep their language alive.

We have to ask. The French people get additional funding to keep their language alive. As Inuit, how come we don't get the same equal treatment? We are not treated equally.

Many things are getting more expensive today. Inflation is rising.

[Technical difficulty—Editor] within the system or outside the system.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You only have 10 seconds, so we'll have to stop it there.

Colleagues, if everybody is ready to do a two-minute round—that's preamble, question and answer—we can have a second round. I'm going to assume that.

Mr. Melillo, go ahead.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all of our witnesses for being here for this important discussion.

I want to go back to the very beginning with Ms. Aariak.

You mentioned some of the concerns that your office receives. You mentioned the signage at election time as an example, but I think you ran out of time in some of your other examples. Would you be able to share those with us to give us a bigger picture?

[Karliin Aariak]

Thank you. Qujannamiik.

There are a few on Elections Canada. I spoke to those during another committee. Inuktitut was missing on posters and ballots during the last federal election in Nunavut. We had received concerns in the previous federal election to the same effect. This is an indicator to me that the first recommendations were not addressed if I was receiving those same concerns regarding federal elections in the last federal election.

Information related to health, like the “mask required” sign, was only in English. Posters in a federal facility were in English and French only.

The last example I have, which I just briefly touched on for Lori's question, is that when we receive concerns, I'm obligated to investigate them and find out whether they are admissible or inadmissible. Is there a law that's being infringed or not? In special cases like this one, for example, that I'm going to talk about briefly, Inuit public servants in Nunavut are not paid a bilingual bonus, even if Inuktitut is required to perform their duties in the territory. The Nunavut government goes through assessments. If an employee wants to be assessed on the level of their Inuit language proficiency, they are assessed by an independent assessor, and then the employee, depending on the level—one, two or three—receives that extra pay. It's an incentive to encourage employees to give service in and learn more of their language.

It's the same concept as what the federal government does with its French-language bonus. Federal government employees go through the assessment process, and it's the same concept: level one, two or three. Then, depending on their competency, they get remunerated in that way.

In Nunavut—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you. We'll have to go to the next questioner.

Mr. Battiste, you have two minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you.

I am a fluent indigenous speaker who lives in an indigenous community and who's seeing that despite the fact that we have an immersion school, despite the fact that we have all kinds of resources available, our youth are still speaking English as a social practice.

What are the best practices right now that you've seen to bring the language back? We always talk about funding and the fact that there's not enough of it, but what are the top three things that we could be funding if we're to get results in bringing back the language?

[Kitty Gordon]

Well, I think maybe we can see where the youth are today. TikTok is everywhere. Everybody I see up north has TikTok—all my children. Maybe a TikTok account with language specifically could be created. It could be as simple as two or three words a day. Then we could make sure that it's reaching the youth.

By going where the youth are, on whatever social media they're using, we'll be able to reach them in any way possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

You have a minute left.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Does anyone else want to answer?

[Karliin Aariak]

Sure.

Early childhood is so important. Currently in Nunavut there are free apps that you can acquire. They're for preschoolers. They're geared towards the writing system and hearing and learning the grammar.

There's everything from having media, radio. We specifically have two television channels now in the Inuit language, which focus on covering what's happening around Inuit Nunangat, but also ensuring that more people are exposed to language.

There are many different ways and so many different resources, but there's also encouraging even first-time learners or early learners to continue learning. Learning never ends. There's no graduation from the learning of anything, and the importance at home—

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

I'm not picking on you, Ms. Aariak. We're just tight on time.

Ms. Bérubé, you have the floor for two minutes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Gordon, you know this study is about the Indigenous Languages Act, which the federal government implemented in 2019.

My question is very simple. Since the implementation of the act, have you seen any differences in terms of government funding or government support provided to your communities?

[Kitty Gordon]

Unfortunately, Ms. Bérubé, I cannot answer your question today, but I do want to say that I share the sentiments that Mr. Schultz expressed earlier.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Okay. Thank you.

I will put my question to the other witnesses, as well.

Has the Indigenous Languages Act made any difference?

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Perhaps, Mr. Schultz, you can have a quick stab at that.

[Ed Schultz]

With certainty I can say, on the ground, no.

I think we're still looking at how the full measure of the languages act is going to be rolled out and implemented. There's ongoing dialogue from centralized groups like the AFN, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, etc., Inuvialuit, Inuit, our groups. There are so many different people involved in a rollout of that one piece of legislation that's just really looking at a centralized approach. I still advocate that we really need to get into the communities where the language lives, and where it's still living. It will never be delivered by a centralized approach. That's my honest opinion.

Thank you.