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

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Ms. Aariak, you have about 15 seconds if you want to throw something....

Okay. We'll go to Ms. Idlout for two minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I want to listen to Inuktitut, so I will ask the two Inuktitut speakers. I enjoy talking in my own language.

What would you propose as a recommendation to change and to improve the Indigenous Languages Act if it's going to be promoted more in our communities and to be more widely understood? How would you go about improving it, Karliin and Kitty?

[Karliin Aariak]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I had recommendations that were directed to government earlier, but we also have to understand and recognize that national legislation in Canada.... It has to be known in Canada that Nunavut has a language act that protects Inuktitut, and a protection act. People need to know that in Canada.

We have many struggles. It's not just the act itself. Our language has been undermined for many years.

I will let her respond.

[Kitty Gordon]

[Witness spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I know federal government employees go to Inuit communities. They need to be more visible in the Inuit communities so that they can have a better understanding of our language today, and where it stands. They can get a better appreciation for language protection acts that will protect Inuit languages.

We need you to understand all of these things from the Inuit communities' perspectives, so come to us.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

I'd like to thank Ms. Aariak, Ms. Gordon, Mr. Schultz and Mr. Nelson, our witnesses today. Thank you for taking the time to appear in person or virtually, for your opening remarks, and for answering our questions on this important study. Very clearly, you've informed this committee on where we are at and where we need to go with respect to indigenous languages. It's very much appreciated. Thank you for coming today.

With that, we will pause very briefly to prepare for the second panel.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Colleagues, we are ready to start panel number two.

For our second panel, I would like to welcome Miranda Huron, director, indigenous education and affairs, Capilano University, who is here with us today in person; Danielle Alphonse, B.C. regional innovation chair for aboriginal early childhood development, Vancouver Island University, by video conference; and Melanie Griffith Brice, associate professor and Gabriel Dumont research chair in Métis/Michif education, University of Regina, also by video conference.

Each witness will have five minutes to make introductory remarks, after which we will have questions.

With that, I would like to invite our first witness, Ms. Huron, to take the microphone for five minutes for introductory remarks.

Thank you.

[Miranda Huron, Director, Indigenous Education and Affairs, Capilano University, As an Individual]

Kwe kwe. Thank you for having me here today. I am the director of indigenous education at Capilano University and I was formerly the director of languages at the Assembly of First Nations while the act was being written.

I'd like to acknowledge the Algonquin territories that we're on today and the Sḵwx̱wú7mesh, Tsleil-Waututh and Musqueam territories where I work and live as an uninvited guest.

My own nation is Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin. I am very proud to be back here in these lands.

The Indigenous Languages Act was an incredible first step in the recognition of indigenous language rights. It was Canada's first act that recognized the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and assured adequate, predictable and sustainable funding for language resurgence. The establishment of the indigenous languages commission was also an important move in ensuring that language issues will continue to be heard here in Ottawa.

Reviewing this act through its initial implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic is particularly difficult, so I acknowledge the work you're doing here, but we should also look to this experience as further highlighting the precariousness of the vitality of our languages.

UNESCO reported that the majority of our speakers are over the age of 50, and this demographic has been particularly at risk during the pandemic. Our languages—the longest, most enduring repository of knowledge of the history of this land—are in a palpable state of fragility.

After three years, we need to question what the aim of this policy is. Are we looking at sustaining indigenous languages as secondary languages, with the unfortunate potential outcome that students taking language classes in school remember only a few sentences in adulthood, or are we looking at language resurgence, such that we invest in developing sustainable language economies, much like what has been created for minority official languages?

If territorially based official language status is not on the immediate horizon, can we support instituting languages as languages of public affairs, as has been done in Taiwan, to begin to create these language economies?

We have yet to see real progress with respect to sections 8 and 9 of the Indigenous Languages Act, in particular pertaining to the coordination between the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments—the last speaker spoke to that—especially when we have such an advanced piece of legislation in Nunavut that has had to backstep because the federal legislation isn't working to support everything within that territorial legislation. Without this coordination, confusion and lack of motivation will prevail, especially when engaging with complicated issues such as our support of indigenous languages in education, health care and the justice system.

Much as is the case with Jordan's principle, we cannot lose our languages due to the quagmire of finger pointing and resultant negligence that come with federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictional boundaries, boundaries that were imposed on our nations by the colonial project.

The federal-provincial-territorial coordination affects how post-secondary institutions respond to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly 16 and 62.ii. Targeted funding allocations to support a response to language needs within a post-secondary context have yet to take place. These funds should not come from the funding highlighted within the act, as those funds are established specifically for indigenous organizations.

Provinces and territories must allocate funding within their budgets for post-secondary institutions to respond to these calls—funding that is above and beyond what indigenous groups require for their own internal language resurgence programming. It's been normalized for post-secondary institutions to do this work based on existing funding, which typically exploits the labour of indigenous faculty and staff, who are required to do more with less.

There is also a need for discussions on how to do this work without creating additional work for community members, who are overburdened in creating their own language programming. Language workers are often doing this work without significant support.

I know of one teacher who has all of her materials stored in her car because of lack of office space. This infrastructure needs supporting as well. Many of these workers are frustrated by their lack of capacity to chase down funding while working more than full time to sustain their language. Others face the challenge of having to advocate for their work when they may only have one or two students. This cannot be a numbers game. These students, whether in small or large numbers, are the ones keeping their languages alive until others are ready. These language workers are looking far into the distance, to the next seven generations and beyond. So should the Government of Canada.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Huron.

We'll now go to Ms. Alphonse for five minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Danielle Alphonse, BC Regional Innovation Chair for Aboriginal Early Childhood Development, Vancouver Island University, As an Individual]

[Witness spoke in Hul'q'umi'num' ]

[English]

I am from WSÁNEĆ and Anishinabe Algonquin Nation. I'd like to thank the ancestors past, present and future.

[English]

My opening statement is focusing on the key words of inclusion, early childhood, multiple diversity, and equity in access.

First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples are diverse in their efforts to save their languages; the complexity is not only the many dialects but how to capture the reality that many indigenous peoples live in their community on reserve, or they live in urban communities away from home.

A significant challenge and opportunity is to design and track the progression of each of the 70 language groups and determine with each nation a long-term plan to ensure that future generations are able speak their language. In commitment to policy and reconciliation, I believe education is the answer to support and revitalize multiple languages, as a lifelong trajectory for each baby at home to early childhood to post-secondary education.

Examples that I've included are thinking about the language nests in New Zealand that started with the Maori people, the success of language immersion within Canada and the continued development of community-based capacity. It's not only thinking about language nests in early childhood but also thinking about family nests for community and family homes and sacred healing nests for elders and residential school survivors.

Advancing all indigenous languages is not only the right of indigenous children and families but of all Canadians connected to the land of our ancestors, and they have the right to learn multiple indigenous languages.

Equity and allocation of funds need to be quite visible for all first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and I recognize again the diversity of our language dialects. They are valued, authentic and at different revitalization stages. It is a spectrum. Representation of all nations needs to be a critical piece in decision-making. Again, there needs to be accountability regarding a transparent picture of all language loss with all nations, as language loss affects every community in healing, resilience and identity.

Indigenous leadership and government need to articulate a clear pathway regarding ongoing deliverables, administration, community, and language resurgence/recovery evaluation processes. There needs to be an indigenous assessment on their language recovery and language function for all nations.

Regarding post-secondary and early childhood programs in Canada, I think it's mandatory for all licensed early childhood programs to teach indigenous languages, and to support educators in mentorship, resources and professional development with ongoing funding, as well as supporting funding for post-secondary and early childhood programs, education, child and youth care, and social work.

In regard to research, I keep thinking about the online learners and the youth using the apps and how government will be able to develop a tool to show the efficacy of people learning online. Another issue is bridging the disconnect of online platforms by creating a collaboration with shared responsibility between community and post-secondary initiatives. Each language group should have online accessibility and agreements with post-secondary for first nations, Inuit and Métis people to community members wanting to access their language. Nations should have the right to their ownership of their language and be able to access it from any post-secondary institution.

I was just wanting to follow up on the two pilot projects with the Nisga'a and the Nunavut projects for the last two years.

I really want to acknowledge with deep gratitude the elders in my community who have been working really hard to save our Hul'q'umi'num' language: My late grandmother Philomena Alphonse, the late Violet George, Arvid Charlie, Mena Paguaduan, Florence James, Marlene Rice, the late Lexi Charlie, the late Ruby Peter, Gary Manson, and Stella Erasmus Johnstone.

Huy tseep q'u.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Ms. Alphonse. We'll now go to Ms. Brice, the research chair.

I don't know whether Mr. Dumont is with you, but you have five minutes. Go ahead, Ms. Brice.

[Dr. Melanie Brice, Associate Professor and Gabriel Dumont Research Chair in Michif/Métis Education, University of Regina, As an Individual]

Tansi, tanshi. Bonjour. Hello. I'm Melanie Griffith Brice.

[Witness spoke in Northern Michif and provided the following text:]

Nisihkâson Melanie Brice. Michif niya. Kayate Lac Prairies ochi niya ekwa L'brroshå Sâkahikan. Oskana kâ-asastîki mîkwac niwîkin.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

My name is Melanie Griffith Brice. I am Michif. I am originally from Meadow Lake and Jackfish Lake. I live in Regina currently.

I'm Dr. Melanie Griffith Brice. I'm the Gabriel Dumont research chair in Michif and Métis education in the faculty of education at the University of Regina.

I'm in the process of reclaiming my language, northern Michif. Like many indigenous people of my generation, due to the impacts of formal education and urbanization, I do not speak my language. However, I was fortunate to grow up hearing the language around me from my grandparents, my mother, my aunt, my uncles and other extended family. I learned some basic commands, but I did not develop any proficiency in the language.

As a child, I recall hearing my mother talking with others and laughing. When I asked what was funny, the response was always that it's not funny in English. It's not only the humour that I lost out on, but also the knowledge that accompanies our language. As an adult, I've taken conversation classes and university classes, but I retained only a few words, never enough to speak or understand.

There have been two pivotal experiences that have facilitated my increased proficiency with learning my language, and both have involved language immersion techniques.

The Michif language is an endangered indigenous language, with a very small group of speakers left in western Canada who are predominantly lii vyeu, or “old ones”. Statistics Canada reported in 2016 that there were “9,710 Métis, or 1.7% of the Métis population,” who “reported being able to [converse] in an Aboriginal language....” That census also reported that out of the more than 70 aboriginal languages spoken across Canada by the 260,550 aboriginal language speakers, only 1,170 of these spoke Michif.

In his research, Peter Bakker, a linguist who studied the Michif language around 1988 to 1991, found that the Michif language is an anomaly. It does not fit into a language family with its mixture of Cree verbs and French nouns. It is neither an Algonquian language nor an Indo-European language.

He also explained that not all mixtures of French and Cree stem from the same source as Michif. He identified three types of mixtures, noting that the Cree-French or French-Cree spoken in northern areas of Saskatchewan and Alberta has no historical connection to the Michif language that is commonly referred to as southern Michif. This needs to be noted, because it has political and cultural implications.

Although the Métis National Council has identified Michif as the national language of the Métis people and our nation, Métis or Michif people also speak Nehiyawewin, or Cree; Dene; and Anishinaabemowin, or Saulteaux. If Métis communities are provided funding only for Michif, it does not honour the Cree, Dene and Saulteaux spoken in their respective communities.

The Gabriel Dumont Institute, which is the educational arm of the Métis nation in Saskatchewan, has been at the forefront of preserving the Michif language through the promotion and creation of Michif resources. Their website, metismuseum.ca, states that it “employs sociological conventions when classifying a Michif language: if a Michif person living in Saskatchewan calls their language “Michif,” then the Institute respects their wishes and calls that language “Michif”.

I've employed this same thinking about Michif in my research. My recommendations are based on the cultural and linguistic diversity that exists in our Métis communities across the Métis homeland and preliminary findings from my research.

I have completed two research projects on Michif language revitalization. The first project focused on studying the experiences of learners and fluent speakers at a land-based Michif language immersion camp. It was done in collaboration with the Gabriel Dumont Institute and SUNTEP, which stands for the Saskatchewan Urban Native Teacher Education Program, in Regina. Russell Fayant, a faculty member at SUNTEP Regina, was a co-investigator on this project.

The second study focused on effectiveness of transmitting the Michif language using video conferencing, like Zoom, in a mentor-apprentice program method by examining the experiences of the Michif language mentors and apprentices.

A major obstacle that I have encountered is appropriately compensating fluent language speakers to work as mentors and participate in language revitalization research projects. As I already mentioned, a majority of our language speakers are older. Many are receiving a pension and some are living on the guaranteed income supplement. Stipends or honorariums are considered income and therefore impact their annual income tax. These changes influence their future pension and guaranteed income supplement, so they are put in a position where if they participate, they are negatively impacted. Rather than being paid for their time and knowledge, they are penalized financially.

I recommend that the remuneration received by retired fluent indigenous language speakers not be considered income when it is used for indigenous language revitalization activities.

Second, the mentor-apprentice program has been proven to be an effective method of indigenous language transmission; however, it requires considerable time and money. If someone is interested in becoming a fluent speaker, there should be opportunities for them to take time away from work to spend those hours participating in language transmission activities with fluent speakers.

Language immersion programs are more effective than one-off language learning activities, so more needs to be done to support the immersion programs in schools, in homes and in communities. Indigenous languages need to be found in more places. We cannot rely just on schools. Communities need to be supported to create immersion programs like the mentor-apprentice program, as well as provided with resources to create videos, games, audio and television programming in the target language.

Ekosi . Marrsî. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you very much, Ms. Brice.

Thank you for being too polite to correct me. I thought you would be with Mr. Gabriel Dumont, but you are in fact a holder of the Gabriel Dumont research chair. You have my apologies.

We'll now proceed with the questions. We'll start with Mr. Vidal for six minutes.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to thank all our witnesses for joining us today. I appreciate your input.

All of you are very educated and professional people who have done a lot of work in research and whatnot, so I'm going to frame this question really quickly. I want to give each of you a short minute to answer it because I have a couple of other questions I want to get into specifically. I would ask you to be as brief as you can, but I want to give you all the opportunity.

You've all done a lot of great work and a lot of research on this subject, by the sounds of it. I would like you to just take a minute quickly and talk about the outcomes or the specific, data-based results that the revitalization of languages has on the well-being of indigenous people in our communities. That's the socio-economic aspect, whether it's education, health, cultural well-being or representation in the justice system. What's the data link to how the revitalization of languages impacts those outcomes for people in the communities?

Ms. Huron, do you want to go first? Then we'll let each of the other witnesses go as well.

[Miranda Huron]

Sure.

I'm unfortunately blanking on the name. There's the Hallett report, which talks about the social impacts of suicide prevention in communities with respect to language learning.

Multiple reports have come out in 2010 and unfortunately.... I should have the documents here.

However, AFN produced a 2017 report, which was the report on the national engagement sessions. That cites what was heard across the country from successful programming and so on.

I'll shift it over to my colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Go ahead, Ms. Alphonse, and then Ms. Brice.

[Danielle Alphonse]

Thank you.

I can send some documents to the committee with the research regarding well-being in connection to the language and culture.

The one thing I keep thinking about is that language encompasses everything. If we think about the Maori people and how they've started with their revitalizing of language, their mana.... We call it our snuw'uy'ulh, or our spirit. When you're speaking your language, you're strengthening your spirit. If you think of that soul wound that we have with the language loss, our connection to land and ceremonies, and all those pieces, it is collectively impacting us at all levels, if that makes sense.

I would like to follow up with some documents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Ms. Brice.

[Dr. Melanie Brice]

There is already significant research that has been conducted on the connection between indigenous language learning and well-being within our communities. I don't have all the studies. The one that really comes to mind comes from Dr. McIvor at the University of Victoria. It would be great to have somebody put together a database where that information would be easily accessible, as it would just take a little bit of searching to find the different research studies. There are quite a few studies out there that can attest to that connection.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you for that, and thank you for the offer to send us some of that information, because that can be incorporated into our report as we continue with the study.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions of specific individual witnesses now because I'm going to run out of time. Ms. Alphonse, I'll go first to you.

You talked a fair amount about technology and modern teaching methods. You even got into the use of apps, and you talked about TikTok a little bit. We actually heard earlier from somebody in the first panel about maybe using TikTok. I've seen some work being done in northern Saskatchewan recently using even virtual reality for different purposes. I'm curious if you would take a couple of minutes and quickly talk a little more about some of the ideas you might have around the benefits of using modern technology to advance the work of the revitalization of languages. as well.

[Danielle Alphonse]

That's a great question.

What I'm noticing about the technology piece and the online pieces.... I have searched for Hul'q'umi'num' in different school districts and Simon Fraser University and all sorts of places. I'm trying to track and look for where I can find more Hul'q'umi'num'. The FirstVoices platform, as well, has developed a keyboard, and they've developed a link to many of the languages, but it's limited in words and sentences. There's a real disconnect in what's happening online. Apps, I think, are really accessible for youth and also for educators if they're in the classroom, if they're able to use them within their classrooms and curricula. I'm just hopeful that we can utilize the technology that's there and with which there's already some success, as well as have what Melanie was speaking to, generating a space, a hub, that could be very accessible for anyone to develop.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Ms. Brice, really quickly, I want to just ask you.... In my own community in northern Saskatchewan, I know the elementary schools are teaching some basic Cree, Michif and Dene. I think this is really important when we talk about reconciliation and fostering relationships between our children as they grow up together. Could you comment quickly on how that use of language within our elementary schools is maybe a really good tool to foster the relationship that ultimately leads to a reconciliation of our children as they grow up together?

[Dr. Melanie Brice]

Definitely, the work that many of the elementary schools are doing around early learning and across the elementary grades in language learning has been great. Notably, at Rossignol Elementary Community School in Sakitawak—Île-à-la-Crosse—they are doing phenomenal work. I had the opportunity to visit their pre-K kindergarten classroom, and it was just wonderful to see the teachers, who were also speakers, talking to these children completely in the language. Even though the children were not able to respond, they understood exactly what they were being asked to do.

While these are all really great steps, the issues come in when the language isn't being supported in the home and in the communities. We're getting a lot of great things happening within schools, but we have to do more so that the children are immersed in this language, not just in schools but in their homes, so that there are.... I believe Ms. Alphonse was talking about the language nest initiatives that have been very successful with the Maori. That is about supporting language in the home and in the community as well. It gives opportunities for more than just the students in terms of reconciliation with the greater population if other people have access to these language opportunities.

[The Chair, Liberal, Marc Garneau]

Thank you, Mr. Vidal.

Mr. Weiler is next.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also am very grateful for the witnesses who are joining us virtually, as well as for the witness who has come all the way from the north shore of British Columbia to join us in person.

The first question I'd like to ask is for Ms. Huron.

You mentioned in your opening comments some of the challenges so far with the implementation of the act, particularly with sections 8 and 9. I was wondering if you could share with this committee some advice on how the federal government could best approach coordination with the provinces and territories in the context of this act.

[Miranda Huron]

I think the main step is getting it on the agenda. I've been watching the agenda for the FPT meetings, and it isn't getting on that agenda. When we look at the way those meetings are coordinated, we see that Métis, Inuit and first nations don't necessarily have a seat at the table. It's usually a pre-meeting, and sometimes they're invited as guests, so there's the question: Should they be coming into those meetings as well? I think so.

Even within the pre-meetings, having a very significant point of meeting to really discuss, because this is a very complicated issue.... Even when we were doing the national engagements, pulling apart what's provincial and territorial policy from what's federal policy is so intertwined because we just don't have the same colonial boundaries that exist. It needs to really be a conversation of how we cross those jurisdictional hurdles.