Brief Submitted to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Bill C-91, An Act Respecting Indigenous Languages

Sharon Nate, H.B.E.d., Matawa Education Manager on behalf of the Matawa Chiefs Council 200 Lillie Street North | Thunder Bay, Ontario | P7C 5Y2 | Phone: (807) 768-3300 | [email protected]

1. Background

While many of the nine (9) members of the Matawa Chiefs Council (MCC) had varied opportunities to be appraised of the background and co-development activities undertaken around Bill C-91 by both the Assembly of (AFN), and Chiefs of Ontario (COO), their respective national and regional political organizations—February 20, 2019 was their first opportunity to review Bill C-91 together as a Council since introduced on February 5, 2019 and went to Second Reading on February 20, 2019. No representatives of the MCC participated, nor were they asked to participate, in the collaborative approach to develop Bill C-91.

a) Participation in collaborative process

Members of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (SCCH) reviewing the Second Reading of Bill C-91 need to be aware that the First Nations of the MCC are located at a great distance from southern Ontario and the capital region. Four members of the MCC are located in northern Ontario and, five are remote communities—only accessible by air or winter road.

The MCC vary in their participation at AFN and COO Chiefs Assemblies and collaborative approaches developed. Participation can be limited for various reasons, some including exorbitant costs, isolation and location of processes. This includes the intensive engagement sessions held across the country far from their communities and often requiring more than one flight or mode of transportation. The Ontario Regional Session held by the AFN Indigenous Languages Initiatives from September 13 – 14, 2017 was not attended by members of the MCC.

Additionally, the location of SCCH hearings, and lack of broadband internet in some of the Matawa First Nations, also played a role in not being able to participate in the collaborative process for Bill C-91, including their community members submitting online questionnaires electronically. Hence, the submission of this brief as a Council. Should the SCCH wish for more opportunity to discuss, a teleconference call is encouraged, and, could be arranged.

b) Matawa community-based language renewal and revitalization based on successful Māori model of Te Ako Whaka Tere

Within the Matawa First Nations—the Ojibway, and Oji-Cree Indigenous languages exist. Fluency and retention rates vary, but all are either in the process of being lost, or in danger of becoming extinct. It was recently determined that many current language speakers will be lost within the next 5 – 10 years if action is not taken now. In 2015, the MCC recognized the loss of

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 1 of 8

languages as a critical concern, identifying the renewal and revitalization of our languages as a priority and urgent need for our communities. They passed a MCC Resolution ‘Language as a Nation Building Tool’ calling for to use of discretionary funding to initiate or continue language retention and renewal initiatives in the individual Matawa First Nations communities as very few opportunities for funding were available throughout Canada. The MCC recognized that the loss of language stood in direct correlation to the rate of suicide taking place in their communities. This was confirmed in Chandler (2005), where higher levels of language knowledge was a protective factor in a community having fewer suicides.1 Some Matawa First Nations, like , have declared a Declaration of State of Local Emergency in 2013 due to the high occurrence of suicides taking place. This Declaration, has not been cancelled.

From 2015—2017, responding to the direction of the MCCC, Matawa Education undertook some anecdotal research on methods to reverse the growing trend of loss of language in Matawa despite community efforts to provide Ojibway, Cree and Oji-Cree language instruction within their educational systems. In the research, Matawa Education found a successful learning methodology that uses a mixture of learning styles to create a holistic approach to learning a language called Te Ako Whaka Tere. This model was developed in Aotearoa (New Zealand) in the 1990’s after efforts to secure the survival of the Māori language stepped up a gear in 1985. In that year, the Waitangi Tribunal heard the Te Reo Māori claim, which asserted that te reo was a taonga (treasure) that the Crown (government) was obliged to protect under the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal found in favour of the claimants and recommended a number of legislative and policy remedies. Māori was made an official language of Aotearoa (New Zealand) under the Māori Language Act, 1987.

In 2018, funded through Indigenous Services Canada’s New Paths for Education, Matawa Education secured two Māori Indigenous Language Revitalization Specialists/Heritage Language Education Consultants with a combined experience of over forty (40) years in using Te Ara Reo and accelerated learning methodologies that target language revitalization to assist in establishing the Matawa Education Language Revitalization Project. Working with Indigenous Peoples in Matawa region, these Specialists/Consultants were tasked with the responsibility of developing the curriculum and delivery model for language revitalization, including applicable training within the Matawa First Nations in Ojibway, Cree and Oji-Cree based on the successful approach used in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Throughout 2018 and 2019, the Indigenous Language Revitalization team are in the process of developing the Matawa Waka Tere method. In 2018, In 2018, the MCC passed a Resolution ‘Approval of Certificate, Diploma and Degree Programs in Matawa Indigenous Languages’ endorsing this initiative to include the training of community-based language teachers to receive formal accreditation, in partnership with Six Nations Polytechnic Institute for: 1-year certificate, 2-year diploma and 3-year degree programs in Ojibway, Cree, and Oji-Cree as a part of the Matawa Waka Tere Language Revitalization Project.

1 Centre for Suicide Prevention, “Suicide Prevention Resource Kit,” 2013, accessed March 4, 2019, https://www.suicideinfo.ca/resource/indigenous-suicide-prevention/

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 2 of 8

Matawa Waka Tere

Matawa in Ojibway refers to the meeting place of the rivers.

Waka in Māori is the word for canoe.

Tere in Māori means moving fast.

Translation: A fast moving canoe on the rivers that meet

2. Reclaiming, Revitalizing, Strengthening and Maintaining Indigenous Languages

In relation to the efforts the Matawa First Nations have made to reclaim, revitalize, strengthen and maintain our Ojibway, Cree and Oji-Cree languages, and, using a non-legal review of the Second Reading of Bill C-91, the MCC have determined that substantive amendments will be required and, that:

• it should not receive the consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada in its current form as it proposed in Second Reading • it needs to go back to Indigenous leadership in Canada to deliberate before June 2019 • collaborative efforts to discuss the implementation of prioritizing funding measures, operationalizing the Office of the Commissioner, and supporting capacity building in relation to regional initiatives to assist local efforts in language assessment and revitalization initiatives must cease until Bill C-91 in Second Reading goes back to Indigenous leadership in Canada and a proper consultation process is used

Generally, the views of the MCC are as follows:

a) Interference of Indigenous jurisdiction on mother tongues

With respect to provisions in the Second Reading of Bill C-91 regarding the proposal for the establishment of an Office of Indigenous Languages and Commissioner (Office) by the Government of Canada, its associated paternalistic details of its functions and bureaucracy— the MCC are not in agreement with the establishment of this Office or Commissioner. Moreover, innovative, evidence-based/proven approaches to reclaiming, revitalizing, strengthening and maintaining Indigenous languages like the Matawa Waka Tere which is based on culturally- appropriate and jurisdiction-based methodology would be ignored and replaced by a removed, centralized, highly-bureaucratic authority as Bill C-91 proposes.

Additionally, the MCC is of the view that, in the case of Indigenous languages, Indigenous organizations or governing bodies as defined in Bill C-91—do not carry the specific rights to play a role in asserting jurisdiction on Indigenous mother tongues so they should not be provided a role in Bill C-91 or be funded by it. The responsibility of asserting jurisdiction to protect the

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 3 of 8

Indigenous mother tongues rests directly on Indigenous families, communities and leadership. This includes control of policies, funding and programming. MCC though, does concede, that Indigenous organizations and/or governing bodies may play a role in providing advice on developing Bill C-91 as Indigenous leadership have been appraised on generally by the AFN (see Assembly of First Nations Bulletin – Tabling of an Act respecting Indigenous Languages in the House of Commons, February 7, 2019).

Some other concerns with respect to the establishment of the Office and Indigenous Languages Commissioner, include it being a creation of the Government of Canada and the concern that all reporting is proposed to be done for the internal machinery of the Government of Canada and—not Indigenous leadership. Additionally, it has no mention of input into the selection of a Commissioner or Directors, other than consultation. This is not sufficient for the MCC given the lack of clarity in Canada on the issue of consultation. Concern also lies with the Office being dependent on the good-will of the Canadian government and the precarious position in which Indigenous languages would be placed as governing parties change.

On the issue of the proposed structure and operations of the Office, the parameters of the new bureaucracy have not been delineated. Based on similar federal structures, it will require significant start-up funding and on-going operations will also incur significant costs that will be taken from Indigenous communities. Additionally, other locations than Ottawa may be more efficient in terms of working with Indigenous communities.

With respect to proposed evaluation and reporting provisions, MCC is concerned that all reporting, both annual and at the 5-year evaluation, is made to the Government of Canada. There is no requirement for reports to be reviewed or provided to Indigenous leadership. Also, there is no requirement that prescribes what data from individuals, communities, Indigenous governments, or other “entities” may be collected, or how this data is stored or shared. At minimum, the principles of OCAP (ownership, control, access and possession) should be included in the legislation and applied to all activities of the Office if Bill C-91 proceeds in its current form. Reference is made to “entities” which may be operating programs or research related to Indigenous languages, however, there is no indication that non-Indigenous organizations or institutions (such as mainstream universities) could not have access to funding for these activities.

b) Lack of specific or firm commitment to funding Indigenous Peoples and communities and wrongfully building a bureaucracy

In MCC’s view, it is not acceptable that Bill C-91 at Second Reading provides no guarantee of adequate, sustainable, and long-term funding for the reclamation, revitalization, maintenance and strengthening of Indigenous languages—especially to Indigenous Peoples and communities directly. Instead, Bill C-91 says it will “establish measures to facilitate the provision of funding,” rather than firmly committing to providing it. In Bill C-91’s current form, a bulk of the funding will most likely be appropriated to the Office of Indigenous Languages and Commissioner, a

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 4 of 8

proposal, the MCC are in disagreement with. Additionally, annual business plans and related budgets will depend more on the priorities of the federal government than on the needs of Indigenous communities. While there is a requirement for a review every 5 years, there is no requirement for any long-range or strategic planning for the Office. This suggests that “sustainable and long-term funding” may not be supportable for the Office. Furthermore, Bill C- 91 in Second Reading does not indicate the source of the funding to support implementation, other than it being based on an annual request to the Treasury Board. MCC is concerned that if this funding is to come from existing federal programs, there will be an impact on First Nations’ current language revitalization initiatives.

Rather than pump resources into another paternalistic/colonial government bureaucracy, the MCC urges that alternate funding models be considered based on the approach of other countries who have assisted Indigenous Peoples in bringing back their languages.

c) Incomplete process of consultation and collaboration

It is the view of MCC that co-development of Bill C-91 was a good start but the duty to consult Indigenous Peoples on it has not been fully discharged as it effectively started on February 5, 2019 when the bill was first introduced and made public to them. It cannot be assumed that, because there was some Indigenous participation in co-development that it has received the approval of Indigenous People. MCC recommends that AFN brings Bill C-91 to a Chiefs Assembly prior to, or at, the next Annual Chiefs Assembly for Indigenous leadership to review and have substantive discussion. MCC further recommends, that the June 2019 timeline for making the proposed Bill C-91 law be abandoned, if the Chiefs have not been able to meet In-Assembly before then.

3. Conclusion

The MCC will not support Bill C-91 in its current form in Second Reading or without consultation with the MCC. In this brief, we have outlined several key points to consider in the process of reviewing Bill C-91. If legislation is to go ahead, MCC respectfully asks that the SCCH considers the substantial amendments and address the issues in this brief in order to strengthen Bill C-91 as we have outlined them.

4. About the Matawa Chiefs Council, Matawa First Nations and Matawa Education

The Matawa Chiefs Council (MCC) consists of the nine First Nation Chiefs who represent the Matawa First Nation communities that include: eight First Nations in and one First Nation in Robinson-Superior (though not a signatory to this Treaty).2 Five Matawa First Nations are accessible by air and winter road while the other four are accessible by all season roads. The combined population of Matawa is over 10,000.

2 See map in Figure 1 on page 7.

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 5 of 8

The MCC meet on a regular basis passing Resolutions throughout the year. They also gather as Nations annually at an Annual General Meeting (AGM). The AGM provides Matawa Peoples with the opportunity to gather as Nations, to celebrate the many success that have take place over the last year and, reflect on the challenges that continue to be faced and, to develop solutions moving forward. They provide the overall direction and broad decision making to Matawa First Nations Management (MFNM) which is an ISO 9001 registered non-profit established in 1988.3

MFNM provides a variety of advisory services and program delivery to our member First Nations, including in education and language revitalization (as one its programs), amongst other areas. For the past plus 30 years, MFNM has expanded services catering to the needs of the Matawa First Nations including the establishment of 5 umbrella/related corporations and 2 registered charities. Visit: www.matawa.on.ca

Matawa Education, a service of MFNM, provides support and advisory services to community schools and local education authorities in Matawa First Nations that result in school improvements and positive impact on the quality of students’ learning. Matawa Education liaises with Indigenous organizations, governments and education institutions at all levels. It continues to develop its capacity to provide second-level services to schools in the Matawa First Nations, including IT support, under the Pathways to Achieve Student Success (PASS!) program. It also administers a Post-Secondary Student Services program for 5 Matawa First Nations (Aroland, Ginoogaming, Long Lake #58, Neskantaga and Webequie First Nations). Matawa Education also provides community liaison and education partnership program liaison services. Each year, it provides education bursary incentives and hosts an education conference to provide professional development to community schools and local education authorities. It is in its 12 year in 2019. Liaising with the Matawa Education Authority (also a registered charity), it operates the Matawa Education and Care Centre (MECC), an alternative secondary school approved by the Ontario Ministry of Education as an education and accommodation centre in the city of Thunder Bay for Matawa First Nations students who do not have secondary education in their communities (formerly known as the Matawa Learning Centre). Visit: www.education.matawa.on.ca

3 Tribal Councils are institutions established as, “a grouping of bands with common interests who voluntarily join together to provide advisory and/or program services to member bands.”

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 6 of 8

Figure 1: Matawa member First Nations

Matawa Chiefs Council Brief to SC on Canadian Heritage RE: Bill C-91, March 8, 2019 – DRAFT #2 Page 7 of 8