MCIVOR – February 21, 2019

Dr. Onowa McIvor Associate Professor, Indigenous Education University of Victoria

Appearance before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage Re: Study of the subject-matter of Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages.

Written submission and speaking notes

tansi kiyawaw Onowa McIvor nitsikason niya nîhîyaw iskwîw kinosao sîpi îkwa ohci kinanâskamon ôma askiy kâ-ayânân WSANEC îkwa Lkwungen

Greetings to you all My name is Onowa McIvor I am a Swampy woman My family is from Norway House and Cross Lake Cree Nations in Northern Manitoba, I offer gratitude and acknowledgement to the WSANEC & Lkwugen Nations whose land I am on today. ….

Acknowledgement Referring to an article I co-wrote in 2013 about Indigenous language-in-education policy – it seems that Canada’s Big Chill1 is starting to thaw – While the exposure to multiple and concurrent forms of genocide has much longer, the experience of being left out of federal language legislation in Canada for just over 50 years since the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission was struck in 1963. To quote a paper in preparation, “The foundation of that cultural and linguistic imperialistic process was as if Indigenous people did not exist. Although not formally invited to the table, Indigenous people took notice of this national initiative and many understood the potential far-reaching effects of its outcomes. One such individual was Mrs. Ethel Brandt Monteur who addressed the Commission members in 1963 during their cross-country tour. She stated, “I represent the National Indian Council of Canada and we respectfully submit that Canada is a tri-cultural country…Our imprint is indelible on this land. We should not need to ask for representation [on this commission] …We have no intention of being a forgotten people in our homeland.”2 The Commission’s work established the Official Languages Act of 1969 securing English and French as languages of the state, leaving Indigenous languages out in the cold.”

I am living proof of the Indigenous resilience of our people. My grandparents were speakers of our language but did not pass the language down to my mother and her siblings and so she did not have this gift to offer to me. And yet, here I am. I am a language warrior, recoverer and a

1 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019 scholar of Indigenous language revitalization because of their strength and resilience. I come to this work from a deeply personal place, as many Indigenous people do and this family and community history drives my scholarly life. I believe in the power of policy and what it can achieve and I thank you for the opportunity to address you today.

Concerns and Recommendations

I have 4 main points I would like to speak to and others I will have included in my written submission that I hope will be considered by the committee in that form.

1) UNDRIP – There is a direct contradiction from the Preamble with includes in Clause 3 the Government of Canada’s commitment to implementation, but later in Section 5g shifts to obscure wording of “to advance the achievement of the objectives”

First, I would recommend that the Bill matches the Preamble and adds UNDRIP as 6b. “The Government of Canada recognizes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as it relates to Indigenous languages, Articles 13 and 14.”

If there is a legal reason this cannot be done, then as a second best measure 5.(g) should at least have stronger wording and also include specific references to UNDRIP Articles 14 & 15 (as does 5.(e) above refer to the TRC Calls to Action 13 to 15).

The point of adding Articles 14 & 15 to the UNDRIP clause (wherever is it may land) is not only for consistency with 5.e (the clause referring to the TRC Calls to Action form above) but leads to my next point which relates to responsibilities around education.

UNDRIP ARTICLES 13 & 14 appear here for reference

Article 13 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. 2. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected and also to ensure that indigenous peoples can understand and be understood in political, legal and administrative proceedings, where necessary through the provision of interpretation or by other appropriate means.

Article 14 1. Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. 2. Indigenous individuals, particularly children, have the right to all levels and forms of education of the State without discrimination.

2 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019

3. States shall, in conjunction with indigenous peoples, take effective measures, in order for indigenous individuals, particularly children, including those living outside their communities, to have access, when possible, to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.3

2) Rights protection and the link to Education

Specifically in Sections 5.(e), 8 and 9 there is concerning language that equate the federal government obligations to respect “the powers and jurisdictions of provinces” and uphold “the rights of Indigenous peoples”. These two obligations should not be equated as one. The rights of Indigenous peoples are preexisting and supersede federal governments obligation to comply with “the powers and jurisdictions of provinces”.

Besides the legal and rights-based arguments for this, it has an important practical implication regarding education “established and controlled by Indigenous people” and provided in their own language as referred to in UNDRIP Article 14. One of the critical areas of damage to our languages in Canada has been schools, but increasingly it is one of the areas that we look to as a solution, especially as the place where many of our children spend 6-7hours a day, 5 days a week, 10 months of the year. To bring clarity to this point I would like to refer to Jordan’s Principle. This is in no way to bring disrespect to this tragic event, but rather to emphasize the parallel jurisdictional complexities that exist in the education sector as it relates to Indigenous peoples, as was acknowledged to exist in the health sector between the federal and provincial governments. Both instances have to do with Indigenous children’s rights. In this case it is about the life and death of our languages and I would argue the situation and potential effects are equally serious.

The basis for Jordan's Principle (2007) is named in memory of the late Jordan River Anderson. A 5-year old boy from (my nation) in Manitoba who died (in 2004) waiting for the care he needed. Caught in disputes between the federal and provincial governments who could not agree on who should pay.4

These disputes are rooted in various agreements, founded in the Crown’s fiduciary responsibilities to Indigenous peoples based on primarily the , confirmed and now enforced through the Indian Act. The reality that Canada divided itself into provinces and territories and then devolved the responsibility of education (off-reserve) to those entities does not supersede or replace these pre-existing agreements or Indigenous rights therein. The reality of our demographics also is the majority of our people do not live on reserve or in the territories and for Metis people reserves have no meaning.

This is a separate but circular argument for changes to abovementioned Sections (5.(e), 8 and 9) to separate the federal government’s obligations to recognize and affirm Indigenous rights apart from and before they are concerned with delegated provincial jurisdictions, but also to ensure that UNDRIP and particularly Article 14 as it relates to the effects on education are

3 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019 affirmed in this Bill. Otherwise, we will continue the educational equivalent of Jordan’s principle to death of Indigenous languages via jurisdictional complications particularly in creating Indigenous-medium school country-wide easily and quickly.

Two strong examples of this legal complexity that currently exist are teacher training and regulation, and school funding and adherence to provincial curriculums, all of which continuously hinders Indigenous efforts to reclaim, revitalize and maintain their languages.

3) Creating lists that are neither summative nor exhaustive are detractive and potentially dangerous. (None of these lists have a statement such as “but not limited to”.)

Sections 5.(b), 23.(e) and 25 all include lists of sorts. Lists convey a sense of comprehensiveness, as in, these are the things that are important or will be supported (and often by importance in the order they appear). None of these lists appear to me to have been developed by Indigenous language revitalization scholars with a deep understanding of the field and its current state and foreseeable directions.

I would STRONGLY encourage either eliminating these lists or an earnest revision. Please see suggestions within my written submission and I would be happy to consult further on this issue if desired by the committee.

Suggested revisions:

These lists should either be “higher level” and more summative or more exhaustive and I would suggest perhaps even hierarchical if you are to go this route.

5.(b) including their efforts to:

(i) Plan initiatives and activities for restoring or maintaining fluency in Indigenous languages, (ii) Support entities specializing in Indigenous languages, (iii) Support Indigenous language and cultural learning activities, [culture is assumed in language, culture specific (without language driven) projects should be mandated elsewhere] (iv) Create educational language learning materials, (v) Assess the status of Indigenous languages, (vi) Undertake research or studies in respect of Indigenous languages

23.(e) support innovative projects and the use of new technologies in Indigenous language education and revitalization…. [This reference is too specific and also would require defining. A hammer is a technology and so is a video game.]

25. … including its efforts to

4 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019

- Why would this list be different from 5b? Should it not simply refer back to 5b as we have seen in other places in the bill as the kinds of efforts that will be supported? This list seemed like an adaptation yet different from the original list in 5b.

25. (a) see 5.(b) iv above as replacement. I could not support this clause as written. (b). why these standards? Teacher training and new standards for Indigenous language teachers is a MUCH higher priority. (c) See 5.(b)v above (d). See 5.(b)i above, although the wording in 25. (d) is better and more suitable would be a better replacement for 5.(b)i above (e) See 5.(b)iii above or combine these two and list in just one place.

4) Section 24 – We are in a new era regarding research. Indigenous communities will no longer tolerate being “researched”. The Tri-Council Funding agencies are nearing the end of a two-year consultation process on how to enact the Calls to Action relating to research “by and with” Indigenous peoples and so I would suggest that this clause come into line with what has already been established by Indigenous peoples and these national entities as acceptable. As simple suggested revision is within (below).

Suggested revision Section 24 (1) The Office may undertake Indigenous-led or governed research or studies… (or some other way to indicate that the research will be led or done by Indigenous people or guided by Indigenous bodies if they choose to work with non-Indigenous researchers or organizations). We do not want contracts going straight from the Office of Indigenous Languages Commissioners to non-Indigenous peoples without an Indigenous-led governance ethics and approvals process.

Additional suggestions

Language that could be strengthened:

Section 11 – “may cause” – what does this mean? Isn’t this already true?

Section 12 – I am not in opposition to Office of Commissioner but we are missing a National Indigenous Languages Organization in this overall strategy. Besides funding directly to communities and organizations that are doing the grassroots work, the space for infrastructure building is vacuous. Besides a few shining regional examples, we are missing a country-wide effort for support for planning, education and training, resource creation, sharing of knowledge and resources across communities. This work will be ten times harder, and 100 times less effective without a body like this with a national centre and regional hubs (some are pre-existing) to support the colossal level of support and infrastructure that will need to be built over the next 5-10 years.

5 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019

Section 23 – order does matter. Hierarchy does exist even unintentionally when not explicitly otherwise. The primary mandate of this office should be the current 23.b. If this is not done, there will be nothing to do in 23a. My recommendation is to reverse the order in order to provide clarity and direction to future governments and Commissions about their priorities.

As an aside, the word “fluency” is largely not used any longer in Additional language learning (ALL) scholarship and rather “proficiency” is a more measurable concept. This ia shift we are making in the field of Indigenous Language Revitalization, although folks are used to the term fluency and so the full shift will take some time. This scholarship aligns with the Centre for Canadian Language Benchmarks (based on current ALL scholarship) which supports the national standard testing for new immigrants to Canada. https://www.language.ca/home/

---- I suggest a new Guide to Legislation be established at the earliest possible time. This was co-developed legislation. Compromises and collaborative decisions were made that at least 3 of the parties would live with, one could not. At least speak to the compromises and collaborative decisions that resulted in this legislation before us that can be publicly shared.

I suggest specifically that: • the issue of Officialization be addressed directly. • UNDRIP be addressed directly. • There is a clear understanding made as to how the Bill/Act creates stable long-term funding, and stable long-term office for the Office of the Commissioner regards of government changes in the near or farther off future. This was a platform that at least the representatives from AFN leaned on.

----

Closing comments

Yes, it is a Bill. It is a form of what we have been fighting for - for more than 50 years. As the Minister has said, yes, we need a Bill to make changes to in the future, agreed. And yes, the time is now. The time is actually overdue but there seems to be cross-party political will to see this through, which is refreshing. However, if this Bill is successful, we will live with this Act for at least 5 (quite formative) years and possibly much longer as it can difficult to convince new people to change a bill once it is approved initially. It is in this spirit that I ask you to consider my recommendations and advice herein. ekosi, ay-hay. (that is all, thank-you)

6 MCIVOR – February 21, 2019

1 Ball J., & McIvor O. (2013) Canada’s Big Chill: Indigenous languages in education. In: Language Issues in Comparative Education. Comparative and International Education (A Diversity of Voices), vol 1. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. 2 Source: Laurendeau, A., & Dunton, D. (2006). The CBC digital archives website. www.cbc.ca/archives 3 Source: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (A/RES/61/295) 4 Source: Jordan’s Principle. https://www.canada.ca/en/indigenous-services-canada/services/jordans- principle/boy-behind-jordans-principle.html

7