Presentation of Aluki Kotierk, President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated (NTI) to the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples regarding Bill C-91 (Indigenous Languages Act) April 2, 2019
• Good morning, Senators. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to speak to you about the future of Inuktut and other Indigenous languages, and the role our country’s governing system must play.
• For Inuit, the future of our language is central to our future as a people: It is central to who and what we have been, to who and what we are and to who and what we hope to become.
• The current generation of Inuit leaders has a great responsibility to do everything we can to sustain our language.
• But, as Senators, you, too, have great responsibilities.
• Nunavummiut and Inuit across Canada look to you to review this bill with a view to making it the best possible bill it can be in helping us to keep our language rich, vibrant, and strong … a language of the home, a language of the school, and a language of the workplace throughout Inuit Nunangat, the Inuit homeland in Canada.
• We seek, in our homeland, what every Anglophone and Francophone enjoys in Canada, the secure knowledge that our language is one of the essential and enduring building blocks of our country.
• Our language is central to our identity, but it is also part of Canada’s identity as a nation.
• Our language is a gift, not a burden; it’s future should be a source of hope and inspiration, not defeat and resignation.
• As you know, I had the opportunity to speak to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Heritage, on this Bill. I would invite those of you who may have not had the chance to review my comments and answers to questions there, but I do not intend to repeat all of them here.
• Rather, I would like to use my time with you to underscore four key points:
– First and it pains me to say this, our language is disappearing
– Secondly, this bill, as it stands, will not change that unhappy reality
– Thirdly, the House of Commons Committee, in failing to make needed amendments to this Bill, failed us and the people of Canada
– And fourthly, the amendments that we proposed to the House of Commons, that we are once again proposing to you are sound, reasonable and necessary, and we urge you to adopt them.
• My first point, our language is disappearing.
• This is no less true because it is so unwelcome.
• You will hear from Professor Ian Martin who has concluded that the use of the Inuit language in the home is dropping steadily at the rate of approximately 1% per year; at the current rate of
decline, the Inuit language will be spoken at home by only 4% of Inuit in Nunavut by 2051.
• In short, more of the status quo will just be dangerous for our language, in all probability, it will be fatal.
• This leads to my second point: this bill, as it stands, will not change the status quo in the way needed.
• In concluding that, I do not say that the Bill is without some positive and welcome features.
• Some of the preamble provides a helpful context, and the statement that section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act already recognizes some common law aboriginal rights in relation to language may shape public opinion on these matters. An Indigenous Languages Commissioner may lead to more focused federal bureaucratic support or may just become a place where problems are parked and initiative and creativity are dissipated. The Bill has some nice principles about funding support, but these appear to be entirely dependent on future annual budget priorities.
• But on the things that really matter, things such as the provision of federal programs and services in Inuktut, use of Inuktut in public sector workplaces, and the enormous importance of investing in education, including teacher training, the Bill falls far, far short.
• I would like nothing better than to say to you, with confidence, that this Bill, if adopted as it is, will stop and then reverse the projected erosion and loss of our language.
• But it will not.
• Failing to make the necessary changes will not have the required impact
• That leads to my third key point: the House of Commons Standing Committee reviewing this Bill did not meet the challenge of making this Bill what it should be for Inuit.
• As part of the team of Inuit organizations working on this legislative project for more than two years, we offered, throughout that time, a wealth of legislative provisions which could be added to the Bill to make it work more effectively for Inuktut and for Inuit.
• Even when our more optimistic proposals were dismissed without proper consideration, we put together a core of legislative amendments for consideration by the Commons Standing Committee, they are attached to my written presentation.
• You can imagine our disappointment, and frustration, that those amendments do not appear to have even been seriously examined by that Committee.
• When I appeared as a witness at the Committee, I did not even get any questions about our proposals, why they might be important, or how they might work.
• No one suggested that our proposals were unworkable on practical grounds … or exceeded the authority of Parliament … or would intrude on provincial or territorial laws … or be implemented according to an unrealistic timetable … or would impose unworkable financial demands … or would cause injustice to current federal workers … or anything of that sort.
• Rather, they were just ignored.
• Much has been said, by judges as well as by political leaders, about the “Honour of the Crown” in its relations with indigenous peoples.
• Surely, putting aside the law but embracing the moral issues, this concept is as relevant to how Parliament makes laws in relation to Indigenous peoples, particularly laws that are said to be products of “co-development”, as it is relevant to the executive actions of the Crown.
• That leads me to my fourth and final key point.
• I believe, I sincerely believe that when you read carefully the amendments that we have been proposing, and continue to propose, to this Bill, you will satisfy yourselves that each and every one is well conceived, straightforwardly expressed, and entirely amenable to staged implementation.
• Indeed, I could easily turn that conclusion on its head by inviting any of you, upon careful reading of what we have proposed, to identify any particular problems that you believe would result from adopting these amendments.
• In looking at our proposals, you will see that page one is a total of four provisions to be added to the body of the Bill. They would require the Minister to enter into a separate Inuktut Annex to the Act. The proposed Inuktut Annex follows on the next two pages.
• Two additional Annexes could added for First Nations and Metis peoples, if they wish.
• The Annex relates principally to the delivery of certain government services and programs in Inuktut, over time, to the extent that demand requires and capacity allows.
• You will see that we are being both practical and realistic, while including what is absolutely necessary for the delivery of essential services in a way that is equitable and comparable to what the speakers of Canada’s Official Languages now enjoy. Since the delivery of essential services in Inuktut is a matter of justice, and indeed a matter of life and death for Inuit in the case of medical services, we cannot ask for less, and we ask you to do the same.
• In closing, Inuit take pride in being an original people of Canada, and, beyond our fierce determination to retain and apply our own identity as Inuit, we are determined to contribute as much as we can to the health and well-being of this country as a whole.
• We have not developed our legislative proposals out of some narrow agenda of maximizing our interests at the expense of anyone else, or of setting in motion commitments that could only lead to logjams or ill-will.
• Our proposed amendments are not only sound and timely. They are necessary. They appeal to what is best in this country, not what is most fearful.
• We invite this Committee to show leadership and courage in adopting them.
