What we Heard Report: Consultations on the Implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act — October 14, 2020 — Métis National Council

Context

The Government of Canada is undertaking a variety of consultation activities across Canada on the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act, with a focus on the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages and Directors and the Indigenous Languages Funding Model.

These consultation sessions will help the Minister of Canadian Heritage make recommendations to the Governor in Council for the appointment of a Commissioner of Indigenous Languages and up to three Directors. Feedback from these sessions will also inform the development of the Indigenous Languages Funding Model.

For further details and information about the Indigenous Languages Act and current consultations, we invite you to read our Discussion guide: Consultations and Engagement on the Implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act.

A summary of the most recent consultation session is provided below. The summary is not a complete account of the discussions. Instead, it highlights the key themes that emerged from this consultation session. Please visit the online consultation portal and review the discussion guide to share your own and/or additional views.

Participants Overall Comments and Suggestions

Office of the Commissionner of Indigenous Languages

The following considerations and themes were raised during the discussion on the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages:

Roles and Responsibilities:

Participants indicated that it was important that the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages:

• Ensure equitable treatment for all distinctions-based groups;
• Recognize the diversity within Indigenous communities and understand what’s happening on the ground at the community level;
• Involve grassroots people in their work, specifically when it comes to research and census information;
• Look at examples of successful initiatives in Canada and throughout the world, share these best practices across distinctions-based groups and build on them;
• Support training and capacity development, the development of Indigenous language-related databases, and holistic approaches to monitoring the implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act.

Several participants also shared that the Office should advocate for rights related to Indigenous languages.

Plans and Priorities and Early Successes - Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages:

According to participants, it is critical that the Office establish a five-year strategic plan as soon as possible in order to measure progress on Indigenous language revitalization. The strategic plan should be distinctions-based and should take into account community capacity. Participants noted that the Office should adopt a forward-thinking and strategic approach, recognizing that funding on its own won’t solve all challenges facing Indigenous languages.

Selection of a Commissioner and Directors:

Participants proposed that appointees to the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages should be:

• Indigenous - many participants specified that the Commissioner should always be an Indigenous person and that the Directors should represent the distinctions-based groups. The Métis representative should be from the community, should be fluent (or learning to be fluent) in Michif, and have a presence in the homeland; and
• Strong leaders, critical thinkers, effective managers and able to navigate government.

Participants acknowledged that the task ahead for the Office is significant and wondered if one Commissioner and three Directors would be sufficient.

Indigenous Languages Funding Model

The following considerations and themes were raised during the discussion on the proposed Indigenous Languages Funding Model:

Language Vitality and Governance Capacity:

According to participants, the Indigenous Languages Funding Model should:

• Take into account population and follow a regional distribution, but prioritize critically endangered languages;
• Reflect a Nation-to-Nation approach;
• Ensure equity; and
• Incorporate both language vitality and governance capacity in a distinctions-based framework.

Participants noted that basing the funding model on the number of speakers may not be the best approach and that the model should ensure a bottom-up, transparent approach to funding.

What to Fund:

According to participants, the funding model has to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach and be sufficiently flexible to encompass what communities need for Indigenous language revitalization. Some examples of efforts that should receive support under the model include:

• Effective community-based programming that’s already underway;
• The development of community language assessments;
• Funding for activities that integrate language and cultural learning;
• Language banking/archiving; and
• Innovative projects and new technologies.

Participants stressed that funding needs are urgent and that in the spirit of a Nation-to-Nation approach, a new funding model should support a Métis Nation Language Accord.

Funding Process:

According to participants, the funding process should:

• Enable funding to flow directly to communities, where the work on Indigenous language revitalization is taking place, rather than to provincial organizations or institutions; and
• Provide for adequate, sustainable and long-term funding.

Some participants felt that the process of administering funding for Métis language revitalization efforts should be Métis-led.

Defining and Measuring Success:

The discussion on defining and measuring results generated a range of ideas about what success could look like:

• An increase in Indigenous language speakers and an increase in awareness of, and interest in, Indigenous languages;
• Teaching language along with culture as they are interconnected;
• Community engagement and involvement in efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages; and
• Indigenous languages being more visible and heard in print, in the arts, in various media and in the community.

Some participants mentioned the importance of recognizing the accomplishments and successes of people and organizations working to revitalize Indigenous languages

Additional Comments

Participants raised a number of other points, including:

• Although Michif is the official language of the Métis Nation, Métis people speak other Indigenous languages.
• Michif is critically endangered and urgent action is needed to revitalize the language.
• It is up to Nations, not governments, to revitalize Indigenous languages.

Indigenous languages contain unique worldviews and knowledge that will be lost unless action is taken to ensure they can thrive.