What we Heard Report: Consultations on the Implementation of the Indigenous Languages Act — September 28, 2020 — Saskatchewan

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 raised a number of considerations for the Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages, including:

• working from the perspective that language is connected to Elders and to the land; taking a non-Western approach to their work; and having a good understanding of contextual differences between different language groups;
• engaging a “whole of government” approach at the federal level;
• working with a wide range of partners, including provinces, on Indigenous languages in the (off reserve) school system and in the child and family services system.

Concern that one Commissioner and three Directors may not be sufficient to ensure adequate regional representation was also raised.

Plans and Priorities:

The discussion on key plans and priorities highlighted a number of suggestions, including:

• gathering information on existing successful Indigenous language programs and initiatives and facilitating the sharing of “best practices” across the country;
• focusing the starting point for revitalization efforts on fluent speakers rather than institutional capacity;

prioritizing critically endangered languages;

• focusing on a more equitable distribution of funding across the country; and
• supporting participatory community-based research, including documenting best practices, adapting on-the-land teachings to urban settings, and using culturally-based teaching and longitudinal studies.

Participants also indicated that:

• Good communication about, and promotion of, Indigenous languages is key; and
• Research needs to be for and by Indigenous peoples.

Selection of a Commissioner and Directors:

Key proposed characteristics of the Commissioner and Directors included:

• Indigenous representation, fluency in an Indigenous language, gender equality, non-partisanship; and
• Background in education, some academic training and understanding of reserve life and urban life.

Participants also thought that the Commissioner should have a mature and holistic outlook.

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:

Participants raised a number of issues to consider during the development of an Indigenous Languages Funding Model, including:

• The importance of considering both the level of language vitality and governance capacity in the development of a funding model;
• The need for equitable distribution of funding across regions and across languages (for both on and off reserve people) and for parity with the mainstream education system;
• The establishment of an informed starting point to determine the state of Indigenous languages generally, including different dialects.

Participants agreed that the priority should be endangered Indigenous languages.

What to Fund:

Participants shared the following comments during the discussion on what kinds of efforts and costs ought to be included in an Indigenous Languages Funding Model:

• Support for long-term language planning and models that have demonstrated success (ex. Mentor-Apprentice Programs) should be provided;
• Community-based efforts and reporting should be prioritized over initiatives undertaken by Western institutions;
• Funding is required to support better use of Elders in Indigenous language learning, for accreditation of language learners, more language teachers, translation programs, immersion programs, electronic tools, capital costs, resource and curriculum development, and language learning activities that cover the full range of learners from very young children to adults.

Many participants also stated that efforts to revitalize Indigenous languages begin with fluent speakers and commented on the need to think in a transformational way about Indigenous language learning and the current Western education model.

Funding Process:

The discussion on funding process highlighted the need to move away from a proposal-driven process; prioritize community-driven efforts; and ensure that funding is accessible and equitable to all First Nations.

Defining and Measuring Success:

The discussion on how best to define and measure success in the context of Indigenous languages generated the following comments by the participants:

• It’s important to remember the mental health aspect of language when thinking about defining and measuring success. Languages are tied to identity, and identity is tied to capacity. Languages were taken away from First Nations and reclaiming, revitalizing, maintaining and strengthening them is critical to rebuilding and achieving wellness.
• Communities themselves should define and measure success, and be accountable for results and funding.
• Language sustainability (i.e. level of intergenerational transmission) needs to be considered when thinking about results.
• Important to collect quality data and to share information on what efforts are currently underway, what’s working well and what are the challenges.