Tackling Canada’s Discrimination Against Indigenous Language Education

Lorena Sekwan Fontaine has spent decades thinking about discrimination against Indigenous Peoples and its impact on the intergenerational transmission of languages and cultures.

Fontaine is a trained lawyer and an associate professor of arts and head of the Indigenous studies department at the University of Manitoba. She is Cree and Anishinaabe and a member of the Sagkeeng First Nation.

Fontaine grew up speaking English, not the languages of her ancestors: Ojibwe and Cree.

This is due to the legacy of Canada’s residential school system, which forcibly removed 150,000 Indigenous children from their families and abused kids for speaking their languages. It’s also thanks to the fact that, unlike with French and English, Indigenous language instruction is not enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Fontaine turned her focus towards Indigenous language education rights after learning there could be no restitution for Elders robbed of their languages and cultures by their time in residential schools, because there was no legal protection for their right to their languages and cultures.

“I was quite upset that these Elders were told that they didn't have language rights to their own culture and identity, and that lawyers couldn't do anything,” she said.

Fontaine was an expert witness for the Senate hearings on the Indigenous Languages Act, which affirms language rights but does not spell out exactly what those rights entail.

Her research into Indigenous language rights and Canada’s history of linguicide is the subject of the one-hour CBC Radio Ideas documentary “Undoing Linguicide.”

This year the University of Manitoba Press will publish Living Language Rights: Constitutional Pathways to Indigenous Language Education, in which Fontaine lays out her argument for legal recognition and enforcement of Indigenous language rights, including in education.

The Tyee spoke with Fontaine about how to make Indigenous language right to education a reality in Canada. The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

The Tyee: Can you explain what “linguicide” means?

Lorena Sekwan Fontaine: Linguicide means basically the killing of a language. For Indigenous languages in Canada, I look at it in the context of education, that our education system still does not support Indigenous language immersion programs. The residential school policy was intended to kill Indigenous languages, and it still arguably continues under the current educational system because Indigenous children don't have full access to their language in schools.

Our language is intertwined with the learning of the culture, as with most other languages. So when you're learning the language, you're learning the culture. Because of that, Indigenous children that aren't accessing their language aren't accessing knowledge about their cultural identity, too.

Are you advocating for something similar to the French immersion system we have in Canada, where some instruction may still be in English, or are you looking for education entirely in the Indigenous language?

I think we need both. We need options, and I think it would be up to the community to decide what they would want. Whether it’s a First Nations, Métis or Inuit community that wants a language program, or whether it’s a community with an urban setting, they would have the opportunity to develop or offer a language program in the way that they feel is important to them.

Immersion doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re learning the identity of that culture: oftentimes you’re getting math in French or math in English. In an ideal situation, we would have language programs where the curriculum revolved around the teaching of Indigenous culture, as well.

If every community wanted their own program, how many languages would that be?

A different way of addressing that question is we need Indigenous communities to be able to have that option provided to them. It doesn’t mean that all Indigenous communities are going to want immersion programs or schools; some Indigenous communities might want to keep English, French or French immersion programs.

We have over 50 Indigenous languages, depending on which stats you’re going to look at; international stats say it’s closer to 90. Those languages come from 10 or 11 distinct language families. From those language families are dialects and other languages that have evolved into other regional languages or dialects.

So even to be able to identify how many languages there are, you’re going to get different numbers from different people. The key here is that the option should be available to all Indigenous communities and that these programs have core funding and resources to support them.

What does Canada’s Constitution say about Indigenous language rights in Canada?

The Constitution in the way that it’s drafted right now does not say anything about Indigenous language. But the Indigenous Languages Act that was passed a few years ago says that Section 35 of the Constitution recognizes Indigenous language rights.

What does that mean in terms of a right of an Indigenous person to access — or to have their children access — education in their language?

The Indigenous Languages Act does not define what language rights are. We don't know what that means in the context of the legislation. And this goes back to another issue that arose when the Constitution was amended to include Aboriginal and treaty rights: it just says that Aboriginal treaty rights hereby are affirmed and are recognized. A lot of communities have had to go into court to have the court define what those rights actually mean.

The Indigenous Languages Act just says that language rights exist under Section 35, but it doesn’t define the right. There’s a provision in the legislation that says that First Nations, Inuit and Métis people can negotiate agreements to determine what those language rights entail. The federal government during that time said that they didn't want to define language rights because it was up to First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities to define what that means.

The current legislation does not contain any enforceable rights or guarantees to funding for immersion programs or for schools to teach Indigenous languages. But the legislation was an important step, because prior to that, Indigenous language rights were not recognized anywhere.

Would this lack of definition require First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities to go to the courts to determine what these rights are?

No. And in fact, when this went through the Senate, Sen. Murray Sinclair and Sen. Mary Jane McCallum identified that the language rights are not defined and they’re not enforceable in the legislation. Because they had identified this as a major flaw, they had requested a three-year review, which was supposed to take place in 2024.

My understanding is that there is some kind of government review underway right now, but it's another study which is not going to help. The goal of the review is to look at the legislation and address the gaps identified by First Nations, Inuit and Métis people. They all want the legislation to have enforceable language rights. They wanted assurances that there would be a right to core sustainable funding for language programs.

[Editor’s note: The prorogation of Parliament in January terminated the Standing Senate Committee on Indigenous Peoples’ review of the Indigenous Languages Act.]

Right now, communities can only apply for program dollars. It’s usually one to two years, and inadequate to support program initiatives like immersion or language programs.

Is there anything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms specifically about Indigenous education or language rights?

Section 23 recognizes minority language rights’ education. Right now, we have discrimination with the recognition of language rights in Canada. English and French are able to access funding for immersion and language schools and go to court on these matters. Indigenous languages do not have any enforceable language rights to education or a right to core funding. Which means minority language rights and Indigenous language rights are treated differently in Canada.

But the federal government has also said they’re going to implement UNDRIP [United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples]. There is UNDRIP legislation, and there are some First Nations communities that have said, “Why don't we implement Article 14, which recognizes language rights to education on and off reserve, and that the government has the duty to fund these programs?” That would be one way of implementing one significant article of UNDRIP and would address the discrimination that currently exists. The Indigenous Languages Act currently doesn’t align with UNDRIP.

I don’t think the federal government knows how to or wants to address the discrimination. Currently, the Department of Justice is responsible for the UNDRIP legislation and ensuring that all federal laws align with UNDRIP principles.

Canadian Heritage oversees the Indigenous Languages Act while education for First Nations, Inuit and Métis falls under Indigenous Services Canada. Any kind of agreement with First Nations, Inuit or Métis people has to go through Crown Relations.

You can see how complicated it is when a First Nations, Métis or Inuit community asks the federal government to ensure that their language rights align with UNDRIP principles. Which minister is responsible? A puzzle emerges.

This complexity raises serious questions about the federal government’s ability to respond in an effective manner to address the discrimination that currently exists.

Do you have a preference about changing Section 23 to include Indigenous languages, or implementing it under UNDRIP?

Well, Aboriginal and treaty rights fall outside of the Charter. First Nations leaders advocated for a separate section, and that’s why we have a separate section of the Constitution Act, which relates to Aboriginal rights and treaty rights.

The Indigenous Languages Act recognizes Indigenous language rights under Section 35 and that’s where the language rights to education should fall under.

Is there less security in having something under legislation versus having it under the Constitution? Is it possible that legislation could be withdrawn or defeated by a new government?

No. Let’s say the Indigenous Languages Act was amended to recognize Indigenous Peoples’ language right in education, and imposes a duty to fund related programs; this amendment would give specific expression to a constitutional right, Section 35, within the legislative framework, the Indigenous Languages Act.

Oftentimes that's what happens. For instance, Section 23 of the Charter enshrines minority language rights under the Constitution, but the Official Languages Act also provides a legislative framework for implementing and elaborating on those rights.

Similarly, an amended Indigenous Languages Act could serve as a legislative tool to define and enforce constitutional rights to language education under Section 35 of the Constitution.

What would it mean to Indigenous people to have the right and ability to be educated in their own language and have their kids educated in their own language?

If you look at any research that’s been done on endangered languages, whether they’re Indigenous or not, immersion educational programs are critical for revitalization. And the federal government has done quite a few studies on this. They know that in order to revitalize endangered languages, education is significant.

So if there was an amendment that allowed for language rights in education and the federal government had a responsibility to fund, well that would change everything. Because Indigenous communities that wanted to implement these programs would have a right to adequate resources to support that.

A language right to education under the Constitution would also force the provincial and federal governments to have discussions on providing adequate resources to flow to communities that wanted to initiate Indigenous language programs.

But it would also force government to look at its infrastructure right now to see where the need is to properly support and resource Indigenous language programs and to implement policies to support these programs, which is lacking right now.

What else would need to happen in order to make the right to education in an Indigenous language a reality?

We need teacher training programs across Canada that focus on teaching Indigenous languages. I speak English, but I don’t have the background to go into a classroom to teach English. You need classes and methodology to do that.

Right now, there are next to zero programs that support that in Canada. There’s an Indigenous languages teacher training program developed at the University of Winnipeg, but there isn't any funding to support that program even though the curriculum has been developed.

Some communities also require infrastructure such as buildings. Some communities need buses. There's a need for curriculum. We don't have an Indigenous language centre where teachers are supported and can access curriculum or research that has been done in that area.

We need, at the bare minimum, a national Indigenous language centre, with regional Indigenous language centres focused on curriculum development and documentation for specific Indigenous languages.

We also need to record Elders that can speak these languages fluently, so that second-language learners have access to hearing these languages. We need resources outside of the classroom. Second-language learners need access to hearing fluent speakers outside of the classroom. There's a lot of documentation work to be done.

There is also the need for translators, because we have a lot of materials in Indigenous languages that need to be translated and could be used for curriculum. There's a lot of work that has to be done to support programs in these languages.

How does this relate to Living Language Rights, which will be published this summer, which explores the First Nations and Canadian legal foundations for Indigenous language rights?

When the court cases for the residential schools started, Indigenous Peoples — First Nations people primarily — were asking how that part of their claim was going to be dealt with, because the claims focused on sexual and physical abuse.

In their communities they saw that their children, their grandchildren and their great-grandchildren weren't learning their language. They didn't have access to their culture within schools.

They were worried about that future, and the lawyers didn't know how to deal with that part of their claim. They said, “You don't have any language rights in the Constitution.” And at that time, that was true.

That stuck with me for a very long time as a lawyer, but also as a First Nations person who had been impacted by the legacy of the residential schools, because both my parents attended, as well as my grandparents. The language wasn't passed on to me. I wasn't able to pass it on to my daughter. There were no language schools available to her when she started kindergarten.

I also was really interested to get a glimpse of what it was like when our languages were dominant in Canada. Multilingualism was very much a part of Indigenous Peoples’ community life. We knew how to speak each other’s languages because we had trading partners. We lived close together, and people travelled.

I focused on the historical material in the Prairie region. But I found a Cree dictionary from 1690 that the Hudson’s Bay Co. used for developing the trading system in Canada. There’s documentation of some employees travelling with a number of interpreters. They’re not named, but they would have required their help to enter into our communities.

And I suspect that a lot of the relationships that occurred with Indigenous women and trading partners allowed for people to acquire the language.

How long do you think it will take to get to a point where Indigenous communities would have the option to access education in their own language?

I think that it could happen right away. If there were the resources. I think there'll be a lot of work to do, but there's already immersion programs in Mohawk Territory. In Mi’gmaw, they have an immersion program there that's quite successful. So people are already starting to do this work, but with very inadequate resources.

Do you have a ballpark dollar figure of what adequate resources would look like?

If you look at what's being funded for French-language education, you'd have a good idea.

Do you have plans to take this research further?

I'm trying to work on program development within the university setting and tackle the issue of teacher training programs in Manitoba with other post-secondary institutions.

But I'm also interested in hearing our languages outside of the classroom. So we're piloting a radio program right now, and hoping that it expands into full radio broadcasting in local Indigenous languages.

Radio is such an important medium for language revitalization, because you can connect with people in their home. Right now we're working with a country radio station called NCI FM. It’s located in Winnipeg, but a lot of people in the North listen to this station.

The other cool thing about radio is, if we're looking at Ojibwe language revitalization for example, a lot of our communities are across the border in the States. It breaks down the barriers that we have with the border.