1 / 30

Toward an Indigenous Language Policy Index

Toward an Indigenous Language Policy Index. CRLCC Brown Bag Lunch Talk, April 10, 2019 Ian Martin, College universitaire Glendon College, York University imartin@glendon.yorku.ca. TRC Calls to Action #13, 14, 15 (2015). 13

parnold
Download Presentation

Toward an Indigenous Language Policy Index

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Toward an Indigenous Language Policy Index CRLCC Brown Bag Lunch Talk, April 10, 2019 Ian Martin, College universitaire Glendon College, York University imartin@glendon.yorku.ca

  2. TRC Calls to Action #13, 14, 15 (2015) • 13 • We call upon the federal government to acknowledge that Aboriginal rights include Aboriginal language rights (…) • 14 We call upon the federal government to enact an Indigenous Languages Act. • 15 We call upon the federal government to appoint, in consultation with Aboriginal groups, an Aboriginal Languages Commissioner. (…) • that incorporates the following principles: • i) Ils are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them • Ii) Indigenous language rights are reinforced by the Treaties • Iii) The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient funds for IL revitalization and preservation • Iv) the preservation, revitalization, and strengthening of Ils and cultures are best managed by Indigenous people and communities

  3. TRC #14 Indigenous Languages Act : five principles to be incorporated Principle #1: 1. ILs are fundamental and VALUED element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an URGENCY to preserve them

  4. TRC Principle #2 – TREATY rights-holders • Indigenous languages are reinforced by the Treaties

  5. TRC Principle #3 - FUNDS • The federal government has a responsibility to provide sufficient FUNDS for Indigenous language revitalization and preservation.

  6. TRC Principle #4 – INDIGENOUS FIRST • The Preservation, revitalization and strengthening of Indigenous languages and cultures are best managed by Indigenous people and communities.

  7. TRC Principle #5 - DIVERSITY Funding for Indigenous language initiatives must reflect the DIVERSITY of Indigenous languages.

  8. Can the 5 TRC principles be an index to evaluate Indigenous Language legislation? • 1. statement of VALUE and URGENCY • 2. TREATIES reinforce constitutional entrenchment of rights • 3. federal fiduciary responsibility to sufficiently FUND revitalization • 4. management by INDIGENOUS PEOPLES and COMMUNITIES • 5. DIVERSITY of language condition reflected in funding POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS INDEX: 5 (high) <<<</>>>>>> 1 (low)

  9. Native American Language Act (USA 1990, 1992) • #1 Statement of value of ILs? YES Urgent? NO • #2 Treaties? NO Rights? YES (as medium of instruction, as official, as medium of public self-expression) • #3 Federal funding? NO • #4 Local management? YES • #5 Diversity of funding? NO • POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 2 [limited effectiveness]

  10. Canada’s Senate bill S-212 (Sen.SergeJoyal) • #1 Statement of value of ILs? YES Urgency? NO • #2 Treaties? YES Rights? YES [Mention of aboriginal language rights,individual and collective rights and freedoms, right to use, preserve, revitalize and promote languages, right to give official status for local governance, language of instruction] • #3 Federal funding? NO • #4 Local management? NO • #5 Diversity of funding? NO • POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 1.5 [limited effectiveness]

  11. Province-level IL legislation? 7 NO 3 YES • BC - YES First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act 1996 MAN – YES Aboriginal Languages Recognition Act 2010 NS - YES Mi’kmq Education Act (federal and provincial) AL, SASK, ON, PQ, NB, PEI, NL - NO PROVINCIAL IL LEGISLATION

  12. Manitoba Aboriginal Languages RecognitionAct 2010 • Purpose: to recognize and name the seven ILs in the province. • #1 Statement of value? YES Urgency YES #2 Treaties? NO Rights? NO • #3 Provincial funding commitment? NO • #4 Local management? NO • #5 Diversity of funding? NO • POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 1 [symbolic value only]

  13. Mi’kmaq Education Act 1998 • Purpose: A federal act applying only to Mi’kmaq of Nova Scotia, to transfer jurisdiction in education from Indian Act (sec 114-122) to a Mi’kmaq-run not-for-profit corporation Mi’kmaw-kina’matnewey) to deliver programs and services. #1 Statement of value? NO Urgency? NO #2 Treaties? NO Rights? NO #3 Federal funding? YES #4 local management? YES #5 diversity of funding? YES (as determined by local management) POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 3 [considerable effectiveness]

  14. B.C. First Peoples’ Heritage, Language and Culture Act 1996 • Statement of value? NO urgency? NO • Treaty N/A rights? NO • Provincial finding commitment? YES (from province to FPCC) • Local management? YES (at level of FPCC, not in Act) • Diversity of funding? YES (at level of FPCC, not in Act) Purpose: Set up the First Peoples’ Heritage Language and Culture Council (FPCC) as a public corporation to manage and distribute funds support FN heritage, language, culture or arts. POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 3.5 [considerable effectiveness]

  15. How about the Territories? - YES! • Yukon - Languages Act • NWT - Official Languages Act • - Official Languages Policy • - [NEW!] Indigenous Languages Action Plan • NU - Official Languages Act • - Inuit Language Protection Act • - Education Act

  16. Nunavut’s three language acts (2008) • #1 Statement of value? YES Urgency? YES • #2 Treaties? YES Rights? YES [on paper only; non-enforceable] • #3 Federal funding? YES [although only a fraction per capita • of NU francophones’ fed funding] • #4 Local management? YES • #5 Diversity of funding? YES • POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 5 [strong potential]

  17. NU: OLA + ILPA + Ed Act - 10 ways in which the NU legislation goes beyond the TRC principles • 1. Deploring past government actions of assimilation • 2. Officializes languages of territory • 3. Right to receive government services in IL • 4. Right to work in IL (public sector) • 5. Signage and public communication in IL • 6. IL as language of instruction in schools K-12 (to be rolled out over 12 year period) • 7. Commit to advocate for constitutional entrenchment in Article 35 • 8. Establish Minister of Languages responsible for language promotion (all-of-government) • 9. Create Languages Commissioner – compliance with act + encourage private sector plans • 10. Create Inuit Language Authority – standardization, translation, advice, terminology research, dialect preservation, writing systems, promote literacy

  18. Going beyond TRC Principles: Task Force on Aboriginal Languages and Cultures “TOWARD A NEW BEGINNING” 2005 • 1. LINK BETWEEN LANGUAGES AND THE LAND • 2. TRANSMISSION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE • 3. SUPPORT AT COMPARABLE LEVEL TO THAT FOR FR and EN • 4. RIGHT TO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT SERVICES IN IL • 5. NEED FOR A ‘LANGUAGE STRATEGY’ • 6. NEED FOR A BASELINE LANGUAGE SURVEY • 7. ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED LANGUAGES

  19. …more principles from 2005 Task Force… • 8. PER CAPITA FUNDING FOR IMMERSION PROGRAMS IN IL FOR PRE- SCHOOL AND YOUTH SUMMER LANGUAGE PROGRAMS EQUIVALENT TO THAT FOR FRENCH / ENGLISH IMMERSION • 9. IL TEACHER TRAINING PLAN, POST-SECONDARY TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS • 10. ESTABLISH A LANGUAGE AND CULTURES COUNCIL (LCC) • 11. COMMUNITY-BASED LANGUAGE PROGRAMS SUPPORTED IN PERPETUITY; ALI MAINTAINED AND ENHANCED IN INTERIM • 12. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS FUND + NATIONAL PROJECTS FUND

  20. Comparability with FR as OL minority legislation; ON’s French Language Services Act Statement of value: YES [new definition of Franco-Ontarian 2009] Establishes rights? YES - use in provincial legislature etc. [redress under Charter section 23] - access to provincial government services in FR in 20+ geographic “designated areas” - access to services in ‘designated agencies” - FR Language Services Commissioner [$5M] Provincial funding commitment? YES [$600M/yr for 500,000 pop.] Local management? YES (implied) Diversity? YES (implied) POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 5+

  21. Legislation at Nation/community level: Kahnawá:ke Language Law (1999) Purpose: “to revive and restore the Mohawk language as the primary language of communication, education, ceremony, government and business within the territory of Kahnawá:ke.” Statement of value: YES! Urgency? YES! Treaties? NO Rights? YES – declares Mohawk official, receive services, be named, married, receive last rites; education; BUT ALSO RESPONSIBILITIES (to set a 20-year goal to become fluent) Funding? NO Local management? YES! Diversity? N/A POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: 4

  22. Third source: UNDRIP 2008, 2010, 2017 • Articles 14(1) Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their education systems and institutions providing education in their own languages, in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning. • 14 (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.

  23. TRC Call to Action #10 • 10. We call on the federal government to draft new Aboriginal education legislation with the full participation and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples. The new legislation would include a commitment to sufficient funding and would incorporate the following principles: • i. Providing sufficient funding to close identified educational achievement gaps within one generation. • ii. Improving education attainment levels and success rates. • iii. Developing culturally appropriate curricula.

  24. TRC Call to Action #10 – principles 4-7 • iv. Protecting the right to Aboriginal languages, including the teaching of Aboriginal languages as credit courses. • v. Enabling parental and community responsibility, control, and accountability, similar to what parents enjoy in public school systems. • vi. Enabling parents to fully participate in the education of their children. • vii. Respecting and honouring Treaty relationships

  25. Canada’s federal Indigenous Languages Act C-91 • VALUE? YES (symbolic, in preamble) URGENCY? YES (in preamble) • TREATIES? unclear RIGHTS – unclear (+NO REDRESS) • FEDERAL FUNDING? - not in act; unclear flow of $ • LOCAL MANAGEMENT? – not clear! • DIVERSITY OF FUNDING – not clear! • POTENTIAL EFFECTIVENESS RATING: NOT CLEAR!

  26. Unresolved Issues with C-91 • 1. Crown-Indigenous relations prior to fed-provincial/territorial? • 2. Funding flow to ‘Indigenous Governing Bodies’ (IGB) before provinces or territories? • 3. non-Indigenous entities need to have agreement with IGB? • 4. s.35 rights need to be specified: UNDRIP 13, 14, 16 + inherent rights • 5. s.35 not part of Charter, so: what redress for infringement?

  27. Further C-91 issues • 6. Crown’s fiduciary duty + obligations? • 7. Equitable resources on per capita basis with official-language minorities (RCAP, Task Force) • 8. Individual and collective rights for urban Indigenous people • 9. enriched translation/interpreting rights in federal sphere • 10. Commissioner of Indigenous Languages – where located?

  28. Further C-91 issues • 11. Metis issues – MNC or more? • 12. Inuit left out – ITK calls bill ‘symbolic’, ‘colonial’

  29. Conclusion: Suzanne Romaine, 2002 “The Impact of language policy on endangered languages” • There is no straightforward causal connection between types of policy and language maintenance. • Often, there is confusion between policy [where to we want to go?] and planning [how, by what means, will we get there?] • Language policy is not an autonomous factor and what appears to be ostensibly the same policy may lead to different outcomes, depending on the situation in which it operates

  30. Suzanne Romaine (2002) - continued • . Weak linkages between policy and planning render many policies ineffective. • Conventions and treaties adopted by international organisations and agencies recommending the use of minority languages in education usually lack power to reinforce them. • Furthermore, policies have negligible impact on home use, which is essential for continued natural transmission of endangered languages. • Although survival cannot depend on legislation as its main support, legal provisions may allow speakers of endangered languages to claim some public space for their languages and cultures.”

More Related