Print/ Imprimer

Indigenous Languages in the House of Commons: Moving From Exceptions to Practice

From Confederation to the present day, Indigenous cultures – including languages, but also governance practices and other traditions – have been underrepresented across Canadian public institutions. In this article, the author summarizes how action and advocacy by Indigenous MPs, decisions by the House of Commons, and subsequent efforts by the House Administration in recent years have ushered in a new era for the use of Indigenous languages in proceedings.

Keelan Buck

Keelan Buck is a Procedural Clerk at the House of Commons.

Legislatures are deliberative assemblies. Speeches, statements, questions, and testimony, as well as the motions, bills, reports, and petitions

in reference to which they are made, are little more than carefully designed collections of words. It is no exaggeration to say that in Parliament, language is everything and everywhere.

As the elected body at Canada’s federal level, the House of Commons represents one of the largest territories and most diverse populations in the world. Constitutional and statutory law protect the equal status and use of two official languages, English and French, in proceedings of the House and its committees. Over time, the institution has established processes to ensure that all its written material is available in both languages and that all proceedings can be held in, and understood in, whichever of those languages a Member of Parliament (MP), another participant, or the public prefers. Indeed, translation of written language and simultaneous interpretation of spoken language are now deeply embedded in the House’s work.1

Neither the law nor the House’s own rules prohibit the voluntary use of languages other than English or French in proceedings, but the same protections do not apply.2 Among the dozens of languages used in Canada, those of Indigenous peoples have received particular attention as of late. These are a vast array of languages that have been used in what is now Canada for millennia before the arrival of French and British colonial governments in the last 400 years. 3 A great many have been lost or become endangered as a result of colonial policies. Grassroots preservation and revitalization efforts are playing a critical role in the current and future use of these languages.4

We know that from Confederation to the present day, Indigenous cultures – including languages, but also governance practices and other traditions – have been underrepresented across Canadian public institutions.5 This article summarizes how action and advocacy by Indigenous MPs, decisions by the House of Commons, and subsequent efforts by the House Administration (hereinafter the administration) in recent years have ushered in a new era for the use of Indigenous languages in proceedings.

Recognition of special status: a pivotal moment

When Robert-Falcon Ouellette, then-MP for Winnipeg Centre, rose in the House on May 4, 2017, to make a statement in Cree, his experience was similar to those of many Indigenous parliamentarians before him.6 The administration and its partners were not able to arrange for the simultaneous interpretation of his words into English and French.

About a month later, in a move that would have a tremendous impact on the use of Indigenous languages in the House, Mr. Ouellette rose on a question of privilege concerning the lack of resources allocated towards ensuring his words would be understood by his colleagues and everyone else listening, something he considered central to his rights as an MP. While Speaker Regan could not find that the matter constituted a prima facie question of privilege at the time, he would write to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (PROC) asking it to consider studying the use of Indigenous languages in proceedings and how the procedure and practice of the House might evolve in this regard.7

In the spring of 2018, after hearing from 31 witnesses – among them, Indigenous parliamentarians, officials from the House and other legislatures, representatives of several governments, academics, and community members – PROC presented a report to the House with a landmark recommendation: that the House recognize the special status of Indigenous languages with an eye to facilitating their use in proceedings.8 On November 29, 2018, the House concurred in the report. In doing so, MPs decided for the first time to take steps towards integrating Indigenous languages into the House’s procedural framework.

The PROC report urged the House to take an “incremental” approach to implementing its recommendations, speaking of “a balance between respecting the inherent value of Indigenous languages and respecting the longstanding and time-tested practices of the House of Commons.”9 While many details were left to the administration to flesh out, the report recommended that MPs work with the administration by informing the administration as early as possible of Indigenous languages that they may wish to use. The report also envisioned flexible options for MPs and the administration depending on whether interpretation could be arranged and whether written copies of interventions could be shared. Finally, it is worth noting a point on which PROC made its views very clear: using an Indigenous language in proceedings, regardless of the availability of simultaneous interpretation or other arrangements, should always be considered procedurally admissible and not be the basis of a point of order.10

Implementing recommendations, 2018 to present

The House’s concurrence in this report signalled a shift in priorities for the administration in their ongoing support of MPs’ activities. While several units would be involved in the implementation of the report’s recommendations, the work has centred around Parliamentary Publications, which produces the official edited transcripts of proceedings of the House (Debates) and committees (Evidence); the Translation Bureau, a partner under the responsibility of Public Services and Procurement Canada that conducts translation and interpretation work on Parliament Hill; as well as teams of procedural clerks, logistics officers, liaison officers, and others who ensure MPs’ needs are addressed appropriately.

Anticipating needs and planning resources have been key to the administration’s approach. In line with PROC’s recommendations, the administration has sought to determine how many and which MPs may wish to use which Indigenous languages in proceedings so that the Translation Bureau can reach out to its networks of experts and increase the likelihood that the necessary resources will be available when called upon. Following a general election or a by-election, the administration runs a Members’ Orientation Program that proactively collects several types of information from newly elected and returning MPs.

Even now, in the early stages of the 45th Parliament, there is an opportunity to collect information on MPs’ relationships with Indigenous languages as part of this process. Some MPs have arrived on Parliament Hill proficient in one or more Indigenous languages, and others have made efforts to learn an Indigenous language after becoming an MP.11

Of course, there are also many situations when such planning is more challenging. In committees, it is not only MPs but also witnesses who speak on the record. When a witness who has been invited to participate in committee proceedings indicates that they wish to use an Indigenous language, the committee’s staff and partners may only have a matter of days to prepare. That said, there are opportunities for committees to adapt when they can expect, for example, that their mandate or a particular study will garner a higher rate of participation in Indigenous languages.

The improved process for an MP or a witness who wishes to use an Indigenous language in proceedings resembles the following: ideally 48 hours or more in advance, the participant advises the administration in writing, providing the specific language that they will use, the date and time of their interventions and/or the corresponding item of business, as well as a written copy of their intervention, if possible. The administration then submits a request to the Translation Bureau, which may or may not already have resources on hand for the language in question. The two goals are 1) to provide simultaneous interpretation in English and French and 2) to later include in the transcript the text in the original Indigenous language, as well as in English and French. Depending on the arrangements that the Translation Bureau can make, the administration takes one of several possible approaches.

In an ideal scenario, third-language interpreters are available, and the participant has provided a written copy of the intervention. In that case, the official transcript is based on the written intervention provided in the Indigenous language and the transcription of the simultaneous interpretation in English and French. However, this approach changes when one or more of those elements are missing. If third-language interpreters are available but the participant has not provided a written copy of the intervention, then the Indigenous-language text in the official transcript is produced by obtaining a transcription of the audio recording. On the other hand, if no third-language interpreters are available, which could unfortunately arise in a case of short notice or a language with very few speakers and relevant resources, the English- French interpreters are asked to read a written copy of the participant’s intervention in English or French when available, or a translation thereof if it was provided only in the Indigenous language. Similarly, if neither third-language interpreters nor a written copy is available, then the audience must rely on the official transcript produced after the fact when the original audio recording will be transcribed, and the resulting text will be translated into English and French. In all cases, the administration and its partners aim for quality and transparency. For example, in the second case, English-French interpreters would inform the audience that they are reading a prepared text and not providing their own interpretation. In addition, when preparing the official transcript, editors would use notes to explain the source of certain text (for example, member spoke in Cree, interpreted as follows; member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following text; member spoke in Inuktitut and provided the following translation; Inuktitut text translated as follows; etc.).

Since 2018, internal data suggests that the use of Indigenous languages in House of Commons and committee proceedings has become a more regular practice. From the late stages of the 42nd Parliament through to the end of the 44th Parliament, over 50 Indigenous languages or dialects appear to have been used on the record. The most common include Inuktitut, Cree languages, and Dene. However, several critically endangered languages with very few speakers have also been used, especially in committee, including Wet’suwet’en, Northern Tutchone, and Kwakiutl (Kwak’wala), to name a few. Interventions appear to have been made by more than 100 distinct speakers, a majority of whom have been witnesses testifying at committee. Among MPs, a small number who are fluent in an Indigenous language represent the most interventions, as well as the longest, in both the House and its committees. Owing to its mandate, the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (INAN) has seen the greatest use of Indigenous languages among committees, but many others are also represented.

Looking ahead: barriers, uncertainties, opportunities

Some 18 months after his impactful advocacy for the use of his language in the House, Robert-Falcon Ouellette would, quite fittingly, make the House’s first speech to be interpreted from an Indigenous language into English and French on January 28, 2019.12 While this moment and others like it reflect a significant improvement over the longstanding experience of Indigenous language speakers in the House, it is clear that many of the concerns raised by advocates, including elements in Mr. Ouellette’s question of privilege in 2017, still need to be addressed.

The legal and procedural distinctions between the protections afforded to the use of Canada’s two official languages and those afforded to the use of Indigenous languages in proceedings are perhaps the most important of these elements. An obstacle to an MP’s full participation in proceedings in English or French could be considered a breach of parliamentary privileges as well as inconsistent with the constitution and statutory law. Without a similar basis in law or the House’s own rules to which MPs can refer, attempts at challenging similar obstacles in relation to Indigenous languages have proven less influential.

There are also limits related to resources and technical capacity. A 2023 report by INAN made as its first recommendation “that the Government of Canada refer to the Board of Internal Economy a request to find ways to accommodate simultaneous interpretation in more than three languages during committee meetings when requested by either members or witnesses speaking an Indigenous language.”13 Under current arrangements and given the permanent need for English-French interpretation, only one other language, Indigenous or otherwise, can be interpreted at the same time, hindering the simultaneous participation of users of different Indigenous languages.

It is nevertheless important to recall how quickly and drastically procedure and practice can change when there is a clear mandate from MPs. The implementation of hybrid participation in proceedings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including an electronic voting system, is a telling example. With every new Parliament come some or several new MPs who can provide that very mandate and have a lasting impact on the direction taken by the institution. Likewise, new situations will bring new opportunities to raise points of order or questions of privilege and, with them, potentially new precedents from the Chair. This is to say nothing of legal action outside Parliament regarding the rights of Indigenous peoples and the status of their languages. As always, the administration remains ready and responsive to implement the House’s vision for its future.

Notes

1. 1. Bosc, M., & Gagnon, A. (2017). “Chapter 13: Rules of Order and Decorum.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Third Edition, p. 612.

• Idem

1. Statistics Canada. (2023). “Census in Brief: Indigenous languages across Canada.”
2. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). “Canada’s Residential Schools: The Legacy.” The Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, Volume 5.
3. Milen, Robert A. (1994). Canadian Representation and Aboriginal Peoples: A Survey of the Issues. Paper prepared as part of the Research Program of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
4. House of Commons Debates, First Session, 42nd Parliament, May 4, 2017, p. 10770.
5. “Freedom of speech: language of debate; right of members to speak in indigenous languages in the House.” Selected Decisions of Speaker Geoff Regan, 2015– 2019.
6. House of Commons. (2018). The Use of Indigenous Languages in Proceedings of the House of Commons and Committees, 66th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, First Session, 42nd Parliament.
7. Idem, p. 25.
8. Idem, pp. 27–28.
9. Tasker, John Paul. (2017). “Quebec Liberal MP Marc Miller employs Mohawk language lessons in the House.” CBC News. [English only]
10. House of Commons Debates, First Session, 42nd Parliament, January 28, 2019, pp. 24852–3.
11. House of Commons. (2023). Reclaiming, Revitalizing, Maintaining and Strengthening Indigenous Languages in Canada, Ninth report of the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, First Session, 44th Parliament, p. 7.