Abstract
In the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada report into the ‘cultural genocide’ perpetrated by the State of Canada against First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples, through the widespread use of Residential Schools, the federal government offered an apology and an apparent opportunity for reconciliation[i]. Part of this programme was new legislation that would govern the relationship between First Nations and the federal government over First Nations education. Entitled the First Nations Control of First Nations’ Education (FNCFNE), the proposed bill promised a new deal and an apparent chance to renew a tarnished relationship. Yet in spite of its name, the bill offered very little in terms of progress. Indeed if it had been implemented, in many cases, the bill would have done little to increase First Nations’ control over the education of First Nations’ children and likely would have made effective language education extremely difficult. Indeed, this article’s analysis of the bill shows that, at its core, the law represents little more than the reinforcing of existing settler-colonial power dynamics. In particular, while it would have shifted virtually the totality of administrative responsibility for on-reserve education to First Nations it would have reserved ultimate power – manifest through control over funding – to Ottawa. As a result the FNCFNE would have represented a profound step in undermining First Nations language rights and language education in Canada. [i] “Prime Minister Stephen Harper's statement of apology”, CBC News, 11 June 2008
Highlights
Language rights have yet to be enshrined in their own international law, they are a widely recognised basis for cultural integrity and wellbeing.2 with particular reference to children who are Indigenous, Article 30 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states:[A] child...who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language. (United Nations 1989)This recognition of the importance of ensuring children have the right to an education in their traditional language finds support in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2008)
In Canada, the recent report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC year) into residential schools found that the Canadian state was responsible for “cultural genocide” it recommended the Federal government acknowledge that “Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them” through enshrining their protection in law
This paper provides insight into the ongoing colonial relationship between Indigenous peoples and the Canadian state through an examination of the specific context of First Nations language rights
Summary
Language rights have yet to be enshrined in their own international law, they are a widely recognised basis for cultural integrity and wellbeing. with particular reference to children who are Indigenous, Article 30 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) states:[A] child...who is indigenous shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of his or her group, to enjoy his or her own culture, to profess and practise his or her own religion, or to use his or her own language. (United Nations 1989)This recognition of the importance of ensuring children have the right to an education in their traditional language finds support in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2008). Article 14 establishes a responsibility on the part of States to “take effective measures” to ensure that Indigenous children have access “to an education in their own culture and provided in their own language.” These international legal documents underscore that language rights are important both in terms of their inherent historical, social and cultural value and in terms of their direct contribution to the health and happiness of Indigenous communities and individuals (Skutnabb-Kangas, Nicholas, and Reyhner 2016). Subtractive or submersion language programs are known to contribute to educational failure, and social, cultural and mental harm, including social dislocation (Bear Nicolas, 2009, 5) Children in these programs received no support and were often left to “sink or swim”, giving rise to the term submersion (Bear Nicolas, 2009, 56; Cummins 2009, 2). This approach was generally used in residential school systems where children were submerged in the dominant language and culture with little or no support or recognition of their own identities and languages.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Canadian Journal of Children's Rights / Revue canadienne des droits des enfants
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
