Conference Agenda

Indigenous language practices carry cultures and identities rooted in their speaking communities, yet centuries of colonialism and assimilation in Canada have driven significant language shift. Communities have long pursued rights-based claims despite an uneven sociolinguistic landscape. In 2016, Canada fully adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007), which affirms linguistic rights for Indigenous communities. After centuries of assimilative policies driven by a language-as-problem orientation (Ruiz, 1984), followed by decades of de facto planning, the Canadian Parliament adopted Bill C-91, the Indigenous Languages Act (2019), the first federal legislation explicitly addressing this history and supporting Indigenous language practices.

Research on linguistic rights is extensive, yet little work examines how language and language rights are represented within Canadian parliamentary settings. This presentation addresses that gap by examining the language rights discourse (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2005) portrayed in Parliament debates and written briefs produced in the process of adopting Bill C-91. Drawing on my doctoral corpus, data was critically analyzed (Fairclough, 2010) using a corpus-assisted discourse studies approach (Vessey, 2017) to identify language rights naming practices, and their associated collocations, and clusters.

Findings show that Indigenous peoples frame language practices as rights essential to reversing language shift through multi-layered planning. While demands for formal legal recognition are consistent, debates over issues such as official status and translation services reveal ongoing ideological tensions in implementing language rights.

References

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2005). Language Policy and Linguistic Human Rights. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method (pp. 273–291). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Vessey, R. (2017). Corpus Approaches to Language Ideology. Applied Linguistics, 38(3), 277–296.

Indigenous language revitalization serves as a foundation for self‐governance and legal resurgence. Drawing on presentations from the 30th Stabilising Indigenous Languages Symposium and community‐based sources, this paper focuses on the Lil'wat Nation's efforts to reclaim Ucwalmícwts, pointing out how language encodes Lil'wat legal principles, ethical frameworks, and governance structures. Through immersion programs, curriculum development, and cultural teachings, the Nation is reasserting its jurisdiction and moving beyond Indian Act governance. Key concepts such as Ntákmen (our laws) and Nxékmen (our ways) illustrate how language revitalization is central to legislative reconciliation under Section 35 of the Constitution. Rather than translating colonial laws, Lil'wat defines governance on its own terms—grounded in language, land, and law. This case study offers a model for other Indigenous Nations: revitalizing language is not only cultural recovery—it is legal renewal and a critical pathway to Indigenous self‐ determination.

This paper focuses on Inuit language policies in Canada and the documented concerns of

Inuit and their struggles to be educated in their own language. Situated within the larger

racialized and colonial legacies of Canadian Indigenous language policy (Haque & Patrick,

2015), and shifting political, economic, and environmental realities, we examine Inuit

perspectives and concerns about Inuktut (the term coined by Inuit to unify Inuit languages)

and its role as the medium of instruction in schools. Our goal is to provide background and

perspective to the—as yet unresolved—court case between Nunavut Tunngavik

Incorporated (NTI) and the Government of Nunavut. We draw not only on the 2021

Statement of Claim brought forward by NTI to secure better educational outcomes for Inuit,

but also on previous reports (Martin 2000, Berger 2006 and Review of Nunavut Teacher Education

Program (NTEP), 2017), and the 2025 report by The Coalition of Nunavut District Education Authorities

(CNDEA). While much has been reported and repeated over the past 25 years, we pose the question

about the options available for Indigenous groups fighting for

linguistic justice in Canada.

Canada is responsible for protecting Indigenous rights while promoting English, French, and Indigenous languages. The Official Languages Act prioritizes English and French proficiency in federal jobs, but modernization efforts seek to recognize Indigenous linguistic or cultural competencies to increase Indigenous representation. The 2021 United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act requires Canadian laws to align with the principles in the 2007 UN Declaration.

Federal equity and anti-racism policies, such as the Many Voices, One Mind Action Plan, the Clerk’s Call to Action on anti-racism, equity and inclusion, and the Employment Equity Act, operate alongside official language requirements. Yet, voluntary self-identification as Indigenous often creates confusion - some individuals falsely claim Indigenous identity, misunderstand what it means to be Métis, or conflate ancestry with Indigenous identity - resulting in unreliable representation data. Notably, over a third (37.1%) of those in the “Other Indigenous” category reported French as their first official language, a higher proportion than any other Indigenous category. Balancing the goals of employment equity and the Official Languages Act is difficult, as the former addresses systemic disadvantages for equity groups, while the latter focuses on language equality between French and English.

This tension prompts a question: Does the bilingual framework perpetuate colonial practices if it obstructs equity and reconciliation? The paper explores ways to resolve conflicts between the Declaration and federal equity and bilingual policies, aiming to safeguard Indigenous identity and language rights. It draws on Articles 2, 8, and 43 of the Declaration, examines how Indigenous identity intersects with official language requirements, and references the R. c. Montour 2023 QCCS 4154 decision to illustrate evolving interpretations of reconciliation – ones that embrace Indigenous culture and languages. Without significant policy reform, the paper argues, Indigenous inclusion, including linguistic rights, in federal roles will continue to fall short.