- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
The Ontario government house leader, Paul Calandra, this week moved to amend a standing order that previously required lawmakers to use either English or French. Following a vote, that order now allows for an “Indigenous language spoken in Canada” to be used when addressing the speaker or chamber.
Sol Mamakwa, a member of the New Democratic party who represents the Kiiwetinoong electoral district, recalled being punished for speaking Ojibwe (Anishinaabemowin) in his youth.
“I am very honoured to be able to speak today on behalf of the people of Kiiwetinoong, on behalf of the people that were never allowed to speak their language in colonial institutions,” Mamakwa told the legislature. “These racist and colonizing policies led to language loss.”
You must log in or register to comment.
About time.
I do wonder, though, from a practical standpoint, how difficult it might be to get translators for languages that now have very few speakers, like Oneida or Cayuga.
According to StatsCan, there are about 237,000 speakers of all 70 indigenous languages combined in Canada. That number declined by 4.3% between 2016 and 2021. The most common indigenous language is Cree (86,000 speakers).
For comparison, there are 667,000 Punjabi speakers, a number that increased by 33% over the same time period. I wouldn’t be surprised if that number is close to a million now, given how fast our population is growing.
It isn’t about which language has the most speakers, it’s about acknowledging history. (I mean, if “who has the most speakers” were the only important thing, French wouldn’t be allowed either—Ontario is not required by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to provide provincial government services in French, but does so to some extent anyway, for historical and practical reasons.)
How the languages of large immigrant communities should be handled in official contexts is a completely separate matter from this.
Okay, bud. I was just supporting the conversation with what I thought was interesting contextual info, partially in support of your point. But I guess you couldn’t miss the opportunity to virtue signal. Good job.
I don’t think they’re disputing that. They’re just giving numbers to answer your question. There’s very few speakers of these languages, so it’s probably not going to be an easy task.
I struggle with this. I recognize the sentiment and history, but how are we to vote or understand an issue that has to be translated. In my workplace I’ve been asked to provide contracts in other languages. I don’t speak them. I can’t approve or sign off on them. There has to be ways to ensure what is being translated is accurate and with such a (comparatively) small percent of the language speakers involved or monitoring that level of government it seems like an opportunity for messages to get skewed.
I’ve seen that there are certain times that MPs say things in English and then repeat it in French and vice versa. Does this mean they need to say things in 3 languages now?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Ontario government house leader, Paul Calandra, this week moved to amend a standing order that previously required lawmakers to use either English or French.
Sol Mamakwa, a member of the New Democratic party who represents the Kiiwetinoong electoral district, recalled being punished for speaking Ojibwe (Anishinaabemowin) in his youth.
Decades of hostile government policies, including the forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families, and a system of residential schools stripped many peoples of their culture and by extension, their language.
“Here in this building, the standing orders up until today have said every member desiring to speak must rise in his or her place and address the speaker in either English or French,” Mamakwa said.
If lawmakers want to address colleagues using an Indigenous language, they must notify the clerk to allow for interpretation and translation services.
Greg Rickford, Ontario’s minister of Indigenous affairs, said the rule change was an “opportunity for us to embrace and celebrate a founding language” of Canada.
The original article contains 583 words, the summary contains 164 words. Saved 72%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
