Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are on schedule, on budget and we expect to complete the highway the date indicated when we started the highway. Thank you.
I ask this question because I would dearly love to see the Mackenzie Valley Highway right after this project. The lessons we are learning on the Inuvik-Tuk highway, it would be good to transfer those lessons to the Mackenzie Valley Highway from Norman Wells going to Wrigley for a portion.
Are the recommendations that we are learning on the Inuvik-Tuk highway going to be solidified in the Mackenzie Valley Highway?
We are encouraging individuals who will be involved in the eventual construction of the Mackenzie Valley Highway to have discussion with the project company that is building the Inuvik-Tuk highway. We think there are lessons to be learned, especially in the type of equipment that’s purchased, as one example. We are hoping we are able to transfer a lot of knowledge from the construction of the Inuvik-Tuk highway down to any other major highway that we hope to construct in the future. Thank you.
Is the Minister receiving any type of signals from the federal government in respect to the proposal that is now in the office of the federal government?
Yes, we are. We’ve also had face-to-face discussions during NWT Days with the federal Minister of Transportation, Minister responsible for Infrastructure, which it is under his bailiwick.
We’re at a point now where we are looking at the business case that we’ve produced. The federal government has asked us for a business case. We’re able to produce a business case. It’s 300 pages long so it takes a lot of work to present this business case to the federal government, and it’s done. We are now looking at that to ensure that all the information that’s required from the federal government is in this business case. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Three hundred pages long, if we read one page a day I think we should get to it.
I want to ask the Minister, in the business case of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, as with the Inuvik-Tuk highway, are there pre-training types of employment opportunities for the Mackenzie Valley Highway in the business case with the Department of Transportation?
I think that’s one of the lessons that we will learn from the Inuvik-Tuk highway, what type of training should occur. Certainly any impacts on the economy, the economic impacts are part of the business case. So, training individuals, employment, on the site employment to the region and overall economic impacts of such a huge infrastructure project are certainly in the business case. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had the pleasure yesterday of meeting with the folks from Dechinta and they expressed, very well by the way, their desire about continuing in their program here in the Northwest Territories and they cited about their need of support, and support means cash, obviously, but it also means enabling legislation.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, what work is being done on developing legislation that could allow Dechinta to create its own northern university? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Aurora College and Dechinta have been working very closely together. Both institutions, both facilities deliver degree programming through southern institutions. So they’re not recognized as a degree-granting institution, but they are involved in a partnership with southern institutions. So they allow that through our campuses with a partnership for another two years in a southern institution.
So, in order to change that, we have to change our legislation in order to recognize the institution to be granting degree programming into our facilities. Those are the processes that have been discussed with Dechinta and Aurora College institution as well. Thank you.
My understanding is that some of these questions were asked last week, but there’s certainly no reason not to ask these questions again and ensure we get clear policy direction from the Department of Education and to show that we’re moving in the right direction.
So, when can we see something that would create enabling legislation so that this organization can be a stand-alone university in the Northwest Territories? They’re working very hard with the University of Alberta and the McGill University. They’ve also told me that they have in the range of 22 Ph.D. professor types who will work in partnership here in the Northwest Territories. They don’t need bricks and mortar; they need legislation. So, I just want to see what support our government is getting behind and when can we see an aspect of legislation come forward? Thank you.
As indicated earlier, we are working very closely with the Dechinta stakeholder, the owner of Dechinta. I just met with her at the Skills for Success symposium. We talked about the process; we talked about the business planning process; we talked about the legislation, how there has to be a process in play. I did mention to her that the college is working very closely with her, so there is a process in place in order to make those changes in this House. So, time is of the essence.
Those are the processes that we continue to work with the stakeholders. Mahsi.
I think I heard the word “process” four or five times there. I didn’t actually count. When will we see this process actually emerge to a result? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, obviously we’re at the end of our budget session. In order for this to happen, we have to deal with the stakeholders. It’s not only Dechinta, it’s Aurora College and other organizations that need to have their input as well. So, more than likely it won’t happen during the life of this Assembly. But in the transition period for the next Assembly, this is a discussion that more than likely will happen. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, respectfully I say I fail to understand why this sort of looming election always affects the work we’re doing in the Northwest Territories. It continues to be the overriding well, we can’t work on this because we have an election. Frankly, the bureaucracy’s machinery keeps grinding forward day after day after day. It doesn’t care who the politicians are. The process and the bureaucracy keeps working forward every day for us. Politicians are talking heads of departments, that’s all.
So, I’m asking what type of time frame can we see a legislative proposal or document that the public can see. It doesn’t matter if we have an election; what matters is the department is working on it and when can we see it. Thank you.
As I stated, these are the discussions that we’re currently having with the people who are involved, whether it be Dechinta, the college or my department. In order to push through legislation within this House, there has to be considerable consultation. It won’t just happen at the snap of a finger, Mr. Speaker. So, those are discussions we are currently having.
As I stated, there is a process in place. Yes, I may have mentioned four times the process. It’s very important to have a process in place to deliver those key messages, key deliveries into our legislation. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. Would the Minister provide the following information:
What is/are the cleanest-burning fossil fuel(s) for heating use and for generating electricity?
Please provide the city of Yellowknife’s annual energy consumption, with a breakdown of each source of energy.
Please describe a typical hydraulic fracturing operation, including how many times a well is “fracked.”
Please provide a table or graph showing the annual water use of:
a typical hydraulic fracturing operation;
Imperial Oil’s facilities in Norman Wells;
the city of Yellowknife; and
the Diavik Diamond Mine.
What is the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment doing to educate NWT residents about the technology used in hydraulic fracturing?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to go back on the orders of the day to item 5, please.
---Unanimous consent granted
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to recognize some of the folks in the gallery. They are part of the Tlicho Community Services Agency. It’s been 10 years in the making since the Tlicho Land Claim came into effect, so they’ve been working diligently and the board members are here with us. I’d just like to recognize Mr. Ted Blondin, who is the chair of the Tlicho Community Services Agency. Also, Gloria Ekendia-Gon is a Gameti representative; and Mr. Ted Nitsiza, a representative from Whati. Next to him is Mary Adelle Football from Wekweeti, a representative. Also, I’d just like to recognize Mr. Glen Blondin with us here as well.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to recognize Ted Blondin, a Lethbridge alumni and a good friend from going to university in Lethbridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its report on the 2014 Review of the Official Languages Act and commends it to the House.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations, the “standing committee” or “SCOGO,” is pleased to report on its 2014 Review of the Official Languages Act.
In June 1984 the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories passed its first Official Languages Ordinance. Modeled on federal official languages legislation, the territorial legislation guaranteed that members of the public could access government programs and services equally, in either French or English.
Additionally, the ordinance identified Chipewyan, Cree, Dogrib, Loucheux – Gwich’in, North Slavey, South Slavey and Inuktitut as the official Aboriginal languages of the Northwest Territories. The ordinance provided that regulations could be used to prescribe the use of an Aboriginal language for any and all of the official purposes of the Territories. This included prescribing the circumstances under which an Aboriginal language may or shall be used and declaring an area to be one in which the regulations apply with respect to the use of an Aboriginal language.
In 1985 the Official Languages Ordinance became the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories.
In 1989 a Special Committee on Aboriginal Languages was established as recommended by the NWT Task Force on Aboriginal Languages. The special committee report, dated April 1990, included draft amendments to the Official Languages Act that, with some modifications, were passed into law in 1990.
As a result of the 1990 amendments, in addition to English and French, the act recognized Chipewyan; Cree; Gwich’in; Inuktitut, which was specified to include Inuinnaqtun and Inuvialuktun; Slavey, which was specified as North Slavey and South Slavey; and Dogrib, now known as Tlicho, as official languages of the Northwest Territories. The Aboriginal languages were given equal status within all institutions of the Legislative Assembly and the Government of the Northwest Territories, as defined in the act and any subsequent regulations. In addition, the act was amended to establish the Office of the Languages Commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I would now pass the reading of the report to my colleague Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Nadli.
In 2000 a Special Committee on the Review of the Official Languages Act, SCROLA, was established by the Legislative Assembly to undertake a comprehensive review of the Official Languages Act.
As a result of this review, the 14th Legislative Assembly amended the act in 2003, clearly identifying Chipewyan, Cree, English, French, Gwich’in, Inuinnaqtun, Inuktitut, Inuvialuktun, North Slavey, South Slavey and Tlicho as the official languages of the Northwest Territories. These amendments changed the roles of the Minister responsible for Official Languages and the Languages Commissioner and established the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board.
Section 35 (1) of the Official Languages Act, as amended in 2003, obligated a committee of the Legislative Assembly to review the provisions and operation of the Official Languages Act at the next session following December 31, 2007.
That review culminated in a report by the Standing Committee on Government Operations of the 16th Legislative Assembly entitled “Final Report on the Review of the Official Languages Act 2008-2009 – Reality Check: Securing a Future for the Official Languages of the Northwest Territories,” “the 2009 report.” The response of the GNWT to that report is a matter of great concern for the current standing committee and will be addressed in this report.
The mandate for the Standing Committee’s review of the Official Languages Act comes from the act itself. Section 35(2) mandates that the review shall include an examination of the administration and implementation of the act, the effectiveness of its provisions, the achievement of the objectives stated in its preamble, and may include any recommendations for changes to the act. Simply put, the committee is obligated to examine program management and delivery, the strength of the legislative and policy framework and how effectively the roles defined in legislation are contributing to achieving the vision articulated in the preamble to the act.
Section 35(1) requires that a review of the act be undertaken in five-year intervals following the December 31, 2007, date. Accordingly, a review of the act should have started in early 2013. Due to mitigating circumstances, the current review did not take place until 2014.
Although the act prescribes what the standing committee must consider under the review, it allows great latitude for the committee to determine how the review will be undertaken.
Previous reviews have focused largely on the management and delivery of official languages programs and services. In the 2009 review, the 16th Assembly’s Standing Committee on Government Operations chose to focus on the following areas: strengthening legislation and policy; improvement of management and accountability; effective and adequate financing; enhancing service delivery; building human resource capacity; supporting research and development for official languages; increasing and improving Aboriginal languages education and promoting official languages. This approach resulted in an exhaustive review of the Department of Education, Culture and Employment’s, ECE, official languages program management and delivery, which resulted in over 70 recommendations and sub-recommendations for improvement.
In designing the 2014 review, the committee was cognizant of the massive amount of work that went into the 2009 review. This review spanned two years and involved extensive travel, consultation and expense. The committee did not want to duplicate the efforts of the previous standing committee by doing another review of the same magnitude, particularly in light of what the committee views as an inadequate response from the GNWT to the previous review.
The committee was also aware that the department conducted not one but two language symposia, involving the key language stakeholders in the Northwest Territories, in the period since the 2009 review. The committee was, therefore, concerned about consultation fatigue in the language communities.
The committee also felt that the timing of such an expansive consultation was not optimal. When the committee began its review, ECE was in the process of establishing an Aboriginal Languages Secretariat. The committee saw little advantage in consulting with the Aboriginal languages communities before the completion of this initiative.
Instead, the committee chose to pick up where the 2009 review left off and build upon the work of the previous committee by ensuring accountability for the work that was previously done. The committee conducted in-depth assessment of the work done by ECE in response to the 2009 report and held an in camera briefing with the Honourable Jackson Lafferty, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, and his officials regarding the committee review of the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, through you, I’d like to pass this report on to my colleague Ms. Bisaro. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks, Mr. Dolynny.
The committee began its review with an exhaustive examination of previous committee reports and briefing materials related to the management and delivery of official languages programming.
The committee examined the GNWT’s “Response to the Standing Committee on Government Operations Review of the Official Languages Act” – “the 2009 response” – tabled October 5, 2009. The committee was troubled by the tone of the response and the lack of commitment by the department to follow up with the standing committee regarding progress on implementing the recommendations made in the report.
The committee found the following statement in the government’s response to be very telling of the department’s attitude towards the work of the 16th Assembly’s standing committee:
“The Government of the Northwest Territories is not providing a detailed response to each recommendation at this time to ensure that we do not bias the development of the official languages strategy and implementation plans that will involve ongoing engagement and consultation with language communities and practitioners.”
The standing committee wishes to point out that the very language communities and practitioners referred to by the department were essentially the same groups consulted in the development of the standing committee’s report. The suggestion that consideration of the committee’s recommendations might “bias” the work of the department reveals a stunning lack of respect for months of work by the 16th Assembly’s Standing Committee on Government Operations and for the stakeholders consulted. The recommendations of the 16th Assembly’s standing committee should have served as a tool to inform the development of the promised official languages strategy, not be viewed as something that would detract from it.
The committee reminds the department that the recommendations contained in the 2009 report, as well as those in this report, flow from a review process that is mandated by law. The department has an obligation to consider these recommendations fully and fairly and to respond in good faith.
In its 2009 response, the GNWT committed to table a full response to the 2009 report in the fall 2010 session, yet this commitment was not met. The department further noted that, although detailed responses to the standing committee’s recommendations would not be ready for inclusion in the October 2009 Report on Official Languages, updates would be included in subsequent annual reports.
When the department tabled its “Annual Report on Official Languages 2010-2011”, on December 15, 2011, the standing committee took note of the fact that it did not contain a progress report on the recommendations arising from the 2009 review. The chair of the Standing Committee wrote to Minister Lafferty to point out this oversight.
The standing committee was assured that future annual reports would contain updates on the various recommendations arising from the 2009 review. Since that time, Annual Reports on Official Languages for 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 have been tabled and none has contained any references to the recommendations arising from the 2009 review or how they may have shaped the model for official languages program and service delivery that the department is implementing.
The committee did, ultimately, receive two detailed progress reports which were provided by the department at the request of the committee chair in preparation for meetings between the Minister and the standing committee. These reports, dated May 2012 and April 2014, were not tabled by the department and are therefore not available to the public.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask to pass the reading of the report to my colleague Mr. Moses. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Ms. Bisaro.
Since the 2009 review, the department has done a great deal of work to restructure the delivery of official languages programs and services in the Northwest Territories. The Minister has referred to this as the department’s “new approach.”
In the absence of a final response from ECE to the 2009 review, the standing committee has struggled to reconcile the direction that ECE has taken with this “new approach,” with the vision outlined in the standing committee’s 2009 report, which was based on the development of an official languages services model and a separate and distinct Aboriginal languages protection regime.
It might have been the department’s intention, at one point in time, to outline its new approach in the “official languages strategy” promised in the 2009 response, but it does not appear that such a strategy was ever tabled. This strategy is the missing link that might have bridged the communications gap between the recommendations contained in the 2009 report and the French and Aboriginal Languages Plans that were finally produced.
In October 2010 ECE did table a document titled “Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan: A Shared Responsibility.” This appears to have formed the basis of the department’s “new approach” which involved the establishment of an Aboriginal Languages Secretariat – which was under development at the time this review commenced – and the transfer of funding directly to Aboriginal Language Communities. This funding approach is apparently intended to allow the Aboriginal language communities to implement their own priorities, as identified in a series of language plans developed with the assistance of the department.
The tabling of the “NWT Aboriginal Languages Plan: A Shared Responsibility” seems to have been complemented by the “Strategic Plan on French Language Communications and Services,” which was tabled in the Legislative Assembly in October 2012. ECE officially opened the Secretariat for Francophone Affairs in Yellowknife on April 3, 2012.
A Shared Responsibility,” under the strategy of “enhanced organizational support for language activities,” the department noted the need for changes to the legislation to support the strategy and also acknowledged, page 64, that legislative change was called for by the Legislative Assembly in the standing committee’s 2009 review. The report also confirmed the government’s intention to eliminate the Official Languages Board.
The department did bring forward a legislative proposal in June 2011 for An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act (OLA). In it, the transitional recommendations for changes to the Official Languages Act contained in the 2009 report are referenced in support of the legislative changes being proposed. However, the department only brought forward a specific component of the transitional recommendations, citing the priorities established in the “Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan: A Shared Responsibility” as the reason for doing so.
In August 2011 the Standing Committee on Social Programs reviewed the legislative proposal and advised that the bill should address all of the legislative amendments contained in the transitional recommendations of the 2009 report.
The standing committee was, therefore, of the view that changes to the Official Languages Act should contain the transitional recommendations on the Languages Commissioner, in addition to those referring to the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board.
No further progress was made on changes to the legislation which, consequently, remains unchanged since 2004.
New members were appointed to the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board in March and April 2010. Contrary to the requirements of the existing Official Languages Act and the requirements of the regulations for both the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board, English, French and Inuktitut language communities were not represented.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to return the report over to my colleague Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Moses.
The standing committee is deeply concerned by the attitude of disregard displayed by the department with respect to the 2009 review and hopes that future reviews of the Official Languages Act will be received respectfully and treated more seriously.
The failure of the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to provide a final, public response to the 2009 report had the following impacts:
The department did not articulate which parts of the 2009 report it agreed with and was prepared to implement, nor provide any rationale for those recommendations it rejected;
The department, without adequate rationale or substantiation to the standing committee, implemented a model for official languages programs and services that differs from the one proposed in the 2009 report; and
With the exception of the department’s initial response to the 2009 review, none of the information provided by the department in response to the review is in the public domain.
As a result, the department failed to be accountable to the standing committee, which has a legitimate mandate for oversight, or to the public which has a significant interest in and right to know what factors are influencing official languages policymaking and programming.
Another unfortunate outcome of the lack of response to the 2009 report is that it has strained the department’s relationship with the standing committee and overshadowed the fact that the department has done a lot of work and made a good deal of progress on official languages. The standing committee wants to emphasize that the criticism directed at the department in this report has more to do with the casual treatment of the standing committee’s role and mandate than with much of the actual work being done by the department.
Nonetheless, the standing committee is deeply troubled by the department’s apparent lack of concern for the fact that it is operating the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board in contravention of its own legislation. The department has created a de-facto Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board, similar to the one contemplated in the “Northwest Territories Aboriginal Languages Plan: A Shared Responsibility,” by tailoring the membership on the existing board to align with the “new approach.” This was done as a matter of expediency, which may have served the purpose of meeting immediate needs, but is not a defense against the need to ensure that the legislation is current. Given the fact that the FFT withdrew from the Official Languages Board in 2006, the department has had more than ample time to amend the legislation. The legislation should ultimately be dictating the structure and function of official languages program service and delivery, not the other way around.
Standing committee is also concerned about the funding model for the delivery of Aboriginal language revitalization. The standing committee supports the aspirations of the language communities, but has concerns about accountability, particularly in the event that goals established by the language communities are not met within the funding provided. The standing committee will be looking to ensure that the department establishes an appropriate monitoring and accountability framework.
Mr. Speaker, I turn the report over to Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In concluding its report, the Standing Committee on Government Operations makes the following recommendations:
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment table an official languages strategy that includes a clear response to the 2009 review, identifying which recommendations were accepted and rejected and the reasons why. This report must clearly articulate the vision for the department’s “new approach” and identify how this coincides with and differs from the vision contained in the 2009 report.
With respect to this recommendation, the committee notes that a good deal of this analytical work has already been done by the department, but because it takes place in confidential updates and correspondence from the Minister, it is not available for public review as it should be.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment work closely with the standing committee to revise and bring forward its legislative proposal for amendments to the Official Languages Act in the life of this Assembly. If the department has received any legal opinions related to the issue of federal concurrence with changes to the NWT’s Official Languages Act, this information should be shared in confidence with the standing committee, so that the department and standing committee are working with a shared understanding of the factors affecting legislative change.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment establish an accountability framework for the funding provided to Aboriginal language communities under the “new approach” and provide the standing committee with progress reports and a copy of the framework when completed.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment respond to this report within 120 days.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Committee Report 14-17(5) is received and moved into Committee of the Whole.
---Carried
Mr. Nadli.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) to have Committee Report 14-17(5), Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations Review of the 2014 Official Languages Act, be moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration later today. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
---Unanimous consent granted
