Question.
Question has been called. Bill 50, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2015-2016, has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 51, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 5, 2014-2015, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for infrastructure expenditures for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 51, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 5, 2014-2015, has had second reading.
Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that Bill 52, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2014-2015, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for operation expenditures for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 52, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2014-2015, has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 53, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2015-2016, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for infrastructure expenditures for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2015-2016 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 53, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 1, 2015-2016, has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek consent to proceed with second reading of Bill 54, An Act to Amend the Forest Management Act. Thank you.
---Consent granted
I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that Bill 54, An Act to Amend the Forest Management Act, be read for the second time.
This bill amends the Forest Management Act to expand the subject matter of the act to include mushrooms, define mushrooms and establish regulation-making authority in respect of mushrooms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 54, An Act to Amend the Forest Management Act, has had second reading and is referred to committee.
---Carried
Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Committee Report 14-17(5), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the 2014 Review of the Official Languages Act, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of committee? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We wish to deal with Committee Report 14-17(5), Standing Committee on Government Operations Report on the 2014 Review of the Official Languages Act. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. We will commence after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I will call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we’ve agreed to review Committee Report 14-17(5). To start, I will go with the chair of Gov Ops, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Government Operations was pleased to present its Report on the 2014 Review of the Official Languages Act to the House on Wednesday, March 11, 2015.
The report was read into the record, received by the House and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
The mandate of the committee’s review comes directly from the Official Languages Act. Members will recall from the report presented yesterday that the standing committee’s approach to the review was to pick up from where the last legislative review, which was conducted in 2009, left off.
Our committee’s focus was on achieving continuity and ensuring accountability for the work that was previously done.
As we consider the report and subsequent motions, other Members may wish to make comments. Mahsi, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. I will ask for general comments on the report. General comments. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment work closely with the Standing Committee on Government Operations to revise and bring forward its legislative proposal for amendments to the Official Languages Act in the life of this Assembly;
And further, 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 on Government Operations, so that the department and the committee are working with a shared understanding of the factors affecting legislative change.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. A motion is on the floor. The motion is being distributed. To the motion. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to just talk a little bit about this motion. Members had spoken about it a bit this week. In doing this review of the Official Languages Act, the committee found it quite difficult to get a handle on just where the department is in terms of what it’s doing with regard to official languages.
We noted the Minister had made references to an official languages strategy I think four years ago, but could find no evidence that an official languages strategy had ever been put forward or tabled.
The other thing that was of great concern to committee is the very comprehensive review from the 16th Assembly that was conducted in 2008-2009 had never been formally responded to by the department and the Minister. There were a great number of recommendations in the 2009 report that the department said we can’t respond to these because we don’t want to bias the work we’re doing. Committee really didn’t know where the department was at because we had no response to the recommendations from the 2009 report. So this motion is asking for two things. We’re asking for an official languages strategy to be tabled, so that we know clearly where the department is going and what their strategy is. We are asking for the official languages strategy or whatever document is tabled to include a response to all the recommendations in the 2009 report.
Committee has received some of that information from the department. A lot of that work has been done, but it isn’t in the public realm. Committee would like it to be in the public realm, so part of this request is that the response from the department include a response to each of the recommendations in the 2009 report.
Lastly, the motion asks for the department, that has adopted a new approach to languages and it’s not that committee feels it’s a bad approach, it’s just a new approach and it’s unclear how it fits into everything else. So we would like this motion and the committee would like the department to identify how this new approach fits in with the recommendations and the comments from the 2009 report. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Ms. Bisaro for bringing this motion forward. To not repeat many of the concerns that she has, as well as other committee members shared, this was a very problematic issue for the standing committee, which really has a very legitimate mandate to do this type of oversight. We are saddled with the ability to review all the policymaking and program on languages, so committee was very concerned. I think that was reflected in our report, almost to the point where there was a disregard for the committee in trying to get a firm answer with respect to the 2009 review. Without that formal response from the government, it makes our job that much more difficult in doing the oversight that we did.
Again, this motion asks us some very clear direction, and first and foremost, we need to have that fulsome reply to this 2009 review. Hopefully once we get it, it might be too late for the life of the 17th Assembly, but we’ll hope that for future Assemblies we’re able to look at that response and see how those recommendations fit in the actual plan that we have for language moving forward.
I just want to share my thoughts, Mr. Chair. It makes our job much more difficult when there are clear gaping holes in a committee mandate. Not having tools at our disposal and not having that 2009 review report coming back from the department did make our job a lot more cumbersome. I just want to share that thought with the House. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I just want to speak on some of the key events that took place within this realm of the Official Languages Act.
I think it’s important that since we’re talking about official languages, I’m going to speak in Tlicho.
[Translation] Mr. Chair, before I begin I would like to take a moment to thank those of my colleagues who use their official language in this House. I also want to thank my mother, who made sure that I spoke my mother tongue. Without her persistence I would not speak fluently. This is important in this conversation today: the role our parents play in making sure we know who we are and where we came from.
Aboriginal language revitalization is all about use and relevance. It is inspiring to hear all our Aboriginal MLAs and Mr. Dolynny using our official Aboriginal languages in this House.
As the Standing Committee on Government Operations noted in their report, they are building on the work of the previous Assembly, that presented a lengthy report with many recommendations. Since that report was tabled, I have responded to it and provided updates multiple times in person, and by letter when standing committee was not available to meet. This is up to and including a letter to the chair of the standing committee including a detailed table of the status of our work, which I sent on April 5, 2014.
Since the 2009 standing committee report was tabled, I chaired, with the chair of the same standing committee, the first Aboriginal languages symposium. At that meeting I also made room on the program for the chair of the standing committee to provide a presentation to delegates on the SCOGO report. Subsequently, a copy was presented and was sent to all the delegates.
Elders, regional Aboriginal governments, language coordinators, linguists and other experts were in attendance as were several MLAs at that time. Following that meeting, I tabled this in the House on October 27, 2010, a 10-year framework for official languages, entitled “NWT Aboriginal Languages Plan – A Shared Responsibility.” As my opening message in the plan said, this plan used the information collected, the results and recommendations of the 2009 report of the NWT Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Government Operations entitled “Reality Check: Securing the Future for the Official Languages of the Northwest Territories.”
We took the advice of the standing committee and added the voice of language experts to draft this 10-year plan and its corresponding actions in response to the standing committee’s report. This plan is updated as necessary and is undergoing an update at the moment to reflect our new partnership with regional Aboriginal governments as they assume considerable increased responsibility for revitalization of their own language.
Mr. Chair, as symposium delegates advise, where the responsibility rightly rests is with the actual keepers of the language who use their languages in their everyday lives and encourage others in their regions to do the same.
The plan will also be updated to reflect new agreements we will be signing with the federal government very soon, an agreement that we hope will bring increased funding to all our official languages and will enable our people to become more fluent in their mother tongues.
As I said, the 2009 SCOGO report was a lengthy report, coupled with 48 recommendations and 45 sub-recommendations, for a total of 93 recommendations. The report advocated for increasing the layers of oversight by dividing responsibility into two distinct and separate branches: the official language services and Aboriginal language protection.
Under the Aboriginal language protection branch, a further two layers were proposed: an Aboriginal language authority and an Aboriginal language advisory committee. In addition, a non-government Aboriginal languages centre was proposed. The advice received from standing committee to create these layers of bureaucracy is, however, not what Aboriginal governments, elders and language experts are telling us. What they said is we need less bureaucracy and more authority as keepers of the language, and we listened.
This government has worked with Aboriginal governments to assess in creating and finding their five-year language plan. Now, as we come to the end of the first year of the implementation, we are working together to create a detailed measurement, evaluation and accountability framework.
That framework will provide both the GNWT and our Aboriginal government partners with the information we all need to move forward, making any necessary changes and improvements and guarantee the survival and strengthening of our official Aboriginal languages.
Many of the 93 recommendations suggested in the 2009 standing committee report most certainly have merit and we have and are working on those. I very much look forward to providing further detailed reporting when I table my response to the current standing committee report in 120 days.
When we speak about NWT official languages, we must also take into consideration English and French. There is no doubt that English is thriving and needs little help, but our responsibility to French is a different matter. The French community is working very hard with their language speakers to strengthen their language and to make it very clear that they expect no less from the government.
Recently, every department in this government created language plans to describe how services will be provided to French residents, and those plans are currently being implemented. We are extremely hopeful that the new language agreement we will sign with the federal government will provide additional funding to completely underwrite the cost of the government’s French Language Plan. This is a responsibility that resides with the federal government and we fully expect to be met.
In closing, I would like to say again that I tabled a response to the 2009 report in the form of a 10-year plan, entitled “NWT Aboriginal Language Plan – A Shared Responsibility.” I have provided updates to standing committee through representations and letters and through annual language reports. I will be more than happy to table all this information once again, including letters to the standing committee if the chair permits. I will provide a full detailed response to the standing committee report in 120 days. [Translation ends]
To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment work closely with the Standing Committee on Government Operations to revise and bring forward its legislative proposal for amendments to the Official Languages Act in the life of this Assembly;
And further, 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 on Government Operations, so that the department and the committee are working with a shared understanding of the factors affecting legislative change.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. A motion is on the floor. The motion has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to thank the Minister for bringing some clarity to the House and bringing some clarity to the committee with the report. I know the Minister has made offerings a number of times in his dissertation earlier about coming back in 120 days with a more fulsome report to us. That said, there was and there is a bit of a strained relationship currently, and I think our report factored that in with the standing committee. There were a lot of moving parts in the last couple of years since 2009, and our attempt was to try to find at least some commonality where language was going.
Now, this motion, if I may, Mr. Chair, I’d like to quote just a very quick passage out of our report that puts into context the motion we have before the House.
“The standing committee is deeply troubled by the department’s apparent lack of concern for the fact that it’s operating the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board in contravention of its own legislation.”
What transpired, according to chronology of the department, was the fact that the revitalization board was brought into play, which really, in essence, de facto, breached the legislation that we have before the House. Now, I know this may have been done as a result of expediency or a need to put a layer in order for preservation. However, again, this is not a defence that we should ignore, the law that governs a land, and language, like any other component of life in the Northwest Territories, is governed by its own legislation.
This motion basically asks the department to please, in the very near future, bring legislation current, so that we’re not working de facto against the very same legislation we’re supposed to uphold.
The second point has to deal more with a sharing of information. Legal opinions bear a lot of weight, and when one party is privy to a legal opinion and a mandate such as a standing committee is not privy to such information, it does strain the relationship between department and standing committee. Like anything else, we’re looking for commonality, we’re looking for a common goal, and we’re looking to have resolve, and I think it’s a fair ask, and I know the department has always been very good at adhering to that. We’re just quantifying that ask in the form of a formal motion.
Again, I do appreciate all the work the department and the Minister has done over the years in language. It’s apparent the passion that the Minister has and the department has to put language and revitalization back in the hands of community governments, and I believe the people are probably sometimes smarter than we are. They want less bureaucracy and they want more programs, and you know what? That’s exactly what I feel and I think it’s exactly what a lot of Members feel as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the committee for allowing me to bring this motion forward.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Committee, I’ll go to Mr. Moses.
