Thank you, Madam Speaker. The standing committee also disagreed with the Languages Commissioner's recommendations 22, 24 and 30.
Recommendation 22 in the report suggested reconsidering the current bilingual bonus policy and using the funds instead for language training programs. Since the bilingual bonus policy is part of the collective agreement with unionized government workers, the standing committee feels that passing on this recommendation would be inappropriate. Also, committee Members felt that the bilingual bonus policy is a more effective use of the government's limited resources than extensive language training. Therefore, the standing committee rejects recommendation 22.
In recommendation 24, the Languages Commissioner suggests adding a language criterion to the affirmative action policy. While the intent of the recommendation -- ensuring that more GNWT employees speak official languages other than English -- is admirable, the standing committee does not agree with the means proposed. Committee Members note that many GNWT employees meeting affirmative action criteria are already bilingual or unilingual in official languages other than English. We also note that some positions require abilities in the other official languages, and for these an affirmative action criterion for language would be redundant. Therefore, the standing committee rejects recommendation 24.
The Languages Commissioner's duty, as stated in subsection 20(1) of the act, is to ensure the appropriate use of official languages in the administration of the affairs of government institutions. Some government departments and agencies have a mandate to promote and enhance official languages and the Languages Commissioner also has a duty to oversee these activities.
However, committee Members feel that recommendation 30 needs further clarification. We recognize that the government has limited resources and needs to focus on ensuring that government departments and agencies themselves are providing appropriate services in official languages.
The standing committee feels it would be most appropriate for the government to use its available resources to set a strong example. This approach, along with encouragement of private sector solutions, would be most appropriate. Other organizations and groups can then look to the government as a model.
We acknowledge that the government has, in the past, assisted some businesses and non-government organizations with official languages needs. However, the standing committee feels this should only happen where there are no private sector options available and when such assistance would not interfere with the operational requirements of the government.
Finally, in appendix 3 of the report, the Languages Commissioner discusses the possible formation of an advisory council. Although not the subject of a formal recommendation, the topic was raised at committee hearings. The Languages Commissioner felt that the requirement of subsection 20(3) of the act to "meet not less than once a year with the representatives of such organizations as may be prescribed" required the establishment of a formal advisory council to receive advice from representatives of each official language.
Committee Members disagree. The original intent of subsection 20(3) was to ensure the Languages Commissioner would reach out to appropriate organizations to solicit advice. But this can be done without the establishment of a formal council. Individual meetings with representatives of appropriate organizations will satisfy the requirements of the act and at much less expense than creating a formal advisory council.
Madam Speaker, with your concurrence, Mr. Koe, the chairman, will conclude the report. Thank you.