Thank you. The honourable Member for Natilikmiot, Mr. Ningark.

Role And Responsibility Of The Languages Commissioner

Thank you, Madam Speaker. The final report of the Special Committee on Aboriginal Languages, tabled in April 1990, included the recommended amendments to the Official Languages Act, which created the office of the Languages Commissioner. The special committee considered whether the exact powers and duties of the Languages Commissioner should be spelled out explicitly. However, they decided that the best choice was not to be specific; rather, the amendments would allow the Languages Commissioner to exercise political will and discretion in determining the powers and duties of the office.

Whenever someone takes on a new job, there is bound to be a period of adjustment and confusion. This is especially true in the case of this newly-created position, where the first incumbent was expected to quickly establish guidelines and boundaries for the responsibilities and authority of the job.

The recurring theme of the First Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner is that this has not been done. Throughout the report, the Languages Commissioner bemoans the lack of guidance regarding the scope of the position. Many of the most important recommendations in the report are essentially pleas for direction.

Committee Members are of the opinion that much of the responsibility for providing that direction rests with the Languages Commissioner herself. As head of an agency which is technically independent of the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Languages Commissioner does not have a Minister or deputy minister to report to. The Languages Commissioner does report to the Legislative Assembly; however, the Assembly's direction has already been made clear in the Official Languages Act, and specifically, in the sections relating to the position of Languages Commissioner, as developed by the Special Committee on Aboriginal Languages.

It is the committee's opinion that further specific direction from the Assembly is not necessary at this point. Therefore, the standing committee does not endorse recommendation 2. Rather, we would encourage the Languages Commissioner to be decisive in determining the range and limits of the authority of the office. Negotiations with the government, such as those surrounding the administrative protocol, are one solution to this aspect of the Languages Commissioner's job.

However, there may be times when the Languages Commissioner must just act, without waiting for direction. Committee Members appreciate that the Languages Commissioner might hesitate, concerned that decisive action might lead to uncomfortable situations. But the political nature of the position means that uncomfortable situations are unavoidable. The position of Languages Commissioner, by its very nature, is independent of the government. As a watch-dog position, the Languages Commissioner will sometimes be critical of the government, so the relationship between the Languages Commissioner and the government may not always be friendly and cordial. Committee Members feel this is a risk that the office of the Languages Commissioner must bear, if he or she is to effectively carry out the mandate of the office.

Madam Speaker, I will ask Mr. Antoine to continue.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Antoine.

The Need For Focus

Madam Speaker, a number of inquiries and complaints have been directed to the office of the Languages Commissioner, and the office has done an admirable job in trying to deal with them all. However, committee Members feel the Languages Commissioner should have defined a limited scope and set of objectives upon first being appointed. The result has been that the Languages Commissioner has become involved in too many areas, and the office has not been able to focus its attention adequately.

The report addresses a number of individual concerns, either through action taken by the Languages Commissioner or through recommendations made; in doing so, however, the report also reflects the lack of clearly defined and limited goals and objectives. The standing committee feels that the Languages Commissioner should develop and stick to a limited set of objectives, such as the definitive objectives defined in the 1994-95 main estimates. This will allow the office to be in control of events as much as possible, rather than letting events control the duties of the office.

Recommendation 2

The committee recommends that the Languages Commissioner annually define a set of goals and objectives to guide the activities of the office. These goals and objectives should be stated in the office's annual budget and reviewed in the Languages Commissioner's annual reports.

Employee Complaints And Inquiries

Recommendation 3 in the report reflects this lack of focus. In the report, the Languages Commissioner describes a number of complaints from government employees, and then recommends that the Assembly provide direction to the Languages Commissioner on the hearing of employee complaints.

Committee Members feel that such complaints should generally be dealt with through accepted grievance procedures, whether through the UNW or otherwise, as appropriate. While some of the complaints listed were merely requests for information, actual complaints are best handled by the grievance process. If the issue is not dealt with satisfactorily, the Languages Commissioner may then wish to get involved. But doing so before proper grievance proceedings are initiated and completed could put the Languages Commissioner and the complainant in a difficult situation.

As well, committee Members were confused by the frequent use of the word "complaint" by the Languages Commissioner when referring to any contact with the office. We would prefer that the Languages Commissioner be more discriminating

when referring to files, perhaps classifying them as complaints, inquires and so on.

In short, the standing committee feels strongly that the Languages Commissioner should give more careful consideration to the range and nature of complaints dealt with by the office. As with grievances, some complaints might be better dealt with through other channels. Also, the Languages Commissioner should work with the official languages unit to provide a consistent, effective means of answering routine inquires about official languages from employees and the public. Committee Members expect that the forthcoming official languages handbook, discussed on page 8, will address this issue.

Madam Speaker, I will turn over this portion of the report to my colleague, the honourable Tony Whitford.

Thank you. Prior to proceeding of the completion of the report, the House will take a short recess. Thank you.

---SHORT RECESS

I'll call the House back to order. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Whitford.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

Responsibilities Of The Government And Of The Languages Commissioner

Thank you. The honourable Member for Yellowknife North, Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Other recommendations refer to establishing and publishing guidelines for providing official languages services, (number 10), -- I'm going to mention a lot of numbers here, which are recommendations in these little boxes, which I'm not going to read. They're there if you're really interested in this -- publishing information on the act and official languages initiatives (number 11), clearly identifying offices where official languages serves are available (number 15), and informing the public about standardized writing systems for native languages. These are all things the government should have done by now, and the standing committee is expecting the government to deal with these recommendations quickly.

In recommendation 9, the Languages Commissioner recommends that the government determine all acts and regulations which relate to official languages. The standing committee feels that the responsibility for this task should lie with the office of the Languages Commissioner, perhaps with assistance from the government's legislation division.

The Languages Commissioner also made two recommendations (numbers 12 and 13) related to the funding agreements with the Secretary of State. With the hiring of a financial coordinator, the official languages unit appears to have met with recommendation 12. As well, it appears that the official languages unit is making an effort to give adequate direction to departments, thereby meeting recommendation 13. Committee Members suggest that the Languages Commissioner follow up on any future complaints from departments on an individual basis.

The government has frequently referred to an official languages handbook which, when completed, is supposed to contain all the guidelines and information necessary for government employees to start implementing provisions of the Official Languages Act. When this handbook is complete, the committee expects that it will address recommendations 8, 10, 11 and 15 mentioned above. The committee also expects that the handbook will spell out what government departments' responsibilities are under the act, including those responsibilities outlined by the Languages Commissioner's recommendations 16, 19, 20, 23 and 27.

The standing committee wants to see the official languages handbook completed as soon as possible, in order that it might be reviewed in conjunction with the next annual report of the Languages Commissioner.

Recommendation 4

The committee recommends that the government complete the official languages handbook by December 31, 1994.

In recommendation 26, the Languages Commissioner suggests that GNWT establish more training programs in official languages; not only for government employees, but also for members of the public. Committee Members feel that the best vehicle for providing language training for GNWT employees and members of the public, would be Arctic College. The college should especially focus on training people to teach official languages. Those so trained could then either teach through Arctic College or provide training privately. This would allow the government to use its resources as necessary to pay for training some employees, yet also allow members of the public to access official languages training at their own cost.

Madam Speaker, that concludes my part of this report. With your permission, I will turn over the next part of the report to Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you. Prior to going to the next Member, I would like to introduce someone sitting in the gallery, Mayor Charlie Furlong from Aklavik. Welcome to the Assembly.

---Applause

The honourable Member for Aivilik, Mr. Arvaluk.

Other Recommendations Agreed To

The standing committee considered recommendations 18, 21, 25 and 28 in the Languages Commissioner's report, and agree with the Languages Commissioner that the government should act upon them.

The Languages Commissioner's recommendation 18 refers to positions in the government where the incumbents provide services to the public in official languages. The standing committee agrees that these positions should not be left vacant, and should be filled as quickly as possible.

Recommendation 21 would provide toll-free numbers for northerners to call when seeking government services in official languages. The standing committee agrees with the Languages Commissioner that the government should investigate this further, with the minor amendment that an individual line for each official language might not be necessary. The demand might not dictate having one toll-free line for each official language, but current technology would make it possible for a single line to handle a number of languages. The committee expects that the Languages Commissioner, the official languages unit, and the language bureau will be able to develop a quick and effective solution to this recommendation.

In recommendation 25, the Languages Commissioner addresses the issue of adult literacy and fluency training. The standing committee agrees that the government, presumably, Department of Education, Culture and Employment, should make an effort to collect available materials and make them available to interested parties.

Recommendation 28 addresses the issue of Dene syllabics. While current practice is to write Dene languages in new standardized Roman orthographies, many elders learned to read and write in syllabic alphabets designed for the Dene languages. The government should be able to address this need to meet the needs of these elders.

Full Simultaneous Translation In The Legislative Assembly

In recommendation 17, the Languages Commissioner asks that the Assembly, "consider whether or not it is necessary to provide full simultaneous interpretation in the Legislative Assembly at all times and in all official languages..." This recommendation, which the Languages Commissioner admitted to being a controversial one, was based on concerns that providing full interpretation was too much of a strain on existing resources when the Assembly was in session.

Committee Members feel very strongly that full simultaneous interpretation is a fundamental part of the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. It is required by the Official Languages Act -- sections 9 and 10(3) effectively require full simultaneous interpretation -- and was the subject of a point of order raised in the House on October 26, 1989 when simultaneous translation in Dogrib was not available.

Full simultaneous translation also allows Members to serve as linguistic role models for their constituents. This is especially true since House proceedings started to be broadcast on the TVNC network. Committee Members noted that constituents are listening when their representatives speak in aboriginal languages. When constituents see and hear their elected representatives speaking in their own language in the House, their pride in their language is bound to increase. Providing Members the opportunity to do so by providing full simultaneous interpretation can only strengthen aboriginal languages in the Northwest Territories.

Madam Speaker, that concludes my portion of our presentation. With your permission, I would like to ask Mr. Patterson to continue the presentation of the report. Qujannamiik.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Patterson.

Other Recommendations Rejected

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.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Inuvik, Mr. Koe.

Conclusion

Thank you. Your motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. The honourable Member for Baffin South, Mr. Pudlat.