Agreed

.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to follow up on the events of February 16, regarding the invitation to the law faculty. I realize that the Languages Commissioner cancelled her engagement with the Francophone community in order to attend to the urgent issue about the problems in Saskatoon. I'm just wondering, have you since resolved that issue in Saskatoon?

I've talked to the person who extended the invitation to me a couple of times on the phone. There is an interim solution, but they still have a standing offer for me to go talk to the law faculty at some time, if I can. As I mentioned before, when I appeared, it was because of the comments that I made at the linguistics rights conference in Ottawa that they had asked me to come and explain those same things to their faculty. They would still like to have me come sometime, but that's perhaps not the only solution. I've told them that they can discuss it with the department as well.

Since the Languages Commissioner has referred to the situation in Saskatoon as a problem, Mr. Chairman, they have an ombudsman in Saskatchewan too. I'm just wondering whether she has tried to maybe resolve the issue through the ombudsman in Saskatchewan? Have you looked at that or whether that could have been addressed by a phone call, for example?

I believe that the ombudsman in Saskatoon for the province of Saskatchewan would deal with matters dealing with the Saskatchewan government and this was not so much related to that as it was to the NWT students who were there and our own Department of Education. The reason they asked me to go was because I was able to explain a lot of the difference between aboriginal languages and English which might cause problems for students, problems for people understanding each other. It was because of the background that I have in those particular languages that they wanted me to come and explain where some of the differences lie between the languages.

Instead, I sent them papers that I had written explaining some of those things and, as I've said, I've talked to them on the phone. But, I don't think the ombudsman in Saskatchewan would be an appropriate person to deal with that particular situation.

How do you deal with interpreters? In Fort Providence, for example, we have a court circuit that comes every other Thursday. I'm sure it's like that in every other community. How do you deal with the requirements for interpreters in that situation? Or, at the nursing station or with the RCMP?

My role is simply to deal with complaints or inquiries about those sorts of situations. Our office does not organize any of the provision of services. That is up to the language bureau or the Department of Justice, court services. They call and arrange for interpreters for the court circuits. For the RCMP, if the GNWT interpreter was there and available, they would interpret for them. Certainly, they would for any government department, if they were there and available. The RCMP being a federal institution, the GNWT doesn't necessarily have to provide services to them.

If the RCMP couldn't use the services of the GNWT interpreter or if any of the other government departments wanted the services of that interpreter and they were busy with another assignment, it is my opinion, as Languages Commissioner, that the territorial government has an obligation to make those services available. If they don't have a staff member to do that then they should be providing a contract interpreter.

I know most of the time that is arranged for, but there are some times when they can't find a contract interpreter either and sometimes some assignments or meetings have to be rescheduled because they couldn't find an interpreter. I tried to find interpreters for a meeting a couple of weeks ago for the South Slavey and I couldn't find any so we almost had to cancel the meeting because of that. We ended up resolving it in the end. It is a GNWT obligation, if it is a GNWT service to the public, that they must provide those services. But, it is not our office that makes those arrangements. We would deal with it if there was a complaint about it.

It certainly is pretty clear, then, that you are aware of where you do draw the line with regard to the areas for which you are responsible and of where you are not. You have just used the example of the RCMP being a federal agency and that you don't really have to do it.

Where do you draw the line with regard to other jurisdictions, then? I will use the example, within our own territory. You say the RCMP is a federal responsibility, but in Saskatchewan it is the Saskatchewan government. So how do you distinguish between where you draw your responsibilities or where they stop? It seems to me, in the Northwest Territories, federal agencies are not your responsibility. I would think that the same thing applied with regard to the Saskatchewan government.

Part of my role as Languages Commissioner is the promotion of official languages, and one of the areas that I consider my responsibility within that promotion is to help people understand the needs, any problems that arise and any possible solutions.

Even for the RCMP, if they were to call our office, or if somebody complained to me about interpreting services not being available to the RCMP, I can tell them that it is not necessarily my jurisdiction, but I can offer them some solutions. That is basically what I was asked to do with regard to the Saskatchewan issue. For example, we have dealt with the RCMP, and we have provided them with some ideas on how to provide interpreting services.

I did receive one complaint particularly about an incident with the RCMP, and I was able to explain to the complainant that according to the NWT Official Languages Act, the RCMP didn't have obligations to provide service in aboriginal languages, as this one was dealing with an aboriginal language. But there were some other language rights or legal rights that they had under the Criminal Code, so I was able to explain those to them and provide some ideas for a solution.

So part of my role, I think, is to help people understand how they can solve some of their problems, even if it is an institution that is not obligated by our NWT Official Languages Act.

A lot of people call me for information about what the obligations are, what law the obligations arise from and how we can go about solving this problem, because a lot of other institutions don't have that kind of expertise.

I know that your report itself doesn't specifically address the task force on aboriginal languages and the time frame on what should be established even within the RCMP and that. But I am just wondering whether you look at this document and determine whether it fits within your mandate to pursue those timetables to ensure that whatever is required to be established should be? Would you consider that your responsibility since you did say that you do have a broad mandate, as you put it?

The task force on aboriginal languages was a direct result of the GNWT signing the Official Languages Act in 1984. They immediately established the task force on aboriginal languages in order to determine what the priorities were for the public, and they did wide consultation across the NWT, so that document does represent the needs as they were expressed by people in the communities.

I do use that document quite a bit. I refer to it quite a bit. Some of the things that are in there have been implemented. Some of them are still in the process of gearing up. But I do make reference to it quite often.

I believe it was the Member for Deh Cho who asked in the last session or the session before for an update from GNWT on the implementation of the recommendations from the task force and also on the recommendations from the circumpolar conference on literacy. There was another aboriginal languages conference, as well. I believe that the Member asked for that, and I am not aware that there was an update provided other than a two-page update that was provided by the Government Leader some time ago. But I think it would be appropriate to ask them for an update, perhaps, on where some of those recommendations are and what implementation has taken place.

I am aware of some of them but the problem for me is that, because I am outside of government, I am not always aware of all the activities that are going on in every department. We try to keep on top of it as much as possible but we only have three staff in the office, and there are many departments, so we don't know exactly what is going on in every department and how many of those recommendations have actually been implemented until somebody brings a complaint situation to our attention and we look into it, or if I happen to notice something myself and I look into it.

But, as some of those recommendations were to take place within two, five or ten years, it is perhaps time to look at those recommendations and find out whether or not they have all been implemented. It is ten years now since that task force was done.