Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then the Minister's in disagreement with a lot of Canadians. I've asked the Minister very clearly -- I think this is a very significant issue and it's been identified as a significant issue -- whether he would review this matter with Cabinet and indicate, come back and indicate to this House whether they support that kind of approach or they have any concerns so that we can know if there's further questions required from this side of the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we always welcome questions from that side of the House. I would say, though, Mr. Speaker, again, I don't see a vast departure here. There's a concern that the Conservative government would want to change the laws of the country to speak to mandatory minimums, tougher sentences for serious crimes. Yes, they are doing that. Would they want judges who will look to put criminals in jail? I suspect they would. But there's no vast departure here from the appointment process that I can see, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, is that his position as Minister or is that Cabinet's position? If it's his position, that's one thing; if this matter has been discussed and he's giving us the official position that they support this change, then clearly there's going to be a string of questions coming because I consider that very problematic. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, of course I don't believe there's been a great departure or change here in the way things are done. This isn't something that Cabinet has discussed. We haven't seen the need to discuss this. That's most probably because we haven't felt there's a large change in how it's done. Mr. Speaker, I think the important point and thing here is we want to see competent and capable judges in the Northwest Territories, whether they are our Territorial Court judges or Supreme. The last appointment of a Supreme Court justice done by Vic Taves, Conservative Justice Minister, was the appointment of someone who is very, very competent and I think that's the important thing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister continues to avoid the question. Is he prepared to take this issue back to Cabinet and discuss it? I think it's a significant issue. He indicates they haven't discussed it. I'm raising it as an issue in this House. Canadians are asking the question and I think northerners are, too. So will he review this with Cabinet and report back to this House before the rise next week, before the break? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly raise this with my Cabinet colleagues and see if they feel the way I do about it, and that is that there hasn't been a great departure. We'll have that discussion, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Oral questions. Mr. Bell.

Has oral questions expired, Mr. Speaker? If oral questions are expired, then I request unanimous consent to go back to recognition of visitors in the gallery.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Are there any nays? There are no nays. We'll return to item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to recognize and introduce Randy Ottenbreit, obviously no stranger to northerners, who works with Imperial Oil and has travelled all of the North now, I am sure many times over. We welcome him here in the gallery.

But also with him today, his wife, Marjie, daughter Jessica, and they are all here, I understand, as tourists in the Northwest Territories...

---Applause

...getting a chance to view our great territory. I want to say how much we appreciate that and welcome them to the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Written questions. Returns to written questions. Replies to opening address. Replies to budget address. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I would like to acknowledge the very original and astute observations of our colleague, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, in his statement and question this morning.

This is indeed a significant part of our work. It is a very important part of our work and it is one that is, I think, something that could use a very serious review and a lot of improvement, Mr. Speaker. Essentially what I'm concerned with, as we undertake our budget process, is the way we approve capital spending and the subsequent increases in costs that really seemed to have overtaken much of what we do.

Mr. Speaker, capital spending in less bureaucratic terms is bricks and mortar. It is the roads, the buildings, the water and sewer systems, the tank farms that we build in our communities and across our territory. It is also renovations and upgrades. It is computer systems. It is equipment. It covers a lot of territory.

In our process of review and evaluation and ultimate approval, Mr. Speaker -- and this is one that's quite unique to our consensus system of government -- all committees and all Regular Members are shown by departments their projections for the kind of projects they would like to see, the kind of costs that are going to be involved. We start this process in September at our committee level, Mr. Speaker, and through the course of the winter and then leading up to where we are now, we have a constant hand in tuning those projects. Ultimately, as we have been going through day by day here, we review, we probe, we challenge, and eventually, Mr. Speaker, we are asked to vote on the approval of these projects. We approve them in good faith. Mr. Speaker, the good faith is that what we are shown in budget documents and projections is what we will get for the cost we approve. We are spending taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker, and we take this very seriously.

But I want to indicate that our faith and our trust in this process is shaken of late because of very serious variances in the end cost. Far too many projects are coming in way over budget, Mr. Speaker, and in the course of the year far too many projects are brought in as new or emergency.

This current year, Mr. Speaker, according to the budget documents that were presented to us and are available to the public, the capital spending allocation for the year 2006-2007, the year we are just closing out now, is going to be 50 percent above what we originally started with, Mr. Speaker. Back in March of 2006, we approved a capital allocation spending of $110 million. It is going to be $170 million. All in the space of one year. A 50 percent increase. Mr. Speaker, that tells me that something is wrong with the way we are conducting this process.

It seems as if we are not really approving capital projects and budgets, Mr. Speaker. Rather, it seems that all we are doing is approving the start or the beginning of a project with the end cost to the taxpayer widely and sometimes even wildly out of sync with what we are shown in the beginning.

For example, Mr. Speaker, a very difficult project for me still to come to terms with in terms of the amount of money that we spent is the North Slave Correctional Centre here in Yellowknife. Originally presented, I understand at around a $35 million project, ballooned to $49 million; almost a 50 percent increase and a multi-million dollar hit on our cash flow.

Mr. Speaker, in information that's readily available, recent information readily available to us. We also see various projects like a water supply system proposed to us at $400,000 which in six months has ballooned to $1.6 million; four times the cost presented to us to begin with. A tank farm, a fuel tank farm originally projected at $1.6 million is now $4.2 million. Mr. Speaker, we've been building tank farms in this country for decades now. How is it that we don't have enough of a handle on how to do it that we come up with a project, which I believe is not yet complete, but it's triple the amount of money in the space of six months?

Mr. Speaker, we know that within various departments, and it sort of goes back to the information that I presented earlier, that this current year we will surge our capital spending allocation from 110 to 170 million dollars. Just to give you a bit of a sample in some of the departments: Public Works and Services is projecting in the six-month period since the beginning of the current fiscal year, their capital allocations are going to jump from 9.2 to 17.1 million; Health and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, from 13 to 20 million; Education, Culture and Employment from a

$28 million project to $45 million in the space of six months.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to get into an analysis of this information, although that is really where I'm going. But what we're looking at is a blend of existing, of proposed and new projects that are brought in over the space of time and, of course, I'm sure that there are good and viable explanations that can be brought forward for each project and each cost overrun. But, Mr. Speaker, my point here is not to get into an exercise of singling out individual projects or departments, but rather to step back from a higher level to look at the way we are told about a project at the beginning of the year and why in so many cases, Mr. Speaker, the end result bears very little resemblance to the original story.

Mr. Speaker, I bring us back to the fact that we are dealing with taxpayers' money. The questions that we need to pursue in our whole approach to capital spending, and it's now in the hundreds of millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, and I want to underline that this is not something that I think we can just begin to tweak or rejig a little bit. We really have to, on a departmental basis, at a planning and staffing and an approval basis, we have to step back and ask some big questions. Why is our costing, budgeting and approval system so wonky? What can be done to bring more certainty into the process? What is causing this, Mr. Speaker? Is it poor or inadequate estimating? Is it poor planning on the role of the folks who design or scope out these requirements and then design the solution? Is it lack of skills or resources within our own organization?

Mr. Speaker, what is the impact of the chronic labour shortage that we're facing in the NWT and across western Canada? What is the impact of the shortage of materials, the expanding costs of raw materials around the world? What impact do our demands for administration and accountability have on the eventual cost of a program, and what about the impact of things that are sometimes not within our control, things like the cost of freighting or weather or other factors?

Mr. Speaker, when things go wrong, who do we hold to account? Our staff? Contractors? Suppliers? Mr. Speaker, we have to ask, what about ourselves here in the Legislative Assembly? Sometimes are we too anxious to see projects designed and booked and started with too little care and attention to due process to getting value for money, for taxpayers' money, Mr. Speaker?

This Assembly and the departments that report to us have got to get a handle on this aspect of our expenditures and our planning and our commitments. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that we have time left in the mandate for this Assembly to undertake the kind of systematic and thorough review that I believe we need, but our successors in the 16th Assembly should look at this very closely early in their term, Mr. Speaker, to get control on this very vital, very expensive part of our spending, our taxpayers' spending and our accountability to them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Replies to the budget address. Petitions. Reports of standing and special committees. Honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight met on December 6, 2006, to review the 2005-2006 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner. The committee would like to thank Ms. Shannon Gullberg, the Languages Commissioner, for appearing before us.

The committee was pleased to hear that some of the previous goals of the Commissioner are at or near completion, in particular the Commissioner's new website and the development of printed information about the complaints process in aboriginal languages. The new website will be fully bilingual in English and French and will provide some information in all aboriginal official languages of the Northwest Territories.

In our previous report, we encouraged the Commissioner to step up her efforts to publicize her office, particularly by undertaking community visits to meet with stakeholders and to raise public awareness about her office. Therefore, we were pleased to hear of the Commissioner's plans to visit Rae, Behchoko; Hay River; Inuvik; and, Fort Smith in early 2007 to conduct community and school meetings and to visit health centres.

The committee is also looking forward to receiving the two reports the Commissioner referred to in her presentation, namely a report regarding advertising requirements and a report on language services in health care facilities.

At several points in the report, the Commissioner directs comments at the Legislative Assembly or recommends that the Legislative Assembly take certain actions. These comments incorrectly suggest that the Legislative Assembly has responsibilities, which are in fact under the authority of the government. For example, on page 15 of the report, she states that: "The Legislative Assembly's approach to the issue of communication with the public has been uncoordinated and chaotic." The Commissioner then discusses amendments to section 11 of the act regarding communication with the public. Although the Speaker and the Legislative Assembly retain some authorities under the act, for example, the appointment of the Commissioner and the ultimate approval of bills to amend the act, the authority to make regulations resides with the Commissioner in Executive Council, which is effectively the Government of the Northwest Territories. As well, it is the government, and not the Legislative Assembly, which introduces bills to amend the act.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Motion is on the floor. Motion is order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Recommendations

In the 2005-2006 annual report, the Commissioner makes six recommendations:

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 1

That the Legislative Assembly clarify what is meant by paragraph six of the preamble to the Official Languages Act. Further, paragraph 10 of the preamble should be deleted.

Paragraph six speaks to the purpose of the act with regard to the use of aboriginal languages. Presently, the act reads that aboriginal languages should be used "for all and any official purposes of the Northwest Territories at the time and in the manner that is appropriate." The Commissioner recommends that the meaning of this section needs to be clarified and suggests replacement with: "... the use of aboriginal languages in the manners and circumstances specifically identified and provided for in the act."

Paragraph ten of the preamble relates to "language of work." The Commissioner recommends the deletion of this paragraph, because workplace language is not addressed in the Official Languages Act nor in any other GNWT policy. Presently the protection from discrimination in employment practices stems from the Human Rights Act.

The committee shares the Commissioner's perception that the wording on language of work incorrectly suggests the act provides language rights in the workplace, which it does not.

Committee Recommendation

The committee recommends that the Government of the Northwest Territories include in its next bill to amend the Official Languages Act changes to clarify the wording of paragraph six of the preamble leading to a more specific prescription for the use of aboriginal languages provided for in either the act or regulations;

The committee further recommends the deletion of paragraph 10, which deals with "language of work," until such time as workplace language is addressed.

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 2

That the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories be amended to include a provision that binds all contractors with the Government of the Northwest Territories. Suggested wording is as follows:

Every government institution has the duty to ensure that, where services are provided or made available by another person or organization on its behalf, any member of the public in the Northwest Territories or elsewhere can communicate with and obtain those services from that person or organization in any particular official language in any case where those services, if provided by the institution, would be required to be provided in that official language.

The committee discussed these recommendations with interest, however, decided that more clarity about their implications is needed. The committee agrees that they deserve further consideration.

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 3

That the Legislative Assembly consider amending section 11 of the Official Languages Act such that, instead of defining language rights based on the concepts of "significant demand" and "nature of the office," language rights in the area of communication with the public be based on the following principles:

That some basic services should be available in any and all official languages, regardless of geographical area. This should include health services, mandatory registration, licensing, safety and other services that the Legislature consider essential.

That other services should be available according to designated language areas that are established in regulation. As well, those services that must be provided in those designated areas should also be set out in regulation, instead of policies and guidelines. In this way, the responsibility to provide such services will be clear and binding.

Committee Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT examine and report back on the implications and advisability of extending obligations of the Official Languages Act to third parties that provide direct government services on a contractual basis.

Furthermore, the committee recommends the GNWT review and report back on the legal implications and the feasibility of abandoning the concepts of "significant demand" and "nature of the office" in favour of regulations specifying "basic services that should be available in any and all official languages regardless of the geographic area."

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 4

That the Legislative Assembly and all government departments review their systems for providing service through 1-800 numbers. Where a person who requests services in French will be transferred to an identified individual, consideration should be given to an automated response system for the 1-800 number, allowing for an individual to choose services in English or in French. The same approach should be considered for other official languages.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight cautiously supports this recommendation of the Languages Commissioner and was pleased that the Commissioner considers this service delivery method appropriate for aboriginal languages as well. The

committee feels strongly that a government-wide coordinated approach is needed to streamline the consistency and extent of the services delivered in languages other than English. The committee also considered financial implications of the recommendations and favours coordination as well in light of the potential for cost efficiencies. However, the committee cautions that service delivery through 1-800 or toll-free numbers has its limitations and might not be the only option for government-wide coordination of services delivered in all official languages.

Committee Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT review and report back on their system for providing service through toll-free numbers in French and aboriginal Languages.

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 5

That the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately implements a plan for the training and certification of interpreters and translators.

With the closure of the aboriginal languages section of the GNWT Language Bureau in the mid-1990s, the Northwest Territories has lost any institution that would be responsible for language standards, terminology development, training and accreditation. The precarious situation of our aboriginal languages combined with the declining numbers of mother tongue speakers makes the need to actively address the revitalization of the aboriginal languages more urgent. In recent years, the former Languages Commissioner and the Special Committee on Official Languages addressed the need for capacity building through the development of translation standards as well as training and certification standards for interpreters and translators.

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommended in its Report on the Review of the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner that "...the GNWT work with Aurora College to deliver a basic interpreter/translator training program for aboriginal languages, as well as specialized training in medical terminology." While the government supports the idea in general, it "delegated" any action to the college and further made any action dependent on "sufficient demand and program funding." The government's response did not indicate any specific steps towards such an undertaking.

In her report, the Commissioner points out that despite the recognition of the importance of interpreter/translator training and certification, little has been done to actually implement any required steps that would address such education and standardization needs. In recommendation five, the Commissioner is clear about her expectations towards the GNWT in this regard.

The committee also notes that the re-establishment of training and certification for aboriginal languages interpreter/translator programs would be an important step towards language and terminology standardization as a vital aspect of language revitalization.

Committee Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that the GNWT implement a plan for the training and certification of interpreters and translators.

Languages Commissioner Recommendation 6

That the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately create a registry of interpreters and translators that is available to both the public and private sector.

Both the former Languages Commissioner Judi Tutcho in her Special Report on Privatization and the Special Committee on Official Languages have previously recommended the creation of an interpreter/translator registry. However, to date, no such registry is in existence, so it remains difficult to find qualified interpreters and translators. Certified interpreters/translators who are established in their profession are often extremely busy and cannot keep up with the demand. Creating a public registry would have multiple benefits like encouraging others to enter into the field and increasing the accessibility to professional linguistic services.

The Commissioner concludes her findings accordingly: "It is imperative that the public registry be developed immediately." The committee shares the Commissioner's sense of urgency on this issue, but cautions against creating a registry that would not be based on measurable standards of qualification, out of fairness to both interpreters and translators, and members of the public who might rely on such a list.

Committee Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that the GNWT, after progress has been made with the establishment of interpreter/translator training and certification program, proceed with establishing a registry of interpreters and translators for all official languages.

In conclusion, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight encourages the Commissioner to exercise her powers and make full use of her mandate, which, as outlined in section 20 of the Official Languages Act, includes ensuring recognition of the rights, status and privileges of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of the act in the administration of the affairs of government institutions, and conducting investigations on her own initiative.

Committee Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 days.

Honourable Member for Monfwi, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great

Slave, that Committee Report 10-15(5) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.