Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and thank you very much, colleagues.

There was general concern about the role and functions of the Languages Commissioner: People did not know who the incumbent is or what the commissioner does. There was no awareness of the changed role and responsibilities of the commissioner. Participants stated repeatedly that they had not seen the commissioner in their communities, nor did they know whether annual reports were published.

The messages the standing committee received with regard to community language funding were unified, loud and clear:

•

The major obstacle of the community language funding is that the small amounts do not match the needs for essential resources and

programs that could contribute to the survival of the aboriginal languages.

•

There is no funding consistency.

•

There are too many interruptions in the

programs due to lack of funding.

•

Insufficient funding also prevents program

expansions for adult language and literacy learners and pre-school programs. Such programs would be crucial for the revitalization of the aboriginal languages.

•

The allocation by regions and by language

groups does not consider needs.

•

Existing community language funding is

minimal and insufficient, not allowing for year-round programming. The proposal-based year-to-year funding forces staff and community volunteers to spend their time on proposal writing and in search of funding sources instead of on program delivery.

•

Information is difficult to find about funding

sources, criteria and the application process. Participants stressed that this is of particular concern when considering the expectations put on the communities, with the Official Languages Act acknowledging their essential role for language revitalization.

In several locations the standing committee was also reminded of its role to hold government accountable for its commitments to language activities and its responsibilities under the act. Those participants who were aware of the 2003 SCROLA recommendations remarked on the lack of implementation and lack of transparency of government commitments and activities. People asked the members of the standing committee to play a more active oversight and accountability role; for example, insisting on detailed implementation and progress reports.

Conclusion

The standing committee wishes to thank all the language specialists and frontline workers who participated in the survey and focus groups. Committee members express their grateful thanks to all those who welcomed us into their communities and to all residents who attended the public hearings and made contributions. Members of the standing committee are thankful to all community language groups for sharing their insights and expertise.

Members are committed to achieving the objectives of this review as stated in the Official Languages Act. The Standing Committee on Government Operations anticipates tabling this final report in the spring of 2009.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that Committee Report 8-16(2) be received and adopted. Mahsi.

Motion carried.