Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In February 2008 I asked the Minister of Health and Social Services questions about the palliative care drug approval process for residents of the Northwest Territories who have been diagnosed as palliative. In April the Minister sent me a letter indicating the department was taking steps to simplify the process for approving coverage of palliative care drugs and that the process would be in place by this past summer.

Last week when I asked the Minister to provide me with an update, she indicated, according to the unedited Hansard of October 8, 2008, that “we have a process now where as long as the doctor says in the application for medication to Green Shield or whoever is administering our health insurance that it’s palliative care, Green Shield has been processing the documents on a 24-hour turnaround basis.”

This is great. Unfortunately, it is not consistent with the way that it is actually working on the front line. Both before and after I asked my questions of the Minister last week, I checked with a number of pharmacists to see how the implementation was proceeding and whether or not palliative patients are experiencing quicker turnaround time. None of the pharmacists I talked to have received notification that there were, or are, new processes in place related to palliative care patients. All of them were able to identify recent situations for palliative care patients who are experiencing delays in obtaining their much needed palliative care medication.

Based on this, I don’t understand how the Minister can state as she did in the unedited Hansard of October 8, 2008, that it is “working out really well.” During the May–June session I asked the Minister to work with the pharmacists in the NWT on developing and implementing a process that would help palliative care patients. I believe that for the benefit of their clients they would still like to have input and help the government streamline these processes.

Residents of the NWT who have been declared as palliative need to be treated with dignity and respect and should not be forced to wait for much needed pain management medication due to the overly bureaucratic processes and procedures of the Department of Health and Social Services.

Later this afternoon I will be asking the Minister of the Department of Health and Social Services

questions concerning the new palliative care benefit process and procedures. I will be seeking the Minister’s commitment to work with NWT pharmacists, the frontline providers of any system put in place by the department, to ensure that they are engaged and that palliative patients are not waiting for the required medications. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few months Members have talked a lot about the high cost of living. Gas prices at the pumps have skyrocketed, the cost of home heating fuel has increased dramatically, landlords are increasing rents, power rates are going up and groceries and other commodities are costing us more. But the NWT has not raised its minimum wage since December 23, 2003.

We have been at $8.25 for five years. For comparison purposes I would like to provide a few examples from other Canadian jurisdictions. In April of this year Alberta raised their minimum wage to $8.40. The Yukon went to $8.58, and Manitoba went to $8.50. Saskatchewan increased their minimum wage twice this year. It is now at $8.60, and they will increase it once again in 2009 to $9.25. Nunavut’s minimum wage is $10. Other provinces already have or will be increasing their minimum wage in 2008 or 2009, and some of them have established yearly increases going forward. Ontario will soon see a minimum wage of $10.25.

Yet in the NWT, where we have one of the highest costs of living in Canada, we have a minimum wage that has been fixed at $8.25 since 2003. The Premier in his Budget Address on May 22 of this year stated that for NWT residents, especially those in small and remote communities, living costs are among the highest in Canada. Prince Edward Island is the only province with a lower minimum wage than us. We have the second lowest minimum wage in all of Canada, unchanged since 2003, but our consumer price index has gone up by 8.3 per cent since 2003.

It is time for an adjustment, Mr. Speaker. A recent article in the local paper called Looking Back showed that five years ago, when our minimum wage went up to $8.25, people could not live on the minimum wage even with the increase. Managers suggested in 2003 that the minimum wage should be at least $9, yet here we are five years later and the minimum wage amount has not changed.

How can we talk about raising taxes when we haven’t raised the minimum wage in the last five

years? I say we can’t. What we can do, Mr. Speaker, is plan for an increase to our minimum wage as soon as possible. I expect to see it reflected in the ’09–10 operations budget. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to use my Member’s statement today to trumpet the efforts of one individual in our business community, in our Yellowknife private sector, who stepped up to the plate, when government sometimes is uncomfortable, on environmental education for youth.

That person is Yellowknife’s Chris Johnston. He heard last week the lukewarm answers from our Premier about purchasing the documentary film “Water is Life.” He heard — and I quote from the October 7, 2008, page 22, unedited Hansard — that we will be prepared to “try and see what we can do to get this information out to all the students in the Northwest Territories. We ourselves are undertaking a number of issues to get on top of the water situation.”

Mr. Speaker, if someone in the business community hears and uses the phrase “we’ll think about it and maybe get back to you” or even words as veiled or not so veiled — no. Chris Johnston believes that the foundation of our youth is built with the knowledge and understanding of the world and most certainly the importance of the environmental issues in our North and in our community.

So when he said that he would buy all of those videos for all of our northern high schools, I was quite shocked and amazed and certainly excited to hear this. When he contacted me, he felt so strongly about this issue, that the government wasn’t clearly saying yes to help our youth of today, he said he would help our youth of today, because they are leaders of tomorrow and they need to be armed with knowledge and understanding of the issues of today.

He said this without any hesitation and felt it was unacceptable that it wasn’t a clear yes from the Premier; he said he would be willing to do it. Chris Johnston is mindful of the youth. He cares very much about them. He is very strongly committed to his community and his family. He believes strongly in our North and the environment we are living in and where we will be living in the future. That is why he is doing this. He feels that he has to step up

as a business, that he needs to be committed to the North, and he feels he wants to demonstrate this.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fine example of where a business is leading on this initiative and shows the North that business cares too. I want to compliment the efforts of this young businessman in Yellowknife, Mr. Chris Johnston, for his community efforts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Item 4, reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Reports of Standing and Special Committees

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to present its Interim Report on the Review of the Official Languages Act 2008–2009.

Section 35 of the Official Languages Act requires the Legislative Assembly or a special committee of the Assembly to conduct a review of the act “at the next session following December 31, 2007, and subsequently at the next session following each successive fifth anniversary of that date.” In accordance with this statutory requirement, the 16th Legislative Assembly adopted a motion on February 11, 2008, referring the review of the provisions and operation of the Official Languages Act to the Standing Committee on Government Operations.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague Mr. Jackie Jacobson to continue with the report. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Jacobson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Background

The 14th Legislative Assembly initiated the Special

Committee on the Review of the Official Languages Act (SCROLA) in 2001. SCROLA tabled its comprehensive final report in 2003. The report identified 65 recommendations and suggested implementation and investment schedules for these recommendations. The GNWT tabled a response to this report in 2003.

Amendments to the Official Languages Act were made during the last session of the 14th Legislative

Assembly. These changes introduced an Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board, an Official Languages Board, and new roles for the Languages Commissioner and the Minister. The act requires a review after five years.

The SCROLA review was comprehensive and provided much background research into the socio-linguistic field of language preservation and revitalization. The findings of the Special Committee on the Review of the Official Languages Act in this regard are still valid and usable, allowing the scope of this five-year review to focus specifically on the requirements as set out in the act itself.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague Mr. Hawkins to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The 2008–2009 Review will examine:

•

whether progress has been made since the changes to the Official Languages Act in 2003;

•

whether the government implements and

administers the act effectively and efficiently;

•

whether the objectives and goals of the

preamble are being met;

•

whether the changed roles and responsibilities of the Minister responsible for Official Languages improved the administration and implementation of the act;

•

whether the changed role of the Languages Commissioner as an ombudsperson improved the implementation of the act;

•

whether the new Official Languages Board has met its mandate to review the rights, status and use of official languages; and

•

whether the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board has fulfilled its mandate to promote, maintain and revitalize aboriginal languages.

Steps for the 2008–2009 Review

The Standing Committee on Government Operations plans the following steps for the review of the Official Languages Act.

Literature and Document Review

The literature and document review covers an extensive selection of documents from the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Languages Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, other stakeholders and non-government organizations of the NWT. The review also considers literature from other Canadian jurisdictions, international organizations, and examples of language policy and activities.

Input from Aboriginal Languages Specialists and Frontline Workers

Aboriginal language specialists and frontline workers participated in surveys, interviews and regional focus groups during June, July and August 2008.

One hundred sixty-nine aboriginal language specialists and frontline workers were surveyed; 69 participants responded, which translates into a response rate of 41 per cent. All nine aboriginal official languages were represented in the response. The aboriginal language specialists and frontline workers were asked questions relating to:

•

the Official Languages Act;

•

the SCROLA recommendations;

•

their awareness of the implementation of these recommendations;

•

government services and communication with the public;

•

training for language specialists and frontline workers;

•

their awareness of language revitalization

activities from the government and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board; and

•

community language activities.

Aboriginal language instructors, interpreter/translators and other community based aboriginal language specialists participated in eight regional focus groups. These groups discussed issues around language revitalization and obligations arising from the Official Languages Act.

Some of the highlights are captured in the “Emerging Themes” section of this interim report. The standing committee’s final report will include a detailed chapter on the findings of both the survey results and focus groups discussions.

The standing committee appreciates the Ministers’ support for this undertaking, in particular for sharing information and for contacting the education and health authorities to ensure they are aware of this consultation by the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague Mr. Abernethy to continue the report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Community Visits and Public Hearings

The committee conducted community visits and public hearings in September 2008. The committee held public hearings in Délînê, Fort McPherson, Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson, Fort Smith, Inuvik and Yellowknife. The committee also had meetings with community aboriginal language groups in Behchoko, Dettah, Délînê, Fort McPherson, Fort Resolution, Fort Simpson, Fort Smith, K’atlodeeche (Hay River Reserve) and Inuvik. To ensure all aboriginal language community groups had a chance to participate, they were invited to attend the meetings for their language group. Representatives from Fort Providence, Ulukhaktok, Fort Liard, Trout Lake, Kakisa, Fort Good Hope and Tulita took part in meetings on the Hay River Reserve and in Inuvik, Fort Simpson and Délînê.

Most gatherings were well attended, and the standing committee heard many engaged contributions addressing language issues and concerns. The vast majority of contributions during the public hearings were made by members of aboriginal language groups. The

committee

regretted that there were no contributions from the French speaking public.

Some highlights of what the members of the standing committee heard during its community visits are captured in the “Emerging Themes” section of this interim report. A more detailed summary will be included in the final report on the review of the Official Languages Act.

Public Committee Meetings

The standing committee expects to hear from witnesses at public committee meetings in late 2008. Witnesses will include the Minister responsible for Official Languages, the Languages Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, representatives of the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board and the Official Languages Board, the NWT Bureau of Statistics, the Fédération Franco Ténoise and the NWT Literacy Council.

Additional Input from the Public

The standing committee is providing further opportunities for public input. The public is encouraged to complete a questionnaire that is posted on the Assembly’s website and available from the Legislative Assembly as a paper copy upon request. This questionnaire is available until November 21, 2008. In addition, members of the public are welcome to provide written submissions to the committee. Submissions are accepted until November 14, 2008.

Final Report

The Standing Committee on Government Operations will analyze and evaluate the findings of all steps undertaken during the review and will report back to the Legislative Assembly. The final report on the Official Languages Act review will be completed and tabled in the spring of 2009. This report will include the summaries of all review steps and the committee’s analysis and evaluation. The committee may make recommendations on how to improve the effectiveness, administration and implementation of the Official Languages Act.

Emerging Themes of the 2008–2009 Review

People are concerned about the dire situation of aboriginal languages in the Northwest Territories. They worry about the survival of their languages and how they can be kept alive as languages of everyday use. There is a great awareness of the connection between language and cultural identity and that language loss has non-reversible impacts on the culture and identity of aboriginal peoples of the Northwest Territories.

The intergenerational gap of language and traditional knowledge is growing to an extent never seen before. Elders describe this gap as a total communication breakdown, because their grandchildren no longer speak the same language.

People are also disillusioned and frustrated with the lack of accountability for implementing government commitments relating to official languages.

The lack of interpreter/translators in the health and justice systems, the lack of adequate training for these interpreters and the need for on-going terminology development and standardization in an ever-changing modern environment was brought to the standing committee’s attention in every community.

Mr. Speaker, I’ll ask my colleague Mr. Krutko to continue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Participants also identified shortcomings within the education and school systems; for example:

•

aboriginal languages curriculum development and implementation is slow and under-resourced;

•

providing 30 minutes of language instruction per day is insufficient, particularly when all other subjects are taught in English only;

•

language instruction often does not extend

beyond elementary school grades;

•

lack of accountability to ensure language

funding for schools is used for language activities; and

•

insufficient support, resources and training for aboriginal language and cultural instructors.

This being said, people also acknowledged that some progress has been made; for example, in the development of aboriginal language curricula and with the start of some language nest programs. At the same time, participants repeatedly expressed that if government is serious about its role in aboriginal language revitalization, then the implementation of such programs needs to be accelerated and resourced adequately in order to counteract the language decline, particularly among children and younger adults.

While some people had heard of the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board, most did not understand their roles and mandates or why two language boards exist. Participants also did not know who the board representatives are and are generally critical about the boards’ capacity to develop on-going relationships and communication with the community language groups, frontline workers and advocates. In addition, the appointment process for the boards, their dependent relationship with the Minister’s office and the lack of powers and resources were questioned frequently. Participants also found the absence of any reporting mechanism or any publicly available information relating to the activities of the boards inconsistent with their mandate and intended purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I will now pass the report back to the Chair of the Committee, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Menicoche.

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.

Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 6, recognition of visitors in the gallery. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great pleasure today to be able to stand and recognize Mr. Jim Schaefer, a respected elder and former chief of the Salt River First Nation and one of the architects of their treaty land entitlement agreement with the federal government. As well, Ms. Denise Yuhas is a successful businesswoman and one of the best CAs in the business.

I’m pleased today to recognize a constituent from Kakisa, who is the subchief of the community and is also their oil and gas adviser. He’s a private contractor and president of the Aboriginal Sport Circle and many other things: Mr. Julian Landry. Also Allan Landry from Kakisa. I’d like to welcome him, and also Mr. Ted Nolan, who’s a former NHL hockey player and coach. I’m also told he played with the Coldwell Banker Blades for one tournament here in Yellowknife.

I’d like to recognize three pages from Yellowknife South

—

Edward Coad,

Emily Thagard and Lucas Othmer

—

and thank

them for the excellent service they provided over the past two weeks.

I’d also like to recognize a page, Kathleen Falck of Weledeh, and I’d like to thank all the pages for the great service here. I think one of our Members today learned protocol from one of the pages on his way into the House, so they’re doing their job.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I welcome everybody in the gallery today. I hope you’re enjoying the proceedings.

Item 7, acknowledgements. Item 8, oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask some questions today of the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, and it gets back to my Member’s statement where I was talking about the government’s support to the diamond industry and the value added industry here in the Northwest Territories.

It seems to me that the 14th Legislative Assembly

— some of my colleagues in this room were Members at that time — was very supportive of diamonds in the Northwest Territories and what they meant. But for some reason the 15th Legislative Assembly dropped the ball on diamonds. They did away with the diamond division at ITI, and support for the diamond policy and strategy sank to an all time low.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by asking the Minister of ITI: where exactly is our diamond policy and a strategy on trying to get the most out of our diamond industry here in the Northwest Territories?