Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Chairman Menicoche. People are concerned about the dire situation of the 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 ongoing terminology development and standardization in an ever changing modern environment was brought to the standing committee’s attention in every community.

Participants also identified short-comings within the education and school system, 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;

•

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 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.

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

•

Information is difficult to find about funding

sources, criteria, and application processes. Participants stressed that this is of particular concern considering the expectations put on the communities by the Official Languages Act assigning them an essential role for language revitalization.

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

Generally they found that the government is not fulfilling its obligations for aboriginal languages as prescribed by the Official Languages Act. There is no plan in place that supports central, regional or community government offices and agencies to provide services in the aboriginal languages. People also found that there is no accountability or reporting mechanism in place that assesses how the government provides these services.

Many aboriginal people said their languages are not treated equally with French and perceive this as a form of injustice towards First Nations. Other participants reminded the members of the committee that it was government policies of the past that contributed largely to the language loss experienced today. They believe that out of this past injustice comes a responsibility of today’s governments to fund and support the language communities to reverse this language shift.

Many participants were aware of the multitude of challenges the government is facing. What they are asking for is an honest commitment, a willingness to work collaboratively with community language stakeholders and sufficient resources to implement a comprehensive action plan. Several participants expressed the view that committing to such measures will determine in the near future if the aboriginal languages will have a chance to survive.

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 were and were generally critical about the boards’ capacity to develop ongoing 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.

During the witness hearings, the Federation Franco-TeNOise representatives explained that they withdrew from the Official Languages Board as they deemed it ineffective for dealing with the needs and realities of the francophone community. Instead they suggest a “cooperation committee” between their organization and the Department of Education, Culture and Employment to deal directly and exclusively with issues relating to the francophone community. The Federation Franco-TeNOise also commented that government services offered in French are insufficient, that bilingual positions are not publicly identified. Generally the organizations agreed with the spirit

and intent of the act, but found that it has not been properly implemented.

There was a general concern about the role and functions of the Languages Commissioner: People did not know who the incumbent is or what the Languages Commissioner does. They did not know the role and responsibilities of the Commissioner had changed. Participants stated repeatedly that they had not seen the Commissioner in their communities nor did they know whether annual reports were published.

Several participants doubted that the Minister, who is also responsible for the government-wide implementation of the act, could effectively promote aboriginal languages. The language stakeholders also felt that the Minister did not connect with communities and is not seen to provide support for the language communities to achieve their goals of language preservation and revitalization.

In several communities 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 related to 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.

Many participants in the public hearings expressed their disappointment and distrust in the effectiveness of the Official Languages Act. Some participants believed that since the last review and the amendments to the act in 2003, the situation for aboriginal languages has worsened; that the status of aboriginal languages as Official Languages of the NWT has become more and more meaningless. People have also lost faith in the review process.

Many participants expressed their disagreement with the status of French being equal to English in the official languages legislation of the NWT. It is perceived by many who participated in the review process that because aboriginal languages have less protection and rights, there has been unfair treatment. The main concern was that this translates directly into less funding for programs, services, and support for the communities. Several participants suggested that the official status for aboriginal languages should be no less than that for French.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would now like to pass the reading of the report on to my colleague, Mr. Glen Abernethy, MLA for Great Slave.