Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Krutko. 2009 marks the 25th anniversary of

the Official Languages Act, which should be cause to celebrate the linguistic diversity of the Northwest Territories. The committee findings, regretfully, give little cause to celebrate.

The administration and implementation of the act have proven a challenge since the establishment of the Official Languages Act. The committee found that little progress has been made in implementing the act since it was last amended in 2003.

The consequences of having neither regulations nor an implementation plan for the act have led to a lack of standards for the provision of services in official languages and inconsistencies between government departments and institutions. It is difficult for the public to find out what services are offered, where they are provided and how to access them. The government has not coordinated a standardized approach on how its different departments and agencies offer language services to the public or communicate with the public.

The preamble was changed with the last amendments to the act, in 2003. It expresses an ambitious vision and speaks to future achievements. However, stakeholders are becoming more critical towards the achievability of this vision.

The committee heard many concerns from aboriginal people about the inequality of aboriginal language rights versus French language rights as manifested in the act. Many aboriginal language stakeholders perceived existing language rights as not reflective of the demographic realities of the NWT and the political reality of the NWT with its emerging aboriginal self-governments. They also questioned whether government institutions have the capacity to provide equal services.

More and more stakeholders asked if the rapid decline of the aboriginal languages, in times when the use of French as a second language is “booming”, can be seen as a consequence of this

inequality in law. They perceived the government’s commitment as “lip-service” and questioned if the recognition of aboriginal languages was more a political “good-will” statement than a de facto granting of rights.

Official recognition of languages can also have a powerful, symbolic effect. However, if the language rights are intended to extend to communication and services, mere recognition is not enough. The committee concluded that if the intent is to be “committed to the preservation, development and enhancement of the aboriginal languages” government actions have to be recognized as supporting this commitment. If languages are addressed in policies and legislation but their use is not required or there are insufficient financial resources, it is more difficult to promote language use.

The desire to “establish English and French as official languages of the Northwest Territories having equality of status and equal rights and privileges as official languages, ” as stated in the preamble, has proved difficult to implement in the context of the Northwest Territories.

While the act recognizes aboriginal languages as official languages of the Northwest Territories, the provisions that speak to how these rights can be exercised are weak and do not provide sufficient clarity for either the rights holder or the government institutions offering the services. This concerns sections 8 and 11 of the Official Languages Act in particular. The act provides for the establishment of regulations that could then provide clarity and details on the provision of services and communication with the public in aboriginal languages.

Since no regulations providing such clarification have been established, the committee must conclude that the provisions of the act have not been effective in providing for the use of aboriginal languages.

The preamble also addresses the role of language communities in preserving and enhancing the official languages. The committee’s consultation process indicates that there was little sense of ownership for this shared responsibility between language communities, the Legislative Assembly, and the Government of the Northwest Territories.

The establishment of the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board and the Official Languages Board was intended to create a link between government and the community languages groups. The intent was to give communities input in government policy and language planning, while recognizing them as key players involved in the continued use of languages and responsible for bringing forward their community language priorities. Regretfully, the provisions of the act, which should have helped achieve these goals,

have failed. There was agreement between all stakeholders and witnesses that these sections of the act need revision.

The Minister responsible for Official Languages has the overall responsibility for the act and is responsible for the general direction and coordination of government policies and programs related to official languages. The Minister has not initiated long-term comprehensive planning for official languages services delivery or aboriginal languages revitalization as recommended by SCROLA. This lack of policy direction has meant little advancement of the objectives stated in the preamble.

The committee acknowledges that some progress has been made in the promotion of official languages education in schools and post-secondary institutions. Examples are the introduction of language nest programs, the implementation of Dene Kede, and the progress in teacher training and education. French language education in schools has also seen positive developments with the opening of a second French school in Hay River and the expansion of French immersion programs in schools around the Territories.

While the committee was glad to see these positive developments in language education, the question remains as to whether these advancements are more to the credit of the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment or the Minister responsible for Official Languages. The committee found that the Minister responsible for Official Languages has no powers over other departments and government institutions to ensure compliance and implementation of the act.

The latest amendments to the act, in 2003, moved the promotional role for official languages from the Languages Commissioner to the Minister responsible for Official Languages. Apart from funding support for cultural activities of the French language community, none of the government commitments to the SCROLA recommendation relating to the promotion of official languages have been addressed.

The committee made the following conclusions regarding the roles and effectiveness of the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board:

•

Neither the Official Languages Board nor the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board has the capacity, power, funding and support to fulfill their mandates.

•

The two-year term of the boards does not allow for continuity.

•

Recruitment of board members should be

improved by broadening the list of bodies that are able to nominate candidates.

•

The mandates for both boards state that they may review and evaluate the provisions, operation and effectiveness of the act. This caused many questions regarding the duplication of roles between the boards themselves, and with the Languages Commissioner.

•

The board regulations did not include terms of reference for the boards that could have clarified the broad mandates as described in the act. This slowed down the operation of the boards.

•

The operational support for the boards was provided by the official languages division, the same division that supports the Minister in overall responsibility for the act causing questions about the independence of the office. Can the same division that is responsible for leading the government-wide implementation of the act also support the boards that are mandated to review and evaluate how the act is working?

•

In many aboriginal communities the

stakeholders did not know who their board representatives were. They felt uninformed about the boards’ activities and recommendations to the Minister and they did not understand the different mandates of the two boards. There was no consistent approach for communication between the board members, their language communities and nominating bodies.

•

The francophone community organization

withdrew their participation on the Official Languages Board as they felt their community’s needs were not addressed in the mainly aboriginal structure that was focused on issues surrounding the survival of their languages. English as the dominant language of the Northwest Territories does not need representation on the Official Languages Board.

Therefore, the committee must conclude that under the circumstances described above the languages boards were not able to fulfill their respective mandates. The Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board did not contribute to the overall objective of revitalizing and maintaining aboriginal languages. The Official Languages Board does not contribute to ensuring compliance with and implementation of the act.

The Languages Commissioner’s mandate can be summarized as ensuring that the rights, status and privileges of all official languages are recognized, that the government institutions comply with the spirit and intent of the act, to investigate complaints from the public that government is not following the act, and to investigate language issues on his or her own initiative.

The committee found during the review process, that in most communities the Languages Commissioner (the Commissioner) was not known. People reported that they did not know that the NWT currently has a Languages Commissioner, who the incumbent was, or anything about the activities of the Commissioner.

During the witness hearings the Languages Commissioner expressed concerns that recommendations issued in the annual reports of the Office of the Languages Commissioner were not acted upon. The Languages Commissioner asked that the scope of powers for the Commissioner be reconsidered.

The committee findings show that section 22 of the act dealing with processes following investigations has not been used by the Commissioner. The committee, therefore, concludes that it would be premature to expand the scope of powers for the Commissioner. The investigative powers provided for under the existing act may prove quite effective if used.

The committee recognizes that the Languages Commissioner had difficulties in fulfilling her role as an ombudsperson and in ensuring compliance with the act. However, the committee is not convinced that this is due to weakness of the act or the lack of promotion of the Office of the Language Commissioner including a lack of outreach to the population and language communities of the Northwest Territories.

The committee also looked at other Canadian jurisdictions to compare compliance with official languages regimes. New Brunswick (the only bilingual province of Canada), Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Canada itself have a Languages Commissioner. In the remaining jurisdictions, processes are established that make the Ministers or Official Languages Secretariats responsible for dealing with complaints and ensuring compliance with existing languages regimes.

The committee recommendations are based on the findings and analysis described above.

Mr. Speaker, I would now like to pass the next section of the report on to Member, Mr. Glen Abernethy of Great Slave. Thank you.