Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, just getting back to my original point, I’d just like to read out what the existing legislation reads. It says, “No person shall operate on a highway a vehicle with any light reflective device that is obstructed, cracked or in other condition that unduly dismisses the effectiveness of the light of the reflective device.” I mean, that is exactly what you’re talking about. That, I support. But what I don’t like is when you basically amend this thing in light. I mean, if somebody is obstructing a light by putting 100-mile-an-hour tape and you can’t see the signal light, I can understand that you should pull them over. But I think it’s important that the changes that you’re making in which basically by putting the changes in there, it’s exactly dealing with the point I was making earlier. This only applies to highways where there are mud conditions, dirt conditions, in regard to gravel highways. And what, basically, you stipulate in your agreement that, you know, by changing the word of obstruction by adding snow, ice, dirt or mud, applies to those road conditions, but what you’re already saying that the intent of the legislation is already there. So I would just like to know why do you have to change it so that the legislation will impose an effect on one section of residents who mostly live on highway roads or even winter roads or whatnot, but on paved highways this is not really an issue. It’s an issue for communities which basically have gravel-based highways or even the winter roads.

Again, I’d just like to get an understanding of what’s the significance of the change and why is existing legislation, as it’s worded right now, not working.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We’re trying to follow the Member’s wording. The clause that he’s read is 143.1, which is the new clause that we’re adding and he’s indicated he supports. The new clause that we’ve added is 143.1 which reads, “No person shall operate on a highway a vehicle with a light or reflective device

that is obscured, cracked or in any other condition that unduly diminishes the effectiveness of the light or reflective device.” So I think we both agree.

Well, if that’s what I’m reading, I agree with it.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Are there any other general comments? Is committee agreed that there are no further comments?

Can we proceed to the clause-by-clause review of Bill 14?

Okay. Bill 14 is on tab 14. Does committee agree to move to page 1, clause-by-clause?

We’re on page 1, looking at Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act. We’re going clause by clause. Clause 1.

---Clauses 1 through 40 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole?

Does committee agree that we have concluded Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act?

Does committee agree that Bill 14, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, is ready for third reading?

Bill 14 is now deemed ready for third reading. I’d like to thank the Minister and his witnesses. Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, you can escort them out.

As per committee direction, we’re going to move on to Committee Report 6-16(3), which was tabled on May 28, 2009, in the 16th Legislative Assembly of

the Northwest Territories: The Standing Committee on Government Operations Final Report on the Review of the Official Languages Act, 2008-2009. We’ll begin with general comments. Does committee agree?

Are there any general comments on Committee Report 6-16(3)? Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, I, for one, being a member of the committee and also being a member of the previous committee back in

the 14th Assembly, feel quite strongly or hopeful

that this time that the recommendations that are being put forward will be acted upon by this government in the term of this government. Because what I saw from the previous recommendations -- we had some 60 recommendations in the 14th Assembly in regard to

a special committee on languages which was one of the responsibilities we had to look at what has happened to those recommendations and, more importantly, what has the government done to ensure that those recommendations were considered and yet were acted upon. I was very dismayed to realize that a lot of time and effort was put into this by not only the members of the committee back in the 14th Assembly, a lot of

residents of the Northwest Territories, aboriginal groups, language groups, took part and were very serious in regard to the situation we find ourselves in regard to aboriginal languages, government programs and services.

Since then, nothing has really happened by way of changing or improving the services for languages and, if anything, we ended up in court because of this issue in regard to the francophones of the Northwest Territories. If anything, the legislation we do put forth, the recommendations should be seriously considered and acted upon.

Now, since the 14th Assembly, we are now in a

position of finding our languages worse off now than we were prior to the 14th Assembly in which

some of the aboriginal languages and the language group I represent in regards to the Gwich’in and Inuvialuit, their languages are being threatened by the number of speakers or the major decline in speakers in those two cultural groups. We now are in a position of having to find ways to get these languages back to some sort of safe state of affairs and realizing that they are now in danger.

I think that we, as government and as legislators, have to do everything that we can to ensure that when recommendations are made by way of special committees or in this Legislative Assembly, that we do take them seriously and that we do act in the best interests of all Northerners and, more importantly, to preserve something that makes us unique in the Northwest Territories, which is basically the languages that we have, the special unique cultural significance of these languages, the people, the aboriginal groups and also ensuring that the cultural component of languages are protected. Without the language, you don’t have a culture. Without culture, you don’t have the history and the background that you need to ensure that the history of the Northwest Territories is preserved and protected.

Again, I would just like to state as a Member that has served on this committee and served on the previous committee that after the frustration that I

felt and the reason I put my name forward for this committee was to be on the Government Operations committee was to deal with this legislation and review this legislation. After seeing the amount of effort and time that we put into the recommendations in the 14th Assembly and it not

be acted upon and finding out the state of affairs that we are in today, it is because of a lot of that. Again, I would like to seriously ask the Cabinet, the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment to take these recommendations seriously and take the language revitalization and aspects of this bill and how we are trying to find unique ways of restoring, maintaining and, more importantly, preserving our languages and our culture in the Northwest Territories for future generations. With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Next I would like to go to the chair of the committee that conducted the review, Mr. Kevin Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was actually a great day yesterday that we were able to table this Final Report on the Review of the Official Languages Act, 2008-2009. I really think that the title is appropriate. It is called “Reality Check: Securing a Future for the Official Languages of the Northwest Territories” and most in particular we say “reality check” because as we did our work we found that our aboriginal languages are in serious decline in all sectors, even our strongest aboriginal speaking communities. There is decline.

Before I go on, because of the formal nature of the proceedings yesterday, we weren’t able to recognize the rest of the committee, which is Mr. Robert Hawkins, the deputy chair; yourself, Mr. Chair, Glen Abernethy; Mr. Jackie Jacobson, MLA for Nunakput; and Mr. David Krutko, who just spoke earlier here. As well, we did not have an opportunity to recognize Mr. Tom Beaulieu, the Member for Tu Nedhe, who was able to use a lot of his time to help us carry out this work as the standing committee travelled and discussed the issues and heard the issues from the communities.

We certainly are suggesting many abrupt changes in the way we are doing business as the Government of the Northwest Territories, most particularly towards our aboriginal languages. The French are making great strides in utilizing the legal field for continued entrenchment of their rights. For me as chair, I view it as a positive thing for them. I am glad they are heading that way. At the same time, what we heard in the communities was that our aboriginal languages must be as important to our government. Because the French are working that hard, we have to work that much harder at aboriginal languages. We have nine official languages in the Northwest Territories. To do the

work nine times that the French are asking for is rather difficult. To think that is why in our report we would rather see an aboriginal language secretariat set up that can manage all nine aboriginal distinct linguistic groups. I think that is critical. I also think that regional delivery model systems are also critical. There has to be a way to ensure that those aboriginal speakers and elders that wish to be served in their language of choice, that the ability is there.

Needless to say, it doesn’t make sense to have a Gwich’in speaker located in Fort Simpson when there is just not enough speakers there to support that role and, alternately, having a South Slave speaker located up in, say, a community of Tuktoyaktuk just does not make sense. What does make sense is the ability to deliver the local language locally. I certainly strive towards seeing that.

One of the biggest things we heard, of course, throughout our report we said in the report and the media yesterday, was that the existing system is not working for aboriginal languages. The SCROLA or report did lots of things to enhance and talk about revitalization of the aboriginal languages. In fact, they set up an Aboriginal Language Revitalization Board instead of a language board. They created the office of the Commissioner. But I think what that had done, in my assessment there, Mr. Chairman, was that it spread all of our resources too thin. I think the attempt of our report and our recommendation is to try to consolidate these resources. I don’t think there were enough specialists or people to actually support two big boards. We are suggesting one. We are suggesting an aboriginal languages secretariat. We are suggesting that the role of the Commissioner change. Even though the wording says deleted but I believe the role of the Languages Commissioner people expected to be more than just an oversight role. They want to see promotion. They want to see revitalization and support from that type of office for aboriginal language and that is what we talked about a lot in our report.

With that, those opening comments, Mr. Chairman, once again I would like to think committee members for their hard work and to all the language frontline workers that are out there that provided their expertise and their input. I look forward to working with the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment as they deliberate this report. I think we did ask them to respond to us specifically within a certain number of days and certainly I would like to see that feedback and see some significant changes before our term ends here in about two years, Mr. Chairman. With that, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next on my list is Mr. Hawkins.