Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks, Mr. Dolynny.

The Review

The committee began its review with an exhaustive examination of previous committee reports and briefing materials related to the management and delivery of official languages programming.

The GNWT’s Response to the 2009 Review

The committee examined the GNWT’s “Response to the Standing Committee on Government Operations Review of the Official Languages Act” – “the 2009 response” – tabled October 5, 2009. The committee was troubled by the tone of the response and the lack of commitment by the department to follow up with the standing committee regarding

progress on implementing the recommendations made in the report.

The committee found the following statement in the government’s response to be very telling of the department’s attitude towards the work of the 16th Assembly’s standing committee:

“The Government of the Northwest Territories is not providing a detailed response to each recommendation at this time to ensure that we do not bias the development of the official languages strategy and implementation plans that will involve ongoing engagement and consultation with language communities and practitioners.”

The standing committee wishes to point out that the very language communities and practitioners referred to by the department were essentially the same groups consulted in the development of the standing committee’s report. The suggestion that consideration of the committee’s recommendations might “bias” the work of the department reveals a stunning lack of respect for months of work by the 16th Assembly’s Standing Committee on

Government Operations and for the stakeholders consulted. The recommendations of the 16th Assembly’s standing committee should have served as a tool to inform the development of the promised official languages strategy, not be viewed as something that would detract from it.

The committee reminds the department that the recommendations contained in the 2009 report, as well as those in this report, flow from a review process that is mandated by law. The department has an obligation to consider these recommendations fully and fairly and to respond in good faith.

In its 2009 response, the GNWT committed to table a full response to the 2009 report in the fall 2010 session, yet this commitment was not met. The department further noted that, although detailed responses to the standing committee’s recommendations would not be ready for inclusion in the October 2009 Report on Official Languages, updates would be included in subsequent annual reports.

When the department tabled its “Annual Report on Official Languages 2010-2011”, on December 15, 2011, the standing committee took note of the fact that it did not contain a progress report on the recommendations arising from the 2009 review. The chair of the Standing Committee wrote to Minister Lafferty to point out this oversight.

The standing committee was assured that future annual reports would contain updates on the various recommendations arising from the 2009 review. Since that time, Annual Reports on Official Languages for 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 have been tabled and none has contained

any references to the recommendations arising from the 2009 review or how they may have shaped the model for official languages program and service delivery that the department is implementing.

The committee did, ultimately, receive two detailed progress reports which were provided by the department at the request of the committee chair in preparation for meetings between the Minister and the standing committee. These reports, dated May 2012 and April 2014, were not tabled by the department and are therefore not available to the public.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask to pass the reading of the report to my colleague Mr. Moses. Thank you.