Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
STAKEHOLDERS OFFERED THOUGHTFUL SUGGESTIONS TO STRENGTHEN LANGUAGE RIGHTS AND COMMUNITIES
Committee sought public feedback on Bill 63 with a public notice and targeted engagement letters to those who may have had an interest in the bill. Committee received written submissions from:
- Collège Nordique;
- La Fédération franco-ténoise;
- The Languages Commissioner; and
- The Northwest Territory Metis Nation.
All written submissions are included in an appendix to this report.
Committee also held a public review of Bill 63 on January 18, 2023. At that meeting, committee received oral comments from the Minister, Collège Nordique, the FFT, and a member of the public. Committee also met with the Metis Nation to hear their input on January 30, 2023.
Committee appreciates everyone who offered their feedback and ideas for the review of Bill 63. Their participation demonstrates a passion to protect, maintain, and enhance the vitality of official language communities in the territory.
Updating the preamble
All participants agree that it was a good idea to add language about colonialism, UNDRIP, and fair access to services for residents who speak an Indigenous official language into the preamble. However, the Metis Nation thought that this change should not just be in the preamble of the Act but throughout the whole Act so that the GNWT is fully committed to UNDRIP and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada's Calls to Action. Committee agrees with the Metis Nation and hopes that the GNWT will make bigger and more transformative changes to the Official Languages Act in the 20th Assembly to reflect these commitments.
Clarifying and strengthening the Languages Commissioner's role
Eligibility requirements
Bill 63 would require the Languages Commissioner to live in the NWT and forbid them from being a member of the public service. Participants agreed with these changes. Committee agrees that the Commissioner must be connected to the people they serve.
Alternative dispute resolution
Bill 63 would also allow the Languages Commissioner to refer matters to alternative dispute resolution. Participants supported this change but wanted to see the bill provide more tools to deal with complaints. The FFT suggested setting up a language rights tribunal to adjudicate on language rights violations. Committee thought this could be a good idea but was outside of the scope of the bill. A future review should study how this idea could work. The Languages Commissioner wanted to have the option to resolve a complaint without doing a full investigation. Committee found that the Act does not currently provide her that power. Committee thinks it might be good for the Languages Commissioner to have a way to solve problems informally, but there are important policy questions to think about first. Committee encourages the Languages Commissioner to explain more about her recommendation for informal resolutions, perhaps in an annual report. Committee also wants to see how alternative dispute resolution works before adding another mechanism.
Deadlines for information requests
Bill 63 would require public bodies to answer information requests from the Languages Commissioner within 60 days. Participants agreed with this change but thought more could be done to ensure the Commissioner gets the information she needs. The Languages Commissioner wanted to be able to set the deadline herself, based on each situation. Committee was worried this power would give too much discretion to the Commissioner and too little predictability to the public bodies. Fixed timelines written into law is also the approach taken for other statutory officers, like the Ombud and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The Languages Commissioner was also concerned that the part of the Act dealing with information requests, section 22, stops her from requesting information without doing a formal investigation. Committee asked the law clerk for advice and believes the Commissioner can ask for and receive information without doing a formal investigation. Given this information, committee does not think the Act needs to be changed. The FFT wanted to give the Languages Commissioner the power to force anyone to answer a complaint. This change would significantly expand the authority of the Commissioner, who right now has very specific powers in investigations. A future study should review this suggestion.
Supreme Court orders
Bill 63 would allow the Languages Commissioner to go to court and get an order when a public body has not acted on a recommendation. Participants agreed with this change, but the FFT wanted to see some additional changes. The FFT wanted to place a three-month time limit for public bodies to act on a recommendation, failing which the Commissioner could get a court order. Committee was concerned that more complex language rights cases could take more than three months, so we preferred the more flexible approach in the current bill. The FFT also suggested that the law enable the Languages Commissioner to collect damages and costs from the public body in question at the Supreme Court. Committee notes that the Court can already award damages and costs, so this change is not needed.
Merging the Languages Boards
Bill 63 would combine two Boards: the Official Languages Board and the Aboriginal Languages Revitalization Board. Most participants agreed with this change but suggested some improvements. The Metis Nation questioned the name of the merged board, suggesting that the name should explicitly include the word "Indigenous" to reflect Indigenous participation on the board. The FFT suggested that the government delay the merger and was worried whether the combined board could focus on French and Indigenous languages at the same time. Collège Nordique supported the change and thought the government could go farther to ensure greater transparency from the merged board.
Committee notes that this change has already been delayed, as it was first recommended in 2009. Committee has heard that the two boards already mostly function as a single entity though it is not yet reflected in the Act. The Boards themselves would prefer to be a combined entity to improve efficiency. Committee is confident the new board will fulfill its mandate with respect to each official language and their distinct needs.
Committee agrees that the public should know more about what the board does. Separately, committee has heard that, in practice, the current boards are organized by the Indigenous Languages and Education Secretariat, which might make them less independent. Since the combined board will give advice and recommendations to the Minister and evaluate language programs, the board independence is important.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations therefore recommends:
Recommendation 2: That the Department of Education, Culture and Employment ensure independence and transparency at the merged languages board. The department should provide a proper framework and resources for the board to fulfill its mandate, including timely appointments when vacancies arise. The board should disclose meeting agendas, minutes, and other documents of public interest. The board should also release an annual report that summarizes recommendations to the Minister, the Minister's response, progress on implementation, and the findings of program and initiative evaluations.
I will now ask, Mr. Speaker, to turn it over to the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Thank you.