Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so already there is, just to confirm, the manufacturing policy guidelines newly minted are on ITI's website, current BIP guidelines and renewed guidelines are on the ITI's website. There is now a dashboard with respect to procurement that is live over on Finance's website. Those are all things that have come out of the procurement review, and I certainly would encourage people to go to them, take a look at them.

Further, as well, I -- the principles that I have mentioned, the objectives and principles around procurement, that is not a small thing. That was one of the major parts that I had read in that review, was that it was too spread out, the purposes and principles of procurement -- public procurement was too spread out. There are now set principles. That's an important part of the work that took place here, and it's now guiding what's happening across departments. So, again, encouraging people to locate that on our website so that they can consider if that meets their needs.

The definition, yes, Mr. Speaker, I hear the definition will need some opportunity to go to Members to have some consideration done. It is part of policy. I think part of the messaging here is that when there's small things within policies that need changes and adjustments, it can be done. It doesn't have to wait for a full legislative review. We now have done that. We have done the work of the review. We have the background available to us. And I do encourage people to see all of the work that's been done to date. There's quite a lot that's out there.

Vendor performance management. It's the last one before I get into the land of a Minister's statement, Mr. Speaker, and I'd encourage people to look at what we have been doing with vendor performance management. It's actually enforcing the rules. It's a lot that's happened in that space in the last year. And, again, I'd like to know that that's working for those who are already under that system so that we can consider making adjustments in the life of this Assembly if we need to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of the references that the Minister gave to different areas of the ITI website, of the Finance website, where this information can be found. I think this speaks to -- and, you know, with all due respect, I think this speaks to the need for a consolidated response from the government. Even when I was going through and kind of creating my questions for today and figuring out how do I go about continuing this conversation in this House, I'm looking at and reading through press releases from the GNWT in regards to procurement review; I'm looking through, yes, the guidelines and the dashboard and the contracting website; I'm looking through the work plan; I'm looking back at the information that came out with the procurement review. And that information is scattered. So anybody that actually wants to look at the panel's recommendations and then see what the government has done in response or what they have chosen not to do for whatever reason actually has to go and do a fair amount of legwork across the GNWT's website. There's not one place where we can see this is the plan moving forward, this is how the government is responding, and this is what businesses can expect. And so that's why I'm asking if the government will table a fulsome response for what their response is to the procurement review panel's 50 recommendations. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, simple answer is yes, there will be a response. It's going to be a full response to the review. And I couldn't agree more because of all the things I've been detailing in my responses now that have happened and that are underway. I've more than once brought the full team from multiple departments together. And at the last occasion, that was exactly the topic of conversation, was saying we can't let in some -- in this case, it's all the good work go unknown and those who are using one part may not know about the things that have happened in another. So it's coming, Mr. Speaker. It needs to come in time. I appreciate the comments it needs to come in it time that it can be considered, and so that if there's questions in the House, that they can be prepared for. So I'm not giving a date today, but it's coming, and I'm conscious of the fact that it needs to come in a manner that provides time for MLAs to be able to ask questions in the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Across the Northwest Territories there's essentially three types of tenure. There's community government leasing. I got no problem with those. Community governments can sort out how they want to lease their land. Then there's fee simple title. Never hear any complaints about anyone who owns their house, Mr. Speaker. And then there's the GNWT lease, which to me the main benefit seems to be a miraculous ability to be brought up in every single meeting and immediately derail it. No matter the meeting we're having, someone inevitably starts complaining about a 600 percent fee increase or their cabin, Mr. Speaker. It seems to be a golden rule of the GNWT.

And so my question for the Minister of Lands is can we get out of the leasing business and give people who live in their houses, in a GNWT lease, fee simple title? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Minister responsible for Lands.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Lands is able to offer fee simple title to leaseholders in the areas where land lease-only policy is implemented or doesn't apply. In other words, where land claims have been concluded. The land lease-only policy applies where land claims are not settled. The policy restricts the sale of public land in order to ensure the land claims and treaty negotiations are not jeopardized. As the Member is aware, we are wrapping up a review of the land lease-only policy. This review is intended to address the efficiency or effectiveness of this policy, and it was developed over 30 years ago and has been very -- and has had seen very little change over time.

I'm hoping to update the Members here this week on the status of that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to those updates to the land lease-only policy. But there seems to be a disconnect because it's only supposed to apply in unsettled areas, but we know in the IRC, even though it was settled 40 years ago, we are still having this fight about GNWT leases. And it seems to me that at the heart of this issue is we need to separate out those who are rights holders. Even if they are on public land, if they are in their traditional territory, we need to create a different form of tenure and bring them into a different conversation.

Is the Minister willing to look to create some form of new tenure where rights holders are not paying the same lease fees and the same taxes as everyone else? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, so rights-based cabins, we're working on that. We're trying to put that to the side. We're trying to be able to identify some of the things. Some of the work that's being done is exactly what the Member is asking for. So we're working on this, trying to get this resolved. We're working with Indigenous governments to come up with a definition with what's a rights-based cabin. Not the GNWT, with the Indigenous governments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. And I'm going to spring this on the Minister of Finance unfortunately, but there was a audit report just released by the Auditor General of Canada connecting connectivity in rural and remote areas. There's quite a bit of discussion, Mr. Speaker, in this report about unspent funds. I thought our government was bad getting money out the door but this is actually quite shocking in terms of supporting internet connectivity in rural and remote communities. You know, for example, the broadband fund, only 26 percent of the money budgeted was expended. Low earth or orbit to capacity agreement, zero percent. Connecting Canadians, 88 percent, a little bit better. But only 40 percent of the money was actually expended to help connect rural and remote communities, Mr. Speaker. What is our government doing to fix this problem? Thanks, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Frame Lake. Minister responsible for Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would love to see the federal government spend its money better and spend its money in the Northwest Territories. That would be a good news story for all. I can say that the universal broadband funds including their rapid universal broadband fund, which I think I've got slightly miss-titled, were not necessarily well tuned to some of the needs here in the Northwest Territories. An example being redundancy was not eligible for any funding through those funds. And redundancy in the Northwest Territories, of course when we have one line going into communities, one line going across the Northwest Territories, that actually is a big part of ensuring accessibility and availability because if one line goes down, it costs us millions; it costs businesses millions. That was not available for funding. We did get funding through the fund, and the Indigenous governments, Tlicho government got funding through the fund, and funding up to the -- the Inuvik-Tuk Highway was funded through that fund. So while I had received only some initial data back on this fairly new report, I'd be interested to see how we've done perhaps in comparison and to see if there were areas that we could have looked for more that we could go back now and look for more.

And one last, Mr. Speaker, I think they have actually gone out now and asked for recommendations and responses with respect to how to improve those funds and, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that I have already checked with our department; we are planning to put our submission in on that regard. Thank you.

Merci, Monsieur le President. And, of course, I didn't give the Minister a heads up so I'm springing this on her, probably playing a little bit of this just off the cuff. But, you know, some of the recommendations in this report are aimed, of course, at one of my favorite agencies, the Canadian Radio-Television Telecommunications Commission. And, you know, recommendation 2.31, the CRTC should routinely collect and verify data from telecommunication service providers about connectivity quality. Like, I would have thought that that's something you would just normally do.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister commit to provide a briefing note to Regular MLAs about what our government is doing in response to this report from the auditor general? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to provide a briefing, a briefing note or briefing in person with respect to, you know, monies we've had, challenges, perhaps opportunities to come, and what we might be doing to look for more money. Mr. Speaker, it's, again, certainly been my position, and I've communicated to federal ministers, that some of the funds perhaps weren't best tuned or well tuned to what the needs actually are and to where we are at in terms particularly around, again not only accessibility and availability, but affordability. That was not necessarily well tuned in terms of those funds, in terms of improving affordability here in the North. So, again, happy to explain where we're at so that all sides of the House can continue to advocate for residents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Minister. Oral questions. Written questions. Returns to written questions. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Returns to written questions. Replies to the Commissioner's address. Petitions. Reports of committees on the review of bills. Reports of standing and special committees. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Standing Committee on Government Operations is pleased to provide its report on the 2021-2022 Review of the Official Languages Act and commends it to the House.

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Over the last two years, the Standing Committee on Government Operations reviewed the Official Languages Act. This law protects speakers of the NWT's eleven official languages and outlines language rights, rules, and responsibilities in different parts of government. This law requires a review about every five years. Previous committee reviews were released in 2003, 2009, and 2015.

For our 2021-2022 review, committee aimed to collect input from Northerners on the effectiveness of the Official Languages Act, recommend changes to better protect and revitalize official languages, and ensure changes are implemented. The COVID-19 pandemic delayed our review, but committee pushed for changes before the end of the 19th Assembly.

This report describes how the public participated in the review and summarizes what committee heard. Participants shared many examples of how the languages approach of the Government of the Northwest Territories falls short of Northerners' needs and rights, and many suggestions for improvements. Statistics back up what residents are saying: Indigenous language communities continue to lose speakers, but many more people want to learn the language.

The report also outlines committee's call to overhaul the government's approach to official languages, starting with four transformative changes:

1. Implementing the right to receive services in your official language of choice;
2. Implementing the right to K to 12 immersion education in your local language;
3. Doubling resources to support and revitalize Indigenous languages; and
4. Support of official language speakers in the public service.

Committee urges the government to begin making these changes now and complete them in the 20th Assembly.

DESPITE PANDEMIC DELAYS, COMMITTEE PUSHED FOR CHANGES

In early 2021, committee set out to travel across the NWT. Unfortunately, our plans were repeatedly postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In December 2021, committee realized that we could not finish our review of the Official Languages Act in time to make changes to the law before the end of the 19th Assembly. However, almost twenty years had passed since the law had last been updated, and in that time many important and straightforward amendments had been suggested. Therefore, committee urged the Minister responsible for Official Languages to work with us to develop legislation before our review was complete. The Minister agreed and invited our input.

In response, committee reviewed all past suggestions for changes to the Official Languages Act since 2003, the last time the law was changed. Committee identified about 50 past suggestions and prioritized 12 of them for the new bill. The Department of Education, Culture and Employment accepted some of our priorities and put them into Bill 63: An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act. Bill 63 would:

1. Clarify and strengthen the role of the Languages Commissioner;
2. Merge the two languages boards; and
3. Update the law's preamble to recognize the impact of colonialism and the relevance of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

While committee was pleased with these changes, we were also disappointed that the bill was not more ambitious. We wrote a report about our review of the bill entitled Report on Bill 63: An Act to Amend the Official Languages Act. In that report, committee recommended a second phase of legislative changes to improve the government's approach to official and Indigenous languages. Those changes should start in the life of the 19th Assembly and respond to the recommendations contained in this report. It is a known fact that the 20th Assembly is not obligated to follow up or consider any recommendations this Assembly makes. Furthermore, it may not be their priority.

I will now turn it over to the Member for Kam Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Member for Yellowknife North. Member for Kam Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

PARTICIPANTS ACROSS THE NWT WERE CLEAR ON NEED FOR CHANGE.

In October 2020, committee held public briefings with the Languages Commissioner and the Minister responsible for Official Languages and his staff. Between June 2021 and October 2022, committee engaged the public. 74 people from across the NWT participated in public meetings, including 33 residents, organizations, and governments that provided formal oral comments.

During this time, committee was inspired by NWT residents doing amazing things to reclaim their languages, teach young people with limited resources, and advocate for changes to help their language communities survive and thrive.

We were especially moved by what elders had to say. They reminded committee of the horrific role of the Indian Residential Schools system in the loss of Indigenous languages - but also Indigenous peoples' determination to keep their language. One survivor shared: "Even we whispered, and we get slapped. Sometimes we bleed from our mouths, we get hit. And you're so scared. You just wish you could go home, and you were a long way from home [...] And today, when we're trying to teach our young people to speak, that thing is with us [...] I don't know why they didn't want us to speak our language. But we held on to it."

The harmful legacy of residential schools and colonization, and the need for reconciliation and recognition of Indigenous rights, were major themes that committee heard from residents. Other important themes were:

1. Visibility. Indigenous languages need to be more visible in daily life.
2. Education. Barriers to revitalization can be overcome with more funding, training, educational resources, instruction time, and rights to immersion education.
3. Program funding. Existing funding for Indigenous-language education and revitalization is not enough and must be increased. Funding requirements should be tailored to applicants' needs and flexible for creative approaches.
4. Services. The government should improve access to quality services in official languages by enhancing active offer, standards, and rights to service.
5. Public service. The government should promote using and learning official languages in the public service by increasing Indigenous representation, providing more training, and recognizing the value of knowing a second official language.
6. Legislation and rights. More needs to be done in law to protect rights and revitalize languages, including adding Michif as an official language and setting up new bodies and policies for language revitalization.
7. Languages Commissioner. The role should be clarified and strengthened. And,
8. Languages Boards. A merged board needs a better nomination process, a clearer role, and more effective representation, transparency, and resources.

Committee provided more detail on these themes in an appendix to this report. We recommend the government review and consider residents' input on official languages.

STATISTICS SHOW INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES ARE DECLINING AND ENDANGERED

Statistics confirm a trend committee heard on the road: Indigenous language communities in the NWT are not creating enough new speakers to sustain their languages. From 2014 to 2019, eight of the nine Indigenous official languages lost speakers, resulting in a total decline from 7,900 to 6,800 Indigenous language speakers. According to UNESCO, an agency of the United Nations, all nine Indigenous official languages are endangered, meaning they're at risk of disappearing. Inuvialuktun and Dinjii Zhu' Ginjik -- thank you very much, MLA for Inuvik Twin Lakes -- Gwich'in, are the most severely endangered languages, with 560 and 290 speakers in the NWT, respectively.

The age profile of current speakers is also concerning. Half of the 6,800 Indigenous language speakers are over 50 years old and one-fifth are over age 65. In almost every community, committee heard that young people are losing the Indigenous language, and elders find that they are unable to communicate with them in their Indigenous languages.

A 2019 survey by the NWT Bureau of Statistics gives reason for hope. This survey found that thousands of residents, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, want to improve their conversational skills in each of the nine Indigenous official languages. For instance, while less than 1,400 Northerners speak Dene Zhatie, nearly 5,000 Northerners want to improve their Dene Zhatie. This extends to all nine languages. The desire to learn each language is three and fourteen times higher than the number of actual speakers.

Despite attempts to eradicate Indigenous languages, many people remain passionate about reclaiming this right. Committee is convinced there is incredible potential to revitalize all language communities. Revitalizing languages is not just a hope - it's a right. Article 13 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples says that: "Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems and literatures [...] States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected."

Article 13 matters because it confirms the government's unique duty to protect Indigenous peoples' language rights and prevent the loss of valuable knowledge and traditions. While the GNWT has made improvements, anecdotal evidence and the statistics suggest that the government is not fulfilling its language responsibilities under the Declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass the reading of this report to my colleague from Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh. Thank you.