EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Committee members further noted that some confusion resulted from the fact that the Standing Committee on Culture, Education and Health reviewed the Annual Report covering the Languages Commissioner’s activities over the past fiscal year while the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit reviewed the Languages Commissioner’s Business Plan covering the Languages Commissioner’s proposed activities for the upcoming year.
As a result neither Committee got the complete picture.
The next section of the Report presents a history of Official Languages legislation in the North and also addresses the upcoming 10-year review of the Official Languages Act, which must commence after December 31, 2000.
Committee members were disappointed that there was not more specific discussion on the Act nor any specific views on possible amendments to the Act. A brief discussion of the upcoming ten-year review of the Official Languages Act included some reference to the non-Inuit aboriginal languages protected under the current Act but did not argue either for or against removing them from the Act.
Key Issue: Official Languages Act
The review of the Official Languages Act is a matter of considerable importance to Nunavummiut.
The review is required by statute to take place after December 31st 2000, by a committee of the Legislative Assembly.
The Assembly has the option of assigning the review to a Special Committee established specifically for this task.
The review of the Official Languages Act will be an open process, involving the public and key stakeholders.
It promises to be an opportunity for many language issues to be raised and addressed.
The Report discusses documents other than the Official Languages Act which relate, mainly in a monitoring capacity, to the work of the Languages Commissioner.
Those listed include the Nunavut Act, the Bathurst Mandate, Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canada-Nunavut Co-operation Agreement for French and Inuit Languages.
Committee Members noted with interest that the Report made no reference to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NCLA). Article 32 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement states that the government is obliged to “provid[e] Inuit with an opportunity to participate in the development of social and cultural policies, and in the design of social and cultural programs and services, including their method of delivery, in the Nunavut Settlement Area”.
The Languages Commissioner’s Report in many ways demonstrates her Office’s parameters of operation and initiatives are described in relation to the principles and objectives of the documents listed above.
While Committee members understand that the Commissioner’s role is established through territorial legislation and includes a responsibility for protecting language rights under federal legislation, they also felt strongly that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement should have been addressed in the Report.
Committee members feel that the Languages Commissioner’s mandate to “promote, preserve and protect” minority language rights is very closely linked with the objectives of the NLCA especially with respect to Inuit society and culture.
The final section of the Languages Commissioner’s First Annual Report listed a number of Recommendations.
Committee’s Response to Recommendations of the Languages Commissioner
The Committee initially wanted more detail and specificity in the Languages Commissioner’s Recommendations.
As a result, in January, the Languages Commissioner provided an “Elaboration of Recommendations from her 1999-2000 Annual Report”.
The additional text is included below with each recommendation.
That the Legislative Assembly (or the committee it designates to perform the review of the Official Languages Act) conduct a series of public hearings throughout Nunavut to solicit public input on the content and scope of the Act.
Elaboration:
The long-term maintenance of Inuktitut will require a combined effort by government, communities and families.
The public, therefore, must have an opportunity to participate in the process of developing new language legislation.
The Languages Commissioner favours an approach that will allow communities to express their opinions and concerns directly to those writing the new Official Languages Act.
Representatives of the Legislative Assembly should also present options to communities in terms of the direction and scope the new Act might take.
Public hearings held throughout Nunavut would be the best means of achieving this dialogue.
This process would also help ensure that any new provisions developed by the Government of Nunavut would enjoy the support of the public.
That the Legislative Assembly allow the Office of the Languages Commissioner to participate fully in any public hearings that are held.
Section 29 (3) of the Official Languages Act states that the Languages Commissioner shall provide all reasonable assistance to the Legislative Assembly or any committee it designates for the review process.
The Languages Commissioner and her staff have a wealth of expertise in the area of language issues and rights and could make a valuable contribution in the following capacities:
engaging communities in a meaningful discussion of their concerns;
informing them of how language legislation and policies can address their language goals; and
working with government to draft their recommendations into legislation that is fair and reasonable.
That the Languages Commissioner be allowed to review any proposed changes to the Official Languages Act and provide comments to the Legislative Assembly.
It is important that the Office of the Languages Commissioner be involved throughout the process of reviewing and amending the Official Languages Act.
As the Act impacts directly on the role of our office, we would like to have the opportunity to review any changes to it and provide comments to MLAs before these amendments are approved.
Collaboration among the principal stakeholders will help ensure that any changes to the Act receive broad support.
In addition, under the current legislation (Official Languages Act, s. 23), the Languages Commissioner has a regular opportunity to make her own recommendations for proposed changes to the Act with the tabling of her Annual Report in the Legislative Assembly.
That the process of reviewing and amending the Official Languages Act include the development of a Government of Nunavut language policy to direct its departments, boards and agencies in implementing the new Act.
In 1997, the Government of the Northwest Territories developed a comprehensive language policy to assist its departments in implementing the Official Languages Act.
It included:
• the roles and responsibilities of Ministers, Deputy Ministers and the Executive Council in implementing and enforcing the Official Languages Act;
• a list of designated departments that must provide services to the public in French and the Aboriginal languages;
• guidelines for what official languages should be used in serving the public in each of the NWT’s communities;
• information on making the public aware of the availability of services in French and the Aboriginal Languages (active offer);
• outlines of the ways to deliver services in the official languages;
• guidelines for interpreting during public meetings;
• guidelines for the translation of documents, forms and advertising produced by the GNWT;
• requirements for the use of official languages on the GNWT’s signs; and
• a requirement that the GNWT use standardized Dene orthographies when producing signs or written materials.
Unfortunately, the Government of Nunavut did not inherit the GNWT’s language policy nor did it develop one of its own.
Instead, GN departments and agencies have been left on their own to implement the Official Languages Act.
The result of this has been that the quality and availability of services in French and Inuktitut has suffered.
The fact that many departments believe language services to be CLEY’s exclusive responsibility underlines the urgent need for defined roles and responsibilities.
The results these studies will be important to the process of developing a made-in-Nunavut government language policy.
As the Official Languages Act will be reviewed concurrently in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, we recommend that representatives from the Legislative Assembly confer with their counterparts in the NWT on the changes to the Act they are proposing.
In addition to sharing the same Official Languages Act, the GNWT and the Government of Nunavut are both concerned with raising the status of Aboriginal languages.
In conducting their separate review of the Official Languages Act, the Northwest Territories may come up with new initiatives that the GN might wish to adopt as well.
By engaging in a dialogue on official languages, the governments of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories may also be able to develop a common front in pressing Ottawa to increase its support for government services in Aboriginal languages.
Given that the Official Languages Act cannot be amended without the approval of the Parliament of Canada, we recommend that representatives of the Legislative Assembly make a formal presentation to federal parliamentarians of any changes they propose to the Act.
The review the Official Languages Act will require a substantial investment of time and resources by the Government of Nunavut.
It will be important, therefore, to ensure that any changes it proposes will be approved by Parliament.
It is unlikely that MPs will have a good understanding of the language situation in Nunavut.
A formal presentation by the GN to Parliament of its amendments to the Act, would help improve the chances of them being accepted.
The Committee feels that an amended Official Languages Act should be presented to the Parliament of Canada only in the event that the amendments “have the effect of diminishing rights or services provided for in that [Official Languages Act] ordinance” (s.38, Nunavut Act).
As it is likely that the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories will also propose changes to the Act, we recommend that Nunavut and the NWT attempt to present their proposed changes to Parliament at the same time.
This will help ensure that federal parliamentarians understand and recognize the different needs and aspirations of the two territories.
The review mandated by section 29 of the Official Languages Act may cause confusion among parliamentarians, as it will require the same piece of legislation to be reviewed by both the Government of Nunavut and the Northwest Territories.
Furthermore, it is likely that the GN will propose far more substantial changes to the Act than the GNWT and this position will have to be defended.
If Nunavut were to present its proposed amendments in conjunction with the Northwest Territories, MP’s would have an easier time appreciating the complexity of language issues in Canada’s north, and Nunavut’s need for a fundamentally different Official Languages Act.
The Committee feels that this issue should be addressed by the respective committees during the consultation process articulated in Recommendation #6.
The Standing Committee on Culture, Education and Health Recommends:
The Standing Committee was pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the Languages Commissioner’s 1999-2000 Annual Report.
This first year has seen many people working hard together on the path towards addressing language issues, rights and responsibilities.
The Committee expects that next year’s Report will address issues such as the Review process, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and the development of a government-wide language policy.
The Committee looks forward to future experiences in creating resourceful solutions to address the unique needs and aspirations of Nunavut and Nunavummiut.
Speaker: The report has been received by this House.
Mr. Tootoo: Mr. Speaker, I would again like to beg the indulgence of the Assembly to return to Item 5 on the order paper.
Speaker: The member is seeking unanimous consent to return to item 5.
Speaker: Proceed Mr. Tootoo.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues for twice in one day.
I would like to take the opportunity to recognize my family who were able to come to the Gallery today as a result of no school being held this week due to professional development for the teachers.
I would like to recognize my wife Carol, my daughter Eden and Taya and their little friend Aurora.
Speaker: I would also like to recognize someone.
I see somebody else in the Gallery, Ms. Aariak our Languages Commissioner.
Our other two guests are here from Yellowknife, welcome to the Assembly.
Item 13. Tabling of Documents
Tabled Document 003– 1(5): Terms of Reference of the Special Committee to Review the Official Languages Act
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I will be tabling the Terms of Reference of the Special Committee to Review the Official Languages Act.
I would like to give notice that on February 26, I will move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that the Legislative Assembly hereby establish a special committee to be named the Special Committee to Review the Official Languages Act.
Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time I will be seeking unanimous consent to deal with my motion today.
Motion 001 – 1(5): Special Committee to Review the Official Languages Act
Whereas, Nunavut inherited its Official Languages Act from the Northwest Territories on April 1, 1999; and
And Whereas, the Official Languages Act establishes an equality of status, rights and privileges with respect to the use of Official Languages in institutions of government in Nunavut; and
And Whereas, Section 29 of the Official Languages Act requires that the Legislative Assembly or a committee established by it, shall review the provisions and operations of the Act at the session next following December 31, 2000;
And Whereas, Section 29 of the Official Languages Act requires that the Languages Commissioner shall provide all reasonable assistance to the Legislative Assembly or a committee established to review the Act;
And Whereas, the Legislative Assembly, recognizing the importance of languages use and language rights across Nunavut and the benefit of wide-reaching and public discussion, wishes to being the review of the Official Languages Act;
Now Therefore, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that the Legislative Assembly hereby establish a Special Committee, to be named the Special Committee to Review the Official Languages Act;
And Further, that the following Members be named to the Special Committee:
Ms. Rebekah Williams
And Further, that the following Members be named as Alternate Members of the Special Committee:
And Further, that the Committee, in pursuing its mandate shall:
Examine the objectives set out in the preamble of the Act;
Examine all provisions of the Act, including the rights and responsibilities established in the Act and the extent to which they support the achievement of the stated objectives;
Examine the administration and implementation of the Act;
Examine the effectiveness of the Act’s provisions in relation to the general public and the government departments and agencies charged with providing services;
Review questions of specific needs related to each of the official languages in Nunavut;
Examine the extent to which the public understands the current Act and current language rights, including the role of the Languages Commissioner;
Examine and consider other Acts that have reference to the official languages of Nunavut;
Evaluate official languages legislation, policies and programs in other jurisdictions;
Provide an assessment of the current objectives of the Act;
Provide recommendations from stakeholders regarding legislative changes, policy initiatives and the provisions of language program and services;
Prepare and provide results of public consultations;
Provide recommendations on administrative regulations, policies and procedures designed to guide the implementation of the Act;
Prepare information on the implications for other Nunavut statutes that impact language rights and services;
Prepare and provide a final report on the Committee’s activities; and
Prepare a draft bill to amend the Official Languages Act.
And, Furthermore, that the Special Committee submit its final report not later than two years from the date of its establishment.
Speaker: One moment here, Mr. Nutarak.
According to the procedures of the House, under 45 – 1, asking for the motion to be dealt with today as opposed to the 48 hour notice, I would ask you now to ask for unanimous consent to read your motion.
If we have agreement we will consider the motion as read.
I would request unanimous consent to waive Rule 45 - 1 to consider my motion today.
The member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 45 – 1.
Do we have agreement.
Item 17. First Reading of Bills.
Item 19. Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Item 19.
Item 20. Report of Committee of the Whole.
Item 21. Third Reading of Bills. Item 21.
Meeting of Regular Caucus at 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.
Orders of the Day for Tuesday, February 27:
Bill 1- Appropriation Act 2001-2002
This House stands adjourned until Tuesday, February 27 at 1:30 p.m. Sergeant-At-Arms.
>>House adjourned at 4:23 p.m.
Tuesday February 27, 2001
Pages 133 - 154
Budget Address 4
First Reading of Bills 4
Second Reading of Bills 4
Tuesday February 27, 2001 4
009 - 1(5): Minister Absent from the House (Ng) 4
045 - 1(5): Stone Church at Kugaaruk (Alakannuark) 4
046 - 1(5): Donation from Harris Gallery (Akesuk) 4
033 - 1(3): Timing of Language Week (Nutarak) 4
004 - 1(5): Repulse Bay Time Zone Survey (Alakannuark) 4
Bill 1 - Appropriation Act 2001-2002 - First Reading (Ng) 4
Bill 1 - Appropriation Act 2001-2002 - Second Reading (Ng) 4
Tuesday February 27, 2001  Nunavut Hansard
Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. Ovide Alakannuark, Mr. Donald Havioyak, Mr. David Iqaqrialu, Mr. Enoki Irqittuq, Honourable Peter Kattuk, Honourable Peter Kilabuk, Honourable Kelvin Ng, Mr. Jobie Nutarak, Honourable Kevin O'Brien, Honourable Paul Okalik, Honourable Ed Picco, Mr. Uriash Puqiqnak, Honourable Manitok Thompson, Mr. Hunter Tootoo, Ms. Rebekah Williams.
Speaker (Mr. O'Brien): I would like to ask Mr. Puqiqnak to say the prayer.
Speaker: Ullukkut. Good afternoon.
Budget Address. Mr. Ng.
It is with a sense of pride and optimism that I present the Government of Nunavut’s budget for the 2001-2002 fiscal year.
Pride in our collective accomplishments since our territory’s birth a brief two years ago.
And optimism about our continuing ability to address the many challenges that confront our young territory – challenges that must be overcome if we are to fully realize Nunavut’s promise.
Before outlining our strategy for the coming year, I want to first thank my Honourable Colleagues – Premier Okalik, Cabinet, and Members of the Legislative Assembly – for your hard work and determination to make the Nunavut dream a reality.
I also want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the dedicated employees of the Government of Nunavut who are delivering our policies and programs, and making meaningful improvements in the daily lives of Nunavummiut.
We have all learned much in our first two years.
We have encountered the natural growing pains of any new government, discovering both our strengths and our weaknesses.
We have experienced the satisfaction of determining our own destiny.
Yet, we also have found out there are tremendous responsibilities that come with this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, the annual budget process enables government to outline how it intends to deliver its responsibilities.
It allows us to gauge our progress and assess our ongoing needs.
It establishes a fiscal framework and identifies financial priorities.
It also explains to our constituents how we will use available resources to meet their needs and ensures our actions are in their best interest.
As a democratically elected public government, we are accountable to all of the people we serve.
Members of this Legislative Assembly – indeed, all Nunavummiut – have both a right to know, and a need to understand, that we face an important turning point in Nunavut’s history.
We have made a very good start, but much more needs to be done.
During our first two years we have been fortunate to have a strong fiscal position due largely to savings in salary expenditures.
This year’s budget represents a more realistic picture of the fiscal situation that we face in the long term.
With this in mind, let me assure Honourable Members that this is a fair and responsible budget – designed to strike the right balance between responding to the needs of people in our communities, and demonstrating Nunavut’s capacity to effectively manage our financial resources and govern our own affairs.
The development of this budget plan has been guided by priorities identified by Nunavummiut and principles set out in the Bathurst Mandate.
Our Fiscal Performance
Mr. Speaker, before outlining our plans and priorities for the coming year, I will first briefly review our fiscal performance for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.
As a result of lower than anticipated federal transfers, projected total revenues for 2000-2001 have been revised down to $635.3 million.
On the expenditure side, total budgeted requirements have increased to $667.5 million, or $28.4 million above what we initially allocated to spend.
These additional expenditures were outlined in Supplementary Appropriation Bill Number One, which was approved by this Legislature in October.
In addition, the government’s fiscal position will be impacted by other expenditure adjustments, including the outcome of the current collective bargaining with the Nunavut Employees Union.
Our budget plan for 2000-2001 utilized part of the government’s accumulated operating surplus that was projected at budget time to be $34.1 million.
It now appears that the Government of Nunavut began the year with an accumulated operating surplus of over $61million.
This greater than anticipated operating surplus for the 1999-2000 fiscal year was largely the result of one-time salary savings and increased federal transfers.
Additional information on our first year of operation will be provided in our Public Accounts for 1999-2000 that will be tabled this session.
Mr. Speaker taking these changes into account, we now anticipate an operating deficit of $38.4 million for the 2000-2001 fiscal year.
This deficit will reduce the government’s accumulated operating surplus to $22.8 million.
Our Prospects and Challenges
Now let me move to the prospects and challenges facing our government and the people of Nunavut.
I’ll start by examining our economic situation.
Mr. Speaker, Nunavut has an economy that is unique within Canada.
We have a mix of traditional activities as well as significant economic development opportunities.
Government is the primary driving force in the territory’s economic growth and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.
The creation of our new territorial government has generated unprecedented economic activity and created a large number of jobs in many communities.
Nunavut’s service sector will continue to grow and become a larger part of the economy.
More long-term jobs throughout the territory will result in an increased demand for local services.
As well, some services currently delivered from outside of the territory may be provided within Nunavut as the required skills and trades are developed locally.
As our government matures in the coming years, our challenge is to make sure the benefits of this activity reach as many people in Nunavut as possible.
To ensure that happens, the Government of Nunavut remains fully committed to decentralizing our operations to bring jobs to all parts of the territory.
Mr. Speaker, even as this process unfolds our people must be certain they can depend on the land for their livelihood.
It is vital that we support and strengthen traditional economic activities, such as harvesting.
Community-based and cultural industries such as arts and crafts continue to play a valuable role in Nunavut’s economy.
More than 10 percent of Nunavummiut generate some portion of their income by producing arts and crafts.