I appreciate the Member bringing this particular matter up because it is a frustration that I have experienced since I started in the job. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the authority of the Languages Commissioner is totally open for interpretation. I happen to think that unless the Languages Commissioner has authority to get information to require certain actions, that sort of thing, then it's useless. I'm just like another bureaucrat. Why do we have a Languages Commissioner?
However, I must say that the things that Mr. Patterson has raised are some of the areas where we did not make progress. There are some successes that we have seen in the last year and a half, almost two years now.
In the next annual report I plan to list them more clearly, what are our successes and what are our failures. What matters have we managed to resolve and which ones haven't we?
My relationship with some of the departments is very good. I want to commend, for example, the Department of Personnel. Every single issue we have brought to their attention they have resolved, without saying, no, that's not your authority, without saying we don't think you should be dealing with that matter, or that's an employee matter or anything else. They said, thank you for bringing it to our attention, and they corrected it.
I think there's only one other big issue and it's not just a Department of Personnel issue that needs to be dealt with, although it affects all of the personnel, and that's language of work. But that's a major policy decision, and major interpretation of the act that needs to be done.
My relations with GNWT, I should maybe explain how they've developed. When I was first appointed, I understood that I had powers to conduct investigations. To me, that meant when somebody complained about something, I should talk to the person who complained, I should talk to the other parties involved and get the information first-hand, so that I don't get second-hand stories. I started to do that. It was only a few months after starting to do that, that people noticed there was a Languages Commissioner, and GNWT decided that they wouldn't let their employees talk to the Languages Commissioner and a directive went out to that effect. At that point, I agreed with the official languages unit we establish a protocol that all of my correspondence about complaints or enquiries -- more complaints and enquiries are often just answered over the phone, very quickly. But for complaints, they would all be addressed to the deputy minister of the department and then a copy to the official languages unit, then the deputy minister would see that the investigation was done basically in their department and that I would be provided with a response.
I didn't really want to do that because I didn't feel then that I was conducting the investigation. I think the GNWT is conducting the investigation, and I'm likely to get only one side of the story. I can understand their concern that they don't want me to just talk to any government employee and get all sorts of information that may be inaccurate, or that may not represent the whole story for the department or whatever. But I need to get all of the information, both from the employees and from the overall policy makers, directors or whatever in order to put all the pieces together in order to effectively deal with problems.
I agreed to the protocol because there were two of us in the office, myself and a secretary. As I said, we opened 187 files in the first year. We're now heading up to 400. I can't possibly deal with every single one of those things myself. So I agreed to the protocol and it works quite well. I have to say that, for many things, we manage to resolve them that way. When I find that a department is not responding quickly, I bring it to our monthly meetings with the official languages unit and they go after the department and encourage them to hurry up and respond. We do have that good working relationship. However, in some cases, the departments are taking six or eight months to reply. I don't think that is reasonable. That is another layer of bureaucracy. I should be able to get on the phone and phone the people or write a letter directly to them, get the information, or meet with them, and get the information directly from them and resolve things more quickly. I think, being really efficient in our office and doing things quickly is what it should be for. Otherwise, we have people waiting a long time and still being very frustrated and, in many cases, very angry with government about a situation that could be just a total misunderstanding.
I must explain that, some of the things that we have resolved have been in GNWT's favour. We have done good public relations for GNWT, where we explain to people that, yes, the department is right. You don't have a right to that, or they don't have to provide that. You can try to persuade them, but they don't really have an obligation, because people have unrealistic expectations sometimes about the Official Languages Act. In some cases, we have resolved things and said to the person who was complaining that their complaint is unfounded. That is part of our job, too.
I feel some frustration about trying to deal with some of the complaints and some of the inquiries that I try to make about interdepartments. We have been told, in some cases, the Languages Commissioner cannot have that information because it is confidential or it is not public. I am not sure that we are the public. Perhaps an access to information law will help clarify this. I met with the Department of Justice when they were considering drafting the access to information legislation and said, it would be very helpful to people in positions like myself, commissioners or if the legislature is thinking of establishing an ombudsman position or access to information, it would be very useful within that access to information legislation to clearly state special powers of access to information for people who are granted the power or the authority or the duty to conduct investigations. Otherwise, I really think that the public will start to perceive this particular position as ineffective if we can't get the information that we need to be able to resolve complaints. Then, we are not any better than another citizen knocking on the door. I hope that this office will not come to that.
As I said, I have to say that some of the departments have been extremely cooperative and they are very happy when we bring things to their attention, but there are other matters with which I am really frustrated. The one that you mentioned about the press release. I was frustrated about that last year. Again, I asked them this year, the last two sections of the act just came into effect December 31. I asked again, "Are you going to do a press release, not only to inform the public, but to inform the employees that they have a new obligation?" They said no. So, I did it. I don't think that is really encouraging. The public has said to me and so have government employees, we don't have enough information about official languages. We don't know what is in the act. We don't know how it affects us as employees. What do we have to make available? The guidelines and directives are not there for the departments. I understand that there is a document that will be tabled pulling together some of these directives. I think that is a very positive step. We pushed hard for that. We have asked for regulations. That is very far off in the distance now, I can see. All I can do is recommend. That is the extent of my power in those matters. There is some frustration. I think that we have to also say that we have achieved a number of things that we tried to do and have to give credit to those departments that have cooperated.