In response to that, I would say that one of the things that I wanted to do was to discuss with the Assembly the scope that they envisioned for my office. That is one of the things that I want to discuss. That is why I am saying, if there was a committee that I could discuss those things with on a regular basis, I think that would be beneficial to my office and also to the Members of the Assembly.

This is almost the end of my second year now in this position. The first year, as I said, was very exploratory. We were trying to figure out exactly what was intended. The act is silent in many areas, and so we didn't know what our scope of jurisdiction was. We started investigating many different areas. We have started to narrow down much more. I would appreciate any further input from the MLAs. I would especially appreciate being able to discuss those on a regular basis as they arise with a committee if I could have that sort of rapport. Otherwise, I simply approach individual MLAs or the Speaker, to get an individual's opinion of what they expect from the position, but I think it should be more general direction from the Assembly. I would appreciate more assistance in that area.

The other question that Mr. Zoe asked just before the break was whether I was asking for more resources for official languages. I wanted to reply to that. I am not sure whether Mr. Zoe means that I am asking for more resources for my own office or for official languages to be implemented. Both? All right. We asked for an additional $30,000 in our budget for legal fees because we do many legal consultations in looking at every single complaint that comes in, because we have to be very careful not to say there is no problem here and then discover later on that there is. We have to do very thorough research. We also discovered this clause in the Official Languages Act that says that I have jurisdiction over any other act or regulation relating to the status and use of official languages. That has led us into the interpretation of many other acts and regulations. That is why we require more legal counsel. Other than that, we don't require any other resources for our own office. I think our budget is fairly reasonable. I can't remember exactly how much it is, but it is in the neighbourhood of $350,000 a year. That is for three staff, contracts, travel and supplies. I think, at this point, it is sufficient for our office. We work hard. We do a great deal of work in one year. Even the report we produced, in many cases by a consultant might have cost $300,000.

For the GNWT, I am not saying that they need more resources for the implementation of official languages. There are two things that I should mention. They didn't use the resources they had at their disposal from Secretary of State. If they had used that, then there could have been other implementation that would have been very valuable. The other thing is that there are certain resources that are being allocated for certain activities that groups and individuals have told me in the community are not their priority. They are not meeting their needs. They have other needs that are not being met and they feel that some of those resources could be used in a different way to meet those needs. I am not saying that we need any more money put into official languages, but rather that the money that we do have needs to be allocated in some different ways. One of the examples I mentioned was the amount of translation that is done for Dene languages. People in the communities have said to me, we don't want that. Why are they tying people up in offices translating stuff when we don't want it?

Another one of my recommendations is about the interpretation provided in the Assembly. The Assembly uses much resources, both financial and human, for the provision of services here. For example, if no one is listening to an interpreter and no one is speaking one of those languages on the floor and it is not being broadcast, then who are they interpreting for? To whom are they providing a service?

The Legislative Assembly understood that when the Official Languages Act was implemented. It provides that any person can speak any official language in this House. That meant you had to have an interpreter there at every moment interpreting all the time just in case somebody wanted to use one of those languages. Or if someone from the public came in and they wanted to listen, that they would always be available. Unfortunately, what that has meant is that many people are sitting in booths right now interpreting for nobody. It is not being broadcast, not every day, not every language, not the whole session. There are certain portions of it -- and those portions I am not saying to do away with, but there is 80 per cent of the interpreting that goes on in the Assembly that nobody is listening to. That is a touchy point, I realize that. We are all very proud of the fact that we have full simultaneous interpreting in the Legislative Assembly in all of these languages, but the public is telling me that that is not their priority. There is much that is happening that nobody is listening to. Perhaps, a schedule can be worked out where the language that will be broadcast, the interpreters will be there interpreting. The others can be asked for on demand. You are

still meeting the obligation under the act to provide the service if you make it available on demand.

Just because every department has to communicate with the public in every single official language, certain languages in certain regions, doesn't mean they have to translate every single document they produce and every single letter that they write. But one of my recommendations says that they should have a policy of active offer. That means you let people know that if they ask for it they can have it. Otherwise, we end up putting a lot of resources into things that are not really benefitting the public. They are saying, these are the complaints that I bring to you from the public. They say nobody is listening, why are we...