Is my voice loud enough? I have a cold, so I hope my voice will hold up. To begin with, I would like to express my appreciation to the Legislative Assembly, for appointing me as the first Languages Commissioner of the Northwest Territories under the Official Languages Act. Thanks also to the former Speaker, the honourable Michael Ballantyne, for his patience and guidance, as we all embark on this new adventure. I look forward now to working with the new Speaker, the Honourable Jeannie Marie-Jewell. We have already had a chance to discuss some of the issues which confront us.

I would also like to thank my staff for all their dedication and hard work. In the first year, the office had only two positions, myself and a secretary/administrative assistant, as well as some contract and casual help. Since April 1993, we have had a full-time researcher/writer position, which has proven to be essential. I want to say a big thank you to both Benoit Boutin and Gwen Ohokak for all of their work. All of the administration complaints, inquiries, research and the writing of the annual report, which took 11 months, have been handled by these few individuals. I sincerely appreciate their efforts. Thank you too, to the staff of the Legislative Assembly for their assistance in our administration.

I also want to say thank you to all of the staff of the GNWT, the Legislative Assembly and all of their institutions, who work very hard to implement a very novel piece of legislation. We are breaking new ground in the Northwest Territories. We have eight official languages and aboriginal languages have official status. There are many challenges and we all have to work hard to make it a success. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by the people I have encountered.

My experience as Languages Commissioner, to date, has been very challenging, exciting and demanding. Many questions have arisen that need to be addressed and I am grateful for this opportunity of discussing some of these matters today before the Assembly. I know that the groups and individuals, the constituents of all the MLAs' ridings, who have confided in me in the past two years, are also looking forward to these discussions.

The annual report, which is before the Assembly today, covers the fiscal year 1992-93. We are already beginning to write our second report. The report we are dealing with today raises many issues which came to our attention in only one year. Some of the problems have been satisfactorily resolved, some are ongoing and many issues remain to be discovered.

When I accepted this job, I took it very seriously. I felt perhaps as the European explorers felt when they set out for this new world. I embarked on the "ombuds-ship" to explore unfamiliar territory. I was asked to return from this voyage to report on my discoveries. Well, the first thing I found out was that I was a stranger. Nobody had encountered an ombudsman in the NWT and they did not understand the mission. When I arrived in this new place, I found as many explorers before me, people who had ideas, hopes, expectations and cultures that were different from my own. I had to try to come to an understanding with these people about who I am, what I was asked to do, what powers I have to accomplish my goals, what approaches should be used and what priorities they have. My voyage has lasted almost two years now and I am here to report to you on my findings.

One of the major questions that continues to be perplexing is the role and authority of the Languages Commissioner. Since this position is new, no clear guidelines yet exist for a reporting relationship. Who should the Languages Commissioner report to, other than to the Assembly through an annual report? That is required in the act. Who provides direction to the Languages Commissioner on a daily basis? Who assesses the performance of the Languages Commissioner to determine whether or not it is satisfactory? What powers does the Languages Commissioner have, especially with regard to investigations? Since the Official Languages Act is silent in these matters, there is a lot of room for interpretation.

I have had to confront all of these questions and develop solutions that I felt were appropriate. I see my role in very broad terms. The NWT Interpretation Act, section 10, states that, "Every enactment shall be construed as being remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objectives." I have, therefore, taken a very broad and liberal interpretation of my mandate, so as not to impose limitations on myself or on those who will follow me. I want to ensure that the Languages Commissioner, now and always, will have at his or her disposal all possible means for resolving problems quickly, effectively and fairly. The effectiveness of the Languages Commissioner can only be ensured by the exercise of sufficient authority.

I mentioned that the Official Languages Act is silent with regard to specific powers of the Languages Commissioner. Section 20(1) directs the Languages Commissioner to "take all actions and measures within her authority, with a view of ensuring recognition of the rights, status and privileges of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this act in the administration of the affairs of government institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of the aboriginal languages in the territories." But what "actions and measures" are within this authority? Other ombudsman legislation in Canada and other jurisdictions usually spells out these powers very clearly, the power to hold public hearings, demand documents, subpoena witnesses, or it specifically incorporates provisions from another act, such as the Public Inquiries Act. Since our Official Languages Act does not provide this clear direction, many questions have arisen about the Languages Commissioner's authority. It is up to this legislature to clarify these powers.

Another major issue is accountability. I know that it is important to the Members and to the public that the Languages Commissioner be accountable. But it is also very important to me that I do not compromise the independence of this position. Without accountability, the Languages Commissioner risks losing the trust of the Members for whom she or he works, and the confidence of the public, whose concerns she or he is responsible for representing. But, as Daniel Jacoby, citizens' protector for the province of Quebec, stated at the national ombudsmans' conference, which I attended in Toronto in November, "Without independence, the ombudsman does not exist." I am conscious of the need for both accountability and independence, and you will see that my first recommendation asks this Assembly to establish a standing committee on official languages, to which I may report as required.

Just one more comment about these two aspects of my job. If the Members limit too much the powers of the ombudsman, they risk losing the confidence of their constituents, who expect that this position was established to cut through the everyday red tape that all citizens encounter in trying to resolve problems with their government. And we must all admit that there are always some problems to be resolved. People are happy that this legislature saw fit to establish such a position, and are now relying on all Members of this Assembly to reconfirm their commitment. But people also want to see a process for accountability, and therein lies the delicate balance.

People have commented that they are pleased that the Legislative Assembly has begun discussing official languages more often. The comments I have received from the Members' constituents have indicated that they feel it is time to talk, time to address their concerns about official languages, to try to find effective solutions and to implement changes as quickly as possible. My annual report clearly shows that despite all of our efforts, all minority languages in the NWT, all aboriginal languages and French, are under stress, and in almost every case, declining.

I am directed by the Official Languages Act to make recommendations to the Assembly. I have made 30 recommendations in my first annual report.

I have made these recommendations based on the issues NWT residents have brought to my attention. In presenting them, I have tried to fulfil my mandate as I see it: to promote all the official languages; to encourage linguistic groups to work together; to create, among NWT residents and all other individuals, groups and institutions that deal with our residents, a greater understanding of and appreciation for official language groups and their needs and aspirations; to contribute to the preservation, development and enhancement of all our official languages; and, to assist people in resolving their problems as quickly as possible, so that everyone clearly understands that the implementation of official languages in not a waste of time or money, but a right by which each individual may express himself or herself through his or her own culturally appropriate medium.

I would now be happy to discuss the report with you and to determine how the recommendations can be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe that this is one of the forms of accountability. Since you recall, two years ago, I believe all Members were involved in the process of determining how we would establish this office and how we would choose the Commissioner. I would like to encourage all Members of the committee to ask any questions they would like to address to the Languages Commissioner. Mr. Pudlat.

General Comments

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Languages Commissioner, for reporting to the committee. In the report it states that you have travelled to some areas to deal with languages. When you were travelling in the 1993-94 year, in one area it said you have travelled to the south nine times. I would just like to find out why you had to travel out of the NWT that many times, as a Commissioner of Official Languages. I would just like to get a response to that question. Thank you.

Thanks very much, Mr. Pudlat. I would like to ask Members that when they address a question, they address it through the chair so that we don't have it to and fro between the witness and the Members. So could you respond to that question, please?

I would just like to ask the Member if he is referring to a specific document so I can address the specific trips that he's talking about.

Mr. Pudlat, the issue is do you have any specific travel in mind that you would like the Commissioner to respond to? Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the report it states that the Commissioner had to do a lot of travelling to do with languages. My question is, when the Commissioner travels outside of the NWT it states you travelled outside the Northwest Territories nine times. When you have to travel out of the NWT, I would just like to find out why you have to travel out of the NWT for what reasons? Is my question clear? Thank you.

Ms. Harnum.

(Translation) I will be speaking in Inuktitut. I understand your question but I would just like to get a clarification as to where it states or in which report it is written about the nine times I travelled outside of the NWT. But to answer your question, for example, I went to the Yukon and I also went to Ottawa. I travelled to Ottawa three times. I had to meet with the Commissioner for Languages in Canada and his officials. I met with them to work with them and find out what I can do in our area and I just met with them to deal with the different languages. We were dealing with the acts because some of the acts that we deal with here are used in Canada, and the different provinces. Those are some of the reasons I had to travel to Ottawa. I went over to Ottawa and met with the Secretary of State and the Treasury Board because I was trying to find out how the agreement is dealt with. I met with the Treasury Board with the federal government. I went over to make a presentation about the official languages in the NWT and discussed the acts. This was before the regulations came out.

Do you have any further questions, Mr. Pudlat? All right, Mr. Zoe.

Ms. Harnum.

Yes, I think one of my roles is to do promotion about official languages. By that, I understand that to mean to help people understand why language is important to people, what sort of problems people might encounter if they don't happen to speak the major language of communication, English or French or whichever community they happen to be in. Part of my role is to help people understand the difficulties that people can run into, any sort of language problems that they might encounter. Particularly, if they are NWT residents. One of the things that we should be aware of in the Territories is that, because we do have an Official Languages Act, with eight official languages, and we are the only place in North America that has official aboriginal languages, many people invite us... I have been invited to Germany. I was supposed to

go to Phoenix last week. I have been invited to a number of places to speak. I didn't go to those places, but I am invited on a regular basis to go to speak about our Official Languages Act, to explain how we can manage to implement all of those official languages and why it is important to do that. I see that as part of my role, not just to help people in the NWT understand, but to help other people outside, in other parts of Canada or the world, understand the importance of language and why it is important to have official status for these languages and what it means.

Does that help explain what is meant by a broad interpretation, Mr. Zoe?

I wonder if the Commissioner could respond to the charge that there is a lack of focus and you are trying to be all things to all people.

Yes, one of the things that we did say in the report is that during the first year we were trying to figure out what our role was, too, and I think everybody was. We still are. I mean, it's still not perfectly crystal clear, and part of that is because of the legislation which leaves so many grey areas that it's difficult to know where my authority leads me, but I did say in the report that we had dealt with a lot of things that were probably not within our jurisdiction. During the first year, we did that to encourage people to start contacting the office but then we started to refer them to departments. If the department was responsible, we would say we won't handle this. You go to the department. If you can't resolve it, then you can come back to us, and more and more we are doing that now, telling people you go to the department to resolve it.

In that first year that this report covers, we opened 187 files. Those were people that were calling every day for information or with complaints and it does lead us all over the map. We had to examine every single one of those complaints or enquiries to decide whether or not: number one, it was within my jurisdiction; number two, whether it did relate to the status and use of official languages; number three, whether or not there was any violation of the Official Languages Act or any other act or regulation relating to the status and use of official languages, because I have jurisdiction over those, too. That one led us into the Education Act, the Jury Act, the Mental Health Act, the Summary Conviction Procedures Act, and many other acts that relate to the status and use of official languages. That is my mandate. It is in the act, and it has been a Pandora's box, to say, for interpretation purposes, it has led us into a huge mess, a huge area where even in my first year, it wasn't clear. We had to spend a lot of time defining exactly what our jurisdiction was in the office.

It is true. I think in the first year we were not focused. We were trying to find out all the programs and services that are out there, are the problems and what groups exist and what they are doing. It was an information year for us. You have to realize when I walked into this position, I didn't even have a pencil. We had to establish the whole office with furniture and computers, hiring and job descriptions, budget planning and all those kinds of things, as well as handle all of these complaints and enquiries on a daily basis. So, in the first year, it was a big process of discovery, and we wanted to encourage people to contact the office and they did. Without a major publicity campaign in the first year, we opened 187 files.

When people call, we have to take every enquiry or complaint seriously and really look into it. There were a number of them that on the surface I thought, this is nothing, it's not within my jurisdiction or it doesn't really relate to the Official Languages Act, and when we researched it further we found out that it did or that it related to one of these other acts or regulations regarding the status and use of official languages. So, perhaps in the first year that is why we didn't seem to be too focused. Maybe that explains part of it.

I think another part of it, too, is that I was on my own. I didn't have directions, so it really was a year of trying it out for myself and in that first year I didn't meet with any of the MLAs other than a few of them. I sent letters to everybody and asked for input. I met with a few. I didn't have a committee to ask direction from, so I think if there is some lack of direction, part of it, too, is that it's not really clear to me through the act exactly what is expected of the position. That is how I would explain it.

Thank you very much. So all that time, it was sorting out the mess, I suppose.

Yes.

Okay. Mr. Zoe.

I don't think there was a new question there, Mr. Zoe. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to tell the Languages Commissioner that I am glad that she has gone through that whole review with regard to conflict of interest, in regard to relationship to a Member. If I did cause any embarrassment, I am sorry, but this is an area which is touchy. Like you said, we don't know where to draw the line when it comes to conflict, too. I will try to balance my question with regard to your independence and your accountability too. A newspaper article has come up and it is a French newspaper. It has been translated. I won't go into the details of the circumstances of the article itself, but I would like to ask why you chose to go to Saskatchewan as opposed to NWT, hosted by the French community. Whether or not you find that you do have jurisdictions for Saskatchewan with regard to performing your duty, is that one of your broad interpretations?

Ms. Harnum.

First, I would like to say to the Member that I was not upset by the conflict of interest inquiry that was conducted last year. I think it is one of the things that has to have been addressed with this position. It is a new position. There has never been one like this before, and the reporting relationship, even at this point, is still not clear. It was something that had to be addressed. I didn't see it as a personal affront.

With regard to the particular incident that Mr. Gargan is making reference to, the French newspaper carried an article that said that I had cancelled their engagement here in Yellowknife and that I decided to go to Saskatchewan instead. I cannot say the report was inaccurate. It was incomplete. It didn't have all of the details that I think would have helped people understand what was behind the decision. My engagement in Yellowknife was to read a speech in French for about ten minutes to open the youth Parliament. It had nothing to do with official languages. I wasn't asked to speak about official languages. I didn't write the speech. It was simply to read a speech to open their Parliament. I didn't consider that that was as important as dealing with an issue involving... This is difficult for me to discuss because it verges on breaching confidentiality about an issue that I am dealing with. It was a problem that was brought to my attention when I was in Ottawa.

So, I decided to go to that engagement. Unfortunately, it was cancelled the day after the French Youth Parliament, so I never went to Saskatoon either, but I do have a letter of invitation to come back again to discuss it because the problem still exists. I do see that as part of my mandate. If there are NWT students whose education is paid for by this government and they have to go to other institutions in the south, if they are having problems because of language difficulties and if I can be of some assistance in resolving those problems, I do see that as part of my mandate. That is why I made that decision to be involved in that particular issue.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan.

Under the NWT Act, sections 22 and 23 refer to that in which you could let go the issue itself for whatever circumstance or else you also could refer it to the department that might be able to handle the situation. I don't know where you draw the line with regard to your jurisdiction. Another thing that you did say is that, under the languages, too...The letter you wrote to me back in March of 1992, states that the native people just asked if the Federation of Franco-Tenoise are responsible for their own languages, just as the Dene Cultural Institute and the Inuit Cultural Institute has this mandate. Where do you draw the line, then, with regard to those interest groups that have the responsibility of their own languages and your responsibility?

It is your jurisdiction, really. The question of how broadly you have interpreted your mandate, this seems to be the issue.

When I was appointed, it was suggested that I could establish an advisory council. I have taken certain steps in the last two years to address that and it is in my report. It is one of the things that I need some guidance on again, at this point, to see what exactly the Assembly had in mind when they suggested an advisory council. We wrote 115 letters, for example, to try and get input from all of the native organizations, hamlets, divisional boards, and all sorts of different groups, boards, agencies and MLAs. In the absence of having that advisory council, right now, I make it a point of meeting with major groups that represent official languages, such as Dene Cultural Institute, Inuit Cultural Institute and the French Federation. I try and meet with all other groups that invite me to come, if I can, or at least to be in touch with them so that I know what their priorities and concerns are. My mandate, as I see it, in relation to those groups, is that I consult with them as I am required to do under the act, to

consult with representatives. I do that on a regular basis. I see them as providing me with the information I need from the language communities, so I can address those and bring them to the Assembly's attention. That is how I see my relationship to them. They provide a great deal of feedback on how they feel about the government's implementation of official languages. In each community, they are feeling the effect of it. So they can bring that information back to me and I can pass it on to the Assembly or to the government department responsible.

Mr. Gargan.

Thank you for the answer. It seems to me that the Languages Commissioner is quite interested in meeting with groups that represent certain linguistic groupings. I find this case, with regard to the Saskatchewan situation, yet you choose not to meet with these groups. You are talking about the Saskatchewan situation as an individual issue or a group issue, but why did you think, in this case, that it was more important to meet in Saskatchewan as opposed to a group of Francophone people who requested your presence?

Thank you. Ms. Harnum, you were presumably invited to address one group because you were the Languages Commissioner and because of your great interest in various language groups, but you had a conflict because you had another group in the south who you chose to spend your time with. How did you decide that this was a greater priority?

As I mentioned before, at the French Youth Parliament, I was going to be speaking in another official Language, in French. That was the limit of the involvement of that particular engagement with official languages. I wasn't asked to speak about official languages. I wouldn't have even mentioned that there was an Official Languages Act in the Northwest Territories with eight official languages. I wasn't asked to discuss, mention, comment on or participate in any discussions about official languages. To me, that was not as important as dealing with a problem where students were having language problems that I felt maybe I would be able to help resolve. It was as a result of the presentation that I made in Ottawa and the content of that presentation that I was invited to Saskatchewan. They said this is information that we think would really help our faculty to understand what is going on. I felt that was more important.

Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have you met with the group in Saskatchewan?

Ms. Harnum.

No, I haven't yet. They have extended an invitation to me. The meeting was postponed. I was invited to be there on the 14 and 15 of November. They cancelled it at the last minute and told me they would re-book it. I am expecting to either go there or maybe I will take Mr. Gargan's suggestion and suggest that someone from the department go there. It was particularly as a result of the presentation I made in Ottawa. That was why they had invited me to go there.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan.

I might be confused now, Mr. Chairman. The urgency was to address a situation in Saskatchewan. Is the urgency still there? Does it still exist? Couldn't you have addressed this group in the Northwest Territories prior to dealing with the issue at that time? If you are going to reschedule it, I don't know what the urgency was at that time. Has it been resolved since?

Ms. Harnum.

I just received a letter from them saying that the situation does still exist. They still would like me to come and discuss the problem. The other thing I should point out is I do have many invitations. During that particular month, I had a number of other meetings with Francophone organizations. I don't make it a habit of doing this. This was one particular invitation that I cancelled, which was not a high priority for me because I was not being asked to talk about official languages. That was not a very important one for me as far as what my mandate is. You will see, from the list of duty travel invitations and speaking engagements that I tabled in December, that during the month of November I had a number of other meetings with Francophone organizations. If I wasn't able to attend, I made sure that someone else from my office was there.

I don't want to interject myself too much in the discussions, but the issue that has been raised is when you undertake to do something, inside another jurisdiction...You have taken a broad interpretation of your mandate as the Official Languages Commissioner, who works under an act, which applies to this jurisdiction. So the Member is wondering how you make a priority of something over which you cannot have control through the act? In our own system, we have a government that can control things on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. If you go to Alberta or Saskatchewan and become involved in language issues over which our act, and the powers we have as a Legislature, have no control, why is it that you consider this to be part of our jurisdiction? That is what I interpret to be the issue that has been raised by Members.

As I mentioned, the NWT Official Languages Act has clause 21(1) that says, "The Languages Commissioner shall investigate any reasonable complaint made to the Languages Commissioner..." and it goes on, "...if any of those complaints that deal with the status of an official language was not or is not being recognized, any provision of any act or regulation relating to the status and use of official languages was not or is not being complied with, or the spirit and intent of this act was not or is not being complied with." When I look at that, there are language provisions even in the Education Act and the administration of the affairs of the Department of Education, as it says in another section, deals with students going from here to other institutions. I guess I do take a very broad interpretation of that. If NWT students are funded by this government to go to another institution and they are having trouble there, if I can help them in some way, then I will, to promote an understanding by those other organizations. I approached it as an education issue and it was a language issue arising out of education. These were students funded by the Department of Education. That is why I felt if I could help

resolve a situation and have students avoid some sort of failure, that would be something I should try to accomplish if I could.

We are discussing Tabled Document 11-12(5). We have spent a long time discussing a broad interpretation of the role of the Commissioner. This is what we are still talking about, which is what the Commissioner opened with. Is there anything else that Members would like to raise? We are still dealing with this one issue of how broad this job should be interpreted. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, the article from November 11 is with regard to Francophone Parliament that involves a large number of groups from western Canada. The invitation to her, I would believe, is out of respect for the office of the Languages Commissioner. I would be privileged if I was in that position to meet with such a group.

You also referred to section 20, but if you also refer to section 22, you do have several options and the Commissioner may refuse to investigate. Section 23 says that "Any matter should be referred to the government institute concerned for consideration, if necessary action." So you had other options. I don't know why you didn't exercise those other options to meet with a group that represents all of western Canada to deal with one particular issue. That's my question. I still don't know how far you indicate your jurisdiction, but you did use your broad interpretation. But you also had other options.

Ms. Harnum.

I don't know what else I can say. I just felt it was important for me to try to deal with the problem situation involving language. That was more important than trying to deal with something where I was not even asked to mention the word official languages. Yes, I was invited as Languages Commissioner because I speak French. But I was not asked to deal with official languages in any way. Other than the fact that I was going to speak French there, it really wasn't promotion or increasing anybody's awareness or anything else.

(Microphone turned off)...answer the question now to the best of your ability in several different ways. Have you finished, Mr. Gargan? Okay, is there anybody else who would like to pose some questions on the basis of this report, or any other tabled documents for the official languages? Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to discuss this important area. Mr. Chairman, I sense, reading the report, quite a degree of frustration -- there is moderate language here but I think I can read between the lines -- with government departments. Just a few quick examples. Page 66, despite the Languages Commissioner encouraging the GNWT to do a press release to inform the public and its employees about section 14(2) on services to the public being proclaimed, the GNWT decided not to announce the coming into force of this section. This is not an encouraging sign, the report said.

Later the report says, the Languages Commissioner has also pressed the GNWT to come up with some working definitions for significant demand and other phrases and service levels within the act. No success. There's been a suggestion referred to on page 68 that, official languages should be used on signs in Yellowknife. It has not been accepted. There have been a number of meetings to get the GNWT to draft regulations, and the report notes a reluctance to make those changes. And there are other invitations. With that background in mind, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Languages Commissioner to describe, just generally, how are her relations with government departments? Are they as strained as I seem to detect even from the moderate tone of the report?

That's an invitation to explain several of your frustrations. Go ahead.

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.

Thank you, Ms. Harnum. That is a broad question. You have quite a few examples of difficulties. Mr. Patterson, do you have any further questions?

Yes, I will try to be brief, Mr. Chairman. I think the Languages Commissioner has answered my question when she said she was really frustrated, at least with some departments. I take it, then, that even though the protocol has been agreed to somewhat reluctantly about working through the official languages unit and the deputy ministers receiving complaints, recommendation 5 in the report is really asking the legislature to overrule that protocol and reconsider that practice. That is how I understand recommendation 5. It says, "consider the current GNWT practice," but if the Languages Commissioner was satisfied with the current GNWT practice, then she wouldn't have recommended that it be reviewed. If I understand it correctly, there is a frustration there with that. This protocol was worked out through the official languages unit, which reports to the Premier. Has she not thought of sitting down with the Premier, who is responsible for this area, seeking a meeting and just saying, I am having certain frustrations with certain departments. Others are all right. Can you fix it up? We are a small jurisdiction. Would that not be a way to tackle some of these day to day frustrations that I am sensing in the report and in the response to my questions? Thank you.

Ms. Harnum.

I did have two meetings with the Government Leader. At both of those meetings, she referred me to the assistant deputy minister responsible for official languages and

said that she was responsible for meeting with me on a regular basis and that is where our concerns would be addressed. I meet with them, now, once a month and we do address all of these things. A couple of months ago, I asked for this protocol to be reviewed and we decided to postpone it. They asked that we postpone it. We discussed it very briefly at the last meeting, but they said, because I was coming to the Assembly that, perhaps, many of these things would be discussed here and so, perhaps, it would be better to wait until after this discussion, so I agreed to that.

I will explain in a letter to them all of the reasons I have reservations about the existing protocol. We do meet on a regular basis and try to address these things. Sometimes they are addressed more quickly and resolved. Others seem to be taking a long time. This particular one about my being able to talk directly to government staff rather than going through deputy ministers, and that process, I know that the government has asked the deputy ministers to comment on that existing protocol, because we have been using it for a while now. They have asked them to comment so, with their comments and mine, we can look at it and come up with something more workable. I am afraid that I have to be true to the legislation. It says that the Languages Commissioner will conduct the investigation. Given the resources that we have, myself and now two other staff, we still have to be very much involved in those investigations and not just send off a letter and expect somebody else to do the work for us and then send it back to us. I have been dissatisfied with that method of investigation. I don't feel that I get all of the information that I need. Sometimes, I will get a letter back and it raises more questions and I have to write another letter and wait another few months. It is a very long, drawn out process.

I think GNWT is willing to sit down and review this protocol. They had agreed to review it after six months, but it is over a year now that we have been using that protocol. It is on our agenda for the next meeting. Hopefully, as a result of these discussions in the Assembly, there will be some better direction. Part of it revolves around what authorities the Languages Commissioner has to conduct investigations. There are no specific provisions in the act and that is part of where the problem arises. We may have two very different interpretations of what those powers and authorities are. If I think that I have the authority to contact government employees and the government doesn't so they tell their employees not to talk to me, how do we resolve that on an everyday basis? Without any clear direction or any clear definition of powers in the act, it could go either way. I suppose the only other way, if it is not clear in the act, is to go to court to ask for an interpretation of what the authority is if we can't come to an agreement.

Thank you. I will try to keep my question short because I am sure other Members want to say things. I guess what I am getting out of this discussion is the Languages Commissioner is talking about power and authority, and that without authority the position is useless. I see in this week's paper an ad for an invitation for proposals for legal counsel services for the commission which talks about legal action against the Government of the Northwest Territories. I would just like to say that it seems like we are headed for sort of a confrontational approach. It is honey and vinegar, I guess. I am not sure that those of us who worked on this provision had in mind using public money to sue our own government. I want to say that I would hope that the persuasive approach would be sought in every case and that confrontation and litigation should be avoided at all possible costs. I know it says in the report that it is a last resort but I am gathering from the answers here that there is a high frustration level and that this present protocol is not satisfactory. This has been an outstanding issue for a long time and now a lawyer is going to be hired. Being a lawyer, I want to warn you that is dangerous because they love to litigate but maybe it will be only the lawyers that will profit if we have litigation on this new legislation. I would just like to urge the Languages Commissioner -- and she can comment if she wishes -- to work more, even though it may be frustrating, on developing a cooperative relationship with the government rather than forcing a cooperative relationship with legal arguments. I like to think our government is small enough that we should be able to do that and I guess I am a little bit alarmed that we seem to be gearing up for a fight here. Thank you.

There is no question there, but if the Commissioner would like to comment on the statement from Mr. Patterson, then go ahead.

I should point out that right from the very first couple of months, our office has always had legal counsel. This is not a new development. As I said, when I get a complaint I review it very carefully to see if there is a violation of the Official Languages Act or any other act. Let me make it clear that the fact that we are advertising for legal counsel contract does not mean that we are planning legal action against the government. It simply means that we are renewing legal counsel contract, which we have always had, for the third year because I need opinions on the act all the time.

As I said, I think there are a lot of departments that have been extremely cooperative. There are only some that are not really willing to accept some of the initiatives that we suggest. If I feel that the department is reluctant, or if they are not willing to try to implement suggestions that we make, or deal with problems that arise, and if the only person I can talk to is the deputy minister, that makes it really difficult for me to get everybody's side of the story and see if there is somebody who is not supportive or whatever, to try and find out who that person is or if they are working under a misunderstanding or whatever. In a couple of instances, the deputy minister has said to me, go ahead and talk to the people in my department about this particular issue. When they said that, we resolved it immediately and they said thank you.

I must say, if you look at the section on complaints and enquiries in chapter five you will see that we dealt with a lot of issues. Many of them were resolved. We do sit down and talk about things a lot and we do resolve a lot of things.

I think one of the things we need to do in our next report, as I mentioned, is to list all of the things we have accomplished and all of the things the GNWT has agreed, yes, this is a good idea, we'll implement it, because we have had those successes. But on some of the major issues that go on and on and on, those are the ones where I feel more frustration. I don't look at court action as a solution at all. I don't want it to come to that. I don't anticipate that it will ever have to, but it is one of the things that legal counsel has to be aware of if they are going to work for our office, that the possibility is there. Even for the federal languages commission, they've existed for 25 years, they've only been to court I believe six times or something, not very many times. It is only when an institution absolutely refuses after all sorts of negotiations and there are violations of the act, that they would ever go that route. We have been able, I think, just in the short time that we have had the office, to negotiate a number of settlements for complainants and issues that have to be resolved. So we do use that approach as much as possible, but there are still a lot of outstanding issues.

I believe, Ms. Harnum, that the Member has raised the issue of hiring legal help because of a statement that you made that through this protocol. We are, in a sense, in violation of our own act which gives you power to conduct investigations. You, yourself, made a comment that we are in fact in violation of our own legislation. Is that correct?

Yes, the way I understand it, the way that the legislation is written, it says the Languages Commissioner should conduct investigations. Now, for the reasons I explained that there are only two people in our office and we could not possibly do all the investigations, I agreed to the original protocol. In some cases that works well so I don't have a problem with it. It is in the cases where it doesn't work, and I can't go any farther, that I have a problem with it because then I can't resolve it. Hopefully this legislature can provide some direction on what authority they mean for the Languages Commissioner. When they said conduct investigations, what did they mean? I don't think it should be simply up to GNWT, to the Executive, to decide what those powers should be. I think it should be up to the whole Legislature to decide what those powers should be. So I was not indicating that I am heading towards court to try to sort that out. It has been done in other jurisdictions where they have had disputes about it, but I hope I won't have to go that route.

I did not mean to interrupt the Member but, Mr. Patterson, do you have any further comments? Okay, anybody else then on the issue of the official languages report, "Meeting the Challenge" and other tabled documents related to official languages? Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. The office of the Languages Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly is an important one. Just going through the documents of the previous years, the first annual report of the Languages Commissioner, the executive summary hits on some key areas. There are a number of recommendations that were made there by the Languages Commissioner. Some of these recommendations are quite substantial and they are important for the development of the official languages in the Northwest Territories.

In other workings of the Legislative Assembly, we have standing committees that look at certain problems and develop recommendations on these problems, how to solve them and what the government should do about it. These recommendations are introduced in this Legislative Assembly in forms of motions. Therefore it gives direction to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to do work on these recommendations. However, in the Languages Commissioner's case there were a number of recommendations made last year which do not have a standing committee to report to or a body to report to so these recommendations could be put into the House and, therefore, we've given direction to the Legislative Assembly to deal with these important recommendations. There is something missing there, as far as I'm concerned, that the Languages Commissioner does not have a body or a structure to deal with.

We noticed that when we were dealing with it in the Legislative Assembly in the Standing Committee on Finance where the budget of the Languages Commissioner is attached to the Legislative Assembly. However, the Languages Commissioner is not required to be there to defend her budget, therefore we were not able to question her on how she could expend the funds that are going to be requested in the Assembly. So there is something there in the mechanism of the Legislative Assembly when it comes down to the Languages Commissioner.

In the Languages Commissioner's opening remarks, she also made mention of the fact that she makes recommendation to establish a standing committee on official languages, which the Languages Commissioner may report to as required. So there is a recommendation by the Languages Commissioner to form a standing committee on official languages. In her first annual report, she made mention of that as well. In there it was not specifically a standing committee on official languages, she also indicated that the Legislative Assembly establish a standing committee on official languages or assign this responsibility to an existing committee, and that the Languages Commissioner and official language unit report regularly to this committee, and that the annual report of the Languages Commissioner to be referred to this committee for review. This is one of the recommendations that was made last year. In her opening remarks she also makes reference to that. I think I would agree with that. I'm not too certain whether it be a standing committee on official languages. It should be an existing body, perhaps, that she could report to. That way her recommendations could be introduced into the House, made into a motion, and then the Legislative Assembly could take action on it, giving direction to the government to take on the direction that the Commissioner sees to be important.

I'm just making comments on what I think should happen, Mr. Chairman, in this area. If the Languages Commissioner would like to elaborate on those points that I'm making, I certainly will be interested to hear what the Languages Commissioner has to say about this. Thank you.

No real question as such, but the whole issue of the independence of the commissioner and the need to have some relationship to some body. Maybe you would like to comment on that.

The reason that I had put that particular recommendation as my first recommendation is that it's the most important one to me. I know that the whole process of accountability of this office has been an issue. I know the whole issue of independence of this office has been an issue. I don't know if all of those things can be resolved in full session like this, I think it would take a long time. It would be a long discussion. There are 30 recommendations, that's only the first

one. I think there are many things in here that are not made up from my head, these are recommendations that people from the communities have given to me to bring to the Assembly. I think the public wants to see some sort of accountability, too.

But the other thing too, is that they want to see that the Assembly deals with official languages more often. By having a standing committee that would deal with them more often, I think the public would feel more confident that it really was a priority. Some of the comments that I get from the public are that the Assembly doesn't discuss official languages very often. They were happy when the report was tabled because then it was discussed.

There was the special committee in 1990 and other reports, but it's not discussed very often and they would prefer to see it addressed on a more regular basis. For myself, I want the input from the Members, other than in this type of setting. I want input from the Members about what they expect from our office. It was established to serve the Legislative Assembly. Occasionally, I will meet with Members or discuss matters with them individually, but not as a group. So I'm getting each Member's direction or suggestion, but not really the direction of the Assembly and the direction that they want me to take collectively. So I would very much appreciate having that sort of committee to discuss a lot of issues.

Also, if I do find myself in a position where I'm frustrated with that we think there's something the GNWT should be doing and they're not, they don't want to or whatever, then the Members can also bring that to their attention as well, instead of me just doing it by myself. I think that's very important, that they don't think it's all just coming from me. I just happen to be the spokesperson, but these are not just my own initiatives that I just drummed up myself. So I need that kind of support too when I'm trying to accomplish things on behalf of the public who are bringing them to my attention.

Thanks, very much, Ms. Harnum. Any other issues, Mr. Antoine, since you were the last speaker?

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the other recommendations that was made last year, the last one, number 30, deals with the GNWT to assist non-governmental organizations and groups with developing and delivering services and programs to the public in official languages, both by assisting them with planning, interpreting, translating and such services, ensuring that all available funding is allocated for such community projects. The point I would like to emphasize is "all available funding." This one here is quite important to me because I speak my own language and I associate with other groups other than the Legislative Assembly in meetings in the Deh Cho Tribal Council meetings. Any time there is a gathering of aboriginal groups, we have elders who don't speak English very well, and they have to be full participants in all discussions. Therefore, there is a need for interpreting and translating. Many times, the meetings are regarded as very important, so these meetings are done in spite of the costs. In many cases, there are cost overruns in dealing with interpretation and translation. I know this is a fact.

When the Languages Commissioner reports that there are large sums of funds unexpended and have been returned to the federal government by the government, I know that organizations such as the Dene Nation have requested the government for funding to help them in their meetings and assemblies. Much of it, in cases of interpretation and translation, is refused. Then, we are told that the government has turned back huge sums of money, although the native groups are told that there is no money. That causes me much concern, whether this government is really committed as much as they say they are to helping aboriginal languages.

When this Language Act was first passed, it was a major support to aboriginal people in the north. Everyone who I am familiar with was very pleased with the fact that this government has recognized aboriginal languages as official languages. I think it is a great thing we have done to preserve our language. However, when funds are requested...For instance, I know that the Dene Cultural Institute is requesting funding to help further develop the Dene languages. They are still struggling and still looking for funds to help them do that. I know the government is spending much money with their own language bureau in translating policies and regulations. At the same time, the Dene language is a thorough language. Our language has helped our elders. Every year, our elders are passing on and we are losing it. Almost every day, we are losing this. At the same time, funds are turned back to the federal government. The majority of the money is focused on the application of the act in terms of interpreting policies and regulations. The focus is not on preserving the language. The focus seems to be on abiding by the act according to the regulations by interpreting the policies and regulations. The focus is not on capturing the oral history that we are losing every day. I would like to ask you a question about that recommendation, and about my comments are with regard to government assisting non-government organizations and groups. What is the intent of that in your recommendation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Ms. Harnum.

That particular recommendation was made to me by many non-government organizations. There is a perception by the public that the government monopolizes language services. They feel that the Official Languages Act is perceived to be a very good piece of legislation. People appreciate what it was meant to do. What has happened now is that so many human resources and dollars are used by government departments in trying to deliver services. For example, all of the written translation that is done for Dene languages, and nobody can read it, that those people who want to speak their language in the communities have no resources. The government has monopolized so much of that money. I am not saying that from my own point of view. This is what the public has told me to say. Those organizations are extremely frustrated. They feel that there are many things the GNWT is doing with official languages money that is not meeting a need. Some needs are being met and that is great. But we really have to look at how we are allocating the resources. I think that is what this whole issue is about. We have so many dollars and so many people. That is all. Are we really meeting the need?

Mr. Zoe asked me, we didn't seem to have a focus, he said, in the report in the first year. One of our major focuses was research. We wanted to find out what research had been done in all the languages and bringing it together. That is what chapter one is. That was about a year and a half worth of research. We didn't want to just say that languages are dying. We wanted to know what all the studies are that have been done. What information do we have? Since people have now seen this report, many other people have come forward to us and said, we did a study in our own community on fluency and literacy, or in our own region, would you like that information, too? It is more detailed. We did it just with our own people and we know who speaks and to what level. That sort of thing. Now, we know of more research. But, all of the information in chapter one says the languages are declining. We have all of these dollars, all of these human resources, we have an Official Languages Act and we are sliding backwards. That is what the native organizations have said to me. We have all of this money going into all of these official languages, but where are we heading? We are still losing it. That is why their concern is that the government really look closely at how they are using the resources and decide whether or not they are meeting the needs.

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the situation with the trip to Saskatoon, I am not too clear whether the trip was necessary or justifiable until I am able to determine what the trip was for. Under the Official Languages Act, there is a section with regard to the kind of information you could devolve. I would have to look at the broad way of asking you this. Was your trip necessary because a student had a complaint against a certain government department, or was it by virtue of this student being funded by this government that you had to make a trip? I am wondering if those are some of the reasons you decided to go to Saskatchewan, rather than attend this gathering of Francophone Parliament, and I guess why you accepted their invitation in the first place.

I should make it clear that I didn't travel to Saskatoon. I never did make it to Saskatoon, but I didn't travel down to Edmonton on my way to Saskatoon just for that particular issue. I was on my way back from Ottawa and Toronto, from the linguistics rights conference and the ombudsmen's conference, which I had attended. I was on my way back and I stopped in Edmonton, instead of coming back to Yellowknife for this other ten minute reading. If I had done that, I would have had to buy another ticket to go down to Saskatoon and back, which I didn't think was really worth it. But if I could do it while I was down there, I felt it would be better. I would have saved having to buy another ticket from here to Saskatoon and back. So that was part of my decision, looking at whether I should buy another ticket to go there to discuss this problem. So I didn't make a special trip just for that.

I am not questioning the trip itself, I'm just trying to find the justification for making that special effort to get there. In order to determine whether tax dollars are being spent appropriately, we should be able to at least get some kind of picture on this trip. I'm just asking whether it was because a student had a complaint against certain government departments up here, or because students were funded by this government.

It wasn't the student who complained. I have a problem at this point now. I cannot talk about this in any more detail in the Assembly. We're getting into details of a complaint or an inquiry that I'm dealing with, or a problem, and I can't reveal individual identities of people. I have a problem in discussing this in much more detail at this point. All I can say is, no, the student didn't complain or the students didn't complain. It was a request from the university to speak. It was a speaking engagement. The other one was not. This one was to address a problem, the other one was not.

Thank you. I thought it was a specific concern you were referring to, but I guess it isn't. The Languages Commissioner did say it was a speaking engagement. I put the question to the Languages Commissioner, you had two speaking engagements, and because of your broad definition of your mandate you chose to go to Saskatoon as opposed to addressing the Francophone Parliament.

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Commissioner on having spoken Inuktitut fluently, and impressed the interpreters by going at a speed that they could handle very well. But on the other hand, I should also tell her -- and she picked it up very quickly -- that when you use unusual expressions like Pandora's box you have to very quickly correct yourself because that's not something that's very easy to translate or interpret.

My comments are about the problem of independence and accountability. The boss for the Languages Commissioner is the act. That is the authority, the act. For us as legislators, if there are problems with the act, then we have to fix it. If the act isn't clear enough, then that's our job to make sure it is clear enough so it isn't open to so many interpretations that it poses difficulty for the person who has to uphold it.

But I can see the problem, also, of an individual...Really, it's a lonely kind of life. You're on your own and you don't know where you belong. Everybody likes the idea of being sovereign and independent until they taste it. You realize then that you don't have that many points of reference. But what you bring to us is what you have had given to you, Mr.

Chairman, as a Commissioner, from the public, and the biggest problem is the disposition of that. When you have all this stuff, all these issues that have to be resolved, what happens to it? It seems to me -- and I agree that in this kind of forum it's very, very difficult to sort through all the details so that you can give clear direction for the Assembly and for the government as to how we should proceed with a lot of these items and issues.

One of the attractive features, of course, of our kind of parliamentary system is that we do have committees. These committees perform the function of being a kind of sounding board or a screen, if you like, in order to guide what we do. You're not going to just simply take a report and say, okay, we're going to do all this. There has to be some process for sorting it out, setting priorities and so on. There are several committees that we have, so I really don't feel too happy about creating one more standing committee.

Lonely though the Commissioner may be, we don't have to create more interested people in the work that the Commissioner is doing, Mr. Chairman. I would hope we would find some method by which this report -- which has a lot of very important information in it -- can be referred to a committee that has a mandate to look at these kinds of issues, and to refine it so that the government has a sense of priority and a sense of urgency about some issues, because you can't be everything to all people. You have to decide where you're going to put your efforts so that you handle the vast majority of things within a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable cost.

I do take seriously, though, the main observation that other Members have made about a broad interpretation of...Maybe there is no other approach to take at the beginning. You could have taken a narrow one, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, as a Commissioner and just say I'm going to begin small and gradually do more things. But then, of course, when you do that, immediately you are open to the criticism, you are ignoring this, you are ignoring that, so you can't win in a sense. By taking the position that you have a broad mandate under this act, and doing the best you can with the resources that you have, then perhaps as a result of meetings like this and maybe with refinements to the act or with work from our standing committees, then we would be able to refine, focus and get the office doing the work in as efficient a manner as possible dealing with the issues that are uppermost and that need most urgently to be dealt with.

I have been interested in languages nearly all my life. I fully understand the very difficult job that the Languages Commissioner has to do. It is a complex issue and is not very easy to satisfy everyone even though you try. Now that we have had a sense from this Assembly that, perhaps, we are being too broad, then obviously the Languages Commissioner has some kind of direction, even at this stage, because this is an accountability session too. Perhaps it is time to narrow it in a little bit and see what things are reasonable to accomplish within the mandate of that office.

The first year or two, obviously, you are going to find that many issues are raised. As the Languages Commissioner said, Mr. Chairman, it is a question of sorting through the mess, understanding the job and getting the public to understand what the Languages Commissioner's job is. I expect it to be confusing. Anything you take on that is new in the jurisdiction like ours with this many official languages is a huge job. It is a mighty challenge. So, I think we should have some patience that you are not going to be able to get it all right, right away. There will be a process by which we can improve. My guess is that process will belong with one of our standing committees and then the Languages Commissioner won't be so lonely, Mr. Chairman. The person will have a chance to spend more time with people who will spend the time needed to look at her work, her report and her problems. Thank you very much.

That is correct. The meeting in Saskatoon was cancelled. It was scheduled to be for the Monday, and it was cancelled on the Friday. My engagement to be in Yellowknife to read a speech that had nothing to do with official languages was on the Thursday. It was on a holiday and I was going to be coming back to speak for ten minutes on my holiday. Part of the problem is I have many speaking engagements. There are times when I am asked to do two or three things at the same time. I have to make a choice. This is not the first time that I have said that I will do something, and then something else has come up and I couldn't go.

For example, last December I was supposed to meet with the Dene Cultural Institute and I had to cancel because the Assembly called me. There are times when other things arise and I go because I think it is more important, or because I know it is more important. I don't make a habit of it. As I said, if you look at the document that I tabled in December, you will see that I did attend many other speaking engagements. This particular one is not a big concern to the Federation Francophone Tenoise either. I don't know if you even asked anybody who was involved, but it is not a concern to them.

They understand perfectly well what happened. Once I explained to them what it was all about, they said that is fine. It is not even an issue for them. I don't know why the Members are worried about it, other than perhaps wondering why I might have to travel specifically for that issue. I decided that I would not come back to Yellowknife and read the speech for ten minutes because then I would have had to travel specifically back to Saskatoon to deal with that one problem. I didn't think that I should do that. Once it was cancelled, they said they would get back to me, as soon as they could, to rearrange the meeting. I have, since then, talked to them a number of times on the phone.

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...

Item 20, report of committee of the whole, Mr. Whitford.