I don't have any authority under the Official Languages Act to hold hearings. My legal counsel has said that there are no specific provisions in there. Also, I discussed that with the Department of Justice, with the former deputy minister, and he said that when the act was drafted they felt that in this jurisdiction those provisions which do exist in the federal Official Languages Act were not adopted into our Official Languages Act because they did not feel that they would be required here. They thought because we were a much smaller jurisdiction we would be able to mediate solutions rather than going to a public hearing.
We have had a number of meetings with deputy ministers where I've have had my legal counsel advise me, they've had their legal counsel advise me, and then I met with the deputy minister and we discussed those legal opinions from our point of view. We go back to our own legal counsel again after the discussions and these are ongoing all the time. Those are the kinds of hearings that I have with deputy ministers. I don't have public hearings because that's one of the things, actually, that's in my report. I'm asking this legislature what is that authority? It says for me to take all actions and measures within my authority, but the authority and the actions and measures that are within that authority are not specified in the act. I have some differences of opinion about what exactly those actions should be.
In the federal act, as I said, there are specific provisions that say that the Languages Commissioner has the authority to hold public hearings, to subpoena witnesses and to demand documents. With the GNWT, I can't even talk to employees, I can't go into a government office and I can't demand any document. Many times I've been told I can't have documents. Those roads are blocked. I haven't tried the road of trying to have a public hearing, but I have met on a regular basis with deputy ministers and with the official languages unit to bring all of these things to their attention. Those are the quasi-judicial hearings that I have. They are with the deputy minister with my legal advice, his legal advice, or her legal advice. Then we resolve it at that level.
I would prefer that we be able to mediate solutions on a smaller basis like that rather than get into the expense of full-blown hearings. The dynamics that can play out if I were to have public hearings and subpoena witnesses and demand documents...I don't want to see those sort of dynamics have to be resorted to. I would like to be able to continue the kind of dialogue that we have where we can sit down with the deputy ministers, both of us have legal counsel either there or we've already consulted them before we meet, and then we discuss the issues. I prefer that informal method of resolution of conflicts and it was my understanding, in talking to the former deputy minister, that that was the intention of the act. That's the way I've tried to implement it in my capacity.
I did ask the Legislative Assembly in one of my recommendations to clarify what that authority means. Does it include holding public hearings, subpoenaing witnesses, demanding documents, entering government offices? That's what the federal Languages Commissioner does, that's what other ombudsmen do. It's in their acts. Our act is silent in that regard and it has caused me some problems. It will continue to cause problems for whoever is in this position until those things are clarified.