Thank you. One of the observations that I want to make with regard to the comments today are the general type of responses we're getting with regard to questions. In the work that the Languages Commissioner does, a lot of it would be in the area of administration and dealing with specific complaints, issues and incidents that arise in the course of the work. I'm concerned about the kind of comments that have prevailed this afternoon about how lots of people are saying this, lots of people are saying that, lots of people were calling, we're running into a lot of people at airports, we did a survey of government staff, a few thousand and a lot of them said this, a lot of them said that. It seems to me, if there are comments being made by the public then they should all be documented and there should be some substance to it because either there's substance to it or there isn't.
All of us know we're in the business of testing public opinions. It's an observation, I am making, of how fragile it is to say, everybody I talk to is saying this. You know, at some time or other somebody is going to ask you to substantiate that. What is the motivation behind saying these things? If there is some motive for it then surely there's some need to substantiate it. I'm concerned because for the last hour or so I was listening to Mr. Gargan questioning the Commissioner and the responses are riddled with generalities and yet, for instance, you're trying your best to summarize what you thought resulted from the survey of thousands of civil servants and government workers. You make no reference to how you break down the survey. Almost frivolously you say well, lots of people said this and that and I was just wondering about the necessity for it.
The other comment I had and it's one that is a concern to myself and perhaps to other Members...I would think it is because the questioning in the appearance you had in the committee of the whole was regarding your travel and I think the appearance you had before that as well. Which is fine but I know that a Minister recently resigned or left office as a result of his responses to enquiries about his travel and how clear, straightforward his responses were to questions. Just recently, another Minister was asked to account for his travel, very specifically, on a recent international trip. I wonder whether the Commissioner had reviewed Hansard from the last time she was in the House? Did she look at the responses you gave at that time and whether you thought the responses you gave at that time were okay and the way you rationalized your decisions needed any further clarification? I ask that because it's a question of judgement here and we've been going on that for quite some time because of the question of accountability. You're not accountable to anybody specifically but you're accountable to everybody in particular. It's a curious situation to be in, to say the least but I would say, first of all, that we should go on the assumption that you are no less accountable than Ministers for decisions you make. I was concerned about the judgement call you make in making decisions. For instance, you accepted an invitation to speak at a function. I don't know how long that invitation was held in good standing or what the rationale was for accepting the invitation in the first place. Then it appears you accepted another invitation to speak at a university function later on shorter notice. I don't know how much notice you had, if it was a matter of a few hours or a few days. The question of judgement comes in. I am wondering why so late in the life of this invitation, you would choose to suddenly cancel it and defended the decision here saying it wasn't important. It really had nothing to do with aboriginal languages. What was the reason you accepted the invitation in the first place? What was the basis on which you accept or reject invitations to speak? I suppose people give some status to the office you hold. I don't know what it does to people to wonder whether to invite you any more to functions if they don't know whether you are going to honour the invitations or belittle them later if you find it inconvenient to fulfil them.
I know in one instance there was a reference that it was a long weekend and it is personal time. Again, that was a long-standing commitment. I must wonder why on a Thursday or Friday you would suddenly decide you don't want to do it any more because it is cutting into family time. What is the criteria to accept or reject invitations? Was it really the conflict it appeared to hold at the time in you trying to respond to what you thought was a rather more relevant issue at a university campus? I accepted that when you were speaking about it last time, except later you went on to say the urgent situation was with a student. Then you said when the invitation to speak at the university was cancelled, you decided not to go. It was two different things. At least it was jumping out at me, out of the Hansard. If it was so urgent, I think Mr. Gargan asked, why wasn't it urgent enough to finish it, especially if you also cancelled the speaking engagement you held here in Yellowknife? I notice no one is complaining about it from the Francophone community, that you decided that the invitation wasn't very important. Maybe they share your point of view, I don't know. It is still a question of credibility of the invitations you accept or reject. I don't know whether the reason you cancelled the invitation was because you decided it was frivolous and it wasn't worth coming back to Yellowknife for, since no one, including yourself, thought it was important and because you didn't want to commit your weekend time to this type of appointment and you had personal plans you wanted to do instead. Those are the things I am not clear about. As I say, we are all asked to be accountable in this House about the things we do and the answers we give. So that is the first comment I have and you can respond to them if you want or you can ignore them. I am not sure other Members in this House share my view. When we are trying to answer questions, there is some commitment, especially if we have specific responsibilities, to give some substance to the answers we give. I didn't find that in the responses you have given to Mr. Gargan.
Secondly, there is the question of other points of accountability. There are questions about your accounting for your reasons for travel and cancellation of commitments in the last appearance you had in this House. That was a question of judgement in my mind. I am a little bit uncomfortable with this. By everyone's admission, including ours, yours has been a job that has required a tremendous amount of judgement simply because it was an operation to set up a very new function that none of us have any experience in and we are still feeling our way around. The issue of judgement has to be unquestionable. I find that it is falling short of the mark on that. So if the Commissioner wants to respond she can, if she doesn't, that is fine.