The Commissioner was responding to my first observation or first area of concern which was simply on the nature or wording of her response to questions. My point was simply that if you are in fact the languages auditor for this government, then even in your oral responses, you should try to be precise and substantive in your responses. You tell us that it is all in the document and that the statistics are all in the document. That's not good enough, is the point I was trying to make. If you've done substantive research and you've got substantive information to back up the comments you make, then I, at least, do not want to accept comments like a lot of people said this to me at airports and a lot of people said this in response to a survey, those sorts of comments. That's the point I was making.
I should tell you that I always thought the report would be critical. It has to be. That it is, doesn't phase me one bit. I have no judgement call on the report, itself, either as an MLA or as a Minister. The job is, much as you say, as an auditor. You call it as it is and there is a call to be as specific and clear as possible, so Members know exactly the nature of the situation as you describe it. I don't want you to feel that my comments have anything to do with the fact that it is critical. That has nothing to do with it. I understand what you said in the beginning and the last time you appeared, it is all confidential and there is a need to remain confidential. I wasn't asking for specific names, I was just suggesting even when you do surveys and work that is confidential, there is some way to give substance to the comments you make. That is what I was asking for.
On the last point about the responses to Mr. Gargan's questions last time around regarding your travel and the cancellation of invitations, your responses remain largely unchanged since the last time you were here. My concern is still the same. What sort of judgement do you exercise where you end up in a situation where you have held an invitation in good standing, in your mind, if you were going to say then it has to be a definite no, you cannot give a begrudging yes and then flip it into a no later on. It is compounded by the fact, in this case, that you blew it on both occasions. You gave up your invitation in order to deal with an urgent situation in your mind in another part of the country, only to find when you turned down this invitation, the other one was withdrawn from you as well, leaving you in Edmonton with nothing to do except make personal plans for the weekend. I find it as a very bad example of judgement. I don't know if you own up to it, other Members share that as well or if that is acceptable. I am just drawing attention to the fact that I have a concern about it. Maybe some of us are less accountable than others, but I don't buy it. We are all paid by the public and accountable to the public, in some form or other. I don't know why we cannot just get the real reasons behind the decisions that were being formulated that week. It is a messy sort of a situation that resulted in no happy endings for anyone. Those are the only comments I have, Mr. Chairman.