I think if you understood that we were broke at the time that I last appeared, that must have been a misunderstanding. We are still within our budget and we have a few dollars left. It is very difficult at this point of the year to figure out whether you have $1,000 or $2,000 left, because some bills haven't come in.

But we got a good deal, shall I say, on the postcards. It was something that we had to do. We felt that it was really important that we do some public information, and it is part of our budget to do that, to actually make some sort of information items that help people think about official languages. So these were not an expensive item. As you can see, they are not big and glossy, so we were able to get quite a few of them done.

(Microphone turned off)

Yes, they are colourful. Our logo is about the only colour there.

So it is part of our mandate to do that kind of promotion, and we have it within our budget to do that.

No, we weren't broke the last time that I came to speak. We are barely within our budget but we are juggling it and I think we will still come out either a few dollars over or a few dollars under.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

I don't have any questions. I just wanted to conclude by saying that as an aboriginal person I do have grave concerns about my own language as well as the other ten languages in the Northwest Territories that are under assault. I feel that we have to do more. I also feel that maybe it's time we looked at whether the government delivering that program is really the best solution to preserving our own languages.

The other thing is with regard to syllabics. I still have an interest in that area. I would still like to see it survive and be encouraged so that people might even be...I know Helen told me all her scores in that area, too, but maybe she could travel to other communities to do that sort of thing. I'm always interested in that area but I don't want to see ten years from now that aboriginal languages are just a memory. I'm afraid they will be if we continue. I totally agree with you when you say that all aboriginal languages are on the decline. In the north it's at a slower pace but it's still declining. You, as the Languages Commissioner, should seriously look at whether we're doing justice by providing that program or whether we should allow the aboriginal people to take that responsibility to ensure that the languages are preserved.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Madam Commissioner, would you like to respond?

I would like to thank the Minister for his comments. Your first remarks were suggesting that we didn't back up a lot of the general statements that we tend to make about things we find out from the public. I invite you to look at chapter six where there are statistics. These are all the replies to the employees' survey where we received 1,305 surveys. They are all calculated and entered into the computer. Anyone is welcome to look at those stats in the computer. There are no names attached to them. All of the original questionnaires are stored in boxes and we didn't ask for people to put names on them either, so it doesn't reveal any confidential information. But all of those statistics are in the computer and they are all analyzed in chapter six. So the general comments that I am making are not just general impressions that I have gained, they are statistically backed up.

The same is true with the comments about aboriginal languages declining. Those are all backed up by the statistical analysis we did in chapter one. They are not just general comments and they are not just a feeling that I have. These are actually things we have been able to research, document and put into numbers as much as possible.

As far as complaints and inquiries, in chapter five, for each one of them I can be held accountable. The file number is right there. I cannot give you the name. The act says I cannot reveal confidential information that comes to my attention. So I cannot tell you who the person was that gave me that complaint, so we replaced their name with a file number. All of the file numbers are right there. If any of the MLAs are interested in coming to the office to see that we have those files, they can. I cannot allow them to look into those files, but they can see that those things exist. We cannot let people look at the names on the files because I am bound by the act not to reveal those confidential details.

I don't think I have anything personal to gain from the comments I make. Why would I say that aboriginal languages are dying or declining? What personal gain could I get from that? What personal gain can I get from the fact that I report that 85 per cent of the respondents to our employee questionnaires said they want language training? What personal gain can I get from that?

I'm simply a spokesperson for all these people who are providing this information to our office. We pass it on to the government in this report and in the form of correspondence and discussions we have with them on an ongoing basis. This is available to the public too, so they can use this information to back up the things they think or feel or help them change their opinions about things if they think there is nothing that proves this or that. We tried to break down, as much as we could, information we received so we could show the actual instances of people saying these things. The actual number of employees who reported this and that.

That's why we put 11 months of work into this report because we analyzed all the files we have in our office, everything we have in the computer. So, if I did make general comments, it was simply because I wasn't flipping the pages in the book to look for specific numbers, but they are there. I'm not sure if I could provide any further information to back up any of the general comments I made, but I think that maybe most of what is required is actually there in the report because the numbers are reported wherever we could report them.

With regard to my judgement in this position, it is true, this was a totally new position. Nobody has ever been an ombudsman in the territories before. I was given the job of trying to find out what this position is, and what it should be. In order to do that, I consulted with a lot of other people who have had similar roles and I've used the advice that they've given to me to make judgements. I've used advice from various Members. A couple of Members have talked to me about things they think I should concentrate on or directions I should take. I appreciate that very much.

But, the other thing that you'll notice I asked for in my first recommendation is that there be a standing committee on official languages so that this problem of accountability can be addressed on a regular basis. This is so that I do have some feedback from Members on a regular basis and so that they can provide some direction to us and so that we can keep the legislature informed, as well, about the issues we're dealing with, if our office is running into some problems.

I think it's a really difficult thing right now. This is the first report of a Official Languages Commissioner or of an ombudsman to this legislature and you'll have to expect that it is going to be critical. It's not all critical, there is some good stuff in there, too. But, it is my job, under the act, to deal with complaints, to take all actions and measures within my authority to resolve complaints. That means that my position was set up so that I would deal with those things and bring them to the attention of the government.

When I make a judgement call, for example about this particular travel incident, I was asked not to speak about official languages but to speak using one official language, which I happen to know. The speech I was making was not about official languages. I asked if I could even speak about them, to say we have an Official Languages Act here with eight official languages, and that sort of thing, and I was told, no, they would prepare the speech and I could just read it in French. I had accepted that invitation, begrudgingly. I said, no, at first a couple of times and finally said, yes, because they didn't have somebody else to do it. When they accepted it, it was simply to read the speech in French. I still haven't even seen it. I never saw the speech I was supposed to read so I don't even know about the content, but it wasn't about official languages, it wasn't on their agenda.

When I was asked to deal with a situation that, in my mind, dealt with a problem that involved languages and NWT languages, I felt that if I could contribute anything to that situation -- and they indicated to me that it was quite urgent and they set the date -- I said yes. I think that's more important than reading a speech in French that doesn't deal with official languages. Other than the fact that I speak another official language, I wasn't doing any promotion or explaining to people about the official languages or that sort of thing.

When I was asked to deal with a problem situation, to me that was a higher priority and that's why I made the judgement I made at that point. To me, if I get a complaint, I have to deal with them as quickly as possible. Sometimes, I don't know what the complaints are until I have a chance to investigate them, so I have to deal with them as quickly as I can. That's why I made the decision I did at that particular time. I don't know if there is any other information I can provide to the Minister, or if that answers his question.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Madam Commissioner, would you like to respond to the comments made by the Minister?

I don't know what else I can say except that when I did cancel that invitation, it was very unusual. I don't make a habit of doing that. I don't know if there are any other invitations that I have cancelled and that one was the exception to the rule. If I made a judgement error at that point, then I apologize to everyone who was involved. I thought at that time, given the facts before me, that I was dealing with the

more urgent situation and that was what I felt I should do at that point. But I don't make a habit of cancelling engagements that I have agreed to attend. Maybe I did make a judgement error at that time. I apologize if I did. I have already apologized to those people who were involved. I don't know what else I can say about it.

I have Mr. Nerysoo on my list.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted some clarification. I know my colleagues, Mr. Patterson and Mr. Ballantyne, when we were first dealing with the matter of the Official Languages Commissioner, it was always our expectation, and one of the reasons we had a difficult time in trying to locate the Official Languages Commissioner, was that of the Official Languages Commissioner being quasi judicial. In other words, being able to make judicial rulings. I have read the report and I have been criticized in some ways for raising some concerns and speaking to the issue. But I really want to ask you what judicial rulings have you made this year in terms of the application of the Official Languages Act? Have you made any?

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Madam Commissioner.

If the Member is referring to judicial decisions, meaning have we had any court rulings about the Official Languages Act, no we haven't. We hope that we would never have to go to court to get a court ruling or a judicial decision. I have made a number of decisions myself in a quasi judicial capacity where I have felt there were certain obligations of GNWT or programs and services that were not adequate. Those have all been brought to the attention of departments.

You can see in the complaints and inquiries chapter, chapter five, all of the things that were brought to the attention of government departments. Some of them were resolved very quickly with the department as soon as we brought it to their attention. Others we had to spend a few months working on and in one case, over a year, in doing legal research to find out whether or not there was a violation of the Official Languages Act or any other act or regulation related to the status and use of official languages. Where we think there is any breach or action that doesn't meet the spirit and intent of the act, which is to preserve, promote, develop and enhance all of these languages, then we point it out to government departments. So I have made quasi judicial decisions in all of those cases to bring them to the attention of the department, so the department can take some action to resolve them. I think we have had good cooperation from a lot of the departments, from every department actually. Because our office was involved in quite a few cases, we managed to find a solution.

There are a few issues, maybe three or four, that are more serious that we are looking at where there may be a violation of the act or some other act or regulation. We don't jump to that conclusion hastily. All of those have been documented. They have all been addressed to the territorial government. So those are the kind of things that if, with my legal counsel and after a lot of research, we decided there is a breach of the act, we would bring it to the attention of the government right away.

There was one case where we did this year. That issue is still outstanding. It is back in my ball park now and I have to decide what I should do about it. As far as judicial decisions, in my capacity, I make a decision quite often with legal counsel. Is this a violation of the act or of any other act or regulation relating to the status and use of official languages? Quite often we find that it's not, per se, a violation but it's not really in keeping with the spirit and intent. Then we'll encourage the department to do something to deal with the situation. Those are the kinds of decisions that I've made in my capacity. I would decide, if someone brings a complaint to me, whether to proceed or whether I should investigate at all. Those are the kinds of decisions that I've made.

Thank you. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. Maybe that's the problem, I think, because I don't think the Commissioner really understands the whole interpretation given to quasi-judicial. I would like to know what hearings and what proceedings where representatives both for legal counsel from the government or legal counsel from the complainant, appeared before the individual or for that matter had representation to, in fact, have a hearing. When did that happen?

Madam Languages Commissioner.

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.

Thank you. Minister Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm raising these questions as a Member of the Assembly. For clarification, so there's no confusion, no judgements have been made other than the comments of individual decisions and while you've received legal advice; there's been no, what you might say, challenge to that legal advice. No one has been allowed to challenge the advice you have been given. Therefore, no one has been able to question the advice that you have been given. The role, in my view, you've taken it from what I would have thought it would have been and that is quasi-judicial, to that of basically an administrative management ombudsman. In other words, just a position of someone who tries to resolve and mediate problems. Is that really what you're saying?

Thank you. Madam Languages Commissioner.