This is page numbers 49 - 72 of the Hansard for the 12th Assembly, 1st Session. The original version can be accessed on the Legislative Assembly's website or by contacting the Legislative Assembly Library. The word of the day was community.

Topics

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

That is not a point of order. It is up to the Chair to keep Members to the debate. I was allowing Ms. Cournoyea a little latitude to explain some concerns the government had with the motion. If she continued along that particular course I was going to make a point that she probably should be a bit more concise in talking to the motion specifically. But it is not a point of order. Continue, Ms. Cournoyea.

Nellie Cournoyea Nunakput

Mr. Speaker, the motion had the argument that was placed by the honourable Member and I was placing my concern as the group of people that have been referred to, how do we deal with addressing the recommendations to the cabinet for the particular concern. Because it was my understanding that in the process everyone has to move into it and these motions would circumvent the other process other Members are using and that would necessarily give a higher priority. That is all I was expressing. Thank you.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

To the motion. Mr. Arvaluk.

Motion 19-12(1): Construction Of Community Centre For Kakisa
Item 14: Motions

December 10th, 1991

Page 66

James Arvaluk Aivilik

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Correct me if I am out of order because I am new in this House, but I would like to know if the mover knows, before the other Members of this House, the exact capital budget already in place for Inuvik Region, Baffin Region, Keewatin Region, and also the priorities for consideration for different communities who may also urgently need that kind of facility? I am not saying I am against this motion, but the timing has to be very important in this case. We have had no discussion -- we call ourselves Members of the House in consensus government and after sitting for one week here we start making motions about building this here and building this there, without any consideration for the overall requirements for capital plans.

I cannot find myself blindly supporting spending the taxpayers' money without considering other avenues to go with. Perhaps in the budget session we will have that opportunity to sit down with Mr. Gargan and the rest of the Members of the House and try to determine what community most urgently needs things. Maybe it is the Member's community, but I have no way of finding that out.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Dent.

Charles Dent

Charles Dent Yellowknife Frame Lake

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to say that I will be voting in favour of this motion, but I would like to make it clear that I am only doing it on the understanding that this does not circumvent the process, that the whole capital budget still will undergo review by the standing committee on finance. I do not think this necessarily means the process is being changed; it is perhaps a recommendation by a Member that the Minister take a second look at the capital plan before submitting it to the standing committee on finance.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Lewis.

Brian Lewis Yellowknife Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support this motion for a very good reason. I sat in this House for four years, along with Mr. Gargan, and when we examined the capital plan under the able direction of Mr. Pollard, who was the chairman of the standing committee on finance, we found that by some strange, mysterious process, the vast bulk of capital moneys went into ridings where there were Ministers.

Mr. Gargan's riding was on the bottom of the heap. Mr. Gargan's riding did not get very much capital. He is not a Minister. Mr. Zoe's did not. He is not a Minister. Mr. Pedersen was the Speaker -- and by supporting Mr. Gargan here, all I am doing is to suggest that maybe what will dignify this 12th Assembly is the fact that in the allocation of moneys, it will be absolutely clear that ordinary Members have made their feelings known and that the public knows they have made their feelings known. And if that is not reflected in the government documents that will be taken to the standing committee on finance, then it is because the government has decided that to ignore us is to not put our projects in the capital plan. For that reason I support ordinary Members' attempts to make sure that what the government brings forward is not simply what government Ministers would like to see.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

To the motion. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Jeannie Marie-Jewell Thebacha

Mr. Speaker, I believe the concern of some of the Members in respect to the process and the time frame that this motion is introduced, and I want to make it specifically clear to the Members that in the event that the support for this motion is here, it is not the fact that Mr. Gargan is circumventing the capital process; he is basically indicating as a Member what his priorities are for his constituency, and we all have agreed that these also have to go through the SCOF process, which is important to all Members. But basically we are indicating to the Minister that this is the priority issue that Mr. Gargan would like to address. The issue at hand is in the capital budget, and it is just a matter of the Minister's reconsidering whether or not he wants to keep it in that specific year in the budget or place it up another year. It is the understanding of the ordinary Members that we recognize this request will go through SCOF and will be given consideration like other Members' requests once it is through the process.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Bernhardt.

Ernie Bernhardt Kitikmeot

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Being a new Member I have to side with the honourable Member, Mr. Arvaluk. If I am going to support this motion of Mr. Gargan's I might as well come forward and make all kinds of motions, too, that we need a whole bunch of capital projects. But I am not going to. I think there has to be a better system of delivering capital projects where they are most needed, not where they are most wanted. I can speak because in my years of living in Coppermine the only noticeable project was a tank farm which was situated in the wrong place in the community.

I am not going to support the motion. I am new to this ball game, and I have not learned the ins and outs of how this kind of system works, because I come from a more simple type of government where we could go on discussing items for any length of time, as Mr. Antoine suggested. Therefore I have to learn. Just give me a chance. But I am not going to rush through pushing capital projects. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

To the motion. Mr. Pudluk.

Ludy Pudluk High Arctic

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concern regarding this motion. I have seen so many other motions being put forward, and we have supported it in some areas. But for those of us who are from the Baffin Region, the Eastern Arctic, just to have the capital item in the planning stages -- I would like to support his motion, but I would like it to be treated the same as I would be treated if I made that kind of motion. If they advance a capital project in a community, the regional government will have to take something else that is in the capital budget and move it to a later construction date. In the Fort Smith Region, whatever is needed will have to be deferred so Mr. Gargan's motion can go ahead. If that is the way it is going to be treated, then I will support the motion. As long as my region will still be considered for construction of any project, as long as the Fort Smith Region's capital projects are going to be deferred, I will support it; but not as long as the Eastern Arctic capital projects are not going to be deferred.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Mr. Todd.

John Todd Keewatin Central

Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to support Mr. Gargan in this motion provided that it is an expression of a protest rather than a change in the process.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

To the motion. Mr. Koe.

Fred Koe Inuvik

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of this motion because I, too, come from a community whose community centre is presently condemned and held together by patchwork and bits of money. Sometime during this process we will be hoping for some kind of new community centre.

One problem I do have is there is reference in the motion to a capital plan. That is one document which I do not have access to, and I do not know what other projects are in the plan and what has to be moved. Not being on SCOF, I have to defer to my colleagues on SCOF, but I support the motion.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

To the motion. Mr. Gargan, to conclude debate.

Samuel Gargan Deh Cho

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the process is with regard to the allocation of capital projects. This is something new to me, when some Members are suggesting it has not gone through the standing committee on finance. Motions have never gone to SCOF before, unless it is a whole new process again. I missed the first day for two hours. Did something happen in those two hours that I am not aware of?

There are certain allocations to each region, and one region's allocation should not have any effect on other regions'. Also, we have not based any allocation on population, either. Should we also make that a criterion? I would like to ask the Members that. Should that also be part of the criteria for capital allocations, in order to be fair? I will go ahead with my motion in that it is the only way I know how to make my point in this House and make other Members aware that the aspirations of my constituents are just as important as yours. But this is the style I have chosen to use.

I have also tried in the last eight years with countless letters for projects in my constituency. A lot of it has been effective because Members of my constituency have met with the Members here in Yellowknife. There are different little ways that Members make points in order to achieve what they need for their constituency. I am not suggesting for one minute that this style that I am using is a style that everyone else should use. Perhaps Members have other ways they might be able to achieve the same goals as I am. For me this is the best way of doing it. I like to have the people in the constituency hear what I am saying. I have written letters for them already, countless letters. The community centre was on the drawing board for eight years and it has been moved from 1994 and now I am suggesting it goes down to 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a simple request, and I believe the allocation is something like $200,000. That is what DPW spends to get one house in any of the other communities. So it is not asking for much. The need is there. Mr. Koe already said they have a community centre that is condemned, but I have nothing. So that is where things are at, and I wish Members would support me. I am making the best of what I know what to do.

This has not bound the government -- my church is a classic example. I made a motion on that. It was passed -- and boom, the Executive Council suggests that maybe Providence does not deserve it this time around and with the stroke of a pen they can cancel any projects they want. The Members have to realize they will do that at every opportunity they get, unless we stick together as Members. Whether you do it in the form of a letter and send a copy to us or make it in this House, we have to support each other in order to make this government accountable. But if we have to nit-pick on little excuses not to support each other, then we will keep being fragmented; we cannot see ourselves being united in dealing with issues. Perhaps all the constituencies have desires, but we cannot support each other, and it would not matter whether or not this motion is passed, because the end result is that if we are not of one mind, all the motions that all the Members make would not make any difference if we have people opposing it and other people supporting it and some people still sitting on the fence and feeling they do not want to make a decision on that. We will find ourselves in trouble.

So I would like to ask the Members to support a motion that has been in the process for many years now. It is just a matter of determining which year it should be constructed.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

I am allowing a certain amount of latitude in the debate this time. When we come back again we will refine the interpretation of the rules a little bit, but I want to get a sense of how the Members are communicating. I will let you know what my sense is at some future date.

Motion 19-12, Carried

The debate has concluded. All those in favour of the motion, please raise your hand. All those opposed to the motion, please raise your hand. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Motion 20-12(1), Access to Information Act. Mr. Gargan.

Samuel Gargan Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS a bill to implement an access to information act was narrowly denied passage during the 11th Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS all residents of the Northwest Territories are still without right-to-information legislation currently enjoyed by other Canadians;

AND WHEREAS any further efforts to embark on new legislative strategies in this regard will only delay the realization of the right to access information for residents of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS many residents strongly voiced their support for this type of legislation during the election campaign for the 12th Legislative Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that this Legislative Assembly adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should have legislation that addresses access to information;

AND FURTHER, that this government introduce access to information legislation during the second session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Your motion is in order, Mr. Gargan. To the motion.

Samuel Gargan Deh Cho

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the past two years I have been committed to seeing access to information legislation in place for the people of the Northwest Territories. Today I remain as committed to that goal as I ever have been.

The formal motion I have placed before the House, Mr. Speaker, would allow the 12th Legislative Assembly to express its support for that goal, as well. It would show the people of the Northwest Territories that its elected officials support the concept of "open government" and that we are willing to legislate access to information as one aspect of that concept.

My motion would also place the responsibility for bringing forward this legislation with the Government Leader and her colleagues. I am asking our House to adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should bring forward this legislation during the second session of the 12th Assembly. The basis for my motion is found in the four whereas clauses which Members will see on the page before them. I would like to make a few comments on each one.

Background About Private Members' Bill

Members may know, Mr. Speaker, that during the final session of the 11th Assembly I sponsored a Private Members' Bill that would have given the Northwest Territories its first Access to Information Act. This bill would have given the public a right to access information in certain records under the control of the Government of the Northwest Territories. However, the law would have also prevented the government from releasing information that violated individuals' rights to privacy or interfered with the government's duty to carry out certain executive functions. Perhaps more important, the bill would have given people a "right" to examine what government files say about them and to make sure it is accurate.

I am sure you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on my Private Members' Bill was long and at times difficult for each one of us. On July 6th the 11th Assembly voted that the bill should not proceed to third reading and the Access to Information Act died.

Other Canadians

With that vote, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories were denied a right that is presently enjoyed by other Canadians. Currently New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon have laws which specifically allow people to access government information. The federal government and the legislatures of Ontario and Quebec have also enacted laws that include rights pertaining to the protection of privacy as well as accessibility to government records. In British Columbia, the Harcourt government made the absence of an access to information act an election issue and anticipates that a bill will be brought forward in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I was truly dismayed last July when the 11th Assembly failed to pass the Access to Information Act. I was troubled not only because of the decision but because of what it said about us. Our debate did not focus on the substance of the bill. In fact, when we tried to carry out a clause by clause review, opposing Members would not present their views on the clauses -- they only shouted, "Nay, nay."

Mr. Speaker, you now that I felt then -- and I still feel -- that this sent the wrong message to political observers across Canada. That message was that the Northwest Territories has not matured to the point where people believe in the right of individuals to know what their government is doing -- that they are still as willing to accept closed-door decision-making by bureaucrats and councillors as they were when Stu Hodgson was Commissioner.

Public Reaction During The Territorial Election

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories sent out a different message during the territorial election. Across the North candidates were asked to take a position on whether or not we should have an access to information act. The voting public demonstrated, I believe, that right-to-information legislation is welcome and important, and something that northern residents desire.

Adopting The Principle Of The Legislation

With this motion we are proposing that the House adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should have legislation that addresses access to information. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the sort of motion where ordinary Members make a recommendation to the Executive Council and government Members abstain. This is a motion intended to demonstrate that this whole Assembly believes in the principle that there should be access to information legislation.

I plan to vote "yes" because I believe in it. If other Members wish to vote "no" because they do not, then their position will be clear. But I would ask my honourable colleagues, please do not abstain. This issue is too important.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will personally recall that when the final vote was taken on my Private Members' Bill there was a "free vote" so Members of the cabinet could vote with their conscience on the issue. I would strongly encourage my eight colleagues on the other side of the House to follow the same procedure on the motion before us now.

What are the reasons we should embrace the principle that access to information should be legislated, Mr. Speaker? 1) We should do it because the right of the people to know what their government is doing is one of the fundamental principles in a democracy. 2) Without that knowledge, it becomes impossible for voters to assess the performance of their elected representatives. 3) We should do it because right-to-information laws increase government responsibility and accountability. By making elected officials and key public servants aware that government actions are subject to public review, there is less danger that inappropriate or illicit decisions may be made about the use of government resources and public funds. 4) We should do it because in a free society every citizen should have the right to know what the government's records say about him or her and should be able to correct any untrue information, mistakes or omissions.

Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why I believe strongly that this Legislative Assembly should formally adopt the principle that right to information legislation should exist in the Northwest Territories. Now, from time to time some "hidden voices" have been heard to say that the Northwest Territories does not need to have legislation that gives people the right to access government records. These voices have argued that the Access to Information Act will stimulate government employees to try to sanitize and edit records to stop people from finding out how they perform their work.

Mr. Speaker, I find that this statement insults the overwhelming majority of territorial public servants who are proud of their work and make sound decisions that the public would respect.

When I was drafting my Private Members' Bill, I spent many hours reviewing research studies into what happens to a public servant when right-to-information legislation is introduced. I have found that, after the initial adjustment period, government officials become accustomed to working in an open-government environment and hardly think about it at all. If anything, it motivates them to strive for even higher quality in their work and encourages the government to develop more efficient record-keeping systems.

Mr. Speaker, the proof of this lies in the fact that of all the jurisdictions in Canada to enact right-to-information legislation, not one has ever repealed those statutes without immediately replacing them with another. If this sort of law has such a negative effect on the public service, why have other provinces not gotten rid of theirs? In fact, it is embarrassing to recognize that the Province of Saskatchewan gave assent to its first Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act just 19 days before the 11th Assembly voted ours down. If it is such a bad principle, why did someone not let Saskatchewan know?

No, Mr. Speaker, one cannot avoid the fact that the government will work better when people are able to monitor what is going on. That is why we must embrace the principle of this legislation.

Government's Responsibility To Bring In Legislation

I want to say a few words about my views on the government's responsibility in this area. I originally sponsored the Private Members' Bill to establish an Access to Information Act. Members of the Legislative Assembly tend to use Private Members' Bills when they realize there is a need for law in a certain area that the cabinet is unwilling or not ready to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my eight years as an MLA, I have noticed that decisions about what should make up the public record have been made by the government Ministers rather than by the public. That is not the way it should be. Yet the Executive Council in both the 10th Assembly and the 11th Assembly did not bring forward the needed legislation. That is why I sponsored my own Private Members' Bill. However, the truth is that there are some definite advantages to having this legislation brought in by the government rather than as a Private Members' Bill. Four main reasons have convinced me that it will be best for the government to bring forward this legislation:

1) The government has a wide range of professional resources it can draw on in the Department of Justice and its cabinet officials. Private Members do not. A Private Members' Bill is costly and time-consuming to develop, and we have now entered a period of fiscal restraint.

2) Through my research I have come to believe that the very best access to information legislation establishes an information commissioner who is charged with responsibility for implementing statutory requirements of the act. A private Member would be unable to bring forward this sort of legislation because it carries direct financial implications. The government, however, is free to explore this promising approach.

3) The "Strength at Two Levels" document proposes broad changes to the organization of several government departments. I believe that this legislation would be most effective if it was developed in conjunction with the new systems and responsibilities for information storage and retrieval that will undoubtedly need to be developed as the departments are reorganized.

4) The Beatty report also carries some implications that, if implemented, may alter the framework for relations between the territorial government and community governments.

For those reasons I think it will be best for the Access to Information Act to be introduced as a government bill. I do not believe it will be necessary for the government to go right back to square one on this initiative. I believe that much of the initial groundwork has been completed when I was preparing my Private Members' Bill. I also believe that the Minister of Justice will give this matter the priority it deserves, and we should be able to have something before us during the second session.

The new process recommended by the standing committee on legislation, if adopted, will allow the House to give this bill an open and thorough public review. I have spoken with the Minister and told him that I am certainly prepared to forward the technical and resource information I have collected and to offer assistance in any way I can.

The Speaker Michael Ballantyne

Thank you. Mr. Zoe, as seconder.