First of all, Mr. Chairman, the committee found, at least in the western part of the territories, there was not an overwhelming feeling that an ombudsman was required. The argument was made that, in fact, the MLA has that kind of role to play, as far as many people in the west are concerned. From the east, though, there was a feeling that there were some examples where there were problems with businesses, for example, that could not access the information they wanted or had difficulty in understanding how decisions are made, and an ombudsman could perhaps present both sides that they at least would have an amicable understanding of how government has arrived at its decisions.

The overall feeling of the committee was that the priority was very much the one which Mr. Gargan had presented in the last Assembly, which was that the public has a right of access to information that they really pay for. It was not a large cost item, it was something that could be very simple and straightforward.

The issue raised by Mr. Patterson about the ombudsman, the general feeling from the committee, and it is reflected in the report, is that this is something which could be looked at later. The priority should be access, just the basic access to information that people consider to be a right. The specific examples of how an ombudsman could become involved for the most part the public felt that MLAs already fulfil that kind of role. That was why this was placed as a second phase, a second legislative action paper to see if there was a real need for an ombudsman, simply because it seemed to duplicate to the work of MLAs. However, the specific examples which were given were to do with where someone had received a particular contract, or there had been some disagreement and so on, and there would be some role there where, perhaps, an ombudsman could determine where something that been dealt with fairly or not.