Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to make some general comments. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say very briefly and I said this when we debated this at the tail end of the last session, I believe in open government. I think we are proud of the openness we have in our government. Undoubtedly, it could be improved on. I think we have a very open accessible government compared to some in this country. I have no problem with legislation which would enshrine that principle, which is what I understand is recommended in the first motion.

However, I want to express my belief that armed with that statutory right, MLAs with the financial resources available to us, and I mean that basically most of us can afford to be full-time MLAs, with the staff resources and research assistants, law clerks, interpreters, lawyers and consultants, if required, who are available to us. I believe that we probably, if we are willing to work, have the power to pursue the concerns of our constituents with the backing of that statutory right. I do believe that there are expectations on the part of the public that may be unreasonable. I know there are business people in my constituency, who I have talked to, who feel that they could get information that is privileged about competitors in the bidding process or in the application process for financial assistance, that may amount to an invasion of privacy. So I want to say here and now, when it comes to the cost, and for that matter, the effectiveness of establishing a bureaucracy around the office of an ombudsman, and I believe that the ombudsman, if I understand the sophistication which has developed in other jurisdictions, it has become a highly technical, sophisticated area, I believe we would be hard-pressed to find someone qualified in the Northwest Territories to do the job the way it is developed. We would end up hiring a southern lawyer and I am not sure, if you put it along side issues like housing, the need for mental health counselling, family treatment for alcohol and drug abuse and these other pressing social issues that we are all aware of, when it comes to spending the $500,000 plus this would cost, that we need to go that far to make this statutory right actually operate. I think we have the tools within this Legislature to support the MLAs who may not have the confidence or ability to pursue an issue, even with the assistance of research staff and the Ordinary Members' Caucus and the like. In supporting recommendation one, I am not sure that I am convinced that we need to create a full office of ombudsman.

I must say that the second recommendation, it will be put to the committee, seems to recommend, yet another legislative action paper. I thought the government had prepared one and that we had already done that. So, I will need some explanation when we come down to that issue, as to what basis the second legislative action paper would be prepared. Would it be different than the first one? Would it be based on the recommendations in this report? I am not clear on this. However, I now understand better that there is a two-stage process recommended. The first is to enshrine the right and I have no problem with that because I think it is already in place. I cannot think of an issue that the 12th Assembly has dealt with where access to government information has been a problem. Maybe there are issues that I am not aware of, but I cannot recall an instance, unless it has been a matter of privilege or privacy. I cannot think of an area where the government has not provided information, although perhaps I could after some prodding. I do not think we should have any problem recommending the first, but the second step, I remain to be convinced -- especially in the light of our pressing social issues and housing problems -- that we can actually afford to go the stage of asking for the creation of an ombudsman, when really we have the capability as MLAs to pursue that statutory right with the support that is available to us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.