Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the same question which I asked in my general comments. This committee has held extensive public hearings on a legislative action paper outlining a proposal for the creation for an ombudsman for the Northwest Territories. Why is the committee recommending that we do that all over again? What would the new legislative action paper do that the old one did not do? I fail to understand this. We should proceed with step one and see how it works, and that MLAs armed with the statutory right of access for their constituents to information, should exercise that right and see how it works. Institutions can exercise that right also if required. I wonder whether we should not take that first step and see how it works. Then in due course we could determine whether the legislation has eliminated any barriers that may not exist, and if so, we may not need to go further and create an ombudsman position. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe we have a legislative action paper that we can dust off that outlines how an ombudsman would work if we decide to take that step. I understand clearly from Mr. Lewis, and other spokesmen for the committee, that it is a two-stage process that is envisaged. I am inclined to think that stage two should follow stage one and that we should give stage one a chance to work once the legislation is in place, then see if we need anything more.
Dennis Patterson on Committee Motion 157-12(3): To Adopt Recommendation 2
In the Legislative Assembly on March 31st, 1993. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 157-12(3): To Adopt Recommendation 2
Item 18: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
March 30th, 1993
Page 1346
Dennis Patterson Iqaluit
See context to find out what was said next.