Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One final comment. The whole purpose of having the access to information first is that the Member can still serve as an ombudsman to enforce this legislation. They are there. We do not know what is going to happen once this comes into force, once the access to information is law. We do not know how much access to information is going to be required. We have to look at the second option. If Members start having demands by their constituents for such information and more information, what happens? Do we still restrict ourselves to enforcing that legislation and not look at the option? We should at least be given the option to look at it.
Many regional groups, the Baffin Regional Council and the Inuit Cultural Institute, were strong supporters of an ombudsman. In fact, they asked for information in that area. Mr. Chairman, the support is there. The only thing is should we be trying to introduce legislation which also includes an ombudsman because we thought the whole purpose of the ombudsman was not only to enforce legislation, but also to look at complaints. We have heard from B.C. about people who have complaints about social assistance. We heard people who had complaints about why they did not get hired and they thought they should have been hired. It goes beyond acting as an access to information commissioner. We have broadened it so that we look at the possibility of not only this individual enforcing the access to information legislation, but actually being an intervenor between the public and the government, to look at all aspects of complaints. I have no problem in supporting this motion, Mr. Chairman. The motion only says that the government is to look at the second recommendation for the creation of an ombudsman for the Northwest Territories. Part of the ombudsman's job would be to enforce access to information legislation. However, it could be two separate legislations.