To the motion. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to elaborate a bit more on what Mr. Patterson just said. I will not be supporting this motion right now because individuals or institutions will have access to information with the motion that we passed. I think Mr. Lewis' statements are a denial of his own ability as an MLA to get information on behalf of his constituents. I have a fear. Right now it is hard enough to get our priorities straight...

Point of order. Mr. Lewis.

Point Of Order

I think that it is not appropriate for another Member to comment on another Member's ability to represent their constituents. By supporting this motion, all you are really doing is examining whether in fact the problems people have with their government are something that, once we have them examined in detail, justifies establishing an ombudsman position. This has nothing to do with creating new legislation. It is simply the next thing to look at to see if we need to do it or not.

Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, I did not mean it that way. I was not accusing an MLA of not being able to do his own job. That is not what I meant. What I am trying to say is we have so many other responsibilities as a government that we have not yet touched. Right now we have had more than a 50 per cent cut in housing from the federal government, we have the health billings dispute and so many other pressing necessities that our constituents want us to get going with. Here we are talking about an ombudsman so we will have a very comfortable time in getting the information from the government when, in fact, our biggest fight is with the federal government, not with the territorial government.

We have wasted a great deal of time in this House bickering about the things my constituency does not want to hear about. I hope I am wrong, but I am afraid that we are going to start using this ombudsman as our research to get information about the government's mishandling of certain situations with their departments. A person comes to me from one of the communities and I try to represent him as best as I can, but I do not know if he will be using the ombudsman as much as we, as able people, are going to use him for a researcher. I think we have to look at this a bit more carefully before we jump into it. I supported the first motion, but at the moment and until we have a good discussion on this, I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Todd.

Mr. Dent has cleared up my misinterpretation of the paper. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that what the committee did was handle a situation with a legislative action paper, which brought in two issues. One, access to information, which I think was very strongly used as an issue by people who campaigned in the west because I did not use access to information as a campaign issue. In the legislative action paper, we had individuals who made presentations who felt that section of the legislative action paper was too vague, that they did not understand what powers an ombudsman would have, so they were not able to respond properly to this section of the legislative action paper. The committee in turn, in response to the presentations which we heard from individuals, came up with a second recommendation that a second legislative action paper should be produced in order for us to be able to respond to the concerns of the people. We heard very strong opinions on access to information. On the second section of the legislative action paper, we heard there is not as much concern for an ombudsman. With what we heard, this is the recommendation which we came up with. This particular recommendation does not have a time line. This recommendation could be taken on over a period of a number of years. If, at a time in the future, when the government feels that an ombudsman is necessary, then this is a recommendation which the committee has made, that they could use to create a legislative action paper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

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.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Initially, I did not support access to information legislation. The reason being that it was not an issue in three of my communities. After it was introduced in the House and I returned from the session, it became an issue. I was approached by some of my constituents who told me I should support this. Subsequently, the Kitikmeot Regional Council supported the initiative. The ombudsman's office was initially introduced by Mr. Patterson when he was a Cabinet Member. I support both of the motions. Mr. Chairman, we serve in a democracy where the fundamental belief is that the public has the right to know, the public has the right to access to information. I think the public has the right to be represented in an honest way by their MLAs. We have told the public that we would support the initiative. I also travelled with the Standing Committee on Legislation to different communities, every speaker who came forward before our committee supported access to information legislation and an ombudsman's office. We hold that promise which we made to the public and we should support the motion. Therefore, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Member for Thebacha.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to request a recorded vote. Thank you.

Mr. Arvaluk.

I do not want to be misunderstood by not supporting this motion. Having an ombudsman is probably a very good idea. We have been told time and time again that we are in a deficit, a bad situation, there are other programs which are to be funded, and there are cut backs elsewhere. I am thinking about priorities. I do not think this is a priority at this moment in this time of financial restraint. That is why I will not be voting for it. It is not that I do not want an ombudsman, but it is not a priority at the moment. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be supporting this motion because it gives direction to develop a paper. It is not for the creation of an ombudsman. It is to create a proposal to look into it. I have a request from my constituents, they have wanted an ombudsman in the past and they still do. Based on that, I will be supporting the motion. Mahsi.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a couple of quick comments. I was not recommending that there be a lawyer hired for this position, if such a position is created. In fact, that is what I am afraid of. Having been a lawyer perhaps I know better than most that this might not help meet the real needs that people like Mr. Gargan are concerned about in our communities. I have some real doubts about whether transplanting the Ontario model to the Northwest Territories would work and would serve our needs. I want to assure Mr. Gargan, that if we get to the stage of creating an ombudsman, I hope we will do it differently, I hope we will have a northern solution which will be reflective of the real needs of our people.

Mr. Chairman, I can see there is great support for this motion. I feel, with greatest of respect to the Members of the committee, that my question about why we would do yet another legislative action paper when we have already been considering one, has not yet been answered. I still would like to know why we need to do this all over again. Because I thought there had been a legislative action paper developed on which there was extensive public consultation. I fail to understand why we would want to do it all again and how a new legislative action paper would be different from the previous one which, yes, I had the privilege of tabling in this Legislature in my former life. I am not sure what the new paper would do that the old one would not do, so I am inclined to take the only option which is open to me and at least abstain on this motion because I do not have an explanation of what this paper would do that the previous one did not do. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Whitford.