Thank you. I have Mr. Arvaluk on the list.

In my campaign, I talked about the need to make it easier for ordinary people to get information so they can inquire about government programs et cetera, because I always thought it was almost impossible to get information from the government. After two years here, I find it is easier than I thought it was. Maybe someone was not pushing hard enough or trying to find out information as aggressively as I was.

I have no problem with the first part of the motion. However, for the second part, I am a little leery that we are hyped up right now in creating our own Nunavut government sometime soon. As my friend, Mr. Todd, stated this morning, I think in answer regarding one of the bills, because it is a revenue initiative, also it is done by other jurisdictions. With that kind of precedent setting, that when Nunavut is created we will probably have to include anything that a western Member or former NWT legislation has without Nunavut itself, through imaginative approach, creating their own legislation which is important to them. Mr. Patterson touched on a few of them: housing, social problems, anything that is important right now. I am not going to vote against this, but for the purpose of creating an ombudsman in the second part, I think we are being a little careless in not establishing this one by one. Let us go with the first part of the motion, and I will support it.

Perhaps sometime we could discuss again whether in fact the MLAs are not doing well enough and we need an ombudsman. Then, we could discuss that later, but right now we do not have any problem whatsoever with this present government or with our constituency in exchanging information or digging up information that people need. At least, I have not. I am a little leery about supporting the second part. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, there were quite a few people who did, as far as the witnesses go, represent different organizations which made presentations. Some people such as the Baffin regional health board made a presentation, the Baffin regional council, the women's resource centre, the media, the chamber of commerce, the Kitikmeot Regional Council, the Status of Women Council, Dene Nation and the Tree of Peace supported this legislation. So, we have a whole slough of people who made presentations that represent certain organizations.

The other thing I wanted to touch on is with regard to Mr. Patterson's concern about an ombudsman, that the ombudsman should be a lawyer, accountant or a professor, for that matter. What is wrong with elders in the communities who understand the principle of natural justice? There is nothing wrong with those kinds of people addressing the same kind of issue.

Mr. Chairman, supporting these motions does not necessarily mean we should create those positions. It only means we should be looking at it.

What are we talking about when we are talking about an ombudsman? Can that be an elder in the communities? Those are all open to discussion, but we should not restrict ourselves to lawyers and accountants. I think we should be open-minded about this whole issue and request the government to first of all draft legislation regarding access to information. That was a commitment made during the leadership debate and I think the government should move in that direction if that was a promise that was made.

Thank you. General comments? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not intend to make any comments on the committee's report, however, there seems to be some concern with respect to legislation for access to information. Mr. Chairman, as MLAs, we generally do not have a problem with respect to obtaining information. We generally find ways to get the information we need. I am sure the public has a different problem. During the year of the election, access to information was one of the things which faced many of us and the need was expressed to us by our constituents for access to information legislation. I made a commitment to my constituents that I would have this addressed in addition to the ombudsman. I think an ombudsman would be more effective for the people of the north. Because there is not an independent body that people can go to sometimes when you want something to be looked at independently, to get reviewed by the government, the government's own department reviews what they have done wrong. There is not one person who can look at things independently. I certainly support the concept of an ombudsman. There is no doubt about that.

However, with respect to the legislation for access to information. I think there are a couple of reasons why there were not many people at the public meetings. First of all, all of the committee hearings were held during the day. I do not think they were held in the evenings, if they were held in the evenings I do not know what they coincided with. In some communities you cannot compete with bingos, no matter what type of meeting you are trying to hold.

Secondly, I think many constituents expressed to us that they want this type of legislation and they rely on us to make sure it is formulated. Therefore, they do not want to continually go to public meetings to give examples as to why it has to be done. I recognize, as an MLA, that we have many different concerns and priorities, and different issues to be addressed. I think all we are asking for is to look at it as one of the priorities. I am sure that by the time we are finished this term, we would like to see the legislation in place. I do not believe it is telling the government to start on it tomorrow and get it developed and that we would like to see it in November. However, we would like to have a commitment from the government for them to look at the legislation, look at developing it and to get back to us with regard to a schedule as to when we will see legislation for access to information. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Whitford.

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Mr. Koe.

I would like to request a recorded vote.

There is a request for a recorded vote. Question has been called. Mr. Clerk, would you call the recorded vote. All those in favour?

Recorded Vote

Mr. Whitford, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Arngna'naaq, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Arvaluk, Mr. Pudlat, Mr. Dent, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, Mr. Gargan, Mr. Zoe, Mr. Koe, Mr. Antoine.

All those opposed? All those abstaining?

Mr. Allooloo, Ms. Mike, Mr. Pollard, Ms. Cournoyea, Mr. Kakfwi, Mr. Todd.

The motion is carried with 12 in favour, none against, and six abstentions. Thank you.

---Carried

Mr. Whitford.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. Mr. Patterson.

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.

To the motion. Mr. Lewis.