I had my hand up before you went into comments. This legislation was denied in the last Legislative Assembly and the suggestion is that the government give this a very high priority. I was looking at and taking note of the travels that went on around the Northwest Territories, and I would very much like to say that I did not see, or it was not indicated in the turn out of the community representation, that the general public of the Northwest Territories had a high interest in this area. In one community a person was walking along the road, was not prepared and talked to two or three people into going to the meeting and they were the only people who showed up.

It seems to me that although this could be explored, I think the level of priority which is put onto it is a level of priority by a few people who advocated it before and a few people who advocate it in this House right now. This government has spent a great deal of time trying to give information and trying to respond to the Legislative Assembly Members, and this would be another body of people who we would have to respond to.

We only have about 60,000 people in the Northwest Territories. I could see something like this in a larger jurisdiction, but every day for the past year we have faced Members of this Legislative Assembly plus committee meetings in the communities which have been carried out, and we have provided a great deal of information. However, I do not hear any human cry out there that people are wanting us to place a priority on this legislation. I see a priority on many things concerning health, social services, education and program delivery, but I do not see people out there wanting anything but more community support to get the job done. If I was putting a priority on delivering some support to community, it would be community development, to help people get to the growth point where they want to be. To me, this is another level of bureaucracy which the government has to feed. It takes time and effort to make sure that the information is provided, and it seems to me people want to hear what Members of this Legislative Assembly become concerned about. It is the area of privacy, where people want to be able to dig, and I do not know how far you go in a small jurisdiction like the Northwest Territories.

I look at the people who showed up at these community meetings and it is not anyone who has not been there before. So, the whole process which we had before did not instigate other people or new people to show up at those community hearings, which were done at a great deal of personal time by MLAs on the committee and personal expenditure by this Legislative Assembly and government. I cannot see that you have an argument to say the people of the Northwest Territories are crying to have us put this on a priority list, with all the other things we are doing. If there is any evidence that I have missed, I will take note of it, although I have followed the work and I have followed the diligent way that the committee tried to bring people out and bring the interest level up, but it just did not happen, it did not fly. You are putting a priority in an area which will take a great deal of time unless we do it quick and dirty, but I do not see where the word "priority" can be demonstrated with all the work that was done and the people who showed up. It does not give us that message.

Thank you. A recommendation in the form of a motion. To the motion. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed that the committee has not allowed any time for a discussion or comments on the report and that we have gone straight into a motion without an opportunity for general comments. I, in fact, had hoped to ask some questions. Would that be out of order?

I am advised that now the motion has been... If the mover of the motion is prepared to withdraw, we can go back to general comments. Mr. Whitford.

The mover has withdrawn the motion and we are now in the discussion of the report. Mr. Patterson.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess in hearing this report read and in considering what kind of a person would be hired to be an ombudsman, I would like to ask the committee, who have obviously worked very hard on this issue, what could the ombudsman do that a Member of this Legislative Assembly could not do with the powers, resources and staff which are now available to a Member of this Assembly? Specifically, Mr. Chairman, the committee cited on page 41, "several specific examples were presented to the standing committee detailing situations where the interventions of an ombudsman would have been beneficial, and also examples where organizations had to become involved to assist individuals to deal with their complaints against the government." I have two questions, one is, could I have some more information about the specific examples where an ombudsman would have been able to help? Secondly, I would like to hear more about organizations which have been forced to assist individuals. What I am curious about is, could the individuals' Legislative Assembly representative not have been involved, and was the MLA not involved and if not why not? Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Would Mr. Lewis respond to the question of the honourable Mr. Patterson. Mr. Lewis.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, the committee found, at least in the western part of the territories, there was not an overwhelming feeling that an ombudsman was required. The argument was made that, in fact, the MLA has that kind of role to play, as far as many people in the west are concerned. From the east, though, there was a feeling that there were some examples where there were problems with businesses, for example, that could not access the information they wanted or had difficulty in understanding how decisions are made, and an ombudsman could perhaps present both sides that they at least would have an amicable understanding of how government has arrived at its decisions.

The overall feeling of the committee was that the priority was very much the one which Mr. Gargan had presented in the last Assembly, which was that the public has a right of access to information that they really pay for. It was not a large cost item, it was something that could be very simple and straightforward.

The issue raised by Mr. Patterson about the ombudsman, the general feeling from the committee, and it is reflected in the report, is that this is something which could be looked at later. The priority should be access, just the basic access to information that people consider to be a right. The specific examples of how an ombudsman could become involved for the most part the public felt that MLAs already fulfil that kind of role. That was why this was placed as a second phase, a second legislative action paper to see if there was a real need for an ombudsman, simply because it seemed to duplicate to the work of MLAs. However, the specific examples which were given were to do with where someone had received a particular contract, or there had been some disagreement and so on, and there would be some role there where, perhaps, an ombudsman could determine where something that been dealt with fairly or not.

Thank you. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to add a little bit to what Mr. Lewis was saying. I attended all the meetings which took place in the east and the view which was taken from the presentations that we received from the east are slightly different from those which we received in the west. The participation in each of these hearings in the east was much greater than in the west, which I think was what the Premier was looking at.

I do not know how many people in the west know how accessible Yellowknife is from the east. In the east we heard of the definite need for either an ombudsman or someone from an office from access to information located in the east. When the suggestion was made from the west that MLAs could do the job of an ombudsman, in the east it is a different story. For example, I have now been here for seven straight weeks. As far as people in my area are concerned, I am not accessible because I am in the west. There is a telephone but that is not the same as having a person right there in front of you to talk to you in the language that you understand. I think that is what we heard from the east, just to add to what Mr. Lewis was

saying because that was where we were coming from in the east. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I have Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just going back to the transcripts on the leadership speeches which were made, and even speeches which were made by Members who were running for the Executive, much of the message I keep hearing, including Mr. Patterson's, is that we have to look at making this government more accessible and accountable to the people. It was something that was also discussed during the last election, if I recall correctly. So, this is not a new initiative. I believe it became an issue only after it was defeated during the last Assembly. I have not heard anyone who ran during the last election opposed to the public having access to government information. Not one person opposed it. I do not know what the problem seems to be, this government is all of a sudden getting the jitters again with respect to this whole issue. What are we trying to hide? Are we going to have Members tabling their expenses for the public, but not anything else? We cannot allow the public to do that unless they do it through their MLA. We cannot be talking out of both sides of our mouths. Either we support something such as this for the public, and we send that message out, or else we say we have made a mistake, what I said was not what I meant. Say this if this is what you mean. Do not base it on something which happened out there when we visited the communities. You have also made your own promises to the public. Keep that in mind also. We went to the communities because everyone else told us to do so. That was part of the election platforms that many people chose to address, more access to government and more access to government information, make ourselves visible. I believe that was the message I received. I did not hear anything to the contrary. There is nothing wrong with this legislation. I think this government should take it and start drafting legislation. By all means, it is still your duty to do that. If you chose not to support it after you have presented it, then that is your prerogative. The Members on this side have put their support behind this action paper. It is up to you to take that action paper and wrap up something.

Thank you. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a Member of the Standing Committee on Legislation. We visited the communities in the Northwest Territories to hear from the public with regard to the idea of having an ombudsman or ombudsperson. Perhaps not many people attended our public meetings, and we did not go to some of my constituency, but no one ever stated, to me, that there should not be an ombudsperson. They requested someone to help them acquire information from the government. I have heard this at all of the meetings I have attended. There are departments which we can acquire information from, but we cannot do that as unilingual people. When a person has a problem and does not know where to go to get information, this is why we wanted this kind of legislation.

There was never anyone during our visits who said they did not want legislation of this sort. Every community does not need to have an ombudsperson, as long as there is one in the region. As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we have to be available to our people. People have the right to information from the government and not just from their MLAs. Someone said there were not many people who attended the public meetings, but of all of the communities which I visited, they stressed the fact that there should be some kind of an ombudsperson, not necessarily in all of the communities. However, perhaps one in the region.

In my constituency, there were people saying there should be an ombudsperson so that the public at large can get information from the government. For that reason, we visited the communities to get their views and what they felt about acquiring an ombudsperson or anyone who can be an information officer for the public. There might not have been very many people who attended the public meetings but out of all of the people I heard from, no one ever said they did not want an ombudsperson or information officer. Perhaps the lack of participation by the public is because this was the first year we visited the communities.

Mr. Dent.

Thank you. Are there any general comments? Mr. Patterson.

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.

Thank you. Madam Premier. Then Mr. Lewis, Silas and Mr. Arvaluk.

Just to make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about the development of another level of bureaucracy around an ombudsman. Whether it is a Cabinet or committee Members, each Member should have the right to ask questions and not have someone become defensive about it. I do not get defensive when you slaughter me with questions. The only thing I am concerned about is when you went out to the communities, it was a big issue before, it did not come through after a great deal of debate and it went to the general public and I did not see many people who were that interested. It might be like Mr. Dent is saying, people thought it was going to be dealt with so they did not show up. Perhaps that is true.

I see the same people here that were here before, and no new people jumped on the support system. I have no problem with the access to information, but it is the building on of that I have a concern about. Right now we spend a great deal of time putting out information, and I have no problem with that. I did not think receiving information was a problem. In terms of saying there has to be a more clear line of getting it, I have no problem with. However, to build an ombudsman and a bureaucracy around it, I have a problem with. When I go to a community and deal with the community, often times it is not that the information is not there, if a person is sitting in a community and they know there is a program available, the information is right there, but they do not have anyone to go and talk to. Sometimes the hamlet wants it, and it is not that the information is not available, it is they do not know whether it exists or not. It does not mean you need legislation to get it, but maybe it is to provide training or community development people, training the employment officers and offering them upgrading so they can provide more to the community. I do not think that it is information that is not available. There is no requirement for an institution to service that. There may be places where information is critical and people are wanting that information, but in terms of giving it the highest priority in relation to other things, that is my question to you. People did not go up there and beat the bushes for it. That was a concern I raised. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear, you have two areas here. How would you justify making that a priority when people did not show up?

Mr. Lewis, Mr. Arngna'naaq, Mr. Gargan. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a classic case of something which was very simple in the last Assembly, which was confused. When Mr. Gargan had a bill that everyone was happy about, the ordinary Members were happy about then the government said we could make it better than that by including an additional function. It was not the ordinary Members' initiative to propose an ombudsman. That, in fact, came from the government because it would involve money. You, as an ordinary Member, cannot advance a bill where there has to be an involvement of expenditures like that. The bill that was presented as a private Member's bill, did not involve the creation of a bureaucracy at all. It was the government's initiative that moved this piece of legislation to make it a more complex thing to include other functions such as an ombudsman. I would also like to point out that when Mr. Whitford made his motion, there was no mention of an ombudsman in that motion. All that motion said was that we had to proceed with the establishment of the right of access by the public to information held by government institutions. It was at that point that the Premier interjected and said I do not want to discuss this motion until I can have an opportunity to discuss the whole issue surrounding it. It was for that reason that Mr. Whitford withdrew the motion. The big issue for Members of the Assembly, right from the last Assembly where it was the major issue in the last election, at least from my experience, and I agree with Mr. Dent's analysis, is that the public assumes we are getting on with it and making sure that we are on the right track. Those people who felt we were not on the right track, I suppose stayed home and said, "I do not have to worry about this because we have had the commitment."

The commitment could never have been put more accurately and properly than those used by the Premier herself during the leadership debate. I will read it to you. "Mr. Chairman, there is a growing demand by the public for greater accountability and openness in government. People are seeking more information from government about how and why decisions are made. They want to be assured their concerns will be listened to when legislation comes before committees. These feelings have been expressed from all regions of the territories, and as a result one of the first pieces of legislation which will have to be introduced and passed quite appropriately by the Legislative Assembly is access to information." Those are her words, and it was on that basis that she now leads this government. She has already said that would be her first priority, and we are not talking about an ombudsman, we are talking about access to information. That is all there is in the motion which Mr. Whitford read. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I have Mr. Arngna'naaq.