Thank you, Mr. Gargan. Do we have any comments from the committee? Are there any comments on the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation? General comments. Mr. Arvaluk.

General Comments

Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a concern that although there are other motherhood statements assuring that Legislative Assembly Members may be exempt from the definition of public body, in the first paragraph it reads, "Presenters felt the office of the Legislative Assembly is an institution different from the Members of the Assembly and the background papers and research information should be accessible by the public."

A lot of research needs to be done some time with our researcher. There has to be some legal advice acquired before that can be tabled in the House or we can make a Member's statement or even ask questions to some Ministers. However, with the request to have the research material available to the public, I feel very uncomfortable with it because sometimes initial research findings require further study, whether there is a liability involved from our own constituency office, not us necessarily.

The second point is on the second paragraph, Mr. Chairman. I would like to get an explanation as to exactly what the comments the Standing Committee on Legislation had when they stated that because the authority of the Speaker and the Management Services Board has a stature of being the executive arm of the rest of the Assembly and therefore should remain exempt from the definition of public body. Is the committee stating that we should be exempt? Is that what the recommendation is, to have that exemption in the legislation or Bill 6?

Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. I will recognize the chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation. Perhaps I could suggest that the Law Clerk could

try to explain the item Mr. Arvaluk is concerned about. First of all, I recognize the chairman, Sam Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, the section that deals with the public bodies is in...This bill itself was presented as an action paper about a year and a half ago. All the general public was aware of it. We've travelled to several communities to address the bill itself and those are the presenters who gave us presentations. One of the things said at that time, or that the Members suggested is that because of the type of work Members do, all the Legislative Assembly Members are excluded from this act. I didn't see any great opposition to it when we travelled to communities. This whole thing was through a two-year process. Since the government made a commitment to go ahead with it, it has been in the public domain. Where we went to the communities, there doesn't seem to be anybody upset over the direction the government is going. So I don't see what the problem seems to be now.

Thank you. Perhaps I could get the Law Clerk, before I recognize Mr. Arvaluk to indicate to the Member where the protection of what the Member is concerned about is clearly spelled out or defined in the bill. Mr. Gargan.

Point Of Order

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I think the whole purpose of the tabled document is for general comments. I don't know whether I should be answering the question or even defending the bill itself.

(Microphones turned off)

Thank you. Order, please. It is my understanding, for the clarification of the committee, that we are in general comments and when a Member of the committee asks for clarification, Mr. Gargan, as chairman of the Committee on Legislation, can, in fact, choose to answer or not choose to answer in this case. General comments. Perhaps I'd like Sheila to clarify something for Mr. Arvaluk. Sheila, our Law Clerk. Ms. MacPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This act before Members applies to all documents and all records in the custody of a public body. The public body is specifically defined to exclude the office of the Legislative Assembly. So the research, legal opinions and the information Mr. Arvaluk referred to earlier would specifically be exempt under this act and would not be producible under this act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Arvaluk, does that clarify your question? Thank you. I have, on the list, general comments. Mr. Patterson, I saw your hand up earlier.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure who I'm directing this question to if the chairman of the standing committee is reluctant to answer questions from the floor here. I'm curious, Mr. Chairman, that the committee's recommendation is only that the report be received and moved into committee of the whole. I, as a non-Member of this committee, am relying on the committee to have done careful review of the bill and heard from members of the public. And I would have expected more enthusiasm if the committee felt the bill is a wonderful thing and would be a great leap forward. I would have thought the committee would recommend the passage of the bill. But, instead, it has recommended the report be noted and moved into the committee and the recommendations are that...There are notes in the bill about the issues that were identified in the public hearings, but no real conclusion.

I guess I'd like to ask somebody, whether it's the Minister responsible or the chair, is there enthusiasm about this legislation? Is it something we're excited about or are we being propelled to do the politically correct thing because everybody else has done it and we hope it might work and we're going to get an annual review on how effective it was in the report of the Commissioner? I'm just trying to get a feel from people who know more about this bill than I do. Are we excited about it? Are we welcoming and embracing this progressive legislation or is it a ho-hum event where even the committee who considered it, is saying well, here's our report but we're not sure whether we're willing to recommend passage or not. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. We are dealing with the report, not a bill. If any of the Members of the Standing Committee on Legislation wish to respond to Mr. Patterson, you are free to do so, but, if you don't want to, that is your prerogative. That is my understanding. Mr. Gargan, you don't have to respond to Mr. Patterson's question; it's your prerogative.

Mr. Chairman, we had a legislative action paper that was tabled about a year and a half ago and was dealt with. And as a result of the public hearings, we have come up with a draft act. The enthusiasm was when they elected us after. We have gone through this act and had public input into it, and we have all referred to some of the people who made presentations. But the Members haven't gone clause by clause with the bill itself, and there were no Members of the committee that were opposed to it and all the Members agreed to all the clauses as amended and brought forward.

Thank you. General comments on the report of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, it seems that no one was opposed to the bill, but I have yet to hear anyone say they support it. This is quite a sizeable expenditure. I would like to ask the Minister what kind of a budget would be required to set up this office. Is the government enthusiastic about this bill and anxious to see it passed? Will it improve life in the communities in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. I believe the question is directed to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you. I would like to caution Mr. Patterson and other Members that we are dealing with a report, not Bill 6. The Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation and the Minister responsible for Justice may answer this question. If they choose to answer the question here at the review of the report they can do so, but if they do not choose to answer the question, they don't have to. We will be discussing Bill 6 in detail. We will then allow questions and answers. We are dealing with general comments. Mr. Lewis.

I am a Member of this committee so my name is attached to the front page. It shows I am a Member of it. I would like to point out that it's not the job of a committee to be the cheering section or the heckling section. Our job is to review the bill and try to make it as good as we can. We didn't originate the bill. The government proposes it, and the Assembly disposes of it. Our report, hopefully, will help the Assembly to decide what they want to do with it.

It seems to me that Mr. Kakfwi is right that when we met and had several presentations on this act we had some concerns. His department's officials responded very quickly. Even before discussing the issue with his officials, Mr. Kakfwi agreed, just on the surface, that we should avoid, for example, trying to define aboriginal government. You could see right away that we shouldn't be trying to define what aboriginal government is. He knew it right off and agreed to make that kind of change. There were several other ones, such as the exclusion of the Assembly, the ridiculous override of 25 years. He came in with a reasonable proposal. It wasn't quite as short as what we had proposed, but it was acceptable. It was reasonable.

So although you don't have a report that is standing up, yelling and screaming that this is the best thing since sliced bread, you are always going to have problems with sectors of the public that figure you haven't gone far enough. That is always going to happen.

So, when you look at this act, you are going to find various people who will find fault with it because of what it doesn't do. But it's clear to me that the sentiment that's existed within the last eight years is still there. People feel that we should have an open government and the way to do that is to do the best you can with providing people with access.

So even though this may not be the perfect thing, it is something that is a response to what we have heard from the public, and the changes that are in here reflect what the public has told us. If the public out there wanted more, then we obviously haven't heard about it. The opportunity was given. It was well advertised, well publicized and the changes which are in here reflect the concerns of those people who saw fit and found time to bring their concerns to the committee.

So I am not one of those people who is going to get up and say this is a wonderful act, it's the best in the western world. This basically is the kind of act that you will find in other jurisdictions, it is not that much different. It's not a unique piece of legislation that sets the path for everybody else. It's a piece of legislation that really fits into the mould that already exists that tries to achieve the balance between the peoples' right to know and peoples' right to have privacy. It is the kind of a balance that is very difficult to achieve. But I believe that this is probably as well as we can do at this time with this kind of legislation. The report reflects that, so I'm quite happy to support the legislation in the way that it has been proposed.

Thank you. Minister of Justice, Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. General comments, Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. It was three years ago, during the election campaign in October 1991, that the issue of access to information and protection of privacy was raised in almost every constituency across the north. At that time, because I was new in running, I was very enthusiastic about looking at a bill and getting something introduced. I publicly supported the introduction of such a bill and stated publicly that when it came into being I would probably support the bill.

Today, three years later, the enthusiasm may have waned. I don't have any pom poms to wave, but we do have a proposed bill and I want to state that I will support the passage of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to ask permission of the committee to conclude the tabled document in order to get into the details of going clause by clause. If Members have concerns over some of the sections, then perhaps they can be dealt with then. I just have one

committee motion I would like to move. If the committee would like agree to allow me to conclude the tabled document, then we could go on to deal with the motion.

Thank you. Mr. Gargan is asking the committee to conclude the committee report and move on to the motion. Do we have the agreement of the committee to go to the motion of Committee Report 4-12(6)? Mr. Zoe.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. General comments on the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation on Bill 6. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have a lot of other bills that have financial implications. The Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act is one of them where it requires Adoption Commissioners. I don't know how you would deal with that. I don't even know, with all the bills that are coming up, the financial implications, but the process right now we've accepted, I think, in this Legislature, is that all money bills are referred to the Standing Committee on Finance. But this is not a money bill, it's on access to information. I think the government has already said that it will cost some money to start this process. I cannot answer for the government how they're going to deal with it. Can I conclude my report and then get into the bill itself, if it's agreeable with the committee Members?

Thank you. Do we have the agreement of the committee that Mr. Chairman of the Standing Committee on Legislation wishes to conclude the report on the review of Bill 6? Do we have the agreement?

Agreed.

---Agreed

Make a motion, please. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As stated in the standing committee report on the review of Bill 6, the committee is concerned that a percentage of the population will not have equal access to information unless they are able to pay a prescribed fee for the translation of the documents.

The committee is aware that it is not possible to translate every record held by the government, however the committee feels that if it is in the public interest for the translation to be prepared, then the document should be given to the person within a reasonable period of time.