Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am going to support the bill but I have a few observations about this legislation and legislation like it across the country. Mr. Patterson is right, it is a difficult piece of legislation for elected officials not only to vote against, but to speak out against because it has become symbolic, in many ways, of the new politics. It has become a metaphor for open government.
The reality of the situation across the country is that this sort of legislation hasn't really done everything that it is supposed to do. Jurisdictions that have this sort of legislation still have frustrations, although frustrations of a different type. Where I will disagree with Mr. Patterson is about people's concern about it. I think Mr. Lewis made a valid observation about this and that is, when nothing is happening, then people don't really worry about this sort of legislation. But, if an incident occurs where somebody is denied access to information -- and it has happened in our government -- then the public at large does get worried. It is something that comes and goes. It is a reality of modern politics.
I will support the bill and I supported this principle the last time it came around. But, I would like some assurances from the government about the cost. The problem is always that we model our legislation and our administrative support mechanisms after southern jurisdictions, which have the major advantage of economies of scale and size that we don't really have. I really don't think that, at least at the beginning, we need a full-blown administration. I really, really don't think that we need to spend $1 million a year on this. I would find it fairly incredible if we did.
What would happen then is that the very bureaucracy we set up in order to make people's access easier becomes a new block. It seems to me that it's quite simple. Generally, the public, themselves, want pretty easy access to things that shouldn't give us any problem. There is actually legitimacy to their argument that, for whatever reason, government bureaucracy is overprotective. It seems to me that each deputy minister can be charged with the responsibility of ensuring that information that is not on the protected list should go out as a matter of course. It is not something that has to be a huge bureaucratic log jam. I guarantee that it will cause a lot of problems and we can't afford it.
To start off with, I'm not even sure that you need a full-time Commissioner. You may want to start off with a part-time Commissioner and have the deputy ministers responsible for administering it. And, if after six months, it is not working, then the government may want to have a look at it. At this point, the same public that is concerned about not having access to information is also just as concerned about the bureaucracy increasing. It's another strong public concern.
What the public would want is when they want information, they want a simple way to get it, without a big hassle. We shouldn't have a problem with that. The whole thing should run, I would think, fairly smoothly, without over complicating it with some complex administrative body.
When I finish my opening comments, I would like to ask the Minister for some assurances that he will seek ways to do this, which will make it more efficient, I think. Putting more money into it, as we have learned in government over the years, won't necessarily make it more efficient. It doesn't necessarily mean the public is going to get what they want.
I made a comment before that if we are going to go this route, as with the ombudsman route and the Languages Commissioner -- there are really so many different public advocacy models we can fall into -- we don't have the luxury of Ontario's multi-billion dollar budget to do it. That's the reality. The 70,000 people who live in the Northwest Territories would have to understand that, like a community of that size in other places, they can't have everything. It is not possible to have everything.
Here we have 24 MLAs, 60 mayors, 20 chiefs...There are probably about 1,500 elected representatives. There are strong women's support groups, there are strong labour support groups, there are strong chamber of commerce support groups. Our 70,000 people have a lot of advocates here already.
I will support this particular bill because we've built up expectations here in the Assembly over the past five years. I really think that, at this point, we have to deliver something. But, back to my point, if you really want one group of people who really don't have advocates, it is children. If you want to spend $1 million, spend it on a children's advocate.