Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I just wanted to take the opportunity to recognize one of the pages here, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I would like Members to recognize James T'Seleie. James, do you want to stand up?

---Applause

James is Mr. John T'Seleie's son. He is 13 and is in grade 8 at the Range Lake North School in Yellowknife. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief comment about Bill 6. I am part of the Standing Committee on Legislation. We reviewed the bill very thoroughly. We had witnesses appear before the standing committee. I, as a Member of that committee, supported the bill. However, Mr. Chairman, I agree with my colleagues Mr. Arvaluk and Mr. Patterson on some of the more urgent needs in the eastern Arctic and I'm sure, as well, in the western Arctic.

Mr. Chairman, Gjoa Haven needs a home for elders. We need safe shelters for battered women in some of the communities. We need, Mr. Chairman, access roads to hunting areas in the eastern Arctic. I'm sure some communities need access roads to hunting areas in the western Arctic as well.

Mr. Chairman, there are needy people in this jurisdiction, people living off welfare in some of the more remote communities where the cost of living is very, very high; not only in the eastern Arctic but in remote communities of the western Arctic. We heard that the government built winter roads in the eastern Arctic in accessible communities during the summer. I'm sure the cost of living is very high in those communities.

Mr. Chairman, maybe 15 years ago, finding funding for new endeavours by this government would have been something we could have done. But, now things are getting harder, time are hard, and resources are getting smaller and smaller, not only on a yearly basis but as well on a bi-yearly basis.

Mr. Chairman, I believe in open government. I believe in a government that is accountable to the people. Mr. Chairman, the few people who talked to me about accessing information from this government are the people from the business community in my region. Sometimes, they wanted to know why a particular contract was awarded to a particular contractor in the community or outside of the community. Sometimes, they wanted to know what decisions were made by this government not while we were in session -- they hear what is going on during session; they see us operating in session -- but between sessions.

I believe that making information more accessible to the public will help the public but, as Mr. Patterson indicated yesterday -- very eloquently -- and Mr. Arvaluk and other Members, times are difficult. There are real needs out there and people who are at a disadvantage in the small communities. When I speak, I would like to think that I speak not only for my people but for people across the territories, although mainly for people in small communities in the eastern Arctic. I travelled to the western Arctic with my eastern colleagues. I have seen similar situations that I have seen back home.

If there are resources within the Department of Justice, I will concur with my colleagues, as an elected Member and also as a Member of the Standing Committee on Legislation, that this is a good thing. People want to know what is going on in the system. There are cries out there that people want open government. We are an open government. When we deliberate in the House, we do that in front of a camera and the public knows what is going on. But, there are times, Mr. Chairman, when even politicians are not able to travel to communities. It may be because of the weather, because of other commitments, or because we don't have enough funds in our travel allowance.

This may not be the right time to do it. There are other needs in the system. But, as a responsible elected Member, I think access to information is what the public wants now and I will be supporting the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concept of this act, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is a very good one. It is an act this Legislature has been working on for a number of years. I agree with the concept. But, I don't fully agree with the way the act is written and, in listening to the Minister who has appeared before the committee, I don't agree with what the government is going to do in terms of making information available to the people of the Northwest Territories.

For one thing, the Minister has stated -- and it also says this in the act, I believe -- that information should be available equally to all people in the Northwest Territories. It is not going to be, since the Minister and the department have said that if the information being requested is in English only and the person requesting it is a unilingual Inuk person from my community, that person will not be given an Inuktitut document, if that information is not translated. If the person wants it translated, he has to pay a fee. That access is not equal to everybody else's, in my mind.

Also, there are quite a few people of the western Arctic who are not able to read English or their language, because their language is not written or it is written, but they can not use the written form to get information. There is a clause in here which I don't get. It is under record document. It says

"Record means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner." So far, so good. Then it says "But does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces the record." Before hand, it said they'll use any kind of written, photographed, recorded and stored in any manner, then later on says no. I don't understand that. Does that mean if the information is recorded on tape or video tape, its not acceptable under this act? Or does that clause say the information is only available in written form or photographed? I don't quite get that clause. Before I go on, I have a few more. Maybe I could get more clarification on that interpretation section. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would agree that for specific concerns, I am willing to wait until we get into those areas. On the general comments, I would like to point out areas that I have a concern over. That's the one I'm concerned about and I don't understand that section of the interpretation. At the beginning it sounds like, "'Record' means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner..." But later on, it says, "...but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces records." To me, that's taping using a cassette tape recorder or video tapes, that sort of thing. I don't understand the section. Maybe when they get into the clause-by-clause, that could be explained to me.

Also in section 4(2), the bill says it prevails over any other act. That concerns me a little bit. We have really good acts that people of the NWT are able to use such as the Official Languages Act which helps the aboriginal people to get information or to use their language to get information from the government. Under this section, it says that if a provision of this act is inconsistent or in conflict with the provision of another act, the provision of this act prevails unless the other act expressly provides that it, or a provision of it, prevails notwithstanding this act. To me, that means the act which is to prevail, has to make reference to this act. Since this bill is new, none of the acts we are able to pass in this Legislature makes any reference to this act.

My concern is if all the good acts we have that help the people of the NWT conflict with this bill after it becomes an act, they are no longer effective. The government will use this to interpret what has to be done because it prevails in the other act. That's my area of concern, as well.

Also to me, what's the legal word you use, "ultra vires"? To me, that's an ultra vires clause because our language...I'm just thinking of the Official Languages Act, and the Wildlife Act; especially the language act which is protected by the NWT Act. It's under the NWT Act. This Legislature cannot, to my understanding, change it unless the federal government says we can. It's our constitution. This act, if it passes the way it is, overrides our constitution. I don't agree.

Also, one of the questions I'm going to ask when we're going through clause by clause -- because this act prevails over any other act within our power -- is if the government has done any research. What sort of acts are affected by this act because it overrides any other act? I don't know if they have, but maybe they will tell us.

Mr. Chairman, the area of concern I touched on a little bit was for people who cannot read and will not have access to information the government provides, because they cannot read. They are called illiterate, I believe. Mr. Minister will probably correct me when we get to clause 7, and will explain what the records are, such as tapes, video tapes, and that sort of thing.

But, I believe this act will be used by the media. They can use this act to let the people of the Northwest Territories know about certain things. The media could access that information, without people asking for it, after this is passed.

Mr. Chairman, this act also does not make a provision for confidential complaints. Let's say if an access or privacy Commissioner is appointed, and there are people out there making complaints to him/her, would the public be able to get the names of those people? Those areas are not explained in this bill, whether people will be able to get that information.

When we get to specific areas, I will raise those concerns again, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From Aivilik, for the record.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not convinced about the effectiveness of or low potential costs of this bill, as we have discussed this over the past couple of days. Even now, the Minister is saying there may be a proposition to amend the bill which would allow for translation. How many other hidden costs will there be? Translation is very important and other O and M needs will probably be very important, too, but they are still costs in implementing this bill.

In my approximately, 25 years with the public service, I have had experience with land claims and cultural preservation programs. I have seen the evolution of my people from outpost camps to modern communities, with their aspirations to govern their own lands with laws initiated by them. That is their desire. Most of us remember this from the early 1970s. This is 1994.

It has been almost 25 years that we have been active in promoting self-government for Nunavut. Before that, there were complaints about the laws made for them. There were big differences between the laws, the constitution, regulations and government orders -- or directives, they call them -- from the Minister of Indian Affairs. You could transport northern Quebec people to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. There was

the building of low-rental, prefabricated houses, or matchboxes, for people, however the government saw fit.

The Inuit, especially, have witnessed many laws. They didn't understand them and didn't find them relevant. Because of that, the Inuit worked very hard to achieve land claim agreements and the Nunavut Act with Bill C-28. By 1999, the Nunavut Act will finally allow Nunavut residents to initiate laws that pertain to them and that are important to them.

This Legislative Assembly, I feel, has a responsibility to respect the spirit of the Nunavut Act by introducing bills that are of urgent necessity, not of popular political view. They should be practical, financially-responsible bills, such as Bill 1, Bill 7, Bill 8, Bill 4, Bill 9, Bill 11, and Bill 12. These are important today. We all support them. These are money bills, most of them, that we must introduce and pass. If we don't, we are not looking after the people we represent.

But, this Bill 6, if it is passed, is putting down what is in the Nunavut Act. I am part of that race and they are not very aggressive when it comes to finding out the nitty grittys of how the government operates, the nitty gritty files that the government may have. What they want to have is a more holistic approach. They want to have a better lifestyle, with better education, social programs and economic development.

I don't feel very comfortable in pretending to represent the people of Nunavut by allowing this bill to proceed the way it is. Mr. Chairman, with that comment, I would like to ask a question of the Minister. I'm not trying to get into a specific clause here, and if it is too specific, I can wait. Because I'm not sure, I think I will ask. My question is, is it the intent that this bill will become part of the laws of Nunavut if it is passed by the Legislative Assembly?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, do I understand that the Minister is stating that this will be inherited by the Nunavut government in 1999?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the answer. That clarifies it for me. But how many laws in this country or any other country have been easily repealed or changed after they've been implemented for some time? Just a comment, Mr. Chairman. It's so difficult, it's impractical. Thank you.