Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It started out as a really good statement, "in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded..." Does that mean I could go to the government and ask for a tape since I cannot read or write? Could I ask the government for a taped section of the information I would like to get? On video, or cassette, that sort of thing.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Mr. Chairman, I guess when the whole issue of this bill first came forward in the last Assembly, I questioned whether a bill of this kind would limit the rights, powers and privileges of a Member of the Legislative Assembly to seek information in the House, in committee and in other ways. There are qualifications in section 3(2), which spell out that the act doesn't replace other access rights, but there's no reference whatsoever to the powers and privileges of an MLA to seek information, for example, by asking questions in a standing committee meeting, by asking for information in the Public Accounts committee or by asking questions in the Legislative Assembly.

I note that parts of the act, in section 17, say you can't get information about contractual or other negotiations of the Government of the Northwest Territories. I'd like to ask the Minister, if I ask questions now in the Legislature about contractual or other negotiations of the Government of the Northwest Territories -- like the Arctic A airport negotiations that are under way right now or the health billings dispute or the negotiations to transfer other responsibilities to the government -- would I be told by a Minister, I'm sorry, I'd love to answer that but it's an exception under the Access to Information Act, it will prejudice the economic interest of the Government of the Northwest Territories, if you want that information, you can't ask for it here.

I'd like to ask the Minister, why is there no protection in section 3(2) for the powers and privileges of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

But, Mr. Chairman, that's my point. It doesn't include MLAs. Part 3(2), a to e, talks about existing procedures. In part b, it talks about access normally available to the public; it talks about information available in part to legal proceedings in part c, it talks about not affecting the powers of a court to compel a witness; it talks about not prohibiting the storage or transfer or destruction of records, but it does not say that it doesn't limit the powers and privileges of an MLA.

I was hoping to see it in there. The Minister tells me it is in there, but I don't see it. I don't think we come under the category of processes normally available to the public. I'm talking about the privileges that we have, as Members of the Legislative Assembly, and as committee Members, which are greater than those of an ordinary citizen and include, in the case of committees, the power to compel government bureaucrats and Ministers to account before those committees, particularly in areas of accounts with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

With respect, I don't see that protection there. I was hoping it might be there. If it is not there, the Minister is right, I wonder whether it should be put in there. Because, frankly, I don't want to stand up in question period and be told, well, I'm sorry, I can't answer this question because it is an exception under the Access to Information Act. You can't ask that because it prejudices the economic interests of the Northwest Territories. I don't think we want to erode MLA privileges in that regard with this act. I'm sure other Members will agree with me on that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will ask again. If it is in here, where is it? I don't see it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are comforting words. The great body of rights and privileges embodied in parliamentary procedure over hundreds of years of the evolution of parliamentary democracy is carefully protected in clause 3(2)(a) under existing procedures. Frankly, that is not much comfort to me, Mr. Chairman.

I guess I would like to ask our legal advisor, in case the phrase "existing procedures" does not clearly preserve the rights and privileges of an MLA in a Legislature and in committee, could the bill be improved -- if that's the clear intention of the government -- by adding (f) which spells out that this bill does not, in any way, limit the powers and privileges of a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories? My question is, would that kind of provision give more assurance, the kind of assurance I'm seeking, and would it, in any way, go against the spirit of this bill and the spirit of this section, if such a subsection would be added. Just to give me a little bit of comfort?

Mr. Kakfwi is very clear that everything's okay, but I think parliamentarians' privileges are not to be trifled with and I would like a little more assurance than being told, oh, you fit into "existing procedures," don't worry. That is not enough comfort for me, Mr. Chairman. Would a specific clause, spelling out that parliamentary privilege is not prejudiced, appropriately fit into the spirit of this subsection? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, the addition of that type of clause would make it very clear that the privileges of an MLA are not to be affected by this act. I think that there is a very good argument to be made that that does exist in the current wording of section 3(2)(a), but the addition of the amendment would make it very clear.

I should note, however, that it is not part of the privilege of an MLA to force the government to give information; it is just a part of the privileges to be in a position to ask the government for that type of information. Then, Mr. Patterson asked if it would offend the spirit of the act. I don't believe it would offend the spirit or purpose of the act.

I was ahead of myself, sorry. I will wait until the next clause.