Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, after yesterday's vote on deferring the bill, I think it's clear that there is support by a majority of Members for this bill and the principles behind it. Since I accept that, I guess what I would now like to pursue is really whether this bill is going to do the job and meet the expectations of the honourable Members.

Mr. Chairman, just at a quick glance in looking at the whole bill, it's a total of 44 pages in length, in the reprinted version. I just quickly added up the pages of the bill that deal with exceptions and qualifications on access to information -- division B is 13 pages. Then I added up the three pages that protest the disclosure of personal information and that's another three pages. Sixteen pages of this bill -- and I'm generalizing here, but I think 16 pages of this bill -- contain exceptions and qualifications on access to information.

I guess, Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to wonder whether there aren't some very large, gaping loopholes in the bill through which one could drive the proverbial Mack truck. For example, Mr. Chairman, I heard Mr. Gargan quite properly describing yesterday the importance to his constituents of knowing why they didn't get a job. I believe there's a section in the bill that says if there's a character reference provided in an employment situation, like an unfavourable character reference, that information you cannot get. So if Mr. Gargan's constituent lost a job because some person did not give a favourable character reference to that constituent, the constituent would not be entitled to get that information.

Similarly, there's a section in the bill that says if personal information is considered in determining eligibility for social assistance, then that information, if it's requested under a request for access to information, is privileged and private.

The other example Mr. Gargan gave, I believe, which was would someone be entitled to know why a person was refused social assistance, or eligibility for student financial assistance, legal aid or other social benefits. That refusal was based on personal information about eligibility and that information could not be obtained.

Similarly, Mr. Chairman, I believe that such subjects as the details of the assets of persons or corporations who apply for government assistance, loans or other government programs would also be exempt from public scrutiny.

Another section that I noted in my quick perusal of the bill says that information may be refused where it could reasonably be expected to harm the economic interest of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to be a very general kind of concept. I find myself wondering if questions are being asked which would lead to the economic prejudice of the Government of the Northwest Territories, which would suggest that the Government of the Northwest Territories could suffer financial loss or otherwise be embarrassed in contractual or other relations. This information could be refused. It is in that area that our business community is particularly interested in looking for mistakes, oversights, errors or poor judgement on the part of officers of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

So I guess, Mr. Chairman, my general comment here now -- and I realize we'll have an opportunity for questions as we go through the bill -- is if we're going to buy this bill -- the majority of Members indicated yesterday their support for this bill -- then let us be clear that we're getting what we think we're getting. That we're going to be able to find out why we didn't get a job and we're going to be able to find out why we were refused for social assistance. We're going to be able to find out details of contract awards and tenders, and loans and grants. None of which, I think, may be easily assessable according to the 16 pages of qualifications and exceptions in this 44-page bill.

I'm no longer an active lawyer, and my understanding of these sections may be incorrect. It may be firmly on the side of the citizen, and the government's interest in protecting itself and avoiding embarrassment may be minimal here. But on the face of it, it looks like this bill is chock-full of exceptions, qualifications, exemptions and protection of privacy. I guess I'm starting to wonder, if we're going to go ahead with this bill, how many teeth is there in it? How much real right is the individual given to access information and to find out what's going on?

I again repeat that some of the good reasons I have heard from Members of this Assembly about things like jobs, applications for government programs, business activities and activities in the commercial side of the Government of the Northwest Territories may well be beyond our reach as citizens. So I guess I am now starting to question, Mr. Chairman, even though this bill is going to go ahead, do we have a bill that is so qualified, protected and accepted that, in fact, we have something that is not going to achieve the lofty purposes that had been hoped for by those who supported it being brought forward? Thank you.

Yes, just one final comment with regard to what Dennis was saying. It's in section 22 and also 23, but it's also where it has to protect third-party interests. One of the things that I want to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I have never worked as a public servant or even as a Minister and, naturally, if this act itself comes into force, it would mean that anybody serving in government can't be exposed in the year 1982. It's two years before it comes into force. So I would think for anybody who has been a public servant and has to make a decision that they might have a concern about, in 15 years they could be exposed to what could be detrimental to them or to their careers.

So I can see where some of the Members might not support the bill but would be concerned about the waiting period of less than 25 years. I think we have agreed on a reasonable rate of about 15 years. That has been the point. I just thought that I would let you know that as far as the bill goes, I don't think I have anything to be concerned about, but maybe some other Members do.

Mr. Chairman, I think the rules prohibit a Member from imputing motives to another Member, and I would request that you consider whether Mr. Gargan's comments are imputing a motive to Members who may have had questions about this bill. If you would like, Mr. Chairman, I will spell it out. What I take from Mr. Gargan's comments is that there is a suggestion that in questioning the provisions of this bill, a Member who may have been on a Cabinet that considered decisions prior to 1982 may be afraid that there will be some embarrassing disclosures. I would like to suggest that kind of imputation of motive is outside the rules of this House and that the Member should be requested to withdraw that accusation, that allegation. Thank you.

I have made reference to clause 14 with regard to the 15 years on the amended version, but, again, it was based on consulting with the department about what they felt was a safe number without really defeating the real intent of the bill. I think 15 years came up as a fairly safe number that might not be such a threat to people who may have worked in government or in the Executive.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gargan is making my point for me again. He is suggesting that the provisions in this bill which would open Cabinet decisions after 15 years are threatening to some honourable Members. Now, Mr. Chairman, since the remarks were made shortly after my comments questioning the bill, since I was in Cabinet in 1982 and 1981, I am suggesting that Mr. Gargan is imputing a motive to me, namely, that I am opposing this bill because I have something to hide and I am afraid of what might come out if decisions made during my tenure in Cabinet are revealed. I resent that, Mr. Chairman. The thought has not come into my head. It has taken no part in my consideration of this bill, and I think, and I'll say it again, with respect, I believe that the honourable Member is imputing a motive which is against the rules of this House. I made my points with no reference to previous Cabinet decisions. I didn't discuss the subject, nor was it even in my head.

My point of order, Mr. Chairman is, that that's imputing a motive, suggesting a motive that wasn't there and then there's no evidence to allege that motive and I think you should rule that those kinds of remarks are not appropriate in debate in this House and that they should be struck from the record.

Mr. Chairman, I'll withdraw that comment from the record. I'll rephrase my question when it comes to that clause.

Yes, I'd like to thank my honourable colleague for his gracious remarks. Thank you.

Clause By Clause

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I get interpretation of this part of clause 2, page 3? I don't understand the section I outlined before, "'Record' means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner..." Then it goes on to say, "...but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces records." Does it mean that the information that any person will be getting from the government is going to be written only, since the clause says the records cannot be produced mechanically or recorded? I don't understand that section.