Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend that we continue with Bill 6, Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and if we are able to conclude Bill 6, then we could move on to Committee Report 7-12(6), Report on the Review of Bill 7 - An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act and subsequently Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we are maybe making history here. In the past, we have heard the public talking about not having access to information of this particular jurisdiction. The act is so important we hear from some of the Members that the cost is secondary. But we should also realize that if we're going to have an Access to Information Act in the system, we should provide full service to the public who requires information from the government, not only to the population of the NWT who speak English and French. It would provide only partial service to the unilingual Dene and Inuit. I see some unfairness of the system.

If the act is so important, the public seems to want it, there's an outcry out there that we must be prepared to give full service to everyone, unilingual Dene, unilingual Inuit. We must be prepared to pay the cost of translation, interpretation, of providing a staff member at the government which the public may go through to enquire about information if it's important enough for us to be able to provide full service to those who are not able to speak English and French. It's not a question that I'm asking the Minister, but I am asking the Members of the Legislative Assembly. This is very important. We must be prepared to do that. Thank you.

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.

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.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, clause 4(2) says that, "If the provision of this act is inconsistent or in conflict with a 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."

My understanding is that if we have an act that conflicts with this act, then this act wins. Is my understanding correct?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member is right. Once this particular subsection comes into force, which will be two years after the rest of the act comes into force, this act will prevail over any other act to the extent of any inconsistency between the two acts. However, it only prevails over other acts where there is, in fact, an inconsistency in the two acts. I would anticipate that many of those inconsistencies will, in fact, be dealt with by amendment in the period leading up to the coming into force of subsection 4.2.

Thank you. I presume that we are talking about territorial statutes in this case. One of the acts we are so proud of is the Languages Act, where we are able to make an act that would be used by the public. If there are sections that conflict with this act, which we are so proud of as a people in the Northwest Territories, then would that act be struck down if it conflicts with this one?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there is an inconsistency between the Official Languages Act and the Access to Information Act with respect to a certain provision, that provision would not be struck down. However, this provision would prevail in respect to that inconsistency and

only in respect to that inconsistency. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, when it prevails, that act or section of the act is no longer effective and that act would have to be amended. My understanding is that our Languages Act is protected by the Northwest Territories Act which ultimately cannot change in this Legislature alone. It would have to go to the federal government to get changed. With this bill, we don't have to go and ask the federal government for permission to make this kind of legislation. I understand they have a year to strike this kind of deal down if it conflicts with what they call a proper bill, I guess -- I don't know; whatever you call it. How could we make a section in our act that would be stronger than the legislation that is protected by our constitution?

Okay, I will put it in a little scenario. If the languages act allows me to get certain information from the government and this act doesn't allow me to get that same information, ultimately, this act would win. I would not get the information, right? Or, if I chose to use a certain official language, my understanding is that the working language of this government is English only, according to the government's response from one of their tabled documents. If I have the right to ask the government in my own language, in Inuktitut, which a certain act allows me, if this act doesn't allow me, then I don't get that information in my language. Is that correct?

Mr. Chairman, my question is not being answered. Let's say that even after the amendments are made, this act prevails over any other act. If I have the right to ask for certain information in a different act, and this act doesn't allow me, then I will not be able to get it in the form that I requested because of this act, right? I am trying to make a point that in that way, my right as an individual that I enjoy today, if it conflicts with this act, then I will not be able to get that information any more. That's my understanding. So this act prevails over any other act that exists today unless the other act expressly provides that it or a portion of it prevails notwithstanding this act. So my understanding is that all the acts and statutes that we have don't make any reference to any part of this act because it's new, none of it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask our legal adviser on the recommendation of the Minister. Is it my understanding that if I have a right to get certain information in any other act of this government and that act conflicts with this

act, this would not allow me to get the same information, this act would win. In fact, I would not be able to get the information I requested.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a bit of a difficult question to answer without a specific example of what act you would be referring to. Most of the exceptions to disclosure contained within this legislation are discretionary. In other words, the head of a public body has the discretion whether to release the record or not.

Some of the exceptions to disclosure here are mandatory, for example, personal information of a third party. There's a statement saying you can't disclose personal information if it's going to invade somebody else's privacy. But even that mandatory caveat from disclosure is accepted if the disclosure of that information is authorized by another act of this Legislature.

So it depends on the type of information you would be looking for. I'm not sure if that answers your question. Most of the information is discretionary so it would be difficult for somebody to say you're allowed to have it in another act, and yet there's a discretionary right here. The information that is mandatory, that you cannot disclose, for example, personal information, the exception to that disclosure is if that information is authorized by another act.

I think what we would need is an example in an act saying you're allowed to have information in this act and you're not allowed to have it under the access bill, so that we could compare the two to see if it falls into the categories within the act as either a mandatory or discretionary exception to disclosure.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then I would ask our legal advisor, is section 4(2) the normal clause in that when we're creating a bill we make certain clauses that prevail over other acts? Thank you.