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.