Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Avison.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Bill 6, the legislation does come with a provision that would give the capacity to the head of a public body to require that a fee be paid if information is requested of the government. It would be a discretionary capacity to request that a fee be paid. It may not be done in all cases, and that is the mechanism that would facilitate dealing with that type of situation.

It must be said, however, that that is not the kind of situation that is contemplated by the proposed amendment to clause 7, which would be designed to ensure that a record could be translated into an official language other than the language it was in, to provide for an understanding of the document by the person who has requested it.

The Member is quite correct in indicating that in other jurisdictions there have been significant difficulties with the making of frivolous applications or blanket applications, in some cases, which could otherwise generate a large volume of expense, and that is why the discretionary provision is contained in the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Patterson, and I also have Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that's very helpful information. I now understand that there would be a fee paid in most circumstances, but in a special situation where a translation is required, by this amendment there will not be a fee required to pay for the translation of a record. I understand that now and am satisfied with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. To the motion, Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the same section, section 7.2, duty to create documents, under (a) and (b), especially b), it reads, "creating a record would not necessarily unreasonably interfere with the operation of a public body." In your motion, it states that the applicant shall not be required to pay a fee for the translation of the record. If the material requested is 100 pages and it is available from the public body in one of the official languages, for example, English, and it is requested in Inuktitut -- as you are allowing it to be in clause 7 -- is clause 7.2(b) saying it is going to interfere with the public body's load of work? Would that be considered, or would a translation be exempt from 7.2(b)?

Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Subsection 7.2 deals with circumstances where the applicant asks for a record to be created from something else, perhaps from a computer database or something else. Computer equipment can't create a record that doesn't already exist, but it can pull together information and put it into one record.

The translation provision is dealing with a separate instance where there is an existing record, or even one of these records that has been created, and the applicant wants to have that record translated into an official language. I don't think there is any conflict between the two provisions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way I read 7.2(b) is that if there is too much work for the government, if we are interfering with the government because of the volume of work that has to be produced from requests, then the government will decide whether they should make up a contract or tell the person who is requesting it that theirs is an unreasonable request.

Would this section consider the Minister's amended motion, or would this be exempt? Would the translation provisions of this clause be exempt for that?

Thank you. Minister Kakfwi.

Thank you. To the motion. The honourable Member for Aivilik.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand, then, that if the record is available in English, then it must be provided in Inuktitut or a Dene language, for example, no matter how lengthy it may be, whether it is 100 pages or 200 pages.

I guess what I'm asking is if one of the divisional boards requested a statute, like the Education Act, in their own language so that they could thoroughly study it -- like the cultural inclusion program provision, for example, and how it relates to other curriculum development, or the comparative powers between the regular curriculum provisions and the cultural inclusion part of it -- then you have to produce that, if it is available in English. That's my question, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Avison, you have to talk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the language of the proposed amendment it would not require that all documents be translated if there were a request for the document in another language other than the one that it already exists in. What it would do is give the head of the public body the opportunity to have that document translated into another official language, to accommodate the request that has been made.

If a decision was taken in the public's interest not to do that, then that decision not to have the document translated could be reviewed. But it does not operate as a matter of course to require that in every case where a document is requested in another official language, other than the one that it is in, that a translation take place. Thank you.

Qujannamiik. To the motion. Mr. Arvaluk.

Then, there will be a requirement for the Commissioner to determine whether that is a valid denial to have it translated. What other avenue does the person requesting have to pursue? Would that have to come in the regulation that would be governed by the Commissioner?

Merci. Mr. Minister.