Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am aware that this legislation has been called for many years because of the vacuum that was in place and that there were situations that had to be addressed that couldn't be addressed because of the lack of legislation. One of the principal driving forces behind this legislation was the rather narrow concern to protect people working in the field from liability for their actions.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on the record that, although I am not opposed to the legislation going forward for reasons I have just indicated, I, too, having studied the bill somewhat, not having been able to participate in the hearings of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I have a very strong feeling of unease that there is too much "big brother" in this legislation and too little respect for the dignity of the individual.
I believe that enlightened jurisdictions in Canada, who have had experience with this issue for many years, have made considerable progress in establishing the presumption that guardianship should be avoided wherever possible; in establishing the presumption that a person has the right to make decisions for themselves; as an operative presumption, which can only be set aside under the gravest of circumstances and after all other possible alternative measures have been considered.
Mr. Chairman, looking at the bill, I don't see the philosophy of maximum support for independent decision-making present in this bill. I wonder whether we have let the lawyers and the professionals take over this process and develop something that will be a very elegant process for professionals working in the established bureaucratic and legal system, and perhaps is not as sensitive as it might be to the needs of the individual, particularly recognizing that many of the people who will be affected by this legislation are aboriginal people whose first language is not English, who are not familiar with the legal system and who may find life in an institution, for example, quite different from the way they have lived their lives and the values and traditions that have governed them for most of their lives.
Mr. Chairman, I am anxious to hear the Minister's comments because I am sure he is sensitive to this issue and has undoubtedly considered it in bringing this legislation forward. If we agree that it is right that these drastic powers should be avoided wherever possible, if we agree that there should be a presumption in favour of the person's right to make decisions for themselves, then why should we not put that kind of a presumption right up front at the beginning of this legislation in a whereas clause that will spell out that this act should be interpreted in such a way as to respect the right of the individual to govern their own lives and the presumption that people can make their own decisions without interference by the state, in every possible circumstance.
I understand that representatives for the Association for Community Living made a suggestion to the drafters of this legislation that if we agree on these important principles, especially as they are applied in the cross-cultural situation, where we all know people can be vulnerable, why not put in a whereas clause that will make it clear and will set the stage for the application of this legislation. I understand that the association was told that we don't put whereas clauses in legislation. I know a piece of legislation where there is a whereas clause and that is the Official Languages Act of the Northwest Territories. That is one that has such a clause.
I was rather disappointed that it was dismissed as technically impossible when for one of the most culturally sensitive issues that has gone before our Legislature -- official languages -- it was felt appropriate and desirable to put in a whereas clause to set the tone for the legislation. I want to ask the Minister and endorse Mr. Lewis's comments, if this is the spirit with which we want to approach this legislation, would it not be appropriate to state that up front so that all the judges, lawyers and non-native social workers, who may be involved in this situation, will understand the fundamental concern of Members: that these powers are to be exercised with extreme caution?
I just want to cite one section that to me shows that big brother is alive and well in this legislation. I know this is general comments, but I was alarmed to see in section 11(2) that it is proposed, under powers of the guardian, that a court could give the guardian powers under 11(2)(e) and (f) to decide whether the represented person should work and, if so, the nature and type of work for whom he or she is to work. That is (e). Sub (f) is, "decide whether the represented person should participate in any educational, vocational or other training and, if so, the nature and extent of that training."
Mr. Chairman -- and this is for the Minister -- if a person is fit to work or go to school, isn't the person themselves fit to decide what course or job they take? To me, this is an indication that the state is intervening unnecessarily. Perhaps there is a good reason for this, but common sense would seem to me that if someone is capable of working, they should be capable of deciding what job they should take, and the same with training.
I have a question about the general character of this bill and, specifically, could you comfort us by devising a simple preamble to the bill that would clarify the rights of the individual being preeminent? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.