Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Allooloo.

I'm wavering between supporting the amendment that Mr. Lewis is putting forward because the existing act under section 12(2) says "the institute shall investigate." They have to investigate and report back to the Legislative Assembly. We are losing part of that. Maybe somehow we could get the power the Legislature has back into the act.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to respond to a few comments about process and the process we went through in dealing with this act. I'm a Member of that committee, Mr. Chairman, and, in fact, the committee did not support this act. In fact, it is black and white -- we have already read it into the record -- that the committee found some difficulty in supporting it.

The reason for that was largely due to some lack of detail about how the colleges were going to be established, but also a lack of real definition of what the new Science Advisory Council was going to be like. But, the main concern was the one I raised, which is the one relating to the ability of this legislation to get some responsible body that would be responsive to it in time of need. It was never expected that there would be an ongoing relationship between the Assembly and the institute.

It is very much like the Power Corporation, where the Minister, from time to time -- even though it has a board and has independence -- in days of need or emergency, has somewhere to turn to get something done. Those issues were listened to by our committee and that is why, as I've said, the committee didn't support this act. The Minister has gone some way, and I give him credit for trying to rectify some of the concerns of the committee.

But, on analysis of his proposed amendment, it doesn't go far enough in giving the Assembly some kind of entry into getting something done on an emergency basis, when it has got nowhere else to turn that it feels confident in. That's the only purpose of this amendment: to give some certainty that when it asks for something, it will get it, rather than asking for something and finding that there are other priorities that can't be set aside and that it had better look elsewhere.

I agree with our Law Clerk who says it is likely that anytime this very important body asks for something to be done, it would be done. But, we, as legislators, always want to find some way of making sure that there is some certainty and that it isn't left to the politics of the day. We would like to have something a bit more definite and certain than is proposed by the Minister's amendment to his act. But, I do give him credit for trying. Thank you.

Thank you. To the proposed amendment to the amendment. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. It is always difficult when you try to listen to the interpretations given by legal advisors or people who might give the impression of being legal advisors. But, I do want to say this. I have had a chance, Mr. Chairman, to go back and read -- and I do this quite often -- some of the debates and the man who led the debate about the Science Institute was a man by the name of Mr. Tom Butters.

His debate centred around the fact that the Assembly had no influence or very little influence on the issue of science activity in the Northwest Territories, as far back as 1971. His intention was that the Assembly Members and people of the north could influence the direction of science, engineering and technology. Even in his day, it was never his intention that the process would reflect, or that he anticipated, in his day anyway, ministerial government. In those times, it wasn't a matter on the agenda. But, it has happened.

I know Mr. Lewis has been a very strong proponent of ministerial accountability in this Assembly and ministerial government and I do believe that, no matter what happens, all Ministers have to be accountable to their colleagues in this Legislature. I think that what I have been trying to propose is a very significant change, but not so significant as to disallow the Members recommending and requesting that information be provided. In fact, it is no less than what has been proposed in section 12(1) of the old Science Institute of the Northwest Territories Act, which the honourable Member for Amittuq read out. There was not the authority to direct, but rather the authority to refer. So, that must be clear.

The other issue is simply that it would be very difficult for any Minister, upon the advice and request of this Assembly, to ever

-- depending on whether or not the circumstances change -- not respond to Members of this Assembly. That would be very difficult.

The other point that was made, and the honourable Member raised it, was that initially there was concern. What I have tried to do is respond by establishing the delegation of authority and also respond to the ideas of 12(1) and 12(2) of the old act. That is what I have been trying to do.

What concerns me about the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the concept of this Assembly directing an advisory council goes far beyond normal causes of directing authority. It goes beyond directing the Arctic College Board. It goes beyond directing the Minister who is, in the final analysis, accountable. I think it sets a very significant and dangerous precedent in how we, as an Assembly, set policy direction. I have difficulty with the amendment only, I think, on that basis.

On the matter of responding to the Assembly, I have heard the arguments that have been made by my colleagues and I have gone, in my view, a way to respond and to be fair in terms of recognizing what was in the existing legislation and to respond as favourably as possible, without diminishing the development of accountable and responsible ministerial authority.

I understand the arguments that have been made by Mr. Lewis, but I find it very difficult and will not, obviously, be supporting the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. I think we are going to bring some Members in. We don't have a quorum here.

Thank you. For clarification, we have a motion on the floor, a motion to amend the amendment to the original motion. Bill 7, clause 19 is where we are. There is a motion on the floor, Mr. Lewis' motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is defeated.

---Defeated

We are now dealing with the original motion by the honourable Minister, Richard Nerysoo. To the original motion to amend clause 19(3). We are now dealing with the original motion to amend clause 19. Mr. Lewis.

I would like to thank Members for going through that brief discussion of the purpose of this overall amendment: to at least give the Assembly some way of getting its requests listened to. It will now become a matter of record and in future, if requests are made, it will be taken as a matter of priority. As the Minister has pointed out, given the importance that we attach to ministerial government, we will still have people who listen very carefully and seriously to any requests we make. So I will be supporting the amendment.

Thank you. To the motion, Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned before, in the existing act it says, "The institute shall investigate and report back to the Legislative Assembly." We are losing that ability. I understand because of the amendment to this act, there will not be any more Science Institute. There is going to be a Science Advisory Council, rather than the institute. I wonder if there is any way that we, as a Legislative Assembly, could retain the ability to -- "direct" is the wrong word -- obligate the Science Advisory Council to investigate, as it is set out in the existing act. I wonder why the government wanted to lessen the ability of the Legislature to force the Science Advisory Council to investigate and report to the Legislative Assembly. That is directed to the Minister. Why was that done? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allooloo. Mr. Minister.

I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, as has been the case previously, the Assembly does have the authority to request advice. There are two accountabilities here. One is the Minister because most normal requests that have been made, historically, have been through motions of this House. That is how the direction is received. So any Minister who is responsible, has to deal with accounting on those motions.

What is clear also is that the responsibility of science, technology and engineering is not only going to rest with the Science Advisory Council, but also with the Nunavut Arctic College board and the western Arctic College board. The direction can still be given by Members through the Minister on those issues.

Thank you. To the motion.

Question.

Question is being called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Clause 19, as amended.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 20.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 21.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 22.

Agreed.

---Agreed