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.