Item 19, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 14-12(6), "Open for Business" - Privatizing the Northwest Territories Power Corporation; Tabled Document 23-12(6), Report of the 1993-94 Electoral District Boundaries Commission Northwest Territories; Tabled Document 36-12(6), "Action Plan - Consolidation - Health and Social Services"; Minister's Statement 11-12(6), Return to Session; Committee Report 10-12(6), Report on the Review of the 1995-96 Capital Estimates; Committee Report 11-12(6), Report on the First Annual Report (1992-93) of the Languages Commissioner of the NWT; Committee Report 13-12(6), Report on the Elimination of the Alcohol and Drug Board of Management; Committee Report 15-12(6), Report on the Northwest Territories Arts Council; Bill 1, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1995-96; Bill 2, Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act; Bill 3, Guardianship and Trusteeship Act; Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act; Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act; Bill 15, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act; Bill 18, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 1993-94; Bill 16, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, No. 2; and, Bill 21, An Act to Amend the Fair Practices Act, with Mr. Ningark in the chair.

Thank you. Do we agree then that we continue with Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Arctic College Act and, if we are able to conclude this particular bill, that we deal with Committee Report 10-12(6) and Bill 1, the review of the 1995-96 capital estimates? Do we agree?

Agreed.

---Agreed Bill 7: An Act To Amend The Arctic College Act

Thank you. When we concluded yesterday, we were dealing with Bill 7, as I stated earlier and we were on clause 19. I understand Mr. Lewis has a motion. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You will recall that we broke so that the legal people could examine this motion. There were some technical problems, so I would like to withdraw my motion and introduce another one.

---Withdrawn

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Do you have another motion that you would like to introduce now?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a new amendment to the proposed amendment. It is translated into the required languages.

Committee Motion To Amend Clause 19 Of Bill 7, Defeated

I move that the motion to amend clause 19(c) of Bill 7 be amended by deleting proposed subsection (3) and substituting the following:

Marginal note: Direction from Legislation Assembly.

(3)The Legislative Assembly may, from time to time, direct the Science Advisory Council to conduct research or to review a matter within the scope of the powers and duties of the Science Advisory Council and may specify to whom and the manner in which the results of the research or review are to be provided.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. The motion is in order. Mr. Lewis.

I would like to speak to my proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. When the Standing Committee on Legislation examined this piece of legislation, what was being proposed was a rationalization of the structure of several parts of government. There was obviously a deep requirement that the Arctic College be constituted into two separate colleges. It seemed convenient at that time, since the decision had already been made to devolve the Science Institute, that a good place to put it would be one half in the east and one half in the west.

The problem that some of us had with this proposal was that at that time, it doesn't seem as if a decision was anything more than an administrative convenience simply to rationalize a decision that hadn't been carefully thought through.

The other issue was that when the Science Institute had been originally established, there was a strong feeling at the time that as we emerged politically, we needed some place, as an Assembly, where we could put some trust and faith in getting objective information about issues that emerged from time to time. The theme was so strong at that time that we saw fit to provide money and resources, so that we could establish a Science Institute with its own act.

There is no such justification in the proposed reorganization of the Science Institute. It is very difficult for some Members to even justify the money for it because it seems to have lost its focus. So the purpose of my amendment is to provide at least some way in which the original spirit and intent of establishing a Science Institute in the Northwest Territories, in a rapidly changing part of the world and where there is tremendous political activity, that we would still have some way in which we could get independent information on issues that matter to us.

I am the first to concede that this has not been an institute which has been boiling over with issues that we have referred to it over the years. But I remind Members that the Science Institute has in the past considered the issue of post-secondary education. It has examined the issue of alternative energy, during that time of crisis where we weren't quite sure about our self-sufficiency or supply. It has examined the issue of uranium mining and that is the one that stands out in my mind as the occasion when the Members really felt gratified and grateful that we had people who could help us to understand a very complicated issue. There was some work related to the trapping industry and I remember, more recently, the issue of preparing skins to make into leather for the leather trade.

Those are just a few examples; there are others that we referred to the Science Institute because we wanted to have this kind of objective information. The purpose of this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is to provide at least some comfort that this Legislature, that asked for this institute to help it many years ago, could still from time to time have the institute respond to requests to have something done. Since we would no longer have an act or control, I felt that the wording in the proposed government amendment wasn't strong enough. Because if it really isn't a creature of your own Legislature, then a request or some question doesn't have the same weight.

I compare this, to some degree, with the powers that we have retained, even though the agency is at arm's length from government. We have a Power Corporation, for example, that has its own board and its independence; however, the Minister still maintains the right to be able to tell that corporation what to do. I don't think that this particular clause goes beyond what we have got in some legislation that already exists to give us some comfort if we want something done.

I have never been too concerned about structure or how things are gong to be organized, but I really believe that it is important, when the time comes, that we can ask that some work be undertaken and undertaken in an objective fashion and isn't science for hire. We all heard from our days with the Mackenzie Valley pipeline inquiry how science really was for hire. You had people arguing both sides of the case. I never had much faith that we were getting a good picture of what that impact would be because the pipeline isn't built, it is there, and many of the predictions never came to happen.

So that is the purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I don't think it is a harmful one. It just means that this Legislature that saw fit to establish this institute, for very good reasons some time ago, should at least have some way in which it can ask it to do something, even in 1994. The wording the Minister has provided from the other act isn't strong enough, given the new administrative arrangements that he proposed to put into place. If this amendment fails, Mr.

Chairman, I have no further amendments. I have no further work that I would ask other Members to examine. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Lewis. The motion before you is to amend the amendment to clause 19. Mr. Koe, to the motion.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I am going to have to oppose the amendment as proposed by Mr. Lewis. The amendment, as I read it, is changing the whole intention and giving new powers to this Assembly; powers that I believe we didn't have before. If my understanding of the existing Science Institute Act is correct, this Legislature never did have the authority to direct the Science Institute. We did have the authority to refer issues to the Science Institute for consideration and advice. So the original amendment is just that. "The Legislative Assembly may request advice on any matter within the scope and powers of the Science Advisory Council." I believe that covers a lot of the concerns. If we have issues and concerns, we refer them to the appropriate authorities and they deal with them as they wish. From my understanding of the existing legislation, that is what we have now. I believe that the proposed amendment goes a step further and you are asking to direct the Science Advisory Council on what to do. At this stage, I can't support the amendment. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Koe. To the amendment. Mr. Ballantyne.

I have a couple of comments on it. First of all, I think I'm a little bit concerned about what seems to be a recent trend here in the Legislative Assembly. We have set up quite a sophisticated, all-inclusive legislative process where public hearings are held; the Legislation committee has opportunity to discuss and to debate all our bills; and, any Member who is not part of that committee can go in front of the committee. Members have an opportunity, if they have concerns, to bring them forth many times during the process.

I'm a little bit concerned, it seems that we are starting to have last-minute amendments now. I respect that every Member has a right to do that, and I'm not taking away that right, but Members have to recognize, though, that if they bring forward last-minute amendments, they have to respect that other Members may not be 100 per cent sure of all the ramifications of that amendment and what it is going to do to the overall bill.

I'm concerned because legislation is a finely tuned process and if one component doesn't fit in with the rest, all of the legislation can be off. I have always been very hesitant to deal with last-minute amendments and try to anticipate all the ramifications involved. I think that, in this particular case, the government has gone a long way to accommodate the concerns of Members and Mr. Lewis. But I think essentially what the government has proposed is pretty well what we can do right now.

I am a little concerned because the reality is the Science Institute, when it's under the umbrella of Arctic College, is a different institution than it was when it was independent. My concern is that if the Legislative Assembly can direct them to do something, that can be in total conflict with what is happening in Arctic College. It seems to me that they will be there to serve that particular group more than the general group, and I can see a conflict.

If I were the chair of the board of the Science Institute and the Legislative Assembly tells me to do one thing and Arctic College tells me to do something else, I would be caught. The way it is now, if the Legislative Assembly has a legitimate request, it will be handled, and there is a whole political process so that it will be possible to deal with the government of the day, if they don't handle it. So, I think the government has gone a long way, there has been a lot of work done with this particular bill and I'm happy with the compromise that the government has offered.

So, with reluctance, Mr. Lewis, because I respect your strongly-held views, I won't be able to support your amendment. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion, Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had a chance, although it was a very short time, to think about the amendment to the amendment. I also, very briefly, had a chance to look at the old act. I would like to ask our legal counsel, in the existing act under section 12(1) and section 12(2), it seems that the Legislative Assembly, at the present moment, has the authority to ask the institute to investigate and report to the Assembly. I wonder if that is, in fact true.

Reading the amendment that the government is putting forward, it seems that the Assembly may request that of the Science Institute; but if, in their wisdom, they choose not to do what the Legislative Assembly is asking, they don't have to do it. It seems that way to me. I don't know, maybe I'm not reading it right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Ms. MacPherson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the existing Science Institute Act, the Legislative Assembly may refer to the institute, for its consideration and advice, such matters as this Assembly sees fit and the institute then shall investigate and report. So, the institute has no discretion in terms of dealing with the matter. They shall investigate and report.

That act, of course, will be repealed by the bill before Members and the Minister has moved a motion, that is in front of Members, which provides that the Legislative Assembly may request advice on any matter within the scope and powers of the council and Mr. Lewis has moved a motion to provide that this body has the power to give direction to the council. I hope that clarifies the matter for the Member.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Allooloo.

Mr. Chairman, my concern is that this Legislature had the services of the Science Institute before in terms of providing scientific information that was requested, namely for uranium mining. They have reported to the Legislative Assembly in the past on this and also other things. The Legislature was able to get information from the Science

Institute and the Science Institute was obligated to give a report to the Legislative Assembly.

I don't know who I'm asking, Mr. Chairman, but under the government amendment, if Mr. Lewis' motion doesn't go through, would the Legislative Assembly's wishes be adhered to, or could the Science Institute say, no, we don't want to do it?

Mr. Minister, perhaps you could try to clarify this for Mr. Allooloo. Mr. Nerysoo.

I thought our legal advisor was going to provide us with the interpretation.

Okay. Ms. MacPherson.