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---Withdrawn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.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under the government's motion, this Assembly has the power to request advice on any matter and to specify to whom and the manner in which the advice is to be provided. There is no express provision within the proposed section which would mandate that the council respond to the Legislature, although I, quite frankly, would find it difficult to believe that a council would not respond to this Assembly.

The government's motion says that this body has the power to request advice and when it requests advice, it will specify how it wants to receive that advice. There is no corollary saying "the council shall respond" contained within the motion, although as I indicated, that is a practical matter. The Minister may want to address that issue.

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

Clause 23.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 24.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 25.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 26.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Qujannamiik, merci. Clause 27.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 28.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 29.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Clause 30.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 31.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Merci. Clause 32.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. Clause 33. Mr. Minister.