Thank you, Mr Braden. Members' statements. The honourable Member from Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about my latest thoughts on the work of the Housing Corporation. First of all, let me, Mr. Speaker, commend the Minister of Housing on the latest affordable housing initiative in which we'll see a $100 million investment and 50/50 percent cost share arrangement with the federal government that will see 530 new homes in the Territories, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

It's also very good to see that the Housing Corporation is working with MACA and I can assure both Ministers that they will have my full support in this regard. Mr. Speaker, I also appreciate the corporation's work on new housing projects in Yellowknife for the seniors, persons with disabilities and the transition home for men with substance addictions issues, which will open in the next two weeks. People involved in these projects cannot say enough about the good work the corporation are doing on the ground, Mr. Speaker.

Thinking of all this good work by the corporation at the ground level, and I know the Minister is waiting to see

what my next part is, I cannot figure out why is it that the corporation cannot get their act together on the Novel housing, Mr. Speaker. After being told in this House that the Minister will come to this House for any new funding on this Novel project, I had to find out from the street and through the grapevine that in fact the corporation has appointed a new ADM solely responsible for Novel housing project and I have to call it that, although I don't want to use the name because all the information we are coming to is reporting to this product, Mr. Speaker. It made me wonder why don't we have an ADM solely responsible for affordable housing for seniors, for persons with disabilities, or trappers or hunters, or responsible for children, or even to tackle the violence against women. Why is it that a corporation that has their stocks listed in Toronto Stock Exchange deserve an ADM solely responsible for selling their product to the NWT government and residents within their corporation? I think that should make us think, Mr. Speaker.

The last question, which will be the first of many that I will be asking in this House, I'd like to know why is it that under the affordable housing policy, $100 million investment, $50 million from the GNWT, $50 million from the federal government, will give us 530 units, but under Novel project for $200 million it will cost us twice as much for 830 units. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Members' statements. Reports of standing and special committees. Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member from Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight met on May 2, 2006 to review the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Human Rights Commission. The committee would like to thank Ms. Mary Pat Short, chair of the Human Rights Commission, and Ms. Th‚rŠse Boullard, director of human rights, for appearing before us.

As the Human Rights Commission opened its doors on July 1, 2004, this was its first annual report and covers only the first nine months of operation, much of which was taken up by implementation matters. During the public hearing, Ms. Short and Ms. Boullard were also able to advise the committee of more recent activities and developments.

The committee was pleased to hear of the progress the commission has made in raising awareness about human rights through its web site, public service announcements and community meetings. We encourage the commission to continue expanding its efforts to make people aware of human rights issues, particularly in the smaller communities where the commission has not yet had a presence, and also through targeted outreach programs such as the one already under development regarding drug and alcohol testing in the workplace.

The committee was also pleased with the director's efforts to make the complaints process a relatively accessible one. However, we underline the importance of making it as easy as possible to obtain information and make complaints in all official languages.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the introduction comments on this report.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, that the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight Report on the Review of the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Human Rights Commission be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Recommendations

The report includes two specific recommendations for amendments to the act.

Systemic Remedies

The first recommendation is to amend the act to explicitly allow the Human Rights Adjudication Panel to order systemic remedies in addition to remedies to address the situation of individual complainants. Systemic remedies might include requiring an organization to implement employment equity or to change policies that have resulted in discrimination. The report cites the persistence of unequal pay for work of equal value between men and women as an example of systemic discrimination. In such a case, providing compensation or another remedy to one individual complainant would not address the overall issue or assist others being subjected to the same discrimination by the same employer.

The witnesses also suggested there is an inherent contradiction in the act in that it currently allows the commission to initiate complaints, which in practice it would most likely do in a case of systemic discrimination, but does not allow the adjudication panel to grant the corresponding remedies.

The committee was made aware that some other Canadian jurisdictions explicitly allow for systemic remedies in their human rights legislation, and that in other jurisdictions, the courts have interpreted the acts as allowing for systemic remedies even though they do not explicitly grant this power.

While the committee does not necessarily disagree with the recommendation, we would like to be assured that it would not have unforeseen implications beyond those identified by the commission. We would also point out

that our act is as yet new and untested and that it may be more appropriate to revisit this recommendation after we have gained a few years' experience and established our own precedents.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT review the implications and advisability of including systemic remedies in the Human Rights Act and report back on its findings in its response to this report.

Criminal Convictions

The act currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of pardoned criminal convictions. The report recommends that the act be amended in order to prevent discrimination on the basis of "unrelated" criminal convictions. The example provided in the report is of a person with a record for driving while impaired being refused a job that does not involve driving. The current act would not protect that person unless he or she had received a pardon. With the recommended wording, the person would have grounds for a complaint by making the case that a conviction for a driving offence is unrelated to a job that does not involve driving. Similarly, a person refused a job on the basis of a conviction from many years ago might have grounds for a complaint.

The committee had a lengthy and spirited discussion on this issue. Some Members are reluctant to support the recommendation because it would put employers in a very difficult position of making judgment calls about what is or is not an "unrelated" conviction. In some cases, it could be very difficult for them to balance their duties toward their clients or other employees with the legal requirement not to discriminate against a job applicant. For example, if a person had a twenty-year-old record for sexual assault and no subsequent convictions, would it be discrimination to refuse to hire him or her for a delivery job? On the other hand, would it be negligent to put customers and other employees in contact with a person whose history included a violent offence? Some Members are concerned that it would be unfair to expect employers to make these kinds of evaluations.

In support of the recommendation, Members pointed to some employers' policies of not hiring anyone with a criminal conviction without giving any consideration to the relevance of the offence. Such policies are making it difficult for many responsible adults who made mistakes in their youth to find employment and provide for their families. Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of unrelated criminal convictions would prevent employers from automatically refusing to hire anyone with a record and force them to consider applicants on a case-by-case basis.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT review the implications and advisability of amending the Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of unrelated criminal convictions and report back on its findings in its response to this report.

Other Issues

In the course of our discussions on the annual report, some Members noted the act uses the word "sex" to refer to discrimination on the basis of being male or female, and raised concerns that this terminology could be misunderstood or be offensive to some people. The committee suggests the government consider bringing forward an amendment to the act to change the word "sex" to "gender," which is in its opinion a less confusing and more appropriate term.

Conclusion

The committee looks forward to monitoring the continued evolution of the Northwest Territories Human Rights Commission, and to reviewing its next annual report.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that, pursuant to Rule 93(5), the GNWT table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 calendar days.

Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member from Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Committee report will stand before Committee of the Whole. Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member from Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member from Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would like to seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and have the Committee Report 1-15(5) moved into the Committee of the Whole for consideration for Friday, June 2, 2006. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4). Are there any nays? There are no nays. Committee Report 1-15(5) will be moved into consideration of Committee of the Whole for Friday, June 2, 2006. Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member from Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Introduction

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight met on May 2, 2006, to review the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner. The committee would like to thank the Commissioner, Ms. Elaine Keenan-Bengts, for her report and for her appearance before the committee.

The NWT's Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (ATIPP) came into force on December 31, 1996. The purpose of the act is to make public bodies more accountable and to protect personal privacy by giving the public a right of access, with limited exceptions, to records held by the GNWT and related public bodies, and by preventing the unauthorized collection, use or disclosure of personal information by the GNWT and related public bodies. The act also gives individuals the rights to see and make corrections to information about themselves.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly. Her primary role is to review and make recommendations on public bodies' decisions under the act. Reviews can be requested by people who have been refused access to information, third parties who have an interest in information someone else is requesting, and people who have concerns about how their personal information has been handled. The Commissioner's mandate also includes: research into matters affecting the carrying out of the purposes of the act; receiving representations about the operation of the act; and offering comment on the implications for privacy protection of proposed legislative schemes or government programs.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the introductory comments on this report.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member of Nahendeh, that the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight Report on the Review of the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

2004-2005 Annual Report

An underlying theme throughout the Commissioner's report and presentation to the committee was the need to foster a corporate culture that is committed to open and transparent government and strives to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the act. The Commissioner points to a trend of public bodies automatically refusing access to information wherever they have a discretionary exemption under the act, without evaluating whether there are clear and compelling reasons to do so. She is concerned that public bodies, and in particular the Financial Management Board Secretariat, are withholding information just because they can without considering whether they should.

In order to shift the corporate culture toward openness and transparency, the Commissioner believes a top-down approach is necessary. In her words, "if the top members of the bureaucracy and the politicians are afraid of openness, that fear will translate to the department or government and there will be a corporate culture of secrecy. If the corporate culture is one of openness, the rest of the bureaucracy will follow."

As an example of the leadership required, she cites the Premier, management board and Attorney General of Ontario, who recently issued memoranda emphasizing the importance of freedom of information in the democratic process and encouraging a proactive approach to providing information to the public. She recommends the Premier, Ministers and Financial Management Board follow the lead of Ontario by publicly and clearly endorsing the goals of the act and taking positive steps to foster a corporate culture of openness and accountability.

The committee shares the Commissioner's concerns and strongly supports her recommendation.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that the Premier, Ministers and Financial Management Board make public statements supporting the principles of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and send clear messages to the public service about the importance of open and transparent government, and the need to grant access to information unless there is a clear and compelling reason not to do so.

The 2004-2005 annual report includes several other specific recommendations to enhance access to information and protection of personal privacy in the NWT, and to improve the administration of the act.

Boards And Agencies

A longstanding concern for the Commissioner has been the need for members and staff of boards and agencies to be aware of their obligations under the act and to implement appropriate records retention policies, particularly for documents in the hands of individual board members. The Commissioner recommends that, as a minimum, the chairs and executive directors of boards and agencies be required to take the training, although ideally training would be mandatory for all appointees.

The GNWT advised in its response to the 2003-2004 recommendations that ATIPP training is routinely available to all board members and public servants, and that the Department of Public Works and Services would make available to board members its records management standards, policies and guidelines.

The committee is concerned that the GNWT's approach to date has been far from proactive and supports the Commissioner's recommendation for mandatory training.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT make basic records management and ATIPP training mandatory for all chairs and executive directors of boards and agencies to which the act applies.

Municipal Governments

For the sixth year in a row, the Commissioner's report speaks to the lack of information and privacy legislation for municipal governments.

The GNWT has identified concerns about the impact on day-to-day municipal operations and administration, costs, training and capacity as reasons why municipal information and privacy legislation cannot proceed at this time.

Municipal governments collect a substantial amount of personal information from residents and hold a great deal of information of interest to the public. The need for openness and transparency applies as much to them as to any other level of government. While the committee acknowledges the challenges of developing and implementing information and privacy legislation, we are not satisfied that they excuse the GNWT's failure to take a proactive approach on this issue. Elections and human rights legislation, to name two examples, could also be said to be challenging to implement, expensive and at times inconvenient; however, we recognize their importance in a democratic society and do not question the need to allocate resources to them. Why should information and privacy legislation be any different? As the Commissioner said to us, quoting her Alberta counterpart, Mr. Frank Work, "the right to access to information is precious. No government should ever oppose or impede it on the basis that it is too expensive, too time consuming or that only the troublemakers use it."

The committee would also point out that municipal staff are required to handle personal information and respond to information requests from the public in any case, and suggests that training and guidance in the form of legislation and policies would, if anything, make that aspect of their work less difficult.

The committee has, therefore, taken it upon itself to write to the NWT Association of Communities in order to hear directly from them what is required in order for them to implement information and privacy legislation. Given the time needed to draft new legislation, we do not expect that a bill could be introduced before the next election; however, we encourage the government to begin work immediately to allow legislation to be brought in during the term of the 16th Assembly. In our view, this would provide ample time for the government to resolve implementation concerns raised by municipal governments.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT bring forward a plan, including timelines, for developing and implementing municipal information and privacy legislation that addresses the implementation concerns raised by municipal governments and that will allow for consideration of legislative amendments by the 16th Assembly.

Private Sector Privacy Legislation

Another of the Commissioner's ongoing recommendations from past years is that the NWT enact its own "made-in-the-north" privacy legislation to regulate how the private sector collects, uses and discloses personal information. As an example of a concern with how the private sector handles personal information, she cited the continued practice of some NWT businesses of printing credit card numbers in their entirety on transaction slips. In southern Canada, it is now standard to print partial numbers only, which helps to prevent theft.

Although the NWT private sector is already regulated by the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA), the Commissioner points out that a small and distant office in Ottawa is unlikely to have the time to address complaints and issues of a local nature. PIPEDA also does not protect employees from misuse of their personal information by employers. Some other Canadian jurisdictions, including Alberta and B.C., have already enacted provincial legislation to address the gaps left by PIPEDA.

The GNWT has indicated it intends to review the effectiveness of PIPEDA in 2006 in order to determine whether territorial legislation is also necessary. The committee looks forward to seeing the results of this review.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT review the effectiveness of the PIPEDA and the need for territorial legislation on private sector use of personal information, and provide a report on its findings to the committee before the end of 2006.

Emerging Aboriginal Governments

As in previous reports, the Commissioner recommends the GNWT take the initiative to raise information and privacy issues in devolution discussions and with aboriginal governments in order to encourage them to include some form of regulation within their governance structures. She states that although there are likely to be cultural differences on many information and privacy issues, all peoples have the right to an open government, which requires access to records, and the right to expect a certain level of privacy.

The GNWT indicated in its response to the 2003-2004 recommendations that information and privacy matters are being addressed in devolution and aboriginal land, resource and self-government negotiations, in the Tlicho Agreement and in the Deline, Gwich'in and Inuvialuit self-government agreements-in-principle. It is unclear to the committee whether the provisions are limited only to information the governments handle as delivery agents for GNWT programs and services, or whether they extend to all the governments' operations. The committee would like more information from the GNWT on the scope of the access and privacy issues being discussed in the negotiation process and how proactive the GNWT has been in encouraging emerging governments to incorporate freedom of information and protection of privacy into their structures.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT ensure access and privacy issues are considered in devolution and self-government negotiations, encourage and offer assistance to aboriginal governments to develop their own regulations where other legislation does not apply, and provide further detail to the committee on its efforts in its formal response to this report.

Contractors

As in past reports, the Commissioner raises the importance of ensuring contractors who handle government information are aware of and comply with the requirements of ATIPP. Her concerns appear to be addressed in part by terms and conditions incorporated into GNWT contracts and the October 2005 amendments to the act, which made contractors directly responsible for protecting personal information. However, the need for ongoing enforcement and monitoring of compliance continues to be an issue. Specific measures she recommends include requiring contractors to notify the public body of any requests or demands made by foreign authorities for personal information, and of any unauthorized disclosure of information that has taken place.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT ensure adequate measures are in place to monitor and enforce contractors' compliance and to detect and defend against disclosure of personal information to foreign authorities.

Development Of Online Registries

The Commissioner's report also emphasizes the need to consider privacy issues before moving public registries online. While information from registries such as the land titles registry has always been open to public inspection, the ability for someone to misuse personal information or collect it in mass for commercial purposes has been limited until recently by the practical limitations of a paper registry in a fixed location. The Commissioner suggests a number of questions the GNWT should be asking itself before moving public registries online; for example, what is the purpose of the registry, and whether individuals should be asked whether they consent to their personal information being disclosed or used for other purposes such as direct marketing.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT consider privacy issues and consult with the Information and Privacy Commissioner in order to take advantage of her expertise before moving any more public registries online.

Amendments To Clarify The Act

The Commissioner recommends two amendments to the act to address problems that came to light in the course of a review of a decision to refuse access to information by the former Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

The first issue was with a specific provision of the act, paragraph 24(1)(f), which states that a public body must not disclose information that is a statement of financial assistance provided to a third party by a prescribed corporation or board. The Commissioner interpreted the words "prescribed corporation or board" to refer to any corporation or board subject to the act. The department interpreted them to require a specific designation as a "prescribed corporation or board." The Commissioner recommends the act be amended to clarify the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f).

The second issue was with the department's response to the Commissioner's recommendations, which in her opinion seriously undermined the credibility of the review process. The Commissioner's recommendations were based on the department's argument that the information requested was subject to a specific exemption in the act. On receiving the Commissioner's recommendations, the department declined to follow them on the basis that they had changed their mind about which exemption they wanted to rely on and that they had determined the exemption they had initially cited, and on which the Commissioner based her recommendations, did not apply to them.

One of the Commissioner's concerns with this kind of response on the part of a public body is that it leaves no recourse for the applicant other than to make an application to court and effectively sidelines the role of the Commissioner. The act does not allow for the Commissioner to reconsider a request for review if a department changes its mind about its arguments after she has made her recommendations. In her report, she therefore recommends an amendment to the act requiring public bodies to refer to all relevant sections of the act when responding to the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and to be bound by those submissions. During her meeting with the committee, she suggested an alternative would be an amendment requiring that no final decision be made by the head of a public body until the Commissioner is given an opportunity to make recommendations based on all the arguments the public body wishes to rely on.

In our discussions with the Commissioner it became apparent to the committee that the underlying problem is likely not so much a gap in the legislation as the overall corporate culture and approach to requests for review of access to information decisions. The Commissioner advised us that public bodies often take what she referred to as a "lazy" approach in making their submissions and fail to provide complete lists of their arguments and the specific exemptions or sections of the act they wish to rely on. As the Commissioner pointed out, the onus is on the public body to demonstrate that an exemption applies. However, because of the poor quality of submissions, the Commissioner sometimes finds herself in the position of having to research and make the public bodies' arguments for them because of the possible consequences of not considering all the angles.

The committee is not convinced that the solution to this problem lies in amendments to the act. We see the problem as relating back to the overall corporate culture and attitude discussed earlier in this report, and therefore suggests that the appropriate response is leadership and

direction from the top down to ensure public bodies are more diligent and thorough in preparing submissions to the Commissioner.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT set standards for submissions to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and provide appropriate leadership and direction to ensure they are understood and followed.

The committee further recommends that the GNWT review the need for amendments to the act to allow the Information and Privacy Commissioner to reconsider a request for review where a public body changes its arguments after the Commissioner has made her recommendations.

The committee further recommends that the GNWT either bring forward an amendment to clarify the meaning of paragraph 24(1)(f) or provide direction to public bodies on how it is to be interpreted.

Updating Regulations

For the second time, the Commissioner's report includes a recommendation that schedule A of the regulations be kept up-to-date in order to ensure new or renamed public bodies are subject to the act. As of the date of our meeting with the Commissioner, the regulations still did not list the Business Development and Investment Corporation, although it was established over a year ago. The committee fails to understand the reason for the delay in making such a simple amendment. We therefore support the Commissioner's recommendation that the regulations be updated at least annually. Ideally, they should be updated immediately each time a new public body is created or renamed to ensure the continued application of the act.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that schedule A to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Regulations be updated at least annually.

Updated Directory Of ATIPP Coordinators

The Commissioner recommends that a link be provided from the Legislative Assembly web site to the directory of ATIPP coordinators as it is currently difficult to find on the Justice and GNWT web sites. She further recommends that a paper directory be made available throughout the NWT.

While the committee is not convinced that keeping an up-to-date paper directory in circulation is feasible, Members do support linking the directory to the Legislative Assembly's web site in order to make it more accessible to users.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT continue to keep its online directory of ATIPP coordinators current, and that a link to the directory be included on the Legislative Assembly web site.

Other Issues

At the time of our public review of the 2004-2005 report, the Commissioner raised two additional issues which the committee wishes to comment on.

The first was a concern that the Department of Health and Social Services and health authorities have not sought her advice in the course of the move to electronic health records. As with the shift to online public registries, the change in the management of health records raises a number of privacy issues. The committee believes it would be sensible for public bodies to seek the Commissioner's expert advice on privacy matters when they undertake such initiatives.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that GNWT public bodies consult with the Commissioner to identify potential privacy issues in the early stages of projects resulting in the transfer of personal information to electronic records systems.

The second issue the Commissioner raised was a concern with the capacity of existing staff to respond to access to information requests. As an example, she cited the Department of Education, Culture and Employment, which is currently dealing with a high volume of requests due to inquiries related to residential schools. Public bodies typically assign responsibility for coordinating ATIPP matters in addition to an employee's other duties rather than to a dedicated staff person. The Commissioner suggested the GNWT consider either hiring dedicated ATIPP staff for high-volume departments or establishing a central unit of dedicated ATIPP staff that public bodies could access.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends the GNWT evaluate its capacity to respond to access to information requests.

Conclusion

As the Commissioner stated to the committee:

"Secrecy and closed doors lead to corruption and bad government no matter how well intentioned governments may be. It is far easier as a member of the public to accept the bona fides of government when they seem to be open and willing to accept responsibility, even for bad news, than if they appear to be secretive."

The committee encourages the government to heed this advice, and to strive for full compliance with both the spirit and letter of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Recommendation

The Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight recommends that, pursuant to Rule 93(5), the GNWT table a comprehensive response to this report within 120 calendar days.

The Member from Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that Committee Report 2-15(5) be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the whole. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Committee Report 2-15(5) is moved into Committee of the Whole. The honourable Member from Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally, I would like to seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4) and have Committee Report 2-15(5) moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration on Friday, June 2, 2006. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 93(4). Are there any nays? There are no nays. Committee Report 2-15(5) is moved into Committee of the Whole for consideration on Friday, June 2, 2006. Reports of standing and special committees. The honourable Member from Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight met on May 2, 2006, to review the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner. The Committee would like to thank Ms. Shannon Gullberg, the Languages Commissioner, for appearing before us.

The 2004-2005 report does not include any recommendations, however, the committee would like to take the opportunity to comment on other issues that were raised during our public meeting.

Mr. Speaker, that concludes the introductory comments on this report.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, that the Standing Committee on Accountability and Oversight Report on the Review of the 2004-05 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner be deemed read and printed in Hansard in its entirety. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried