Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Bouchard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of this motion. As a new Member, it’s something that I’m learning about, the ombudsman and the potential that it has. Several different jurisdictions have different responsibilities, whether it’s the rental office, whether it’s housing issues, hospital issues, police abuse, police issues, so I believe that there’s a group of people in the Northwest Territories that are falling through the cracks in the system that don’t have an appeal system. Ultimately we have one option to go through the courts, and those court costs and court delays are often very expensive and very monotonous. I think the ombudsman would give them a place to put their grievance, get a quick answer at least in the direction of whether it is acceptable to move forward.

Some of the information that I have received is not anywhere near the $9 million cost. It is more like a $600,000 to $650,000 cost. It all depends on what jurisdiction you are looking at, I do believe, and how it’s incorporated and what is incorporated with it.

I think there is also a lot of merit in using this type of ombudsman or that type of office to do also minor reviews of the government and government programs, what is going on and what can be looked from a third party, from a distance, that says this is an area where we think there’s a flaw in this program. There is a flaw in this part of the government. There is a great deal of that type of concern in the general public right now. I will be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in this House to support this motion as well. First I want to thank Ms. Bisaro and Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this into the House for discussion and looking to making it a reality within our government here.

Too many times a lot of people just accept the decisions that are based from this government. In reality, our decisions that we make in the House are not always the best decisions. This gives an opportunity we are getting an independent review to make sure that there’s equality as well as transparency and fairness to the people that we represent in this House.

My colleagues here today made some really good statements on why this position should be forthcoming and made a reality. I support this motion and look forward to seeing it become reality in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak and will be voting in favour of the motion simply because, as MLAs, we are the front and centre of dealing with our constituents’ concerns and also, at the same time, concerns that sometimes we don’t clearly have a recourse in trying to help people at least have their validation of concerns acknowledged.

It’s part of the due process. In some respects, this government is a new government. It is an evolved government. One principle that we uphold very clearly is the principle of consensus that we are inclusive in the decision-making process. We try to involve everyone in terms of trying to work out issues, at the same time come up with solutions and try to work in unity. In some respects, perhaps the individual rights of people in communities need to be clearly listened to and this mechanism will ensure that people’s concerns and issues that they bring forth will be addressed. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with concern to this particular motion. Back in 2003 I did a fair bit of research. In my first term as MLA, I thought there was a lot of need for a particular ombudsman. I certainly was an advocate at the time, but continuing to look at the issue even into my second term, I started to realize that there were cases where we were going to minimize the role of MLAs. If we had an ombudsman, and a particular person didn’t like a WCB decision and they called their MLA, their MLA would probably say, hey, go to the ombudsman. Case closed, file taken care of. If they didn’t like an income support appeal or housing appeal, as further examples, they will just redirect their complaints to the ombudsman office because they felt it wasn’t fair. They have made decisions.

When we consider other aspects that I have looked in since I have been an advocate for this particular issue, is don’t forget about the extra costs. How many ombudsmen, commission’s offices, parliamentary offices do we need for 42,000

people? We are going to have more people on the public dole than we will not on the public dole through the process of these types of initiatives. There won’t be any public to serve because they will all work for the government in some form or fashion.

The other thing that people have to realize is if we create an ombudsman office and not be clear about how we do something like this, we could actually be denying MLAs the ability to do their job. What would happen is a client would not be satisfied by a decision by a department, maybe feel that there was some bias or confidence issue happening, who knows how messy it could get. What if they do? They go to the ombudsman. We wouldn’t have access to that particular information, so then the MLA would be denied their role because it would be in the hands of an independent ombudsman person.

I will not deny that there have been cases of problems. Back when I started looking at the problem, I remembered a young lady coming to me and she was applying for a particular program. There were discrepancies on how she was denied. In some cases, her stories led to a narrative where I thought there were some real mix-ups that needed seriously to be looked at. At the time, who looked at it and reviewed the case and the problem? It was the department. That made me a strong advocate to say, how do we look at these things fairly and independently. That got me down the path in thinking, is the ombudsman the right mechanism or the right vehicle. To that example, I probably say I do agree with the ombudsman office, but the fact is those examples are more fewer and far between than the real need today.

We need a process that people can go to and ask, I want this fairly looked at if there is some grievous error in the decision or the reasoning. But the framework provided today is just too broad. I know that the Member will say there’s no cost to this. Well, there is a cost to it starting day one. Once this motion passes, if it passes, there will be a cost to it. There will be a cost to drafting, a cost to thinking about how we’re going to implement this. How much will we source this budget? How much power will we give them?

On the point of power, let us not forget about the power. Take for example our information officer. That particular person doesn’t have the power to compel government to proceed if someone is searching out an information request. I’d be visiting her office for the Deh Cho Bridge agreement for 2010 and asking her to make government comply. What would we do if we empowered an ombudsman office to direct government because this particular ombudsperson said, well, I’m not happy with this particular decision? You now do it this way because I’m telling you. What we’re going

to do is create an office with another level of bureaucracy. At this time we should be very cautious as to what we’re asking for. I always say this. Know what the question is and know what it means before we agree to it.

The issue here is not that I’m against the concept of ombudsman offices. I think there are a lot of questions that need to be sourced out long before we get behind this momentum and say that this is a good idea. I’m not against the principle of the concept that we shouldn’t make sure that we have someone that the public can go to if they feel, as I said earlier, that a grievous error has been made. I think that’s important.

The fact is, we have to be cautious how much we continue to source our bureaucracy. Often we hear about no toilets in schools, we hear about the needs for addictions, we hear about more money initiatives, we hear about access roads near the Peel, we hear about wanting more help in Hay River with the fishing industry, we hear more about Highway No. 7. We go on and on. We’ve got community employment issues in Fort Providence that we need to help people. We have so many wants. This is taking money from getting things done.

If it’s not clear by now, I’ll make sure to spell it out: I’ll be voting against this motion until a better proposal comes out that we can really talk about the framework of something that could work. As it’s written now, I’m sorry, I cannot support it.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to make a few comments with regard to the motion. Specifically, it is my understanding that this should be a matter for the Board of Management of the Legislative Assembly.

An ombudsman must be independent. It must have the independence necessary to allow him or her to investigate complaints against the government impartially. Therefore, the ombudsman must be an officer of the Legislative Assembly and not part of government. This is the case in all Canadian jurisdictions where there is an ombudsman. As the Member stated, all jurisdictions in Canada, except the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Prince Edward Island, have a general ombudsman office.

With regard to the cost of operating these offices, my understanding is the costs range anywhere from about $500,000 a year in Yukon to about $13 million a year in Quebec. As I understand it, the last time that we investigated the costs, it was in the cost estimate of about a million-plus dollars to have an ombudsman office.

As this is a recommendation to the government, Cabinet will be abstaining from this vote.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Closing remarks to the motion. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would like to thank those Members for their words of support for this motion. I would like to talk a bit about a couple of things.

Cost has been mentioned in a number of different contexts. Yukon spends $600,000 or $700,000 a year for their ombudsman office. I would suggest that we are hardly anywhere near the size of Quebec, so I can’t see us spending $13 million on an ombudsman office. I expect we would spend approximately the same amount of money as the Yukon. I also expect we would see some savings in our court system and justice system as a result, because there would be fewer people having to go to court. At least those of our residents who have that conviction and will to take it as far as that goes.

There are many options possible for an ombudsman office. The fact that my colleague suggests that it needs to be a more specific proposal at this time, to me, is putting the cart before the horse. I believe that we need to approve the idea and then need to do investigation. The Minister of Justice has said a number of times, as we deliberate the budget, that we need to look into things, we need to get the facts, we need to determine what’s possible. That’s what this motion recommends. It recommends looking into and developing legislation for an ombudsman office. We could have a full-time ombudsman. We could have a half-time ombudsman. We could combine it with another statutory officer who already exists. There are gaps in the services to our residents which are not currently being addressed by the statutory officers that we have.

I believe that passing this motion shows that we recognize the need for certain services to our residents and I think it would show the will that the creation of an office should get started.

I would like to say that in terms of powers of an ombudsman, one of my colleagues suggested that we shouldn’t have somebody who is telling the government what to do. If the matter goes to court and the court decides against the government, the court tells the government what to do. In my mind, it’s far more efficient to have an ombudsman directing the government to do that than it is to have the court doing that.

To the suggestion that this legislation belongs with the Board of Management, the Board of Management does not develop legislation. Legislation is developed by the government, generally by the Department of Justice. This is asking for this House to determine that this service is required, and then asking the government to develop legislation, perhaps with consultation of all Members, perhaps with consultation just within the

Executive. It’s suggesting an independent body but the legislation has to come from the Executive.

Lastly, there’s an issue that Members will not be able to advocate on behalf of their constituents because a situation might be before the ombudsman. That would be a specific situation. Somebody has made a ruling against me, my Member does not have to speak against that ruling. They can speak to the issue but they don’t have to speak to the particular situation. That happens all the time. We can bring up an issue and we talk to the issue or we talk to the policy or the process. We don’t have to mention specific things. I don’t think the advocacy of an MLA is going to be diminished in the least. I think it’s going to be a great assistance to MLAs’ offices and it will provide better justice for our constituents.

I appreciate the position of those Members who feel that they can’t support this motion. It is mostly regrettable to me that they don’t feel that the support is needed to provide service for their constituents. I ask for a recorded vote and I encourage all Members to vote in support.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. A recorded vote has been asked for. All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

Results: yes, seven; no, two; abstentions, eight. Motion is carried.

---Carried

The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 5, please.

---Unanimous consent granted

I’d like to recognize Ms. Brenda McDonald, who is a constituent from Inuvik and also one of our great female Aboriginal leaders in the territory.

Thank you, Mr. Moses. Item 18, first reading of bills. The honourable Member for Thebacha, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request unanimous consent to proceed with first reading of Bill 4, Appropriation Act (Operations Expenditures), 2012-2013.

---Unanimous consent granted