Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to rise in support of this motion and to be able to speak to the motion that’s before us today.

Although Members on this side of the House and committee have heard considerable support from our constituents and from the general public in support of the establishment of an ombudsman office, there are, unfortunately, still naysayers when it comes to establishing that office in the NWT. I think it’s because many people do not understand how the office can be a good force for government, that it can promote accountability in administration and improve government through investigations.

I’d like to provide some info that backs up what Mr. Nadli has just told us and to help people understand the office of an ombudsman. So what is an ombudsman? I’d like to give you a couple of quotes, one from the Ontario ombudsman website, which says:

“’Ombudsman’ is a Swedish word meaning “citizen’s representative,” an independent official who investigates complaints from the public about mal-administration and government. The first parliamentary ombudsman was created in Sweden in 1809.”

So we’re a little behind the times. “The ombudsman is an officer of the Legislature, independent of government and all political parties.”

From the Yukon website:

“Every day the Yukon government makes decisions and provides services that affect people’s lives. These decisions and services may relate to vehicle registration, student loans, health services, a grant application, or numerous other things. Although many government workers strive to do the best job they can, sometimes problems can develop. If a citizen feels that the Yukon government has

been unfair in making a decision or delivering a service and is unable to resolve the matter, it is essential that they have an independent authority to bring their concern to. Identifying and resolving problems benefits the person who brings the complaint forward, others in the same situation, the government and all citizens of Yukon.”

So what does an ombudsman do? From the Yukon website:

“The ombudsman is an impartial investigator who takes complaints regarding Yukon government services. The ombudsman can independently and impartially look at a matter to see whether or not you’ve been treated fairly. If the ombudsman finds that you have been treated unfairly, he or she can make recommendations to address the unfairness. Independent review of individual complaints can work to improve government administration. We also work to educate the public and government about fairness in administration and the role of our office.”

From the Ontario website about what an ombudsman does:

“The ombudsman investigates public complaints about Ontario government services. These include individual complaints, for example, about bureaucratic delays and major systemic problems affecting thousands or even millions of people. He or she also investigates complaints about closed municipal meetings.”

The description of an ombudsman is very similar no matter where you look. Mr. Nadli cited some, I’ve cited some, and that’s only from two sources, but they are very similar. An ombudsman office oversees all government departments, all boards, corporations, tribunals and agencies. I feel it’s critical that people understand that the office does not duplicate the work of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. That’s a concern that is often expressed to me by our MLAs. Instead, it offers a venue to work with MLAs to help constituents. People need to know that it is an office of last resort, and as such, it is an alternative to court for our residents. In addition, the ombudsman office provides for a single point of entry or contact for residents with complaints about procedural fairness or decisions. It’s also very important to know that an ombudsman recommendation is not binding.

We’ve been discussing the issue of an ombudsman or an ombudsman office as far back as 1992, as mentioned by Mr. Nadli. This description that I’m about to give is from a 1993 NWT standing committee report:

“The ombudsman complements, not replaces, existing institutions in ensuring that the grievances of the public are addressed. Thus,

the ombudsman does not investigate complaints when legal or other remedies are available, but is there to provide a remedy when administrative or other avenues of recourse are unavailable.”

An ombudsman office is independent, reporting to the Legislative Assembly, not the government, and it is exempt from provisions of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Any information collected by the ombudsman office is protected and secure. Nothing is released unless the individual involved gives permission for it to be released.

The Ontario ombudsman website lists the five top reasons for complaints, and they are ones that we hear all the time from our constituents: first, wrong, unfair decisions; second, bad service; third, inadequate communication; fourth, unfair policies and procedures; and number five, delays. We hear lots of those. These are all things that apply just as easily to the NWT as they do to Ontario.

The Ontario ombudsman was here earlier this week, and in listening to him discuss his office and the work that he does, I was surprised to learn that it is against the law in Ontario to refuse to comply with an order from the ombudsman office. It is punishable by jail. But it only makes sense. For the office to properly do its job, to fully investigate concerns and problems, the staff must be able to access any documents from any government entity. I think knowing that puts the fear of God into our Cabinet colleagues and contributes to their resistance to establishing this office. It’s the fear of the unknown, the fear of interference. But good, transparent and accountable government should welcome the insight into government practices that an ombudsman can bring.

What does Cabinet have to fear? Nothing, as noted in the 1993 NWT standing committee report. It said:

“The office of ombudsman is a resource to the public administration. The ombudsman is not an adversary of the bureaucracy. Indeed, good relations with the bureaucracy are essential. A properly functioning ombudsman facilitates public confidence in the fairness of the public administration and the intervention of the ombudsman should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the bureaucracy.”

As noted, we are one of only three jurisdictions in Canada that do not currently have an ombudsman office, and I’ve said many times before, there are innumerable situations where NWT residents could use an ombudsman to assist in solving a dispute or a disagreement or to investigate unfair government decisions or practices.

Government staff generally do a wonderful job for our residents, but there are times when a resident, rightly or wrongly, feels they’ve been treated

unjustly or without fairness. In many cases, they have no option for appeal. Certainly, some organizations and some departments do have an appeal or a complaints process, but if a resident loses on that front there is no other option of appeal except to go to court. We all know residents who are intimated by the court system, and even though they have the courage of their conviction, they firmly believe they have been unfairly treated, they will not contemplate taking their case to court. It’s David versus Goliath, and few of us take on that kind of fight. Never mind the investment of time and money that a court battle demands.

In previous consideration of the ombudsman issue, the government of the day has said that residents have ways available to them to appeal a court action or decision. That’s true. They can talk to department staff, there are appeal boards in some cases, as I noted, and people can ask their MLA for help, but none of these possibilities provide an impartial forum, and when all options are exhausted and the individual still feels wronged, the only action left to them is to take the matter to court, and that is an expensive and intimidating solution. NWT residents fighting a government or a board decision need an alternative to court, and an ombudsman office will give them that.

We’ve been talking about the need for an ombudsman office for years now. As Mr. Nadli mentioned, as far back in Hansard as 1992. There was a proposal for an office as far back as 1993, and the report tabled in this House in 1993 recommended the following:

“The Standing Committee on Legislation undertook a review which included public hearings throughout the Northwest Territories. The committee tabled its report on March 1, 1993, and recommended:

1. That the Minister of Justice proceed on a

priority basis with the preparation of a bill which would establish the right of access by the public to information held by government institutions.

2. That the Minister of Justice develop a

legislative action paper outlining a proposal for the creation of an ombudsman for the Northwest Territories.”

Now, some 21 years later, we unfortunately have had no concrete action to establish an office for the ombudsman. But there has been action, lots of it. Most recently, as we all know, the Standing Committee on Government Operations produced an excellent and thorough report. That report recommends that we establish an office of the ombudsman for the NWT.

This motion that we are dealing with today asks the government to develop legislation to do just that: to produce legislation that will allow for the

establishment of an ombudsman office. That office is needed and the need is evident. Over the last couple of decades, particularly with devolution, our territory has grown, and we have grown up, and part of being grown up is recognizing the need to help our neighbours and our friends. The time is now to bring this legislation forward. I ask all Members to recognize that and to vote in support of this motion.