Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister whether or not the situation that led to the riot has been resolved, and with Christmas and New Year coming that we will not run into the same situation which would have lead to that riot. Are the inmates satisfied with the way things are going with regard to whatever their demands are?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Social Services. On Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Social Services, when I asked if he was willing to table the report of the riot at the Yellowknife Correctional Centre -- Christmas is just around the corner, Mr. Speaker, and January 1st is less than a month away so I am a bit concerned about what might happen in the event that a riot does take place again. My concern right now is that we do not have a tabled report. I would like to know the reasons why the riot took place in the first place. There had to be some dissatisfaction, there have to be some issues that the inmates were concerned about that the government refused to address, which led to the riot at YCC. I do not know what the reasons are, so I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he would be willing to table this dry-reading document that he feels is not important, but it is important to me, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transportation. I did address the concern during the 11th Assembly regarding the possibility of a spill and perhaps even having an emergency SWAT team centred somewhere around Providence. My question is not regarding that particular situation.

There was an accident last month close to Alert, where a Hercules plane went down about 20 kilometres from the community, but there was not too much the community could do with regard to trying to save the people who went down with that plane. Are there plans by this government to address the whole situation of unforeseen things like this, that we do have the necessary resources to redress that situation?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like many Canadians, Mr. Speaker, I was deeply moved last Friday, December 6, when men and women alike remembered the tragedy in Montreal. White ribbons help us remember that only two years ago, 14 women were slain by a man who was filled with hate.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself thinking a lot since then about the sort of hatred that would cause such a senseless slaughter. While this was no doubt the act of an irrational individual, it is also a reflection of the way women have been victimized over the years by Canadian society.

But, Mr. Speaker, I could not help thinking that, as horrible as the "Montreal Massacre" was, we should not overlook the fact that native people, and especially native women, have been victimized by violence ever since the European explorers first arrived in our land.

When I looked at the white ribbons we wore last Friday, I found myself thinking of Helen Betty Osbourne, brutally murdered by non-native bullies who were ignored by the law because their victim was of aboriginal descent.

Those white ribbons also made me think of Kitty Nowdluk Reynolds, victimized once by a sexual assault, and then victimized again by the Crown attorneys and RCMP officers who forced her to parade across the country in handcuffs and locked her in a van with her attacker.

I thought of Inuit women from communities in Northern Quebec who were forced to move to the High Arctic regions they did not know. They told of their hardship and the sexual victimization they endured at the hands of white policemen. Today they are still victimized; this time by a federal Minister who has called them all liars.

Later this afternoon I will table an account of conditions in Canada's only prison for women -- a dungeon-like institution where outdated correctional practices and medieval surroundings victimize our people once because they are women and again because they are native.

But no one wore white ribbons for Helen Betty Osbourne. No one wore white ribbons for Kitty Nowdluk Reynolds. No one wore them for the Arctic exiles or the for female inmates who have been killing themselves in penitentiaries, or for the women of Oka, or for the countless other aboriginal women who have disappeared or have been victims of violence in communities where no services exist.

Mr. Speaker, hatred against women is most virulent when it is mixed with hatred against a racial group. We cannot overlook the fact that while all women are subject to victimization, native women are at the greatest risk. Violence is not only a women's issue and not only a men's issue. There are elements that make it a racial issue as well, and we simply cannot pretend that this is not true. Only by talking about these truths openly will we ever come close to understanding the question that will challenge us throughout the 1990s: How can the people of the North live together?

Mr. Chairman, we only finished the formal session just now, and the Members have been sitting in this chamber for many hours, and I would like to move that we report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, what I did during the election was that I sent the draft of this particular bill to all the Members, including all the candidates. I would like to, first of all, thank you, Mr. Speaker, when you were supporting my motion as the Justice Minister at that time, or supporting my bill. I also wanted to thank Mr. John Vertes, who was the legal lawyer for me when I was working on the bill itself. I understand that Mr. Vertes is now a Supreme Court justice. I would also like to thank the research staff, too: Alan Downe, Sandy Harris and Richard Bargery. They also worked on getting all the information or all the access to information that they could in order for me to do the work on drafting up a bill itself. And, of course, I would like to thank the Members in this House during the 11th Assembly that supported it. Unfortunately, there are also Members that did not support it that are no longer with us. So I would like to ask all the Members to support me, including the Executive if they could, and I would also request, Mr. Speaker, that we have a recorded vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the past two years I have been committed to seeing access to information legislation in place for the people of the Northwest Territories. Today I remain as committed to that goal as I ever have been.

The formal motion I have placed before the House, Mr. Speaker, would allow the 12th Legislative Assembly to express its support for that goal, as well. It would show the people of the Northwest Territories that its elected officials support the concept of "open government" and that we are willing to legislate access to information as one aspect of that concept.

My motion would also place the responsibility for bringing forward this legislation with the Government Leader and her colleagues. I am asking our House to adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should bring forward this legislation during the second session of the 12th Assembly. The basis for my motion is found in the four whereas clauses which Members will see on the page before them. I would like to make a few comments on each one.

Background About Private Members' Bill

Members may know, Mr. Speaker, that during the final session of the 11th Assembly I sponsored a Private Members' Bill that would have given the Northwest Territories its first Access to Information Act. This bill would have given the public a right to access information in certain records under the control of the Government of the Northwest Territories. However, the law would have also prevented the government from releasing information that violated individuals' rights to privacy or interfered with the government's duty to carry out certain executive functions. Perhaps more important, the bill would have given people a "right" to examine what government files say about them and to make sure it is accurate.

I am sure you will remember, Mr. Speaker, that the debate on my Private Members' Bill was long and at times difficult for each one of us. On July 6th the 11th Assembly voted that the bill should not proceed to third reading and the Access to Information Act died.

Other Canadians

With that vote, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories were denied a right that is presently enjoyed by other Canadians. Currently New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon have laws which specifically allow people to access government information. The federal government and the legislatures of Ontario and Quebec have also enacted laws that include rights pertaining to the protection of privacy as well as accessibility to government records. In British Columbia, the Harcourt government made the absence of an access to information act an election issue and anticipates that a bill will be brought forward in the new year.

Mr. Speaker, I was truly dismayed last July when the 11th Assembly failed to pass the Access to Information Act. I was troubled not only because of the decision but because of what it said about us. Our debate did not focus on the substance of the bill. In fact, when we tried to carry out a clause by clause review, opposing Members would not present their views on the clauses -- they only shouted, "Nay, nay."

Mr. Speaker, you now that I felt then -- and I still feel -- that this sent the wrong message to political observers across Canada. That message was that the Northwest Territories has not matured to the point where people believe in the right of individuals to know what their government is doing -- that they are still as willing to accept closed-door decision-making by bureaucrats and councillors as they were when Stu Hodgson was Commissioner.

Public Reaction During The Territorial Election

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories sent out a different message during the territorial election. Across the North candidates were asked to take a position on whether or not we should have an access to information act. The voting public demonstrated, I believe, that right-to-information legislation is welcome and important, and something that northern residents desire.

Adopting The Principle Of The Legislation

With this motion we are proposing that the House adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should have legislation that addresses access to information. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the sort of motion where ordinary Members make a recommendation to the Executive Council and government Members abstain. This is a motion intended to demonstrate that this whole Assembly believes in the principle that there should be access to information legislation.

I plan to vote "yes" because I believe in it. If other Members wish to vote "no" because they do not, then their position will be clear. But I would ask my honourable colleagues, please do not abstain. This issue is too important.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will personally recall that when the final vote was taken on my Private Members' Bill there was a "free vote" so Members of the cabinet could vote with their conscience on the issue. I would strongly encourage my eight colleagues on the other side of the House to follow the same procedure on the motion before us now.

What are the reasons we should embrace the principle that access to information should be legislated, Mr. Speaker? 1) We should do it because the right of the people to know what their government is doing is one of the fundamental principles in a democracy. 2) Without that knowledge, it becomes impossible for voters to assess the performance of their elected representatives. 3) We should do it because right-to-information laws increase government responsibility and accountability. By making elected officials and key public servants aware that government actions are subject to public review, there is less danger that inappropriate or illicit decisions may be made about the use of government resources and public funds. 4) We should do it because in a free society every citizen should have the right to know what the government's records say about him or her and should be able to correct any untrue information, mistakes or omissions.

Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why I believe strongly that this Legislative Assembly should formally adopt the principle that right to information legislation should exist in the Northwest Territories. Now, from time to time some "hidden voices" have been heard to say that the Northwest Territories does not need to have legislation that gives people the right to access government records. These voices have argued that the Access to Information Act will stimulate government employees to try to sanitize and edit records to stop people from finding out how they perform their work.

Mr. Speaker, I find that this statement insults the overwhelming majority of territorial public servants who are proud of their work and make sound decisions that the public would respect.

When I was drafting my Private Members' Bill, I spent many hours reviewing research studies into what happens to a public servant when right-to-information legislation is introduced. I have found that, after the initial adjustment period, government officials become accustomed to working in an open-government environment and hardly think about it at all. If anything, it motivates them to strive for even higher quality in their work and encourages the government to develop more efficient record-keeping systems.

Mr. Speaker, the proof of this lies in the fact that of all the jurisdictions in Canada to enact right-to-information legislation, not one has ever repealed those statutes without immediately replacing them with another. If this sort of law has such a negative effect on the public service, why have other provinces not gotten rid of theirs? In fact, it is embarrassing to recognize that the Province of Saskatchewan gave assent to its first Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act just 19 days before the 11th Assembly voted ours down. If it is such a bad principle, why did someone not let Saskatchewan know?

No, Mr. Speaker, one cannot avoid the fact that the government will work better when people are able to monitor what is going on. That is why we must embrace the principle of this legislation.

Government's Responsibility To Bring In Legislation

I want to say a few words about my views on the government's responsibility in this area. I originally sponsored the Private Members' Bill to establish an Access to Information Act. Members of the Legislative Assembly tend to use Private Members' Bills when they realize there is a need for law in a certain area that the cabinet is unwilling or not ready to legislate.

Mr. Speaker, throughout my eight years as an MLA, I have noticed that decisions about what should make up the public record have been made by the government Ministers rather than by the public. That is not the way it should be. Yet the Executive Council in both the 10th Assembly and the 11th Assembly did not bring forward the needed legislation. That is why I sponsored my own Private Members' Bill. However, the truth is that there are some definite advantages to having this legislation brought in by the government rather than as a Private Members' Bill. Four main reasons have convinced me that it will be best for the government to bring forward this legislation:

1) The government has a wide range of professional resources it can draw on in the Department of Justice and its cabinet officials. Private Members do not. A Private Members' Bill is costly and time-consuming to develop, and we have now entered a period of fiscal restraint.

2) Through my research I have come to believe that the very best access to information legislation establishes an information commissioner who is charged with responsibility for implementing statutory requirements of the act. A private Member would be unable to bring forward this sort of legislation because it carries direct financial implications. The government, however, is free to explore this promising approach.

3) The "Strength at Two Levels" document proposes broad changes to the organization of several government departments. I believe that this legislation would be most effective if it was developed in conjunction with the new systems and responsibilities for information storage and retrieval that will undoubtedly need to be developed as the departments are reorganized.

4) The Beatty report also carries some implications that, if implemented, may alter the framework for relations between the territorial government and community governments.

For those reasons I think it will be best for the Access to Information Act to be introduced as a government bill. I do not believe it will be necessary for the government to go right back to square one on this initiative. I believe that much of the initial groundwork has been completed when I was preparing my Private Members' Bill. I also believe that the Minister of Justice will give this matter the priority it deserves, and we should be able to have something before us during the second session.

The new process recommended by the standing committee on legislation, if adopted, will allow the House to give this bill an open and thorough public review. I have spoken with the Minister and told him that I am certainly prepared to forward the technical and resource information I have collected and to offer assistance in any way I can.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS a bill to implement an access to information act was narrowly denied passage during the 11th Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS all residents of the Northwest Territories are still without right-to-information legislation currently enjoyed by other Canadians;

AND WHEREAS any further efforts to embark on new legislative strategies in this regard will only delay the realization of the right to access information for residents of the Northwest Territories;

AND WHEREAS many residents strongly voiced their support for this type of legislation during the election campaign for the 12th Legislative Assembly;

NOW THEREFORE, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that this Legislative Assembly adopt the principle that the Government of the Northwest Territories should have legislation that addresses access to information;

AND FURTHER, that this government introduce access to information legislation during the second session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the process is with regard to the allocation of capital projects. This is something new to me, when some Members are suggesting it has not gone through the standing committee on finance. Motions have never gone to SCOF before, unless it is a whole new process again. I missed the first day for two hours. Did something happen in those two hours that I am not aware of?

There are certain allocations to each region, and one region's allocation should not have any effect on other regions'. Also, we have not based any allocation on population, either. Should we also make that a criterion? I would like to ask the Members that. Should that also be part of the criteria for capital allocations, in order to be fair? I will go ahead with my motion in that it is the only way I know how to make my point in this House and make other Members aware that the aspirations of my constituents are just as important as yours. But this is the style I have chosen to use.

I have also tried in the last eight years with countless letters for projects in my constituency. A lot of it has been effective because Members of my constituency have met with the Members here in Yellowknife. There are different little ways that Members make points in order to achieve what they need for their constituency. I am not suggesting for one minute that this style that I am using is a style that everyone else should use. Perhaps Members have other ways they might be able to achieve the same goals as I am. For me this is the best way of doing it. I like to have the people in the constituency hear what I am saying. I have written letters for them already, countless letters. The community centre was on the drawing board for eight years and it has been moved from 1994 and now I am suggesting it goes down to 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a simple request, and I believe the allocation is something like $200,000. That is what DPW spends to get one house in any of the other communities. So it is not asking for much. The need is there. Mr. Koe already said they have a community centre that is condemned, but I have nothing. So that is where things are at, and I wish Members would support me. I am making the best of what I know what to do.

This has not bound the government -- my church is a classic example. I made a motion on that. It was passed -- and boom, the Executive Council suggests that maybe Providence does not deserve it this time around and with the stroke of a pen they can cancel any projects they want. The Members have to realize they will do that at every opportunity they get, unless we stick together as Members. Whether you do it in the form of a letter and send a copy to us or make it in this House, we have to support each other in order to make this government accountable. But if we have to nit-pick on little excuses not to support each other, then we will keep being fragmented; we cannot see ourselves being united in dealing with issues. Perhaps all the constituencies have desires, but we cannot support each other, and it would not matter whether or not this motion is passed, because the end result is that if we are not of one mind, all the motions that all the Members make would not make any difference if we have people opposing it and other people supporting it and some people still sitting on the fence and feeling they do not want to make a decision on that. We will find ourselves in trouble.

So I would like to ask the Members to support a motion that has been in the process for many years now. It is just a matter of determining which year it should be constructed.