Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Then, when it prevails, that act or section of the act is no longer effective and that act would have to be amended. My understanding is that our Languages Act is protected by the Northwest Territories Act which ultimately cannot change in this Legislature alone. It would have to go to the federal government to get changed. With this bill, we don't have to go and ask the federal government for permission to make this kind of legislation. I understand they have a year to strike this kind of deal down if it conflicts with what they call a proper bill, I guess -- I don't know; whatever you call it. How could we make a section in our act that would be stronger than the legislation that is protected by our constitution?

Thank you. I presume that we are talking about territorial statutes in this case. One of the acts we are so proud of is the Languages Act, where we are able to make an act that would be used by the public. If there are sections that conflict with this act, which we are so proud of as a people in the Northwest Territories, then would that act be struck down if it conflicts with this one?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I said before, clause 4(2) says that, "If the provision of this act is inconsistent or in conflict with a provision of another act, the provision of this act prevails unless the other act expressly provides that it, or a provision of it, prevails notwithstanding this act."

My understanding is that if we have an act that conflicts with this act, then this act wins. Is my understanding correct?

I was ahead of myself, sorry. I will wait until the next clause.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It started out as a really good statement, "in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded..." Does that mean I could go to the government and ask for a tape since I cannot read or write? Could I ask the government for a taped section of the information I would like to get? On video, or cassette, that sort of thing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I get interpretation of this part of clause 2, page 3? I don't understand the section I outlined before, "'Record' means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner..." Then it goes on to say, "...but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces records." Does it mean that the information that any person will be getting from the government is going to be written only, since the clause says the records cannot be produced mechanically or recorded? I don't understand that section.

Mr. Chairman, yes, I would agree that for specific concerns, I am willing to wait until we get into those areas. On the general comments, I would like to point out areas that I have a concern over. That's the one I'm concerned about and I don't understand that section of the interpretation. At the beginning it sounds like, "'Record' means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner..." But later on, it says, "...but does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces records." To me, that's taping using a cassette tape recorder or video tapes, that sort of thing. I don't understand the section. Maybe when they get into the clause-by-clause, that could be explained to me.

Also in section 4(2), the bill says it prevails over any other act. That concerns me a little bit. We have really good acts that people of the NWT are able to use such as the Official Languages Act which helps the aboriginal people to get information or to use their language to get information from the government. Under this section, it says that if a provision of this act is inconsistent or in conflict with the provision of another act, the provision of this act prevails unless the other act expressly provides that it, or a provision of it, prevails notwithstanding this act. To me, that means the act which is to prevail, has to make reference to this act. Since this bill is new, none of the acts we are able to pass in this Legislature makes any reference to this act.

My concern is if all the good acts we have that help the people of the NWT conflict with this bill after it becomes an act, they are no longer effective. The government will use this to interpret what has to be done because it prevails in the other act. That's my area of concern, as well.

Also to me, what's the legal word you use, "ultra vires"? To me, that's an ultra vires clause because our language...I'm just thinking of the Official Languages Act, and the Wildlife Act; especially the language act which is protected by the NWT Act. It's under the NWT Act. This Legislature cannot, to my understanding, change it unless the federal government says we can. It's our constitution. This act, if it passes the way it is, overrides our constitution. I don't agree.

Also, one of the questions I'm going to ask when we're going through clause by clause -- because this act prevails over any other act within our power -- is if the government has done any research. What sort of acts are affected by this act because it overrides any other act? I don't know if they have, but maybe they will tell us.

Mr. Chairman, the area of concern I touched on a little bit was for people who cannot read and will not have access to information the government provides, because they cannot read. They are called illiterate, I believe. Mr. Minister will probably correct me when we get to clause 7, and will explain what the records are, such as tapes, video tapes, and that sort of thing.

But, I believe this act will be used by the media. They can use this act to let the people of the Northwest Territories know about certain things. The media could access that information, without people asking for it, after this is passed.

Mr. Chairman, this act also does not make a provision for confidential complaints. Let's say if an access or privacy Commissioner is appointed, and there are people out there making complaints to him/her, would the public be able to get the names of those people? Those areas are not explained in this bill, whether people will be able to get that information.

When we get to specific areas, I will raise those concerns again, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concept of this act, the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, is a very good one. It is an act this Legislature has been working on for a number of years. I agree with the concept. But, I don't fully agree with the way the act is written and, in listening to the Minister who has appeared before the committee, I don't agree with what the government is going to do in terms of making information available to the people of the Northwest Territories.

For one thing, the Minister has stated -- and it also says this in the act, I believe -- that information should be available equally to all people in the Northwest Territories. It is not going to be, since the Minister and the department have said that if the information being requested is in English only and the person requesting it is a unilingual Inuk person from my community, that person will not be given an Inuktitut document, if that information is not translated. If the person wants it translated, he has to pay a fee. That access is not equal to everybody else's, in my mind.

Also, there are quite a few people of the western Arctic who are not able to read English or their language, because their language is not written or it is written, but they can not use the written form to get information. There is a clause in here which I don't get. It is under record document. It says

"Record means a record of information in any form and includes information that is written, photographed, recorded or stored in any manner." So far, so good. Then it says "But does not include a computer program or other mechanism that produces the record." Before hand, it said they'll use any kind of written, photographed, recorded and stored in any manner, then later on says no. I don't understand that. Does that mean if the information is recorded on tape or video tape, its not acceptable under this act? Or does that clause say the information is only available in written form or photographed? I don't quite get that clause. Before I go on, I have a few more. Maybe I could get more clarification on that interpretation section. Thank you.

Madam Speaker, I understand that when the documents are being opened, normally the contractors who are interested in the job are able to be at the site; at the regional centres where the tender documents are open. In my region of Baffin, the tender documents are opened in Iqaluit and if the job has to be done in Pond Inlet, some small companies cannot afford the airfare -- which is over $1,000 to go from Pond Inlet to Iqaluit and back -- but the other companies who are outside from the community who are bidding, are able to be in Iqaluit and ask questions during the opening.

Would the Minister's intention be to open documents at the job site in the future, to accommodate small businesses? Thank you.