Louis Sebert

This is a very busy government. All of the MLAs are very busy. People may want reform, but there doesn't seem to be any obvious solution in the sense that when asked people have many different ideas about what a new system of voting could look like, and I just don't think that this government feels that changing the current system, which has worked well for many years, would be a high priority or a priority at all.

No, we haven't.

It is in due course. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the Member opposite will be there on Monday. This may not be an item that engages the general public, so I am looking forward to informed information both from the Member opposite and for the people of Hay River. We have heard from some. We are expecting perhaps a dozen at least. As I said, we are going on quite a road show for this project. We are visiting a large number of communities. I would hope that we would have the policy completed by mid-year and shortly after were it implemented. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This will be the second public meeting we've had. We had a meeting in December in Fort Smith and people raised a wide variety of matters, including engagement with the government, access to data, so I expect that those types of issues will be brought up in Hay River. I can advise that we will be visiting many of the other communities in the next month or two, so I expect a wide variety of matters to be discussed, open government, engagement, access to information being only three.

No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to make that kind of commitment. I do realize this is a live issue. As I say, I did take the time of reading the excellent paper provided or prepared by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association and I understand that discussions regarding this matter are taking place in the Justice Departments of Ontario and federally. I will not put it on the next FTP. I don't know if I would have the power to do so unilaterally in any case; however, I will discuss this matter with my federal and provincial counterparts.

Yes, I understand that the Ontario Civil Liberties Association has produced a paper and I have had the opportunity of reading that paper. It may be time to look at these vulnerable record checks; however, I still think they have considerable value.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled "Follow-up Letter for Oral Question 497-18(2), Expanded Role for GNWT Court Sheriffs." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure it will look great. I don't think we went into this with any preconceptions as to what the ultimate policy would look like. We looked at policies from other jurisdictions, but we really are engaging with the public, seeking their input, which will make the policy as good as possible.

Well, I think that anyone and everyone should be concerned about open government. When we discussed the mandate early on in the -- about a year and a half ago now almost, it was one of the essential items that we did discuss. In my mandate letter it was made clear that this is an important project for this government and for all of the Members of this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the relevant legislation came into effect in the year 2000 it was thought some additional protection was needed for vulnerable groups and children, and that was the reason that vulnerable record checks are permitted. As I say, it must be established that the position is one of trust over children or a vulnerable group; therefore, I suggest that the number of vulnerable record checks should be very limited and limited only to those occasions where required.