Especially this time of year, of course, I pride the ferry captains and all staff that do everything they can to extend the ferry day by day. But in this case it was the failure of a piece of equipment that confused everybody. Everybody thought definitely that the ferry was being shut down.
Perhaps the Minister can issue a public statement to the residents of Fort Simpson apologizing for the confusion this year, and even with that little simple statement. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem whatsoever to advise the people in Fort Simpson and apologize for having some failure on the equipment and explain why there was some confusion of the ferry being anticipated to close then extended again. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad that the Minister concurred to that.
Does the Minister feel that there is need to review the policy, or is it just a case where it was a malfunctioning piece of equipment that created the confusion? Thank you.
One of the things we will do for this vital time of the year, I will ensure that the equipment is checked earlier, before it’s needed and to ensure that it’s working. That is one of the things that we will incorporate with that ferry or any ferry that needs a depth sounder to continue to cross the river. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Time for oral questions has expired. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to turn back to item 8 on the orders of the day.
---Unanimous consent denied
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to Written Question 22-17(5) asked by Ms. Bisaro on November 3, 2014, to the honourable Jackson Lafferty, Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, regarding Junior Kindergarten funding.
Later today, at the appropriate time, I will table "Funding for Junior Kindergarten Implementation in the 2014-2015 School Year," which provides the allocation, cost share and net impact of Junior Kindergarten for each education authority.
If the number of schools offering Junior Kindergarten remains as it is now, the allocations and cost-sharing amounts in 2015-2016 will remain the same as in the "Funding for Junior Kindergarten Implementation in the 2014-2015 School Year" document.
Mr. Speaker, at this time it is not possible to project changes to these allocations and cost-sharing amounts for the 2015-2016 school year. This is because education authorities have been offered the choice to withdraw from the Junior Kindergarten Program and any such changes would impact the funding to, and cost share by, all education authorities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 8 on the Order Paper, oral questions. Mahsi.
---Unanimous consent denied
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “2013 Public Service Annual Report.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Ramsay.
TABLED DOCUMENT 183-17(5):
2013-2014 REPORT OF THE
LEGAL SERVICES BOARD OF THE NWT
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “2013-2014 Report of the Legal Services Board of the NWT.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Further to my Return to Written Question 22-17(5), I wish to table the following document, entitled “Funding for Junior Kindergarten Implementation in the 2014-2015 School Year.” Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Item 15, notices of motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 8, oral questions, which is on the orders of the day. Thank you.
---Unanimous consent denied
Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Colleagues, we are going to call a 15-minute break.
---SHORT RECESS
Before we start back into the work of the day, I’d like to welcome back former Speaker and Minister and MLA for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. WHEREAS this 17th Legislative Assembly has often spoken of and identified openness, transparency and accountability as being of utmost importance to all Members and the people of the Northwest Territories;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories currently lacks a single point of contact where Northwest Territories residents may take their concerns when they feel they have been impacted by unfair treatment in government administration;
AND WHEREAS with the recent achievement of devolution, the Government of the Northwest Territories has marked a significant milestone in its evolution and has reached an unprecedented level of complexity;
AND WHEREAS the Government of the Northwest Territories has undertaken a review of current practices which identified more than two dozen pieces of territorial legislation that establish statutory appeal mechanisms – evidence of the complexity of the territorial government that the average citizen has to engage with;
AND WHEREAS nine Canadian provinces and Yukon have parliamentary ombudsman offices;
AND WHEREAS an ombudsman office would complement the work of the Human Rights Commission by providing an advocacy support option for people who have legitimate complaints of unfair treatment not based on human rights grounds;
AND WHEREAS the Human Rights Commission has indicated that they frequently get requests for help from people who have legitimate complaints about government treatment not based on human rights grounds, and that the Human Rights Commission would refer such people to an ombudsman if such an office existed;
AND WHEREAS the need for a territorial ombudsman for the Northwest Territories was first raised in the Legislative Assembly over 20 years ago and was most recently debated in this House on June 8, 2012;
AND WHEREAS, pursuant to Motion 12-17(4) of this Legislative Assembly, the matter of the potential role of a Northwest Territories ombudsman, whether stand-alone or combined with another statutory office, and options for implementing such an office, was referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations for research, review and analysis;
AND WHEREAS, in response to Motion 12-17(4), the Standing Committee on Government Operations tabled its report on Establishing an Office of the Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories in the Legislative Assembly on June 4, 2014;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that the government introduce legislation that will establish an ombudsman as an independent and non-partisan statutory officer;
AND FURTHER, that the government, in designing the appropriate legislation, refer to the report produced by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and work closely with the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly to examine the options of both a stand-alone office and one that might combine with another statutory office.
AND FURTHERMORE, that the government provide a response to this motion within 120 days.
Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today we’re debating a motion requesting that the government introduce legislation that would establish an ombudsman in the Northwest Territories. In June 2014, the Standing Committee on Government Operations tabled a special report on the need for an ombudsman. As the committee chair, it is appropriate for me to provide some opening remarks on this motion.
I’ll begin by describing what an ombudsman is and does. The term “ombudsman” is a fancy term for a citizens’ defender, someone who is a voice for the people and a peacemaker. An ombudsman assists people, free of charge, who feel they have been treated unfairly by government and helps people understand their rights when it comes to government administration.
An ombudsman responds to complaints from the public by conducting confidential investigations and then recommending ways to improve government services. The ombudsman’s office is a place of last resort and it complements existing appeal mechanisms and remedies available through the courts.
An office of the ombudsman would have strong powers of investigation, requires cooperation from all government organizations. However, it would not have the power to change or reverse government decisions. Moral persuasion is a primary tool in the ombudsman toolkit.
Generally, an ombudsman has the power to investigate government departments and certain Crown corporations. However, it would be up to the NWT Legislative Assembly to decide whether to include municipalities, Aboriginal governments, schools and hospitals within the scope of the ombudsman’s mandate.
The ombudsman’s office in the Yukon makes the services available to the Aboriginal governments, but only if they request it. The public may wonder why the Northwest Territories needs an ombudsman. The Standing Committee on Government operations believes it’s an idea whose time has come.
The Government of the Northwest Territories is becoming more complex, especially now that devolution has been achieved. The GNWT talks a lot about transparency and accountability to the public. An ombudsman would help to ensure that the GNWT is on the right track. Although the vast majority of GNWT public servants perform their jobs diligently and conscientiously, mistakes can happen. As well, sometimes there is a systemic unfairness. An ombudsman would be uniquely positioned to make recommendations for improvements in such instances.
All Canadian jurisdictions except PEI and Nunavut have an ombudsman office. The Yukon combines the ombudsman’s duties with those of the Privacy Commissioner.
The function of an ombudsman is entirely consistent with the principles of consensus government. The method of operation emphasizes sound reasoning, independence and good working relationships.
The GNWT is evolving and becoming a more sophisticated and complicated government. I hope that my colleagues will join me in supporting this motion. The time has come for legislators in the NWT to put in place an office whose key purpose is to promote fairness and assist our people. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. I’ll allow the seconder to the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
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:
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.
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.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to acknowledge the mover and the seconder as well as Government Operations for their hard work on this motion and the work on the ombudsman implementation. I know I’ve been able to attend several of the meetings.
In my short term as MLA, I’ve seen many situations where an ombudsman would be convenient and useful. There are several opportunities where MLAs can fight the fight to a certain point until they hit a roadblock, whether that’s in the Minister’s office or whether it’s in bureaucracy or whether it’s in the legislation. An ombudsman would be able to take care of some of those issues. I think we’re talking about the small percentage of issues that have been before MLAs and the government. I know the government’s probably reluctant to accept this ombudsman, seeing as they would indicate that we take care of the issues that are before us, and that’s true. They do, on the majority. But there is that 1, 2, 3 percent that they cannot fix. There is no immediate solution and maybe they agree to disagree with one of our constituents.
The other argument that lots of people have a concern with is the cost. Granted, there will be a cost to this office, but we know that we would implement it with a statutory office to do economies of scale for implementation to maybe do some joint work, office and staff-wise and similar work-wise.
There are many constituents that have issues with the way government is doing certain items, but they can’t risk that, whether they are a contractor who continues to do work with the department on a daily basis, they can’t risk their livelihoods to make a complaint. An ombudsman may be able to take that complaint anonymously, so that individual or that company can make a complaint that they haven’t dealt with or this situation hasn’t been dealt with.
As the mover and seconder indicated, this issue and this discussion have been here for more than 20 years. We need to look at an ombudsman office sooner than later. We’re at the last year of this Assembly and we’re going to go through another Assembly that didn’t implement this important office, this important feature in GNWT to take constituents’ concerns and complaints that are not being dealt with, that are taking too long to be dealt with.
Like I said, in my short three-year career here, we have had issues where people have been working on complaints and concerns for over three, four, five years, and I’ve taken them on from previous MLAs. There are certain things in this government that have to be dealt with promptly, and we believe that an ombudsman will allow this to happen and should be implemented. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all I would just like to acknowledge the work of the Government Operations committee in bringing this forward. It was a very long process and a lot of work into research. I would also like to thank the staff behind the scenes for doing the research and bringing forth a very good motion and some of the reports and discussion papers that we had to make our decision on. I would like to thank Mr. Nadli and Ms. Bisaro for taking that one step further and bringing the motion to the floor as we debate it in the House today.
I think Ms. Bisaro and our chair, Mr. Nadli, said it very well on why we need an ombudsman, what is an ombudsman, what they do and some of the powers that they have. We were lucky to have Mr. Andre Marin, the ombudsman for Ontario, here to do a little presentation and the Q and A with the public here in Yellowknife. He gave a lot of really good points in terms of why it’s needed.
Also, just to let you know, Mr. Speaker, we are one of three jurisdictions in Canada right now that don’t have an ombudsman office that need the importance of it. What Mr. Marin had also mentioned last week was that in his office, he has support from all political parties in the work that he does. Even though the recommendations aren’t binding, the government always acts on those recommendations and, in some cases, develops action plans right away when they see some of the recommendations that come out of his office.
The motion is very important as we proceed to creating this ombudsman act, and as Ms. Bisaro stated earlier, if we do have an ombudsman office and they do the investigations, they also have the opportunity to get files, to get e-mails, to get information that we, as Regular MLAs, don’t have access to.
In my job, I have had constituents, in terms of bringing concerns forward, where we have worked with government and we have actually hit a stone wall and we couldn’t do anything further. We’ve tried every opportunity, every avenue. We also looked at some of our other statutory officers to get it addressed, and it feels as though, as an MLA, you fail them but you have worked every opportunity that you can. I think having an ombudsman office would help alleviate that, would speed up the processes and, really, they’re a last line of defence, last point of contact. MLAs have a lot of opportunities to work on behalf of constituents across the Northwest Territories and residents, but having that ombudsman office, an independent body that can actually do the work and bring out good recommendations, to get them addressed.
I know we’ve talked about the costs of an ombudsman office somewhere around the cost of $400,000. We were lucky; our staff did a great job in looking at some of our contracts over $5,000 that came out of the expenditures of 2013. So an office, to put it in perspective, for the cost of about $400,000 that would help people, help organizations get the answers that they need to do the work that they can do, especially the ones that feel they have been mistreated and treated unfairly by government. Just to put it in perspective, in 2013 we paid $368,000 for one airport garage exterior and we paid $424,000 for one snow blower. Those are just a couple of the examples. But this office would provide a lot of support in terms of the people that feel that they have been done wrong by our governments in the Northwest Territories.
I know, speaking back home to people in my community, there is a lot of support for it and a lot of individuals saying that they wish this office was opened quite a number of years ago. Some people who have actually left the Northwest Territories whose issues couldn’t be resolved and, really, we’re losing people because they have lost confidence in how their cases were handled.
If you don’t know now, I am in support of this ombudsman office. I’m in support of the motion and hope all my colleagues are also in favour. Once again, I would like to thank the standing committee for all the work that they did to get us to this point in time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this motion. I would like to just put out a few points, some of which may have been presented already by my colleagues and I think they have done a great job at listing many of the benefits.
First of all, would an ombudsman impinge on an MLA’s work? This has been something that I’ve thought about for quite a while, and I have concluded today, no. MLAs are adept at seeking the best support for their constituents. They will quickly identify the ombudsman as a critical tool, a critical arrow in their quiver when needed, but also Cabinet, I believe, will learn to appreciate this tool for the clarity it can bring.
I had the opportunity to visit with the Ontario ombudsman over lunch just the other day. The record is clear that an ombudsman improves performance and transparency, something I am really big on. Would it be costly, is clearly a responsible question to ask. I don’t think so if it is done appropriately and well. An important element of this is empowering the ombudsman to be able to seize documents, subpoena witnesses and so on, while maintaining strict confidentiality, even in a court process. This has been characteristic of ombudsmen and it allows them to provide that efficient and timely process, which is quite a bit different than a court process, which is often what the public and complainants have to rely on today. So this provides an economic alternative to the often unaffordable and lengthy court process.
Again, visiting with the Ontario ombudsman, I learned that in Ontario there’s a separate Environmental Commissioner to share the load. Obviously, I don’t think we need to go to that point without seeing how an ombudsman would be able to cover off environmental complaints, as well, and I think that would be included with the broad definition that is being proposed here. Duties and responsibilities can include Crown corporations, and I think that’s something that we would need to consider.
In the Yukon they adapted legislation to allow Aboriginal governments access to ombudsman services. This might be worthy of consideration here in the Northwest Territories. Also in the Yukon, I note that they combine the ombudsman with the Privacy and Information Commissioner office, which is something we might contemplate.
Again, I would like to thank committee and the chair for bringing this forward, and in particular I would like to tip my hat to Ms. Bisaro, MLA for Frame Lake, for her focus and persistent, some might say dogged, pursuit of this opportunity throughout the 16th and 17th Assemblies.
I wasn’t supportive in the 16th Assembly. What has changed? For me it’s devolution and the complexity of our government and all of the issues that we can expect coming out of devolution. I support devolution, but with it comes the added responsibility and an ombudsman is a very critical tool, I believe, that’s been well demonstrated to help deal with those sorts of things. So that’s the difference. After 22 years of discussion that we’ve heard, I’d say the time is now and there are some good reasons for that.
So in conclusion, as my friend Lois Little says, we live in turbulent times that are bound to continue into the foreseeable future. The Government of the NWT and Northerners as a whole need all the help we can get to manage fairly, justly and responsibly through these times.
As the ombudsman for Ontario aptly pointed out at the public meeting on November 3 at the Great Hall and was explained by the standing committee chair and Members in their thoughtful and positive comments, the time is right for a maturing government to establish just such an office. An ombudsman office will support MLAs, the GNWT and residents to handle the intricacies of new powers and responsibilities associated with devolution and changing indigenous public government relationships.
An ombudsman’s office can help the GNWT to fulfill its duty of care, which is, and likely will continue to be, complicated by a growing number of vulnerable citizens, the impacts of climate change, historic and, some would argue, current colonial and patriarchal dynamics and global forces, including corporate rights agreements. I think that’s well stated and certainly speaks to the need and appropriateness for us to be talking about an NWT ombudsman’s office.
I look forward to supporting this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the joys of working alongside like-minded MLAs, especially in committee, is that on occasion all our compass headings point in the same direction and the motion before the House today is a testament of this resolve.
Early in our mandate as a committee, we took it upon ourselves to ask some fundamental questions as what singular activity could we do to change the lives of Northerners. Although we have a motion brought forward by Mr. Nadli and seconded by Ms. Bisaro, which we thank, if there was ever a motion brought before the House penned as one voice, moved and seconded as a body, this would be such a motion. Armed with determination and in conjunction with all our statutory obligations, this committee rose to the occasion and tasked itself with wanting to urge the government to prepare a legislative proposal and an introduction of a bill before the end of the 17th Assembly. To save time and money, but not compromise quality, the committee prepared with in-house resources a report pursuant to Motion 12-17(4) for the research, review and analysis on establishing an office of the ombudsman for the Northwest Territories.
I want to thank personally the hard work of Ms. April Taylor, committee researcher, who we owe a huge debt of gratitude in preparation of this said report.
---Applause
Through research, thorough analysis, written communication, engaged dialogue and a town hall meeting last Monday, we find ourselves today at a most critical juncture in time. A time, which we have all embraced throughout our journey as post-devolutionary participants of the 17th Legislative Assembly, enabling Northerners to take charge of decisions affecting them has been the vision of a new and prosperous territory with each Member of this Assembly standing proud alongside our Premier in support. Clearly, the next evolutionary step is to enshrine this opportunity of success and to put Northerners in control of their destiny with the proper tools of opportunity, opportunity that supports the guiding mechanisms of accountability and transparency like no other.
With newfound responsibilities in its path of maturity, so does a government faced with more complexity and sophistication in its path. Now, more than ever, so too will there be need of navigation through complex myriads of appeal mechanisms, untested policies and legislative gaps for the people it serves.
Now is the time for this government to join together with Regular Members and all Northerners to forge a pathway of a proper support mechanism working alongside our current oversight commissions of privacy, equal pay, official languages and human rights. In fact, there exists a huge opportunity for the creation of a one-stop single-window government accountability office, an office that could house all levels of commissions with the addition of an ombudsman.
This government accountability office concept would set the core standard of accountability and transparency and could conceivably be the true hallmark of a post-devolutionary legacy.
This is what the people want. This is what the people expect. Today, this is what we ask. I’ll be supporting this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to commend the mover and seconder for the motion. I know the last time this motion came forward I did not support it, but after a little more information I came to change my mind mainly because, in the long run, I can see this cost-saving. A lot of what the ombudsman does is the same thing as the Languages Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner. So I feel that we could most likely replace those two commissioners with the ombudsman because they basically do the same thing. That was the thing that made me change my mind.
Moving forward we’ll see how things roll out. I will be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that I think the Government Operations have done an excellent report. One thing they didn’t note is that it’s another statutory office. So, we’ve got the Languages Commissioner that Mr. Blake spoke about, the Human Rights Commission and we’ve also got an Information Commissioner.
In my term as MLA, I’ve learned that I’ve helped constituents go through these commissioners’ offices and not all the time they had their needs met. People do want to be heard. They want their concerns heard, and as an MLA, we can only go so far and do as much as we can. I think that having the ombudsman from Ontario here kind of swayed me in the direction that maybe we do need one more outlet, maybe the people need one more venue to go to.
So with that, I certainly will be supporting this motion. I’m glad that they’ve done their groundwork, they’ve done an excellent report and more work than I’ve seen before in other motions. I’m getting positive feedback for that, so I’ll certainly be supporting that motion. Mahsi cho.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said earlier today about the agricultural policy, this is another topic that has been on the agenda of the Government of the Northwest Territories either in the forefront or on the backburner for many, many years, the idea of an ombudsman for the Northwest Territories. It was certainly something that was discussed by many, many candidates over the years in candidates’ forums and on election platforms.
We are here today to make a decision on a motion to ask the government to move forward with the establishment of an ombudsman’s office. I think that the success of this office is going to be largely dependent on a few things, and I think that the detail in terms of the parameters of what this office would actually look at is very important, because when you think of the 42,000 people in the Northwest Territories who in their day-to-day life have some contact with the GNWT, I think that the myriad and scope of issues that people may have with the government could be quite extensive. I mean, everything from staffing complaints to contracting complaints to student financial. I mean, we just think about all the scope of issues that we deal with as MLAs every day, and so how a complaint or a concern gets elevated to the level of being heard or investigated or responded to by a statutory officer such as an ombudsman, I think that has to be very clearly laid out, and I think Members have explained here a little bit about how the establishment of an ombudsman is not going to affect the relationship between MLAs and constituents and MLAs being the go-to person for people and constituents when they have concerns.
I’m not exactly sure how all of that is going to work out, but if it is wide open with no parameters, no guidelines, I mean, the sheer volume of issues or inquiries or complaints that an office like the ombudsman could necessarily deal with would mean that it would be so powerful and require so much resources and so much staff to be effective that that’s a concern. I think we have to, moving forward, be clear about what’s the pathway, what’s the process for a person, an individual who has a grievance to get their issue to the level of an ombudsman, because I think there are many other opportunities before that which people can access to have their concerns met.
I agree with what the other Members are saying here today about it’s hard to take on the government and win. It is a David and Goliath situation. I’ve been a big proponent of transparency and accountability in government. Anybody who’s been around the North for very long will know that I took on a very big challenge in the area of transparency and accountability at one time, and it was hard, and I remember at the time thinking, there’s the Premier and there’s God, and there’s nobody in between to appeal to, or there’s the courts, and that’s about it. Unless you are very, very well resourced, court is not an option. I don’t want people to feel despair in their dealings with the government. I don’t want them to feel like it’s a hopeless or a helpless situation when they cannot get answers to the issues and the concerns that they have, so I think that the idea of the office of an ombudsman is a good idea.
Now, an Ontario ombudsman has been here and has talked to a lot of the Members and made quite an impression obviously. Other jurisdictions have ombudsmen, so we’re not inventing the wheel here. This is not a foreign concept in democracy and democratic government, but there is one thing that’s a bit unique in the Northwest Territories and that is I don’t think very many places in Canada you could know every one of your constituents and actually run into them on any given day. I mean, we are very close to… I mean, when I was the Minister of Health and Social Services, I’d have people call me at home to tell me that their washer and dryer had broken down. I mean, we are very close to our people, and I think that that sets us apart and makes us a bit different, and I don’t want the office of an ombudsman to change that relationship where people feel our constituents, other people’s constituents. I don’t want to lose that approachability that we have as MLAs to respond to the concerns of our constituents, and so I think that, first and foremost, it would always be better if we could come to them.
I also want to say that I don’t think that putting in an ombudsman office should be any affront to the good folks who work in the public service, because again, as a very experienced Member in this Legislature, I want to say that I have had good success with the people who serve us in the departments and the Ministers who represent those departments and those activities. I think that, for the most part, people want to respond, they want to be fair, they want to provide good service to the residents of the Northwest Territories. But there are those occasional instances where it becomes impossible, as an MLA, to solve the problem, and other Members have referred to those experiences that they’ve had as well.
I can think of some situations over the years where the person who has been, I guess, affected by a government decision has tried to explain it, has tried to lay it out. A lot will depend on their ability to communicate their issue, and then for an MLA to be able to unravel the layers and the complexity and the knowledge that it would take to understand the situation and actually say, yes, there’s an issue or there isn’t. It would be very, very challenging, and there are those cases, and I think those are the kinds of cases that could go to an ombudsman.
I am going to support the establishment of the office of an ombudsman. At the end of the day, no matter how much power we give that office, it will still be up to us as legislators, and we will make final decisions. I’m a little bit concerned that we sometimes, well, we’d have to have a very respectful relationship.
Another thing, and this is very kind of, like, right down to the brass tacks, a lot will depend on who is in that position, and it has got to be somebody who understands and respects the various roles that people play in a government like ours. It can’t be somebody that’s got an axe to grind or a chip on their shoulder against the government. I’m just talking very candidly here, but it’s going to have to be somebody who has a respectful understanding of all the players and where we all fit into the scheme of things here, because if you had the wrong person in a role like this, it could get kind of out of hand, so I think it would need to be a person that would be very, very carefully chosen for a position like that.
Sometimes we do turn things over to independent statutory officers, independent commissions that review salaries, or boundaries commissions and that, and then they come back with their recommendations and we have handed off the authority to deal with things and then we pull back because we don’t want to respond to whatever those findings are. I think that that whole give and take in the relationship with an ombudsman office has to be clearly laid out, and I think it could be successful, and I will support the motion.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue here is this is being planted as a seed. We had some discussions in the past, and like my other colleagues, when this came up I certainly did support the notion of an ombudsman in the Northwest Territories.
A couple days ago in the Members’ lounge, it’s been reported on the news and Mr. Bromley spoke about the sighting of a wolverine just past the Members’ lounge as we were having dinner with the Ontario ombudsman. The wolverine is a well-respected animal, fierce and with survival but also very feared by many people, any animal, and isn’t it a coincidence that we have the ombudsman here with us at the same time a wolverine passes. I’m saying maybe that’s a sign that a powerful animal like that and as our colleagues talked about the positon that we’re talking about, how you look at that position, it could be friend or foe, and the wolverine, I’m trying to think, even last night, what is that wolverine telling us, having been spotted close by the buildings. Animals usually tell us, if you really think about it, they tell you something and it’s for us to think about it. What are they saying? What is it saying to us? It was a young wolverine; it wasn’t an old one. It was still small, and he was dark skinned, so it’s a young wolverine, not the old ones. You can tell, and I thought, well, what is that young wolverine telling us walking by our Assembly here at the same time we invited the Ontario ombudsman here to support the Government Operations committee and support the Members on this side with his expertise and what they’ve done in Ontario and the growing pains, and this is planting the seed.
As any well-known farmer or anybody who has family who had farming, it’s always the time is right to plant. There’s a time to plant, and the seeds have to be put in the ground, and the farmer has to do it properly, otherwise he’ll have a bad crop, and the weather might not be too favourable. So I thought the time is right now to plant this.
We heard it on November 3rd, people coming out to talk to us, we heard it from the Members, and we have to think that anything worthwhile isn’t easy. Certainly we are asking this Assembly to look at it, with all the questions that you may have and the Assembly may have and all the other questions it takes for a request like this from this side as a recommendation to government on drafting a discussion paper, drafting legislation on the request that we think that the timing is right now to have it.
With that in mind, I think it’s time now to start planting the seed of the ombudsman, pull out the weeds that we need to pull out. How do we form this position in the Northwest Territories and to help all of us, not just outside members but, more importantly, to help the people in the small communities, people in the communities, the larger centres like Yellowknife and other regional centres? I think now we need, more than ever, to have the ombudsman.
The last question is: What would it cost us if we didn’t have an ombudsman? We have to think about that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I will allow the Premier to… Honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In December 2012 the government provided the Standing Committee on Government Operations a discussion paper on the establishment of an ombudsman office. The discussion paper summarized the various Northwest Territories appeal bodies and statutory appeal officers already created through 35 individual pieces of territorial legislation. These statutory processes already provide the public with opportunities to register complaints, request investigation, or appeal questions of administrative fairness.
In addition to existing legislation, our small population and consensus style of government means that the Northwest Territories residents also have a level of immediate access to capable, hardworking MLAs that is not always available to citizens in larger jurisdictions with partisan governments. The paper also noted that a proposal to establish a new statutory office with a reporting relationship not to government but to the Legislative Assembly is a proposal best considered by Caucus as a whole. The paper concluded that it was difficult to rationalize the need for an independent parliamentary ombudsman at this time.
More recently, the Standing Committee on Government Operations report on Establishing an Office of the Ombudsman for the Northwest Territories provided cost estimates for an ombudsman office at between $400,000 to $600,000 per year.
As this is a recommendation to Cabinet, Cabinet will abstain from the vote.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. I am going to allow Mr. Hawkins.
