Agreed.

Thank you. Total supplementary appropriations and parts one and two, $6.75 million. Agreed?

Agreed.

Thank you. Does the committee agree that Bill 34 is concluded as amended?

Agreed.

Thank you. Does the committee agree that Bill 34, as amended is ready for third reading?

Agreed.

Thank you. Since there is no other business before the committee, I shall now rise and report progress...

---Applause

Your committee has been considering Bill 34 and, Mr. Speaker, I wish to report that Bill 34 is ready for third reading, as amended and, Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the chairman of the committee of whole be concurred with.

Is there a seconder to the motion? Mr. Pudluk. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried.

Item 20, third reading of bills. Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu, that bill...

Ms. Cournoyea, to move to third reading, the bill requires unanimous consent. Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to proceed with third reading of Bill 34.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to proceed to third reading of Bill 34. Are there any nays? There are no nays, proceed please, Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Sahtu that Bill 34, Supplementary Appropriation Act No. 2, 1992-93, be read for the third time.

Your motion is in order, Ms. Cournoyea. All those in favour? All those opposed? Motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 34 has had third reading. Mr. Patterson.

--Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent to return to oral questions?

---Laughter

Return to, Returns to Oral Questions. I have had enough oral questions, Mr. Speaker, this session, it is return to Returns to Oral Questions.

Mr. Patterson, you wonder if you can? You probably could if you asked to.

May I please?

---Laughter

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent to return to Item 4, returns to oral questions. Are there any nays? Proceed please, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Return to an oral question asked by Mr. Nerysoo, September 10, 1992 regarding challenge of public inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, as the Member knows, Section 30 of the Medical Profession Act states that a witness shall not be excused from answering a question on the grounds that the answer might tend to incriminate the witness, subject the witness to punishment under the Act, or tend to establish the liability of the witness, for example, in civil proceedings. However, any evidence which the witness is compelled to give cannot be used to incriminate him in other proceedings, except for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

With respect, the Member was therefore incorrect in stating that an individual "could not hid behind that kind of libellous evidence" in a public inquiry. As I am sure the Member also knows, although the wording is somewhat different, there is a similar provision in the Public Inquiries Act for protection of witnesses appearing before a public inquiry under that Act.

Section 8 of the Public Inquiries Act requires a board of inquiry to inform witnesses of the right to object to answer any question under Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act, on the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate him or tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding. (Section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act similarly states that no witness can be excused from answering any question on the grounds that the answer may tend to incriminate him.) The Public Inquiries Act goes on to state that no answer given by a witness can be used or is admissible in evidence against a witness in any trial or other proceedings against the witness taking place after the inquiry, other than a prosecution for perjury.

The effect of the two sections is the same with regard to protection of witnesses giving evidence in either of these two kinds of inquiries. It would not prevent an aggrieved party from suing or relying on evidence other than the evidence given before the inquiry in the support of the lawsuit. These protective provisions apply to all witnesses: board Members, Members of the government or a person against whom a complaint is made under the Medical Profession Act.

A shorter one, Mr. Speaker, a response asked by Mr. Ningark on October 1, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, on October 1, 1992 the honourable Member for Natilikmiot sought confirmation that the Department of Health has a job description in place for community health representatives. I am able to inform him, at this time, that a job description for these positions does indeed exist, and I will provide the honourable Member with a copy of the job description. Thank you.

That is all, Mr. Patterson? Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Nerysoo.