Good morning. Item 2, Ministers' Statements. Item 3, Members' Statements. Mr. Bernhardt.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like other honourable Members who have spoken, I want to express my appreciation to the people of Nunavut who voted so strongly in favour of ratifying the historical claim agreement with the Government of Canada. I would like to congratulate T.F.N. for a credible job.

However, I think there are a number of points which should be made right from the start about Kitikmeot concerns with the establishment of Nunavut. First, it is important to be clear that historically the people of the Kitikmeot have strong economic ties with Yellowknife, Inuvik and Nunakput communities. Even as Nunavut evolves we will want to see these long standing relationships remain in place. Secondly, in planning for a Nunavut government the interests of the Kitikmeot communities must be given equal priority with those of our Keewatin and Baffin neighbours. For too long the Kitikmeot has been denied its fair share of government infrastructure within the existing Northwest Territories. The future Nunavut leadership should realize right now that we will not tolerate the same treatment by the new government following division.

Finally, I want to send a clear message to T.F.N. and both the federal and territorial governments. In planning for the establishment of Nunavut, commission appointments and board developments must be made in a clear and honest fashion with appropriate representation from the grassroots of our communities, rather than the political back rooms. We have struggled too long with this sort of favouritism and closed door decision-making which has been typical of this government. We will not accept it in the process which leads to Nunavut.

I hope that T.F.N. and those who will be working on the Nunavut implementation recognize this clearly. We do not want to see one "old boys" network replaced with another. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause.

Members' Statements. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This concern has been ongoing for quite some time. Although the Minister of the N.W.T. Power Corporation is not present it will also be of interest to the Minister of Education. When the N.W.T. Power Corporation employee from Lake Harbour has to go out on holidays he is not given a replacement. I think that there should be a local person trained or educated to run the Power Corporation when the permanent employee is on holidays. This individual should be trained on a ongoing basis. When you are in the smaller communities employment is hard to come by. For this reason, perhaps the Minister of Education and the Minister responsible for the N.W.T. Power Corporation could work together to help an individual be trained to replace the permanent staff member in Lake Harbour when that person is out of the community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members' Statements. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, after reviewing yesterday's unedited Hansard I am somewhat disappointed, and am still trying to figure out why the Minister of Aboriginal Rights and Constitutional Development placed forth his motion in this House. Mr. Speaker, I know I was one of the Members who continually pressed the Minister in September to discuss the document "Working Towards a Common Future," which is better known as the "Bourque Commission." Mr. Speaker, I pressed the Minister in September because I was concerned that the national referendum vote was coming up, but more importantly I was concerned because I knew that the eastern people were going to vote on their land claim regarding Nunavut and we did not have anything discussed or developed for the west.

Mr. Speaker, September was the most critical time to discuss this motion, not now. Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister is a day late and probably a dollar short to find what he wants to do. Mr. Speaker, I do not want the native organizations to believe that voting against the Minister's motion is not wanting to hear their concerns. I strongly believe we need something for the west. Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that the Western Caucus agreed to meet with the native leaders and develop a work plan before we bring it into this House for further discussion. I would urge the Minister to follow through with the Western Caucus agreement and develop a plan among us before we bring this issue in the House. Thank you.

Members' Statements. Mr. Antoine.

Members' Statements. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Zoe, your allotted time has lapsed.

The Member is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays, please proceed, Mr. Zoe.

Members' Statements. Item 4, Returns to Oral Questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Ningark on November 18, 1992 on social assistance payments, cash versus vouchers. The payment of social assistance partially in cash and the rest in vouchers is a part of our policy options. It is not a general policy of the government throughout the territories. Social assistance may be paid by cheque to: the recipient or a dependent, as directed by the recipient; a vendor or supplier and the recipient as joint payees; a vendor or supplier on behalf of the recipient; or, a trustee.

Assistance may also be paid on behalf of the recipient by travel warrant, accommodation warrant or cheque requisition. Social workers are required to discuss the method and frequency of payment with the clients who are experiencing budgetary difficulties in managing their assistance. A decision is made on the preference of the client and the ability of the client to manage his or her money.

In many communities where the payments are made only to the supplier, this has been the request of the town or hamlet council. The reason cited most often by the local officials is the client's misuse of social assistance funds for things like gambling and alcohol. It is the policy of the department to support the request of the local officials in issuing social assistance payments.

In the case raised by the Member for Natilikmiot, in relation to Gjoa Haven and Pelly Bay, this method is being used throughout the Kitikmeot region at the request of the Kitikmeot Regional Council. In March, 1992, the Kitikmeot Regional Council passed a motion which came from Spence Bay. The concern raised was that social assistance was being used for gambling or alcohol and requested that the department change to a voucher system. Although a concern was later raised by the Mayor of Pelly Bay, in June, that clients did not have sufficient flexibility to pay for some needs, the decision to continue the method was reaffirmed in the July meeting of the Kitikmeot Regional Council. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 4, Returns to Oral Questions. Item 5, Oral Questions. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that my department is doing something about this. As to what they are doing, I could get back to the Member as soon as I can. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Allooloo.