The question is taken as notice. Oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, when I was here in December, I asked a question and received a response from the Minister of Transportation with regard to the airstrip. We travel to Iqaluit and believe our airstrip has to be worked on in Lake Harbour. We know the airstrip is not smooth. I would like to know if upgrading of the Lake Harbour airstrip is in the plan for next year.

Mr. Allooloo.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice.

The question has been taken as notice. Oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for Safety. Mr. Speaker, in 1991 there was a health and safety committee to address the amendments to the Mining Safety Act. Everyone knows the Mining Safety Act is archaic. Could the Minister advise this House what the purpose is in formulating the new mining safety committee to address the act?

Minister responsible for Safety and Public Services, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the committee that the honourable Member refers to was chaired by the chief mining inspector. There was a perception on the part of both workers and industry that it was essentially inappropriate that the government should have, through its chief mining inspector, such a strong involvement in the formulation of the review of a bill which had been developed inhouse by the government itself. When I began to look at the need to develop a new mining safety bill, it became quite clear to me that one of the reasons why the consultation process hither to had been condemned by a number of parties was that there was the perception that it was being done "too close to the chest," as it were. The government was, in effect, asking one of its own senior employees to chair a committee reviewing a bill that has been developed by that same department. So I determined that a better way of developing a more credible process, which I then hoped would result in participation and co-operation of all stakeholders, would be to remove the government as chair of the committee and instead install an independent chairperson with no particular axe to grind, credible to all parties and credible to the government. That approach was well received when I consulted with industry and labour before I made the announcement in this House, and I still think that principle is an acceptable approach. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Minister is concerned about perception. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the Mining Safety Act is followed and adhered to. So, as the Minister is indicating that he wants to lessen, or not so much as worry about, his responsibilities, but more deal with perception and how to get along in following through with this, can the Minister tell me, does he not feel that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the Mining Safety Act is followed?

Mr. Patterson.

Well, Mr. Speaker, it was a little bit more than perceptions that I was concerned about. There were demonstrations and very strong condemnation of the consultation process to date, particularly on the part of the workers and their representatives and their trade unions, so I felt that it was appropriate to make a fresh beginning and take a new approach, and the idea of having someone independent, knowledgeable in the industry, credible to the government, industry and labour, to steer a consultation process is not a new one. I want to emphasize to the honourable Member that there was no intention to abrogate the responsibilities. I would, as Minister responsible, have the final say in approving the chairperson, who would have to be someone we would trust to be competent and knowledgeable in mine safety, and the committee would be appointed by the Minister and would report its work to this House through the Minister.

So there was no attempt to dodge the issue, Mr. Speaker. I rather felt that a new approach could result in a process that would be credible to all concerned. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister, since he indicated that he was going to ensure that they have an independent chairman who is knowledgeable, and since to date he has not appointed an independent chairman who is knowledgeable, how long does he anticipate it will be before he will be able to get this committee formulated to address the archaic Mining Safety Act?

Mr. Patterson.

Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all, with reference to the archaic Mining Safety Act, the honourable Member will know that I have introduced amendments this session, which have proceeded now to second reading, which will update the act, particularly the penalty section, and improve it on the interim basis. So, with the co-operation of all Members of this House, we will have a bill that at least has improved penalties and some of the other recommendations that flow from the coroner's inquest of over a year ago.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as to the Member's second question, when do I expect the committee to get going, I am all ready to appoint the committee. I have got excellent nominees for chairperson, for representatives of industry and for representatives of the remote fly-in mines. I have perceived a lot of interest and good nominees. My problem, Mr. Speaker, is that as of yesterday, despite many meetings and much effort on my part, I am told that CASAW and Steel are boycotting the process and will refuse to nominate someone to fill the one seat set aside for organized labour. There will be little point in appointing a committee without someone from that sector sitting on the committee, in my opinion. I am stuck with this problem which finally came to a head yesterday. I am going to work manfully to resolve it, Mr. Speaker. If I can find a way to resolve this problem in the next few days, I will appoint the committee. If not, I will still take advantage of those excellent nominees and proceed with some process to develop a new bill. I am hoping that, by next fall, we may be able to present new legislation to this House if all goes well. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he will be able and willing to give this House a commitment that this committee will be formed during this session. Thank you.

Mr. Patterson.

I will try and explain where I am at right now, Mr. Speaker. I was all set to appoint the committee, but the main organized unions representing mine workers in Yellowknife have said they are not going to participate. My dilemma now is, do I go ahead with the committee, with CASAW and Steel boycotting it? Do I take advantage of the Union of Northern Workers' willingness to nominate a person from organized labour even though they

represent a rather small proportion of the organized mine workers? Or, do I admit that because of the boycott, the concept of the committee will not work, and go back to the drawing board with a new approach? Until I resolve this question of principle, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say for sure that the committee will be appointed and go ahead. I hope to have this resolved in the next couple of days. As I promised, I will keep the House informed. This session, for sure, Mr. Speaker, I will let you know whether I believe the committee can be constituted, albeit without participation by CASAW and Steel, or whether I feel I have to come up with another process to get a new bill developed. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. I know it is a serious situation when you are accused of a crime and have to appear in court. I wonder if you are aware of how the court interpreters run their business. I wonder if the Minister can tell me what the law is for court interpreters?

Mr. Patterson.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I listened carefully, but I could not understand the Member's question.