Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had an opportunity to read the presentations that have been made and listen to the questions and answers that have been asked by Members, and answers given by the Members of cabinet and our Government Leader.

I want to say that while I might accept some of the remarks that have been made, that there is an interest in seeking the views of Members of this Assembly and the general public about the direction that we wish to take in reshaping northern government, the fact is that the documents and the answers really do not coincide with one another. There have been continuing suggestions that there is no implementation plan; yet your own statement indicates that there is an implementation plan. I am not going to argue about that. I just want to make some additional comments. Maybe that is where the confusion lies for me.

Preoccupation With Beatty Report

I think that I have to agree with Mr. Lewis that there seems to be a continuous preoccupation with the matter of the Beatty report and its recommendations without clearly indicating to the public, generally, what the policies of our government are going to be over the next four years, or what direction you wish to take.

Implementing The 1969 White Paper

The other aspect that I want to point out is -- suffice it to say that despite all our best efforts, and recognizing that we have some significant financial problems, we have to be awfully careful about what it is we dismantle and how we dismantle it, in terms of our government. It is quite clear that even in the areas of health, the Beatty group pointed out quite clearly that we had some very serious problems about how we were, as a government, implementing policies as they applied to status Indians and status Inuit, and that we were, in fact, implementing a policy that was not occurring even in the provinces. We were, in fact, applying, I guess, in many respects, the 1969 White Paper of trying to associate all status people into a program similar to that of all other non-status people. It was the federal government's and, in many respects, our own fault that we were not taking advantage of the financial situation that the Government of Canada had offered to us, and we were doing that to ourselves internally. Maybe there is an attempt on our part to slowly work into implementing the 1969 White Paper here in the North, but at least we should be up front and honest about it and say that status Indians or status Inuit will no longer be treated according to federal government policy. Then let us say it. That is my feeling. If that is the policy of this government and that is the policy of our Assembly, then we should say that to the people of the North.

In terms of some of the questions that had to do with transferring responsibilities to communities, and I do not think that there is anyone here that would argue against the direction in which people want to take this government in improving the ability of people in the communities to take on more responsibilities for themselves. But there is no advantage for communities to take on responsibilities if it means they are going to be, in future, in the financial straight-jacket that this government is in right now with federal moneys that have been transferred to us. It makes no sense for people in the communities. I think that we should not be placing communities in the situation where we give them the impression that our financial situation is such that we can afford to allow people to take on more and more responsibilities with no consideration for the financial situations that they could find themselves in.

I can tell you right now, with the very little authorities and responsibilities that most people in the communities take on, that we do have communities right now where they have simple municipal services that have significant financial deficits. We have to be clear that the efforts that we are going to make in program transfers, service transfers, are going to carry with them all the financial resources that are available to them. We cannot say that it is an excuse for getting away from the financial obligations that we should be transferring. But I do think that we must be prepared to accept that that is what is going to happen.

Amalgamating Of Departments

On the matter of the points of dealing with such things as amalgamating departments -- and I made this point during our presentation and our view of reshaping government when the Government Leader kindly allowed us to have a presentation made by those individuals involved in government and her staff to at least update us on what was occurring. But I do want to say that on the matter -- I will be very specific -- of petroleum, oils and lubricants going to the Power Corporation I can tell you right now that I am not certain whether or not that is really in the interest of the economy of the North or the people of the North or the business community of the North, if the idea of placing that responsibility in the Power Corporation could create a monopoly. We do not know, but it is possible. We need to get a better understanding and an interpretation and explanation from our government on that responsibility and how that is intended, so as not to challenge the ability of private enterprise to get into that particular business.

The other point, in terms of even Government Services -- I was not certain how the matter of computers associated themselves with Public Works responsibilities. Maybe again the Government Leader is going to have to clarify that for me or those people who are associated with that particular discussion.

I just wanted to be certain that these things were being co-ordinated so that if that decision is finally made, that it is clear what divisions of responsibilities are to take place and whether or not there is a reduction in the kinds of programs that are going to be transferred, one program to the next program or next department.

Language And Education Separate Issues

I can say to you that on the matter of the super Education department -- at least it seems that way anyhow, where you are dealing with education, employment and culture -- I was not really sure how the matter of language is really associated with education. I thought that particular matter was a separate issue. Now maybe there is a responsibility on the part of education to deliver education programs on behalf of students or as part of an educational program. But I think that the matter of culture and language is far broader than just the question of education. So I was not clear how that was going to fit.

I was also not certain of how employment was to fit, whether there was a change in the mandate of the department and whether or not we were going to take on a labour force responsibility -- I guess the CEIC, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, responsibility -- or whether there was a different interpretation to be given to the employment section.

So those had to be explained, and those have to be clarified. I do not think that we, as a government, should be trying to take over a responsibility presently in the hands of the federal government and funded by the federal government, at our expense. I do have many other comments to make and will make them as we go through the document and each section. Thank you.