Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. We have had quite a bit of discussion over the last while of high school and high school programs and the fact that we have unused capacity in the 13 schools that offer high school programs in the Eastern Arctic and the six that offer high school programs in the West. Do we have students attending high schools in southern Canada who are paid for by the territorial government?

Minister of Education, Mr. Allooloo.

Mr. Speaker, yes.

Supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister, under what circumstances do we provide the funds or fees for students to attend high schools in southern jurisdictions?

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In some cases there are students who are attending universities in southern Canada. There are some residential schools where parents have requested to send high school students and in some cases that has been approved by the department. I am told there are other cases where a student requires a program that is not provided in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, if you wish, I could come back with more detailed information if the Member so desires. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Lewis.

I will take the Minister up on that, but I will also ask the Minister to indicate under which policy of government we fund programs for students to go to high school in the South.

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When I provide the Member with more detailed information, I will provide the policy used for students who go south.

Oral questions. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Education. In keeping with what Mr. Lewis has said, could the Minister provide us with details of who is attending high school in the South, where they are attending high school in the South, and why they are attending high school in the South?

Mr. Todd, you asked three questions. Mr. Allooloo, please respond to the first question.

Mr. Speaker, I will look into the Member's request to answer all three questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Allooloo. Oral questions.

Item 6, written questions.

Item 7, returns to written questions.

Item 8, replies to Opening Address. Item 9, petitions. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Mr. Arngna'naaq, as I said yesterday, try to keep to the title. Item 9, petitions.

Item 10, reports of standing and special committees.

Item 11, reports of committees on the review of bills.

Item 12, tabling of documents.

Item 13, notices of motions.

Item 14, notices of motions for first reading of bills.

Item 15, motions.

Item 16, first reading of bills.

Item 17, second reading of bills. Item 18, consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters: Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels; Tabled Document 10-12(2), Reshaping Northern Government; Tabled Document 12-12(2), Plebiscite Direction; Bill 14, Appropriation Act, No. 1, 1992-93, with Mr. Nerysoo in the chair.

Tabled Document 9-12(2), "Strength At Two Levels"

I call the committee to order. I believe we were dealing with the matter of Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels. There was a matter on a point of order that was raised by Ms. Cournoyea. I believe a ruling was made earlier by the Speaker. However, I would like to read the ruling to the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Nunakput, Ms. Cournoyea, on February 25, 1992, while we were in committee of the whole discussing Tabled Document 9-12(2), Strength at Two Levels.

Chairman's Ruling

The point of order raised by Ms. Cournoyea was concerning an allegation made by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, on the capabilities of ordinary Members in understanding the tabled document.

This is the same point of order raised in formal session yesterday by Ms. Cournoyea, which the Speaker ruled on today. I also rule that the Member for Nunakput does have a point of order, and I would trust that Members show respect for the opinions of each other and provide the benefit of the doubt.

We are on page 13 of Strength at Two Levels. Are there any other comments? Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we are going through this document in some detail, I would like to make a comment on the business of efficiency. The report does deal in some detail with the difference between efficiency and effectiveness, and how effectiveness is measured in the relationship between cost and what you are getting out of the money being spent. What I would like to ask the Government Leader is, since this is a focus of the report -- it is a crucial issue -- I refer to a middle paragraph on page 13, where it says, "For the purposes of this project, the term 'efficiency' was defined as the ratio of effectiveness to cost, and the project group was concerned with the many ways this ratio, or relationship, can be improved. For example, if ways could be found to increase effectiveness for the same cost, the result is greater efficiency."

There are lots of phrases in here which talk about many ways, different methods and so on. The project group identified this as an issue, and that all kinds of efficiencies could be gained if we really attempted to get far more benefits at a reduced cost, because we are faced with a decrease in the amount of money that we would have available to us in the future. I wonder if I can get a response to this. What are the many ways? I see this phrase being reiterated throughout the report: many this, many ways, many methods, and so on. It is very difficult to know exactly what the project group had in mind.

For most of us, although we can conceive that you can do things with a little bit less money, how can you get better results with less cost? This is what I gather from the report; that we could tighten up, spend less money, and yet we can get better results and that, then, is called "efficiency." The smaller amount of money you spend for a good quality result is, in fact, the measure of efficiency. Could we have some idea about the many ways in which this could be improved? I have looked through the report to find examples of how you can get better results for less money, but it is not very clear to me how you can do that.

Madam Government Leader.

Beatty Report Not Adopted By Cabinet

Mr. Chairman, the honourable Member is asking me to defend a reading document which is a document that has really no legal status, as I understand. It has not been adopted by cabinet and it has not been adopted here. Some of the ideas in there are good ideas. Probably every one of us will disagree here and there that it is the best approach to take. The only thing that we can agree on is that the general public out there has thrown a great deal of criticism at this government in terms of how we are operating and where we are spending our money, and I believe that once we move in past the process and begin looking at the various areas, then we can identify where those costs and benefits would be.

That work has not been done at this point in time. At this stage this is a document that has good points and bad points, and I do not believe that I want to sit here and defend and come to conclusions on certain matters, because the implementation has not begun yet. There are some ideas on areas where it makes a lot of sense to explore. However, the work has not been done yet, and I feel as though I am defending something that we have not even concluded or begun work on. Thank you.

Thank you. Page 13. Mr. Lewis.