Good afternoon. Before we commence with the orders of the day, I would like to respond to the point of order raised by Ms. Cournoyea, February 25, 1992. Ms. Cournoyea raised her point of order during the item, Members' statements. The point of order raised by Ms. Cournoyea was that comments made by the honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre during his Member's statement were contrary to Rule 35(i) which states: "In debate a Member will be called to order by the Speaker if he: (i) imputes false or unavowed motives to another Member."

In reviewing the matter, I had to refer to the unedited Hansard of February 24th as that contained the remarks where Mr. Lewis indicated the Government Leader had made certain comments concerning the capabilities of Ordinary Members. In reviewing the unedited Hansard of February 24th, I could not find where the Government Leader had made any disparaging comments along the lines indicated by Mr. Lewis on February 25th during his Member's statement.

In ruling that the Government Leader does have a point of order, I would like to point out the difficulty for all Members in achieving the exact measure of precision in their comments to prevent misunderstanding. The Government Leader was perhaps not as precise as she could have been, and perhaps Mr. Lewis had a more negative interpretation of her words than was intended by the Government Leader. However, the free exchange of ideas is always a difficult area, and I would ask Members to be as precise as possible and to give each other the benefit of the doubt where possible. Thank you.

Orders of the day for Wednesday, February 26, 1992. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that I have appointed the following individuals to the mining safety bill committee: Mr. Terence Vaughan-Thomas, a retired professional mining engineer, who will serve as chairperson; Mr. Norman Pottinger, an underground shift supervisor at Nerco Con Mine, nominated by the Union of Northern Workers to represent organized labour; Mr. Jim Bacon, a millwright at Echo Bay Mines Limited, nominated by that mine's occupational health and safety committee to represent unorganized labour; Mr. Bob Jacko, mine superintendent of Polaris Mine; and Mr. Brian J. Hagan, safety and training superintendent of Royal Oak Mines, nominated by the Chamber of Mines to represent management.

Mr. Speaker, in appointing Mr. Vaughan-Thomas I have chosen an individual with over 43 years' experience in the mining industry, who was involved in the redrafting of British Columbia's new Mines Act. He will be arriving in Yellowknife next week, and I anticipate that he will bring the committee together very quickly to commence its very important work.

Even though the United Steelworkers of America and the Canadian Association of Smelter and Allied Workers have chosen not to participate on this committee, they will have ample opportunity to have input on the proposed new act when it is reviewed by a standing committee of this House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ministers' statements. Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to make a few brief comments on the Strength at Two Levels report. My remarks will deal quickly with some content areas, but also with the process which must be used for implementing any changes which come out of the report.

This document, which has consumed so much of our time and attention, is useful, but it is not perfect in my view, Mr. Speaker. There is, for instance, very little content which deals specifically with the models for privatization of government services. As well, much of the government restructuring proposed in the report does not seem to have considered the long-range needs related to the creation of Nunavut.

I am also concerned about the impact of the Strength at Two Levels framework on our regional government, both in terms of what it means for regional councils and also for representation on government-created boards and agencies.

These are the larger issues which I believe we should be debating on the floor of the House. However, there has been, at the very least, an appearance that ordinary Members are locked out of the early decision-making on how this report should proceed. For that reason, I am strongly in favour of reviewing the complete Strength at Two Levels report and its Appendices, where necessary, when we meet in committee of the whole.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time I am reminded that there are dangers involved in the reduction process where we focus more on the trees than the forest. Sometimes we pay so much attention to the bends in the road that we lose track of where we are going.

I believe that this House can work concurrently to deal with the specific proposals on each page of the Beatty report while addressing the big picture of where our government is heading. It is important for all of us to maintain both of these perspectives. Thank you .

---Applause

Members' statements. Mr. Dent.

Members' statements. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, rise today to express concern over the government's decision not to allow ordinary Members and, by extension, the voters of the Northwest Territories to participate in the Strength At Two Levels report.

Despite promises of more open government and promises of greater participation by ordinary Members, Mr. Speaker, this government is only now asking for our involvement after all the planning has been completed. The government had an opportunity, with the Strength At Two Levels report, to break with the past and demonstrate its commitment to more open government and greater participation by ordinary Members. Instead, they have chosen to continue to work behind closed doors. I say this, Mr. Speaker, because the government appears to be using the Strength At Two Levels report as the basis for changes to the government as proposed in the Government Leader's document, Reshaping Northern Government.

I have been told that Reshaping Northern Government is a working document and only a starting point. But, it is obvious that a detailed report such as this must have required considerable discussion and could not have been formulated without making some policy decisions. Now that all of the decisions have been made, the government wants ordinary Members to rubber-stamp its recommendations. Thank you.

---Applause

Members' statements. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be more careful with my words today, Mr. Speaker, than I was yesterday. I appreciate your wise words about the care we must take when we address each other.

I would like to reiterate that we have had so much experience now with what we call consensus government. It is very, very easy to simply say it is a wonderful idea to agree with something, and not to follow through with it. I am not implying the government did not intend to follow through, but the reality is that nothing happened. They appointed three people who were not given the opportunity to participate in what was considered by this government as being a priority and something that we should get on with. That is, to reshape government in order to live within reduced resources and to give people the power to control those things in their lives which matter most to them. What concerns me most, Mr. Speaker, is that when we examine this report Strength at Two Levels, all we are really doing is examining the concept of strength, and there is no vision in this document. It concerns me that those people from communities -- they do not live in Yellowknife; they live elsewhere, that is where they make their home -- those people from those places, who could help to create this vision of what that strength should be at those two levels, were not involved. I think it is a shame that this did not happen, for whatever reason. Thank you.

---Applause

Members' statements. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I today would also like to express my concern over the government's decision not to allow ordinary Members to participate in the implementation of Strength at Two Levels. Despite the intention of more open government and agreement to greater participation and involvement of the ordinary Members, I am disappointed that the government is now only asking for our involvement after all the planning appears to have been completed.

Mr. Speaker, it is our intention, as I had indicated to this House yesterday, that it is necessary to go page by page through the Strength at Two Levels report because of the fact that we were never asked in public discussion for our opinion on Strength at Two Levels, and the remarks of "300 more pages to go" is a reality, and it is not appreciated by the Members. It just reflects your attitude on wanting to listen to us.

Mr. Speaker, the government appears to be using the Strength at Two Levels report as the basis for changes to government. We feel we are part of the Legislative Assembly, which should be giving direction to government, and we do not appreciate that the proposed changes in the document Reshaping Northern Government does not allow our involvement. It appears that decisions have been made, significant decisions, that my constituents have to live with and many territorial residents have to live with, in isolation. If this government feels they want these decisions to be made with rubber-stamping from MLAs, I will let them know that I have never been a politician to rubber-stamp anything that has been proposed by bureaucrats. Thank you.

Members' statements. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, stand up about the government's decision on the Beatty report. We, as ordinary MLAs, have not had enough involvement in the implementation process. Although the government had told us that we would be involved with them through all the stages, and although the government said we had the strength to take part in this process, to this day we have not been involved at all as ordinary MLAs. Government Ministers and cabinet, are probably just putting together their constituents' thoughts and not taking into consideration our constituents' thoughts. I am just standing up to comment on my disappointment on the government's part. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members will join me in welcoming to the Legislative Assembly Elsie Marykuca and six students from the St. Pat's High School "Stay in School" program.

---Applause

Members' statements. Mr. Antoine.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make some comments in regard to my constituents. I am speaking for the six communities that I represent. Recently the chief and councillors had elections. (Translation ends) Last Friday they had elections in Nahanni Butte and Wrigley. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the newly-elected chief and council of Nahanni Butte and Wrigley.

On Friday, February 21st, the residents of Wrigley elected Charlie Tale as their chief. Also elected Friday in Wrigley were councillors Gabe Hardisty, Martha Drake, Mike Canadian, James Hardisty, Tim Lennie and Lloyd Moses.

In Nahanni Butte the people elected Jayne Konisenta as their chief, and Chief Konisenta joins the previously-elected council of Sam Ekotla, William Konisenta, David Konisenta, Lena Marcellais, and Laura Vital.

I hope that this government recognizes and will work with these new community governments. For Chief Konisenta and Chief Tale, it is their first time as leaders. So I would like to congratulate them. Mahsi cho.

Members' statements. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to comment on the Strength at Two Levels report. We have to be influences in our communities. I am trying to see what kind of set-up they have here. I have great concerns about the Strength at Two Levels report. I represent three communities, and they are very far apart from each other. One is very far from the other constituents. If I am just going to be sitting here and not take part in events going on, I am just rubber-stamping these ideas without consulting my constituents.

I told my people about the important things going on here. I told them I would keep them informed. Because of that, I stand here today to say I will not be rubber-stamping ideas from the government without informing my constituents because it will be of no use to us. I just wanted to tell you my concerns about the Strength at Two Levels report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Members' statements. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I, too, stand up in this House to express my concern over the ordinary MLAs' lack of participation in the process that my colleagues have talked about. I was one of the Members chosen by my colleagues to represent them on the implementation team, to look at development of a process and strategy for implementing the report, Strength at Two Levels. To this day I have not yet been invited to any meetings, or any consultation, to do the work that I was picked to do. I am very, very concerned as to when we will be involved, and I am finding now that I am in a situation where I think it is too late and I have to reconsider my position. Thank you.

---Applause

Members' statements. Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Allooloo.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Gargan on February 18, 1992, with respect to distribution of highway transport officers. On February 18, 1992, the Member for Deh Cho asked why the Department of Transportation's highway transport officers restricted their patrol operations to the public highways in his constituency.

The transportation safety section of the Department of Transportation has its headquarters in Hay River. From Hay River the transportation safety section monitors commercial truck traffic for compliance with transport legislation throughout the Northwest Territories.

At present there are six highway transport officers stationed in Hay River, two in Inuvik and one in Yellowknife. The primary duties of the officers stationed in Hay River and Inuvik are to operate the Enterprise and Inuvik weigh scales. At the weigh scales the officers control the axle loadings of commercial transports, conduct safety inspections and issue licences and permits. The officers are on patrol duties for one eight-hour shift a week.

Highways No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 are the main land transportation corridors in the Northwest Territories. Highways No. 1 and No. 3 carry 73 per cent of all highway traffic in the Northwest Territories. It is along these routes where 75 per cent of all highway accidents occur. The Enterprise weigh scale, at the junction of Highways No. 1 and No. 2, is the best location for inspecting truck traffic and for sending out patrols along the highway system. The transportation safety section is responsible for commercial transport safety over the entire highway system. Its operations are not restricted to the Member's constituency. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Whitford.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question which was asked by Mr. Zoe on February 25, 1992, regarding the decision to defer the construction of office/warehouse complex in Lac la Martre. The only work that had been planned in this fiscal year, 1991-92, for the office/warehouse complex was to purchase and move building material to the community. The materials were to be transported on the winter road to Lac la Martre, which usually does not open until mid to end of January.

A tender for the materials was issued in the fall. Bids had been received; however, the tendering process was interrupted in December when the department had to change its 1991-92 capital project plans due to fiscal restraint measures. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have return to a question asked by Mrs. Marie-Jewell on Monday, February 24th. A question was asked as to whether there is a process by which the Minister of Justice of the Northwest Territories can express public concern to the judiciary. The honourable Member recognized the principle of independence of the judiciary and expressed concern regarding a specific decision which was recently rendered.

It is the role of our Legislature and of Parliament to enact the laws which judges apply. Parliament is responsible for enacting laws regarding criminal offences.

The independence of the judiciary is a fundamental imperative of our constitution and our system of justice. Judges individually shall be free, and it is their duty to decide matters before them impartially, in accordance with their assessment of the facts and their understanding of the law without any restrictions, influences or pressures, direct or indirect, for any reason. The single most important remedy for judicial decisions which are inappropriate is appeal. In the Northwest Territories, the Attorney General of Canada, who is accountable to Parliament, is responsible for criminal prosecutions and has a role in deciding whether or not to appeal a decision.

With the above in mind, Mr. Speaker, I can forward to the Chief Judge, for his information, excerpts of Hansard which refer to a decision, but it will be for his information only and not for the purpose of interfering with the independence of the judiciary. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Allooloo.

I have a return to a question asked by Mr. Gargan on February 14, 1992 regarding funding for teachers' conferences at a time of restraint. On February 13th and 14th, 1992 a teachers' conference was held in Yellowknife. Teachers from all divisional boards of education except the Kitikmeot board attended the conference, along with teachers from Yellowknife Districts No. 1 and No. 2 as well as the Board of Secondary Education for Sir John Franklin Territorial High School.

This conference, Mr. Speaker, was funded through the professional development fund provided for by the collective agreement for the Northwest Territories Teachers' Association. The professional development fund consists of two and a quarter per cent of the gross basic salary of teachers. The Department of Education and participating boards did not contribute any additional funding for teachers to attend this conference. Funding for travel and accommodation for individual teachers to attend the conference was provided by a combination of professional development funding as well as funding provided by each participant. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question asked by Ms. Mike on February 19, 1992 regarding reduction in student allowances. The Member for Baffin Central questioned why the funding one student received had been reduced from $531.43 to $522.86. There has been no reduction in the total allowance paid to the students; however, in the 1991-92 school year, the Department of Education changed the monthly allowances payment from an amount which fluctuated somewhat from month to month to an average amount.

In previous years, the monthly cheques paid to the students fluctuated depending upon whether the month had 30 days or 31 days. For example, a single student received $514.29 for a 30-day month and $531.43 for a 31-day month. Students raised concern over the fluctuating rates, as they caused budgeting problems. As a result, the department implemented a new schedule to provide students with a consistent monthly cheque rate of $522.86 based upon the average of two previous months' rates. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Nerysoo on February 24, 1992, regarding the Peel River watershed. The government of the Northwest Territories is a member of the Mackenzie River Basin committee. The committee is involved in the preparation of a co-operative water management agreement for the entire Mackenzie River Basin. The agreement will consist of two parts: an overall agreement for the entire Mackenzie River Basin and agreements between each of the jurisdictions within the basin.

The Peel River is part of the Mackenzie River Basin. It will be included in the overall agreement and the agreement between the Northwest Territories and Yukon. The Department of Renewable Resources has contacted their counterparts in the Yukon to begin negotiations with the intention of completing the agreement in 1992. Thank you.

Returns to oral questions. Returns to oral questions. Oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you. If I could ask, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Renewable Resources, has the department contacted anyone in the communities affected by the Peel River Basin Agreement to consider participating with the Government of the Northwest Territories?

Minister of Renewable Resources, Mr. Ningark.

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the elements, that we would like to have the communities affected by the agreement between jurisdictions involved, and I will inform the communities.

Oral questions. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. Will the Minister please advise this House of the status of his or his officials' investigations into the dispute between the teachers in Inuvik schools and the department?

Minister of Education, Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My officials met yesterday at breakfast time with the NWTTA officials, and both sides are confident that the problem we are experiencing up in Inuvik could be resolved as a result of the NWTTA officials' agreeing that they will go up to Inuvik to talk to the teachers, to see if the offer that was given to the teachers, which unfortunately was rejected by teachers, could be reviewed by the NWTTA and the teachers.

As to the result, I have not heard what the resolution is. I am confident that we can resolve this issue very soon. Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of DPW. Further to my previous question, O114-12(2), regarding lack of staff houses for the government, I understand we are in a deficit and because of that there is no further housing for 1992-93; the Department of Public Works or the government did not allocate funding for 1992-93. I would like further housing allocation for 1992-93.

Thank you. Minister of staff housing, Mr. Kakfwi.

I have not heard anything put as a point of order. There is not anywhere in the rules where we talk about appropriateness. Mr. Kakfwi.

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

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present Petition 3-12(2), signed by 193 residents of the community of Baker Lake. The petition, Mr. Speaker, is sponsored by the Hunters and Trappers Association of Baker Lake to request that the Minister of Renewable Resources make changes to the wildlife regulations in order to permit dogs to be fed caribou meat within the community. I suggest that all people who have dog teams, especially those who use the teams for hunting in the Northwest Territories, would agree with this request. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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.

The intent of my question is to get a further understanding of what the document means, Mr. Chairman. I did not talk to any of the people that put the document together, and I did not talk to any of the people who advised the government. I did not talk to any person within the bureaucracy who was trying to make sense of it. The only intent in my asking this question, since the government has had several months to study the document -- they did commission it -- is that my assumption always is that when something is as important as this to the government, they would have studied it; they would have had expert advice on it; and they would have an understanding of it that I do not have. It is not because I am incapable, but because I do not know what thinking has gone into it.

My simple question is, what is the government's understanding of what that means? That you can, in fact, get an increase of effectiveness and there are many ways in which this ratio could be improved. In other words, you can get improved service but still not spend more money; in fact, you could spend less money. What I am trying to get at is, what is the government's understanding of how you do that? I have tried to think -- in fact, I thought a week ago about how you would do this. How would you get a better service but spend less on doing it? I went through a whole list of things to figure out if there was one example I could come up with in my own mind as to how you would do that. Presumably the government would have gone through the same exercise that I went through. How do you get increased effectiveness, if you like, or efficiency of government, with fewer resources and yet not lower the level of service but improve it?

Thank you. Madam Government Leader.

Inefficiencies Of Duplication

I suppose, to give an example, if that is what the Member wants, the Department of Social Services and the Department of Health are run as two separate departments at this point in time. The inefficiencies that people have complained about is that when they want to access the Department of Health, it has one set of rules, policies and guidelines. They will go so far, and then it stops, and then they have to begin the process all over in accessing Social Services. The feeling of people all throughout the Northwest Territories is, why are not the Departments of Health and Social Services combined? Some of them have functions that are somewhat in duplication of each department. It is very difficult for an average person to move in and access the departments because of the duplication. As well, the functions are similar, so in collapsing Health and Social Services together, obviously the savings would be increased, presumably.

Once we go through the exercise, it appears from the outset that they would be somewhat reduced because of the administrative factor; rather than running two duplicate administrative factors to support Health and Social Services, you would have one. I am talking from some of the discussions that we have had, and once we go into the implementation I think that will flesh out a little bit more. Certainly, from the people's point of view, this has been an ongoing issue for some time, so in putting these two departments together you would probably have a better way of dealing with the duplication, and there would be administrative support and easier access by the clientele. That is one area, as an example, that would, at the outset, be more cost-effective and also provide easier access and eliminate some of the duplication. I do not know if that is what the Member is asking for, as an example.

For example, when you look at the Power Corporation and petroleum products delivery, each agency in the communities has a tankage system, and from time to time, in the last while, the issue has been how much of a tankage system is required at the community level since they are very expensive commodities. In putting the two together I would presume that we would have, collectively, much more capacity for storage for all the needs of the communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you. I appreciate the Government Leader's identifying an area in which she has some familiarity as the former Minister of Health, but I would like to narrow it down even further, using the example that the Minister has used. I can see that there is an inconvenience to a person who has to go to two different places for the same services. It is not clear to me what it is that is duplicated in Health and Social Services. What is the precise thing that you have to go to two different places to get? That is not quite clear. What is duplicated in those two places?

Thank you. Madam Government Leader.

An example is for removal and travel when you are accessing health services. This is one area where there has been a continued complaint, that once you leave the Department of Health and if, you are indigent, and go to another department, such as the Department of Social Services, oftentimes both departments are not working collectively in how we are going to support people who have to have medical assistance. Social Services does have a program that people can access after a certain point under certain guidelines.

Those two things often cause a great deal of anxiety and apprehension at the community level when people are not well and they really do need medical treatment. So those two have been causing a lot of concern, and if we can put those two functions together you would have a one-window approach when a person comes and it gets dealt with, so it is not going from one department and starting over in another department.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

Is that not just a simple policy question? If I know my circumstance and what it is that I need, the government is there to provide policy; this is a policy issue; this is how we handle it. So does this mean that the government has failed to have policy so that it is clear where you get a particular service in our government, and it has nothing to do with amalgamation at all but a lack of clarity of policy?

Government Leader.

No, Mr. Chairman, that is not the case. If you are living in a larger area, a regional centre, probably we would have more access to having people move around, although the complaint is right here in Yellowknife as well. There may be a grey area in how you deal with a person, a person's financial ability to pay. But when you go to a small community, for example a community of 500 or less, you would have the social service worker, and you would have the health centre station. The health centre would have a certain criterion that they deal with and that is their job.

Basically this government is departmentalized, and it has been trying to meet the criticisms we have in Health and Social Services. When a person goes to access a service at a smaller community -- and I did not hear any fewer complaints in Yellowknife, Inuvik or Hay River -- they go into the health centre. The health centre can do so much, and then after that point in time they have to contact the social service worker. If the social service worker is not clear on the details, they would go either to a regional level or to the Yellowknife level. It depends on what the area of request is.

So it is not as simple as just policies. It is how those two departments dovetail into each other. There are all kinds of circumstances, and I am sure while we are moving through the implementation stage, when we are putting those departments together, we will deal with what those issues are and the concerns that are there, so that when we finally come to a conclusion we would do an adequate job on meeting those guidelines. I do not believe we will totally get rid of guidelines, because those have to exist. But it is an easy movement from one department to another for a person's social or medical needs. That is just an example. There are a lot of other things as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

"Northwest Territories Way"

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I could get clarification. On page 19 it says, "The Department of Health must be given every possible encouragement to continue with implementation of its `Northwest Territories Way' model for health delivery and rationalization of hospital facilities." Let us say hypothetically that I disagree with that particular recommendation and cabinet agrees with that recommendation. What process is there in this discussion, in the review of this, for me to express my position in a vote? I know I have spoken on a number of occasions on the "Northwest Territories Way" because my constituents have asked me to. I am not convinced that reducing the level of service of health is the answer. I do, however, recognize that it is the largest financial commitment of the budget. However, I am not prepared to support the Northwest Territories model if it is going to jeopardize the health of the constituents that I represent. What I am wondering is, where is the process for me to express to this government, with this document, that I wish this government not to proceed with the "Northwest Territories Way"? I am using it hypothetically; Is there a process?

You noted page 19 and we are only on page 13 at the moment. Despite that, I will allow the honourable Minister to answer if she chooses to.

I was only using it as a example. There may be other contentious areas; there are also other areas we can support, obviously. It is in terms of process that I am asking here. Where there is a dispute, how do we determine the process for ordinary Members' participation in expressing their concerns? Rather than using "Northwest Territories Way," we will just talk to the principle of the thing.

Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I did send a letter today to the MLAs who had their names put forward, setting out a process of how we are going to be dealing with implementation. If they are still willing, at the earliest convenience, we will sit down. The Members working with them would be Mr. Pollard, myself and Mr. Kakfwi. We will form the working team on the implementation. That was the intent from the beginning.

As well, I would also like to indicate that we have not implemented anything in the document. We have not set one policy. We have not made one decision. I want to assure the Members that we have not done that. The process has been set up, and some of the suggestions have been put forward for implementation and the work to be done from here on.

In terms of the "Northwest Territories Way," I know there are a number of issues in there, but I want to read you three or four broader areas that are known as the "Northwest Territories Way."

"A broad approach to health which includes the improvements to health which come from outside the health care system, such as housing and sanitation; emphasis on health promotion and disease prevention and delivery of health services; delegation of responsibility for providing care from medical specialist to family physicians, from family physician to nurses, and from nurses to other providers of care; and involvement of the people in the planning and management of the health care system."

Mr. Chairman, this is the general idea on those issues. What is in this Strength at Two Levels -- we have not drawn anything out of it, we have not made any decisions on what we are going to do with it and we have not set one policy. Thank you.

Mr. Todd.

Priorities Of Government

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where I am having some difficulty is that I am not sure what the priorities are of this government. First of all, I do recognize the need for restraint. Secondly, I recognize the need for change. I want to say that up front. There is no question, and I have said on a number of occasions, we have to cut where it is fattest to protect where it is leanest.

There is no fat.

The thing is, what I am having difficulty with is that when we look at some of these recommendations that are coming forward, I still have not got a clear understanding of what the priorities of this government are. Are our three priorities to ensure that people have food, shelter and employment? If these are the basic principles, then the changes have to reflect these principles. I had some real difficulty when I looked at the capital budget, for example, and

some of the things that came forward, because I think they are all inter-related. You cannot look at one without looking at the other. I could not quite get a feel for where the priorities of this government were. Is it more important to put parks into communities or to build houses for people who need shelter? Is it more important to look after people's health or to build legislative assembly buildings? So I personally have a real struggle here trying to determine what the priorities are of this government. To me, the priorities should be making sure people have got shelter and food in their mouths and making the best effort to find people employment, and I have to view this document in that light; so I am a little confused as to how I would approach some of these recommendations and how I would support some of these recommendations if they do not relate to the principles of what I see as priorities. Do you understand what I am trying to say, or am I jumping all over the place?

You know, if I may, we talk about Arctic College. Education is an important subject to many. We talk about Arctic College and some of the changes we want to make there, yet we still have not solved the problem of getting kids out of school with a decent education. To me, the priority is education, so I view this document with respect to, how can it best serve the interests of the kids in school? It may be a little philosophical, but that is the dilemma I am in right now. I have to view the document as I view the basic needs of Northerners. I am not sure, in a number of situations, that they necessarily reflect the basic needs of some of the Northerners, and that is why I was asking the question. I want to be able to stand up in areas which I have got some serious concerns with and be able to voice my opinion and opposition to that particular part of the report and also, at the same time, my support for the parts of the report that I can support. Thank you.

Thank you. The Government Leader.

I think that there has been, and not on our part here, but in the Strength at Two Levels report -- as cabinet or as a government we are not bound to implement every recommendation. I agree with the Member that there should be some guiding principles, but one of the problems we have had in the past is exactly what he mentioned -- education, health. He did not mention education -- those are the areas where we have an automatic request or obligation to support. We have to support that. What we have been finding is that with the fiscal arrangement we have and with the resources we have, we are not going to be able to meet those basic areas that were just mentioned, and I do not think there will be any question that there is no support for those basic principles, none whatsoever. However, in trying to meet those basic principles on where we are going to finance them from, we have got into a problem. Where do we make some cost savings so we can continue to just take care of those basic needs, and that is a problem we faced right from the beginning. I believe that in looking at that in the past, what we have been told is that there are funds available but it is being burnt up in areas that are really not necessary. I think that is a very strong statement from many areas. We are burning up money in the wrong areas, and I believe that this document, which we have not adopted in cabinet, is a reference document, and I think that opportunity, as we are going into the implementation, will have that course. If we make any changes to the consolidation or whatever in the process it would have to come to this Legislative Assembly, which would say "yea" or "nay." We would appear before standing committees giving a program of activities that can be expressed at that level as well. So I do not want to belabour a long statement, but to say yes, the basic principles -- we stand by them. And right now, in order to support those basic principles we have to find the resources to support them, and that is all we are attempting to do, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

You know, Madam Leader, I want to be assured and I need to feel comfortable that we are not going to balance the budget on the backs of the communities. We are not going to balance the budget on the people who have least. That is my fear here, and this document is part of balancing the budget and is an integrated document. I need to be assured, and I need some level of comfort that when we look at these things we are not looking at things from purely a monetary point of view. Other considerations have to come into the argument. I recognize the difficulties, do not misunderstand me, and I know things are not being run as well. There is no stronger advocate for change than I have been, but our job, and my job -- after waiting 20 years to get this job -- is to make sure that the little guy in Arviat, Whale Cove and Rankin Inlet is protected in a sense, and he is represented in a responsible manner. And I need some assurances that when we look at the changes that are necessary, other arguments besides only monetary ones, and other considerations have to be taken into place. It seems to me that in some of this document, which I will talk to later, there is a preoccupation, if you want, with the need to save money, which is understandable. It is a bit of a contradiction, what I am going to say, but not necessarily taking into consideration the impact it is going to have on the people at the community level. Now, last weekend I got a call, for example, if I may -- and I realize that they perhaps over-reacted -- but the community of Whale Cove absolutely panicked because for some reason they had got some indication that the Northwest Territories --- we were going to close the nursing station and the nurse was going to go bye-bye. Now I do realize it is an over-reaction, but it is symptomatic of the kinds of concerns I have, and it is my responsibility as the MLA for that region to ensure that the interests of the ones who cannot represent themselves are represented. And again I reiterate, my concern here is, recognizing the difficulties we are in, knowing there is a need for change and being supportive of it. And I want to say that today, being supportive of the need for change, other factors have to be taken into consideration.

We have got to ensure that if we are going to amalgamate Health and Social Services, for example, that it is going to deliver a better level of service to the communities. We have to ensure that if we are going to turn over drug and alcohol and public works responsibilities to municipal government, they have the capabilities, they have the manpower, and they have the financial resources to do it. I mean, if we as a government, with the kind of wealth we have had in the past, were unable to do the job well, I am not so sure that unless we put the resources in behind people, that they will be able to do any better. And that is all I am asking for; a kind of approach of caution with some consideration outside of the monetary component which we seem to be totally preoccupied with lately. Thank you.

Madam Government Leader.

The Minister of Finance will speak a little on that, but I just want to assure the Member that I have been trying to say that all week. I have repeated and repeated that intention. This is why we tried to set up a process so that everyone knows what the process is going to be so that when we begin doing the work on it, they know who is doing what and what we are going to do about it.

Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that we step back and look at where this document came from. Mr. Lewis can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe -- and you yourself, sir -- were on

the standing committee on finance when the recommendation was made to the government that they do a base review. During the fourth year of the government's term, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Ballantyne, came to us and said we are going to have to review government. He asked us to participate in the process. I think we refused by saying it is the government's job to get the document done. We told him how we feel about it, and I think Mr. Lewis is on record as reserving the right to criticize the document. I see that he is exercising that right during this session, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, when the document arrived, it arrived from one government to another government. It arrived in my office one day. There was agreement in cabinet to release it immediately, without reading it. There was agreement in cabinet that we should be open and up front. We delivered it to the House the next day. When we delivered it to this House at the last session, Mr. Chairman, we did not know any more about what was in there than the Members who eventually got the document. But it soon became apparent to us as we read through the document and went over it with our staff, that not all the things in the document suited what we as a government or this Legislative Assembly would want to do. I think the number of usable items in here may be as low as 70 per cent. We admit that as much as 30 per cent -- maybe more -- is chaff.

We could have reviewed the document and pulled out the good parts, and written our own story about what we wanted to do. We could have then delivered it to the House and said this is what the government wants to do. But we did not do that. We released the entire thing and said it is the information we have before us. We said this is a document we would like to put into the House and that some of the things are attractive to us. We have said it before, and we will say it again.

I want to make some specific references to Mr. Todd's comments with regard to the transfer of responsibilities and the financial aspect of that. This government has experienced for some time, Mr. Chairman -- and you are well aware of it --the fact that Ottawa transfers responsibilities to us and does not ultimately give us enough money to operate the program. I do not see where we as a government would be doing that to our own communities. I think that when Mr. Todd refers to the capital budget as being locked into this quest for efficiency that we have in government when he says we should be building parks or houses, it is always the government's responsibility to look after the people it has responsibility for. But Mr. Todd also said he wants people to get jobs and he wants an economy. Governments have to balance the spending that they do with an area of requirement by people of the Northwest Territories. At the same time, we have to be asking ourselves how the economy can be stimulated to create some jobs. We are constantly wrestling with how we should spend money, where we should spend money, and trying to balance that between the social needs of the people of the Northwest Territories and a future which we hope will have a stronger economy. We worked it back and forth and said we should do certain things because, ultimately, they will create some wealth and it is an investment for jobs down the road. It is difficult. This House has to decide when those budgets pass through the House, whether or not we have placed priorities in the right areas.

Duplication In Government Departments

There is a lot of duplication in government. That occurs for a number of reasons, Mr. Chairman. The fact that responsibilities have come from Ottawa at different times over the last 20 years or more, and when they come you lump them into another department or you just create a new department. I think there is a recognition, not only in the Northwest Territories but across Canada, that there are enough reasons to suspect duplication in departments that it makes sense to examine putting the departments together. I do not think any of us on this side have any idea of the kinds of things we would have to go through to put the Departments of Health and Social Services together. These are some of the things that we would like to explore. We may get into it and find that it might not work. But, I think there is a gut feeling that it would make sense because it deals with many of the same things people in the Northwest Territories are complaining about or have need of.

Certainly, Mr. Todd is complaining about the finances. Certainly, we are being driven like we have never been driven before by the fact that we do not have enough money. We are looking at ways of doing things that, as Mr. Lewis says, cost us less and yet we can deliver an effective program.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate to this committee that the ultimate decision on whether we go ahead with these things rests on the floor of this House. The ultimate decision for proceeding -- if there are legislative changes, it will have to go to the standing committee on legislation; if there are changes to boards and agencies, it has to go to Mr. Koe's committee; if there are financial ramifications to the legislation or to the boards and agencies, it has to go to the standing committee on finance. We have said from day one that any changes we are going to make structurally to this government, where it affects any one of these three committees, will be delivered to that committee for either ratification or consultation from the committee to the floor of this House. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Mr. Todd.

First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance for clarifying where I get my right to voice my opinion in a yes or no. I would, however, like to add that while we say the transfer from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories has, in some cases, not been adequate and that we would do exactly the same, we have done the same in the past. We have transferred responsibility to municipalities. In some cases, municipalities have not had the level of financing or increase in financing that has been necessary over the last eight or nine years. We have transferred drug and alcohol responsibility to some communities, and the level of financing has not been in place. No matter how well intentioned we all are -- and I believe we are all well intentioned in this exercise -- we must ensure that we are not passing along the problems. We must pass along the solutions. Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Legislative Assembly Responsible For NWT People

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Todd's comments, and I may be getting into Mr. Kakfwi's area, and if I am, I apologize. When we get into community transfer, I think we said at the very beginning: 1) What are we prepared to transfer? 2) How are we prepared to transfer it? 3) Will those communities be ready to receive that transfer? 4) If they are not, how will we bring them up to speed? 5) What is the point of transferring responsibility to a community if they do not have the funds to operate the program?

I realize that Mr. Todd is saying that it has been done in the past, but I think when we started out with this exercise in this book, those five principles are what we first looked at. There is no point in spinning our wheels and giving something to somebody if they cannot operate it, or they cannot afford it and we eventually get it back. Ultimately, the people of the Northwest Territories, no matter who is delivering the program to them, are the responsibility of this Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We are on page 13. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Lewis?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to refer to page 13 again, but in light of the comments that have been made by other Members on the whole intention of this report --because on page 13 we are still talking about the report, the terms of reference, the organization, question of efficiency and so on -- I would like to point out, not to correct Mr. Pollard but, in fact, to confirm what he said, that when the standing committee on finance recommended to the Minister of Finance that we undertake a base review, then it was my understanding at that time that it would be a base review; that we would look at levels of service and whether we are, in fact, funding things properly.

Years ago, before we had a formula funding agreement with the federal government, there used to be an annual visit. We used to go down to Ottawa with our caps in our hands, and we were always using the words "base review" because the kinds of resources that we have in order to handle the problems are really not adequate. It is not a good base, it needs to be adjusted, and so on. When we went into the formula funding agreement, there were all kinds of different formulas put in there to really help you to adjust your base as you go along.

The purpose I understood, as Mr. Pollard's deputy on that standing committee on finance, was that we ourselves, at least the government, was, going to look at its base. In other words, what is the base of our operation? What is the level of service that we are providing? Do we have the proper resources to provide it? That is what we were doing.

When we looked at the terms of reference that the government gave the project team, it was somewhat different from a base review. That would be just one element of the total project. I have not gone in detail through the appendices, but this document is really not a base review in the way that we normally use the term "base review."

Criticism Regarding Timing Of Transfer

The concern that I have in looking at this issue of efficiency on page 13 is this, Mr. Chairman: I have heard the criticism many, many times, and it has already been reiterated by Mr. Todd here, that there is always going to be a sense of uncertainty and a sense that the government is choosing the wrong time to be doing these things. Why did this proposal not come forward years ago when there was all kinds of money around, things were great, and people seemed to have all kinds of money to do interesting projects? But now times are tough, really tough. They are so tough, in fact, that we want you to handle it. We give it to you now because we do not have the kind of money that we need to run government. I have heard that criticism already. We have a wonderful example. When things get tough, then suddenly we say, "Well, you guys run it." Or we screw something -- I should not use the word screw, I suppose, Mr. Chairman, but we mess something up or we have not done a very good job of it, so we say, "Okay, we will get somebody else to do it; they can look after it."

You are going to find that this argument here about efficiency, about doing more with less -- we are going to ask somebody else to do that now. We have not been able to do it, and we have been in existence for 20-odd years, but now we are telling people in communities, who have enough struggles, "You guys do more with less. We have done more with more but you guys are going to have to do more with less." That is going to be the challenge that this government is going to have to face if it is going to have any credibility in this transfer process. That is the first point I want to make.

Redesign Of Programs By Communities

The second point, which follows from this, Mr. Chairperson, is that we are assuming that when we are looking at effectiveness and efficiency we are talking about programs that we may have a statutory responsibility for, or we may be running programs which we want to delegate or pass on to another order of government, but it could very well be that the communities will say, "Those are your programs; they never worked for you; how do you think they are going to work for us? We never designed them. You did." In this transfer agreement or the proposal to do things in a different way, to reshape things, you may find that communities are going to say, "Those are your programs; there are all kinds of rules and regulations and everything else, because you set them up to do them the way you want to do them. Is there going to be any place in here, not just to have us measure against your system or your effectiveness or your ideas of efficiency -- can we have our own programs? Is there any way at all, any flexibility, so we can design the things that matter most to us? Not just give us a menu. 'You can have fish or beef, but you cannot have anything else; that is all we are going to offer you.'"

Would it be possible not to just be caught in this whole business of delegating something to somebody else because that is what we would like people to do, but to look at the whole business of having people look at government and say, "This is the way we see things. What you do is not exactly what we ever had in mind, but we would like to do something a bit different." Instead of taking over this and taking over that, could we not -- let me think of an example. Suppose people in some small place said, "Look, this system of sending people away to corrections is not working; that is hopeless for us. We want to handle all that stuff ourselves. We will set up a bush camp, and people can go there, and that is the way we want to handle that problem. You may not have that in your system on any kind of a developed basis, but we would like to do something like that." If we are going to reshape government, if you like, at the local level, how are we going to be simply caught in the web of talking about effectiveness or efficiency, with the way we do things, the way you are going to have to do things according to the same criteria that we do, but with fewer funds? Is that kind of option going to be open to people? I have heard some of my colleagues say that that is likely what communities are going to want to have. They are going to want to have not just simply delegated programs but some room, if you like, to develop some initiatives of their own, which currently they cannot.

Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lewis is correct. This is not a base review, but it was what the government of the day chose to do. I understand Mr. Lewis when he says it should have been done when governments had a lot of money. I would just draw your attention to page five, which says, "Our government is facing lower revenue growth, and increasing expenditure pressures. We must be prepared to make some hard decisions in the near future - decisions about what we expect from government...," and it goes on, and I will let you read it yourself. That was the budget address, February 1991, when Mr. Ballantyne was experiencing the pressure of running out of money. Maybe that is what triggered this review.

We accept that some communities may not want to take on responsibilities, Mr. Chairman. We also accept the fact that communities may want to say to Mr. Kakfwi, "Well, I am sorry, but I do not want it under your rules." I think Mr. Kakfwi is prepared to be flexible and look at that with the communities.

I would point out, Mr. Chairman, when we are talking about the new capital process where we are going to be consulting more with MLAs and people in communities, there will be some discretion in that capital process for communities to say, "Well, we are going to prioritize items that we want you to do," which I think puts a little more of the decision-making process on the communities. There may even be some instances in these transfers where there may be block funding transfers and communities do what they want. Maybe in housing -- I do not know what Mr. Morin has planned, but I think we would be open to that. And again, I am moving into Mr. Patterson's area but I also know that Mr. Patterson, on the community justice system, is prepared to sit down with communities and talk about the very thing that Mr. Lewis has just raised, which is not sending people off to a corrections facility, which costs us a whole lot of money, and I am not sure how much good it does. So I think in that one, communities would be able to participate in the justice system at their level, take care of people who have run afoul of the system, and it might save Mr. Whitford, who is the present Minister, a lot of money in the corrections system.

So those things and all of those things are open for negotiation and discussion. I think I would have to let you ask Mr. Kakfwi for more specifics in how he intends to go about the negotiations for the transfer, but just in general terms, Mr. Chairman, I would say that all of those things are on the table.

Thank you. Before we go any further on this, I would like to take a 15 minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

The meeting will come to order. Thank you for your promptness in arriving in the House so that we may proceed quickly. On the list, Mr. Pudlat, and for page 13 of the Beatty report.

(Translation) On page 13 in the centre, in the English translation it is not properly exact; the wording is not the exact same. For instance, it says that social services recipients, the people that are receiving social services, have to have a grade nine level of education, and since the report has been given to us, we now know that. As elders we used to know quite a bit about receiving social assistance. I have not heard in the Northwest Territories an announcement about the guidelines for social assistance to be received by individuals. One thing that we should be getting assistance for is because they have taken our dog-teams away that we used to use quite some time ago.

I think we will have to teach our younger people how to live off the land as well as living off their full-time employment. For this reason, perhaps I could ask the Government Leader, on page 13 there is a paragraph in there that states that if you have never asked for social assistance before the government came, but since the government is here now, we see social assistance and we are used to receiving social assistance now, and I just wondered whether only the people that have reached grade nine can receive social assistance. As I said before, I think you realize now that the reason why we do not know very much about the report is because we were not involved at the beginning.

In regard to the second paragraph, it says that about 80 per cent of NWT residents receive social assistance. The reason why I ask this question is that, because the GNWT is in fiscal restraint, it seems as though they want to do away with social assistance more than ever. I am not teaching my children to provide for themselves off the land. Perhaps you understand my question. If you are not clear on the question I am asking, perhaps I could clarify it further. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Pudlat. We will keep your comments in mind, but we will go over further the concerns you have later on when we get to the appendix. Mr. Pudluk.

Concerns About Transfer Problems

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few comments. I am not against the report we are talking about, Strength at Two Levels. However, the concerns that we have, especially for the smaller communities regarding the transfer of responsibilities -- I have some doubts if we were to make this report a reality. First, I would like to say what the MLA for Yellowknife Centre stated very clearly. How come the report is here now? How come this was not done previously? When the government was first being formed in the communities, it was under DIAND, and there were a number of programs introduced. For that reason our tradition has changed.

After those programs were introduced, the Government of the Northwest Territories was introduced. The GNWT found that a number of federal programs were not completed. It costs a lot of money to use those programs and those programs that were not completed -- they lost a great deal of money because of that. After that, most of the communities became hamlets, and the people of the communities were happy when the communities became hamlets because they would have more responsibilities in their communities. It was obvious that the money that was given by the government was not enough, and the people who were working in the communities are now working for the hamlet. When they started working for the community, the hamlet, one of the concerns and hardship they had was that there was no housing available. Also, before, they were allowed holidays twice a year, and when they moved to the hamlet office they were only allowed holidays once a year. The government did not have sufficient money. These are my concerns.

When the responsibilities are transferred, I am afraid that the funding will not be sufficient for the responsibilities and the capital dollars will not be there according to the responsibilities today. I am afraid the government will not give enough money so that they can run the programs. It will be harder for the communities. These are my concerns. I do not want to see the communities not be given enough money to run their programs.

On page 13 it will be run smoothly, but we know that there will be difficulties. The Strength at Two Levels report is lengthy and we would have to read it several times to understand the content. For this reason I wanted to voice my concerns while we are here.

Thank you. Mr. Pollard.