Mr. Chairman, I am not going to jump at the idea of supporting the remarks in the document without being clear about the rationale. I do not want to have to continue to pick on Members or particular constituencies, but I will deal with that a little later on. What is interesting is that part of the introductory remarks read, and this is a recommendation, I guess, from a standing committee that recommends that: "the Legislative Assembly as a whole work together to change the future course of the Northwest Territories." I think that is an important principle by which we must work. I wonder, really, if that is the case, and whether or not some of the decisions that are being made are purely political. I hope not. I hope they are based on some logical rationale, some advantages in terms of the economic opportunities, and certainly other benefits that might accrue generally to people of the Northwest Territories, because our task in this Assembly is to run government in the best way we know and to the advantage of improving services and programs to the people we represent.

I am still uncertain, and maybe the Government Leader, when she decides to respond, will clarify some of the rationale and some of the reasons why certain decisions have been made with regard to decentralization.

For me, some of the decisions beginning on April 1, 1993, and

ending April 1994 -- I am still not certain why they were done. I may be convinced to support the decisions, but I am not convinced at this particular time. I do not want to pick on Mr. Antoine's constituency, but I always assumed that the whole matter of delivery of POL products -- and that deals with petroleum, oils and lubricants -- would be placed in a location that was involved in that kind of delivery. Having reviewed the information here, it would have almost made more sense, at least from my perspective, to have placed -- maybe Mr. Gargan raised one location -- but it would have made better sense to me, to be in a place like Norman Wells, because that community is already involved in that business. In fact, a great deal of the purchases we make for petroleum, oils and lubricants is from that refinery and delivered to the coast and to the Western Arctic. So it does not make sense. Maybe I can be convinced that Fort Simpson is the place to put it, but I have not heard the logical reasons. I say that not to suggest that we should take it away from one community or from Fort Simpson. I am just trying to find, from my perspective, why the decision was made.

Secondly, I am not certain, and this may be a policy decision that has to be made overall, but I have not heard yet in this Assembly whether or not Fort Smith or Iqaluit will actually become the educational centres for Nunavut and the Western Arctic. If we are going to make that decision, let us make it. For once and for all, let us get on with building the infrastructure for an Arctic College system properly. You cannot choose to continue to have the Arctic College system as diverse as it is, if we are going to run good programs. I think it is a clear mistake. But again, in my view, the major policy question has not been answered, and I would be more comfortable supporting our government if there were a policy decision that says we are going to get on with developing an educational centre. Let us get on with it.

The other point I was going to make was from a transportation perspective, and again maybe the Minister will have to respond to this, but I was not clear as to why the airport or the transportation programs were located at the sites that were chosen. I may be able to be convinced of it, but I was not clear as to why. Maybe it is because I think there are other locations that are more involved in the area of transportation than those communities; actually centres for transportation. Again, I am not totally certain as to why they were chosen, and perhaps the government will be able to articulate that. I see the whole matter of transportation programs as addressing highways, airports, and water transportation. For me, it does not make any sense as to why those locations were selected. I think there are other more logical locations for it, but maybe I can be convinced by our government.

Maybe this other phase I am concerned about is not clear to me, but what are we doing about other overall economic development in the North when we are dealing with decentralization? Surely it is not simply a matter of moving headquarters positions from Yellowknife to the regional centres or the area centres. Surely it is taking, from regional centres and headquarters, positions that actually serve other communities other than the regional centres.

Maybe on that point I would like to point out a couple of positions. First of all, in the marine division side, it still does not make any sense to me why marine division positions are located in communities that do not have any ferries in them or near them and have to drive away from the communities. Why are highway safety officers placed in locations at the end of the highway rather than at the centre of the highway system? You have to rationalize why the positions are located there. I have not been convinced of the reasons why decisions have not been made to proceed to go beyond just the decentralization from Yellowknife to the regional and areas centres,

There is a comment here that says a great deal about maximizing benefits associated for mineral development in the North Slave region and in the Kitikmeot Region. I know that from my own review and reading of the material from Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, that you are making efforts to resolve the question of the Northern Accord and the legislation that is being developed, but that still has not resolved some of the more immediate questions. There is an indication, for instance, from the Dogrib group that they are interested in setting aside or protecting land for their interest. Nothing has been done with that. I do not know how much guarantee you can give to the people in the Kitikmeot or North Slave that they are ever going to receive economic benefits from lands that they will not have an opportunity to select.

I also want to ask our government, in dealing with this whole matter of New Directions, when you are talking about highway development, to look at the locations where they are going to almost immediately bring some return to the people of the North. We just cannot say for the sake of building highways that it is a nice project for taking people off social assistance and into the work force when we already have people who are capable of working that cannot get a job, simply because there are no jobs available. There has to be more motivation behind the idea of local involvement and training. We cannot simply say there are trained and qualified people out there; the question is, can we get them to work?

I know some Members may not be happy with what I have said, but I want to make it quite clear that the remarks that were made by my colleague, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, earlier today in a Member's statement, remain my position. But it is not without having clarity and justification and consideration for all Members of this Assembly and whether we can walk out of this Assembly and convince our colleagues and the people of the North that what we are doing is right and correct, and we can justify it.

Other than that, I do not have a problem with the overall direction that has been taken with regard to decentralization. But I want some logical rationale as to what it is we are trying to accomplish. Otherwise, it makes no sense to me. It makes no sense for the people out in the communities, and I think that is important. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.