Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear all the comments. We are noting the questions that have been posed and, once we hear from everyone, I will be making an overview. Then the respective Ministers will be dealing with some of the specific questions.

Thank you. Are there any further general comments? Mr. Nerysoo.

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.

Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Mr. Chairman, I have been able to go over the report. I am happy to see decentralization in that there are more services in the communities, because this has been long in the planning, and the services given to the communities will create jobs.

With regard to decentralizing Arctic College and centres for educational programs to Iqaluit and Fort Smith, I have further questions on this issue. Perhaps this was agreed to prior to our becoming MLAs. We represent the people of the North, and we have to be well informed of the issues. Often we hear the communities seeking information and communication regarding services and jobs being moved into communities. I have no problem with this, however, I think there has to be more consultation and that a community has to agree on decentralizing things such as Arctic College. We always want to be well informed so that we just do not agree without consulting with our communities.

I feel very strongly that communities have to be consulted. I feel we have to be well informed of how to have input from the MLAs so that they can consult their communities. I feel that there is a need for more input. I know we are consulted often, but sometimes they miss the opportunity. For this reason, I wanted to voice my concern that before decentralizing, communities are to be well consulted.

The deficit is the reason that these 160 people are losing their jobs. Are we in a deficit because of the 160 jobs that are being lost? We will have to plan through the reports and through the acts. We will have to be very careful that it will be well planned, as to where headquarters should be and how our government will be run. During our plebiscite, we decided how our government is going to be, and that our communities are to be consulted in the reports that are being documented and in drawing up our plans for Nunavut in the communities in the North.

Thank you. Are there any other general comments? Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was very happy when our Government Leader stated this about decentralizing services to the communities. However, in this statement, there is not very much said regarding Nunavut. Where is the headquarters, for example? Where, in the Northwest Territories, would headquarters be located -- Inuvik, Igloolik or Iqaluit -- if Nunavut were to become reality? It is uncertain right now that it will be agreed upon by all our people. I know there is a research place in Igloolik. We will not have to pay for the capital, and there are only nine years. I would like to see that Nunavut people agree on this.

The Government Leader has indicated in her statement, New Directions, that MLAs, mayors, bands, and chiefs will be consulted during this new direction, and that these guidelines for the new directions are always in place. I feel we are left behind, I have not been asked whether, if we transfer services, it will be appropriate and accepted by the community prior to planning. I previously wanted to say more, but my colleague, Mr, Nerysoo, stated it already, so this is the end of my comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Todd.

If I may, I would like to just make a short comment. I think we would be remiss in this whole debate if we did not recognize and appreciate the support of those who have got the most to lose, and those are Mr. Lewis and Mr. Dent, who have both expressed support for decentralization even though it may appear to be that some positions will be moved out of Yellowknife. Both these gentlemen recognize the need for it and the value of it, and we would be remiss if we did not acknowledge that today. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other general comments? Government Leader.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the comments Members have made, and I would like to try to capsulize the general concerns. Then I will ask the Minister of Finance to go back to the more detailed

rationale or the areas that we had considered.

In the last while and in taking over this new government, there were several components that were looked at not only by us but also by ordinary MLAs and the committees. Certainly questions about how the communities grow, how the regional centres take on responsibilities, and what we do about the strong central agencies, by and large have been questioned about the desirability of always placing more and more government support systems in that central location.

We attempted to look at what people had said in the past and where people's feelings have come from in discussions at communities and regional councils. One of the concerns was that the communities really have the ability to take on more of their own responsibilities provided that adequate resources were made available. The regional centres could do more, and the central agency, perhaps, was out of touch; and the government really could, practically, decentralize some of the responsibilities to the regions, not for political reasons but more to show to the people of the Northwest Territories that the other parts of the Northwest Territories rather than the central agency have capability and could be given the respect of taking on the responsibility without being in one capital city.

Now the concern is that we did not give enough credence to Nunavut. In the discussions that we had, we realize that the commission has to be set up so that we have an agency to work with in terms of getting the establishment of Nunavut in place. As well, we are still working with the document from the Western Constitutional Commission that was formed. So all these areas are areas which have been looked at, but each time we attempt to address them in detail, more and more questions come out on how, where and what the possibilities are of reaching some of those expectations.

The decisions that were made in this paper were mainly for us to show, as a government, that we were willing to bite the bullet, willing to do something and willing to take that risk -if you want to call it that -- not wait until we had every stone overturned and every little detail considered. As many Members of the Legislative Assembly will know from their experience, we oftentimes want to do something or give a direction, but when it gets set into place where every stone has to be turned and every angle looked at, we do nothing. We are not prepared to take the chance and say, given the information we have, given the resources we have, given some of the concerns, we have and given the risk as well, that we cannot accommodate everybody. Some decisions we make now can take place. Some of the people will have concerns about the decisions made because they feel they were not considered equally.

I want to say again, that not every stone was turned, not every little avenue was looked at. We did not research every decentralization to the nth because if we had done that, we probably would never have come to this stage today.

In dealing with the areas of economic development other than government, 1, as Government Leader and having the overall responsibility, have been trying to take advantage and trying to lead the development of the NWT to complement what we are doing as a government, and it is a difficult task because in some areas we do not have the jurisdiction. But if we wait until we have the jurisdiction, we do nothing.

I think one of the areas we took on between the government and the community showed that people in the community want to get involved in economic development, in the development of the Colomac Mine with the Dogrib Nation. Those people took the responsibility, took the initiative, and took the risk. What they had for the time was good, and people were proud of what they did, and they intended to do more. Unfortunately, the price of gold went down and that was a risk we took. But, at the same time, there are people now who have certain skills. They have a positive attitude, and I believe that there are opportunities where they can get another chance. We should try to take those chances as well.

If I had a choice in my constituency to depend on either government or on an economic opportunity like a long-term mine, I would take the opportunity of the long-term mine. We never know from time to time what the total global financial problems of Canada are going to be and, whether we like it or not, when the crunch comes, we will be squeezed as well. If we can diversify and support the communities, whether it is with diamonds -- maybe gold did not go but maybe diamonds will -- I hope that the Dogrib Nation will look at that opportunity and see where they can fit into that development because it looks good and it does not even have the questions of marginal viability as the Colomac Mine did. But just because that did not succeed -- not because of the people but because of other risks that were taken, the people went in there and gained experience. So we have a core of people that know what they are doing. So it is not lost, and those opportunities are there.

The opportunities to become less dependent on government are more stable, more long-term, more real and provide more innovation for people to grab on to a business opportunity that they can control because they are part of the action. Government, government expenditures and the dependency on them oftentimes do not show much stability, and all we are trying to do is redefine and reappropriate. In doing that, I hope that the risk we took is one that will pay out in the end by bringing more people, collectively, and an experience in running government processes, so that, eventually even though there will be central agencies, whether in Nunavut or here, those will begin to bring forward people from the experience they retained at this time.

In terms of the mineral industry, I want to say we are proactive; we want to work with the communities and we want to find a way of again involving the Dogrib Nation or south of the lake. I want to see us promote the involvement of the Central Arctic in that operation. I believe we can do it, but it takes work, and it takes initiative. I think it has been proven before, and we can do it again. Since the relationship between the Dogrib and Colomac, Lupin Mine has increased its activity in working with the community because they saw a trend, it is not like it used to be 10 years ago. The mining industry up there is interested, and the people are interested. They are employed, and they are taking that initiative. We cannot deny it by not recognizing that fact. I think it can be better. I believe it can be better when people are ready to take that step.

So overall, I know we did not meet the expectations of every constituency but, at the same time, I think we have to try and look at it in the global sense because we can only stretch the government dollar so much, and we try to do our best at that time.

I hope that very soon the Nunavut commission will get in

place so that can deal with that. I believe the mandate which has been briefly outlined states that they are the people that will want to work with this government to develop where certain structures will go, and I do not believe that the determination of a central capital is decision of this Legislative Assembly but will have to come through the commission or through the people from the Nunavut area.

I believe that besides decentralization and what we have outlined for you now, there are a number of other initiatives that have been put forward to this government and which we will be acting upon. We would like to take a couple of more weeks or months to decide upon some of the areas that we would like to finalize with the government; in particular, the housing area. Therefore, some of the decisions cannot be made, but there are other areas we are addressing. Thank you.

Thank you. We are still on general comments. Are there any other general comments or questions? Mr. Nerysoo.

I thought I was going to leave it at what I had said earlier, but I guess I have no choice but to deal with some of the issues that have been raised and which have caused me even more concern. Number one, I do not really mind the idea of decentralization, and I do not want every stone unturned in terms of making a policy decision. The question I want to have dealt with is whether or not an overall policy decision has been made and what that means. If you are talking about decentralization, does it only stop at the region? If not, then let us say that. But that is not what is coming out in the documentation before us.

Maybe I can be more specific about Inuvik. Let us deal with Inuvik for a few minutes. It is not a matter of my particular constituency. One question I would like to ask is, what is the transportation centre in Inuvik Region? Is it Inuvik? That is an assumption that people have made, but the fact is that it is not the community which is serviced first by road transportation. It is the last. So the question I have to address is, how do I view that in terms of decentralization? It does not fit. That is all I am trying to get at.

The other point I want to make is simply this. If there is an attempt on our part to deal with decentralization and moving people into the communities or into the regional centres, then surely we are going to address the matter of ensuring that services are provided to communities first. If not, then how are we addressing that particular question? The document does not deal with that.

I can be more specific about it. Arctic Red River has no nurse, has no social worker, and has no police services. It is very fundamental, but nothing is done with it. So when I talk about decentralization, I look at that and I say the intention in the document is that we are going to improve services. How'? For the people in that community, it does not make any sense. For me to go back there to argue a case and support this government's direction, to them it does not make any sense it they are not receiving what they think are basic services. To some, maybe it is more of a constituency matter, but the fact is that it is basic services, and if people here in this Assembly do not agree that every community should have some basic services, then what is the logic of moving people out of Yellowknife? It does not make sense.

I do not know what I have to do to convince people that this is the view of the people out there, but I know that politically, if I look at this document and if I were involved in one of these particular constituencies, I would be a happy man. The simple fact is that I will support everything that has been proposed if: 1) there is some logical reason why we are doing it; and 2) if it means improving services to the community or making some basic decisions about those basic services and programs. If not, there is no rationale to it. There is no reason why people in the communities should support it, because it is not helping them. Maybe to some it is, but I know to a lot of others it is not. There has to be some logic to it, so I can go out there and defend the policy of this government.

I do agree with decentralization, but decentralization at the expense of services to people in the communities does not make any sense. Just for the sake of saying there will be a few more jobs does not make sense. There has to be some movement of government, but if you talk about this matter of economic growth based on non-renewable resources, the group that is from the Inuvik Region, including Kitikmeot, knows that there is no absolute future in the oil and gas industry. We have had that experience.

I look at this, and people say we are going to maximize those benefits. Yes, when it happens, but what happens before then? I am not going to be convinced by people arguing all is well. It is not all well. I think that if you want to say that it is all well, say it publicly. Do not say all is well because we made the statement. If it is not well, then say it is not well, but do not tell me that people in Yellowknife or the Northwest Territories are happy about the amount of employment they have in Echo Bay Mine. Every one of you here has heard criticism about the lack of employment at Echo Bay Mine. Every one of us. So do not tell me that things are all well and good, and that this New Directions is the answer. It is part of the answer, but it is not the total answer. I do not like to be told by Ministers in this government that my comments and my concerns are not valid, because they are valid. Address the other issues while addressing these, because I think it is wrong to try to fool people.

Thank you. Government Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I think I began my statement by thanking him for the comments. Not all is well. You hear the statement about the South Mackenzie and unemployment. You can hear that statement all across the Northwest Territories. But we have to give credit where credit is due. We have to recognize improvement when improvement is made. Not all is well. There is a lot of work to do, but we have to get out there and do it. I also said that what we have on the table is not the answer. We have to do a lot of other things, for the record.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. There is an old story, Mr. Chairman, about a king. It is a very old story, but anyway the king was getting old and feeble. He was very grey and he felt weak. He wanted to be sure that his sons would prosper and do well. He thought, 'Well, I do not want somebody else to read my will after I am dead. I am going to do the right thing today, and I am going to bring all my family together and tell them exactly what I am going to do so that they will all be happy and they will prosper and have a wonderful future together." So he brought everybody into the room and told everybody what they were going to get. I will not make this a long story, Mr, Chairman, because I could tell you in detail what he gave every one of those offspring. However, the king outlived all of his daughters and sons because within a year they were all fighting. They all got killed, and that poor old king who thought he had done the right thing lived to be a sad and lonely old man. That is the only comment I am going to make.

Thank you. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak briefly to the issue that is being discussed in this House around the table by the Members. I am an extremely sensitive person. I find it extremely hard to function in this particular government when the decisions that are made are not satisfactory to the people and to the Members on this side of the House, when I do not make a decision, and then I get criticized for it. If I make the decision, then I get criticized for it. Mr. Chairman, I find it extremely difficult to be allowed by the Ministers and the Members of the Executive Council of this particular government, to hold a job when I cannot even function properly. I find it very difficult to sleep, knowing that whatever I do, the next day it is going to be criticized. I do not want to lose friends on the other side of the table.

At the appropriate time, soon, I will be talking to the Government Leader and asking her to relieve me of my position as a Minister. I went to the hospital about a week ago. I have to use sleeping pills in order to sleep and go to work the next day. Mr. Chairman, I find it very, very difficult to be on this side of the table at this particular time. I find a very good friend of mine, Jim Antoine, having heard the news about the hangar to be located in Fort Smith, and I feel sorry for them. At the same time, I am glad Fort Smith was able to get it, but I would also have wanted to see that Fort Simpson gets a hangar.

As I mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am a very sensitive person and I do not want to lose friends from the other side of the table. As I mentioned earlier, I will be seeking to be relieved of my position as a Minister from the Government Leader at the appropriate time. I am serious. When I decide, I do not go back and say I was just joking. I do not play games. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Are there any more general comments? Mr. Arngna'naaq, did you put your hand up? Does this committee agree that Ministers' Statement 61-12(2) is concluded?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Thank you. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Gargan.