Notices of motions for first reading of bills. Item 15, motions. I have to call Motion 16-12(2). The mover of the motion is not in the House; therefore this motion is struck from the order paper. Motions, Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Rule 21(5), I move, seconded by the honourable Member for North Slave, that Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions, be moved into committee of the whole.

The motion is in order. All those in favour? Opposed, if any? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions, is moved into committee of the whole. 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; Motion 6-12(2), Discussion on Sobriety Clause in Contribution Agreements; Committee Report 10-12(2), Special Committee on Constitutional Reform Report on the Multilateral Conferences on the Constitution: Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions, with Mr. Nerysoo in the chair.

The committee will come to order. What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Koe.

The committee wishes to discuss Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions, after a break.

Is it the wish of the committee that we begin with Ministers' Statement 61-12(2)? Agreed?

Agreed.

--- Agreed

We will take a short break.

--SHORT RECESS

Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions

The committee will come to order. We are dealing with Ministers' Statement 61-12(2), New Directions. Any general comments? Mr. Todd.

I would like to commend the Government Leader for this decentralization initiative. I think we have to ensure in this decentralization that the benefits that come about, whether it is with respect to the potential new assets that may be required or employment opportunities, are given to the systems in place so that Northerners can take full advantage of the situation. I would hope with respect to this, particularly in the employment opportunities that may be available, that there will be some co-ordination between the decentralization thrust and Arctic College to ensure that our regional people, where those from Yellowknife do not wish to transfer, be given first opportunity to apply for and be successful in these jobs. So there is a requirement for some co-ordination with respect to this decentralization thrust.

I am one of those that believe that if we hesitate we will be lost because there will be 20 reasons why the bureaucracy will say we cannot do it, rather than, as I frequently say, "One reason why we should do it." There is a difference of opinion with respect to the fairness of decentralization. The principle of it, we all support; and I am sure other Members will talk to the fairness of it. But I want to say in terms of the principle that I am a strong advocate of decentralization. It will bring about not only economic benefits; it will also bring about, hopefully, government closer to the people, something many of us have been arguing for God knows how long -- 20 years, some of us. But I do want to say that if we do not move quickly, if we do not take advantage of this initiative, I am of the opinion that the bureaucracy will find some reason why we should not do it.

So I think timing, the commitment to it and our ability to put the infrastructure and put our people to work are important. So I think we have to move quickly to get a process in place which will ensure that there are maximum benefits to the regions that are affected; that we get training programs in place that are going to ensure that our people in the regions, where the positions of the people who do not wish to transfer, where there are opportunities available, that they are trained and placed in them. We take some risks if some of our people are not training. I am one of these people who believe that we should be hiring North first. It should be the rule, and anything else should be the exception.

If there is concern -- and this was expressed earlier -- about some inequity in what has taken place here, then that is probably a legitimate debate. However, the principle of decentralization has my full support, and I would like to commend the government for it.

Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Arvaluk.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my concern or general comment is very much similar to Mr. Zoe's, especially on page three. I fail to understand the clear direction in that document, New Directions. It says, 'However, this has meant that we had to reduce expenditures in other areas to a greater degree. Unfortunately, that is the choice we face in sustaining our most important social programs and continuing to offer our rapidly growing numbers of youth the best possible education. We must be prepared to invest in our young people and meet our obligations to our elders." This sounds great, but how do you say that and take away 12 of the Keewatin teacher education program at the same time? I cannot understand how those two are supposed to fit together as logic. The action and the document New Direction conflict.

A paragraph after that also talks about more independent or real economic development. In other words, something independent from the government. Now, I want to believe the document has a general interest to develop more economic development that can be self-sustaining; yet we are not seeing this in the small communities. I understand "Communities such as Fort Simpson and Rankin Inlet are stranded in a never-never land by being too small to be big, but too big to be small." I understand that, but still this particular program does not reflect the small communities. Mr. Chairman, I will need some clarification of those particular paragraphs, using examples of what they mean with those statements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Antoine.

MLA Input Lacking In Decentralizing

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The document that we are talking about, New Directions, I guess you all know my concerns about one particular part of the direction, but on the whole, on principle, I agree with decentralization, and some of the government positions should be moved to some of the communities. I totally agree with that. However, when I first heard about it, it was a surprise, because as an MLA I was not involved in the decision of what should go into communities. I think the communities that will be receiving some of these services and PYs are pleased with the announcement. However, there again it is a good surprise.

I want to know what the time frame would be to move some of these positions. Are we talking about immediately, one month, two months, the next fiscal year? I guess the question in everybody's mind is that we will be receiving some of these positions. My general comment is strictly that I think it is a good move on the government's part. Unfortunately, as a Members of the Legislative Assembly we were not involved in the decision, and we are expected to live with that decision. As I said, I was hoping to be given a fair opportunity to represent my constituency -- and one of the communities is Fort Simpson -- in a democratic and fair way, and I have been impeded. I will conclude my statement tomorrow.

In the community of Simpson, on the aircraft maintenance facility, we did not receive the document until the latter part of the last session. I was hoping to get the community to do it, and we did do it. It takes a little time, but I did have a meeting with the business community as well as the village representative, the band council and Metis representatives. We tried to approach this as a community development opportunity. I come here and find out that the decision is already made. I found it unfair in a way. I think the intentions of the government here are good, but things have to be done in a more democratic and fair way. I think we will all benefit from it if things like this are done in that manner, so we do not have situations where there are conflict and hard feelings. I always want to work with everybody, and with my background as a Dene, we have always worked in an environment where we respect each other's views and even though it is opposing, we listen. That is why I find it difficult sometimes to be in this environment and try to represent my people and try to get things done in a fair and democratic manner.

Once again, the principle of the transfer is good. If we could have more dialogue between the MLAs and the government in some of the key areas -- because it is a big decision to move some of the headquarters personnel into the communities; you are looking at long-range changes. Is this for a number of years, or for a trial period, or is it permanent? These are some of the questions floating around. I am trying to see how it is going to work.

Mr. Bernhardt.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1, too, am of the same opinion as my colleague for North Slave. For many years we have sort of been poor cousins to the government. The Kitikmeot needs a lot of work at ground level to get things going, as does the Keewatin. We cannot rely solely on the mining industry as the Minister stated, for this whole reason that the mining industry and the growth of a

community depends on the market value of your lead, nickel, and gold. That is dictated by the world market and how good the price is. From what I understand, gold is on its way down. What we really need is infrastructure in our community. We will be going into a new territory, and we need new things to develop with, like other regions in the Territories.

Kitikmeot Region Neglected

I am beginning to wonder if this Legislative Assembly looks beyond their own constituency needs and their interests. My region exists; we are part of the NWT; we will always be; because we are right in the dead smack centre of the Territories. I feel Rankin and Fort Simpson are not nevernever land; that should be us fellows. They are well established. Mr. Todd has all his infrastructure there, yet he is getting more PYs and we are getting nothing.

You have to look at decentralization on a territorial level and not on the region that you want to promote and develop and leave the two regions, which are already neglected, behind. We need this government infrastructure. We need many things that I wish we could get within my four years in this House or even after seven years. It will be pretty difficult to do. I am only one in 24; I am only a rookie. I sit back and listen to all the luxuries these guys are getting, and we are getting only sparerib extras with no meat on them.

I think the government has to seriously consider going back to the drawing board and see what they can come up with for the region that I represent. Because it is disheartening to go out of here during the day knowing that you are not getting anything and the decision has already been made without even consulting the hamlet councils and myself. Who made these decisions to move these person years to the region. In principle I agree with decentralization, but I have to say it is not being done on an equal basis.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 1, too, appreciate the work, New Directions, that cabinet has provided us in this document. I am pleased to see cabinet is finally making some decisions and giving people in the North some direction. I am also pleased to see that, if adopted, some of the principles that I operate under -- we have to be able to change and adjust with the times.

I assume that this document and the changes that are in it are part of or a first phase of a larger plan. If it is, it would be nice sometime shortly to see the larger plan. I am also concerned about some of the net impacts on regions and communities. We are getting part of the picture here, but we will not see a lot of the details until we get the fiscal budget of this government. That leads to the question: What impacts will these new directions have on the overall budget of the NWT?

We will not be seeing the total O and M or capital budgets until September, and I wonder, in the overall picture, what programs and projects are being added. What is being deleted? There is mention of 160 PYs being eliminated. I guess the question is, then, where, specifically, are they being eliminated from? What communities? What areas? And what changes have been made?

They are also concerned about some of the logic utilized in making some of these decentralization decisions. That begs the question, are some of these decisions being made to get ready for an eastern government and a western government?

Also, in the document there are two initiatives that are mentioned: the business incentive policy and the Housing Corporation projects; that the business incentive policy would be utilized before the federal government will accept it. I think that we have to also ensure that all our agencies, boards and commissions adopt and utilize the new business incentive policy. It just cannot work for' part of our Territories. Everyone that receives and uses government money has to accept and adopt these policies.

The one issue that Mr. Todd mentioned is the hiring and utilizing of northern people. It is very, very central that somewhere soon we adopt new policies and directions to hire North and hire North only. That means training and upgrading our training. We have to do it. We have to utilize our people. That is what creates the jobs. The jobs stay here. It enhances the revenue side of our budgets. These are some of the initial comments I had, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you. General comments. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have looked at the Government Leader's statement on the direction we would be going in in the next while. It was based on Reshaping Northern Government, and it had a

working group in which three of the Members were ordinary Members. But one of the things that I wanted to tell the government, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to the reorganization -- reorganizing the predominance of transportation and utility companies. In Hay River, the Highway Transport Board and the Public Utilities Board - we have now, Mr. Chairman, the Power Corporation that is in Hay River, and we also have Northland Utilities in Hay River, Alberta Power -- but why do you want to have the Public Utilities Board in the same place where those corporations are operating? I could see these people becoming pretty good buddies, eventually, and start determining the rates; or they could be manipulated by those corporations in convincing them to increase rates. But I have no difficulty with wherever it goes. I realize that my constituency has not been mentioned in this document, but I am not interested in that at the moment. I am more interested in finding out what the rationale is behind the utilities board being relocated to Hay River.