Mr. Pollard.

If their old position was filled, then we would give them a position of equal level.

Mr. Dent.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, a licence fee would be a fee that would be charged to an individual for them to hold a licence to perform something in the NWT where the government had jurisdiction. That licence fee would only be charged to individuals or companies who had that privilege with this government.

A tax is a much broader thing, and it may effect a commodity such as gasoline. It may effect a certain group of people such as those people who are earning money, and that would be an income tax. So I would say that the difference would be that taxes are a much broader issue affecting commodities or the status of people who are working, whereas a fee, particularly in the case of a licence, would apply to a company or a person who had a privilege to do something where the government had jurisdiction.

Supplementary, Mr. Dent.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, the licence fee which used to be at five per cent, now at 10 per cent, is charged the amount of product that licensed premises would purchase from the GNWT in the way of liquor, beer, wines and other alcoholic beverages. That fee has traditionally been charged to those licensees because they are going to in turn, take that into their licensed premises and resell it. There was a certain overhead with regard to issuing those licences. There is a review each year of the companies' legal affairs, how much money it owes, whether or not it has been in trouble or whether or not it has changed anything in its building. There are a certain number of inspections that incur because of that licence by a licensed liquor inspector. There are other requirements by the government that have grown over the years. Now the Fire Marshal has a great deal of say in licensed premises, as does the health inspector, the electrical inspector and all those other inspectors that we have out there. So there is a cost to government for issuing those licences because the government then becomes responsible for the inspection of those premises. So I think that is where the licence fee came from, and I think the Minister has said that he has raised it because it has not been raised in the last 20 years.

Supplementary, Mr. Dent.

The Member has essentially asked that question before, but it is a slightly different way. I will leave it up to the Minister to respond to it. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the

Minister who is absent, but I will say that if the Member is asking my opinion in this regard, I personally welcome all the money that I can into the coffers.

---Laughter

I think if you look at how much those licences cost us to administer, as to how much we garner back from those licensees, that it would be fairly close to being even when you take into consideration the other departments involved.

I would make it clear to all Members that Members do not ask Ministers opinions, and Ministers should respond with government policy, not with their opinion.

Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Over the past month the Minister of Justice has requested, through the commissioner of the RCMP, to provide security services to Royal Oak mine. Recognizing this cost has become accumulated to well over two million dollars, and recognizing that we are quickly finishing the session up until the fall, I would like to know how long the Minister intends to request the services of the RCMP for Royal Oak mine? Thank you.

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I have recently informed the Solicitor General for Canada, who is responsible for the RCMP federally, that in my view the requirement for the RCMP in connection with the Royal Oak labour situation is a requirement which flows from federal statutory responsibilities, and that, from the point of view of the Government of the Northwest Territories, there is no emergency existing in an area of territorial responsibility. I have, therefore informed the Solicitor General that it will be up to the federal government to determine whether RCMP emergency policing services continue to be required because of that situation and because of the federal jurisdiction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether or not, as of today, he has received confirmation from the federal government that they will absorb the expense that is accumulating to provide RCMP services for Royal Oak.

Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, the best I have got from the federal government and the federal Minister on this matter is a proposal that we, together, find a mutually acceptable third party to assist in resolving what is essentially a dispute under the policing agreement. This is, I guess, an admission that there is a real interpretation problem under the policing agreement, and that perhaps an outside party will be required to softie this problem. But, I do not have the assurance that the Member has asked me about. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, I am seriously concerned with respect to the continually accumulating costs, as I am sure all my colleagues are, of providing RCMP services to Royal Oak mine. Since the Minister had indicated he had sent a letter to the federal government to determine whether RCMP services are to continue, and the federal government's proposal stating that, together, we will find a mutual agreement, will the Minister consider court action against the federal government to absorb these costs for providing RCMP services to Royal Oak, if the federal government decides not to pay for these costs?