Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to understand the circumstances before I vote on this motion, that is why I was asking those questions. I would ask my last question. For the work that the department has done, what sort of equipment did they use in the past? Did they have to go south for the majority of the work because they didn't have this equipment?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the motion is to delete $15,000 under the activity conservation, education and resource development. If you look under that item, the intent is for certain areas of conservation, education and equipment for multi-media information feasibility studies. The most important one is the fur management section, which provides support to the trapping industry and requires a specialized capital equipment purchase.

I'm an aboriginal person. Renewable Resources has about a $2.3 million capital allocation that is targeted, perhaps, more to the aboriginal people than it is to any other people. Hunting and trapping, renewable resources and non-renewable resource areas have everything to do with the land, the animals and the affected people. So, I will not be voting in support of such a motion. I think the survival of an industry is in jeopardy if we don't. We are starting to chip away at one target group, that is the way I view it. So, I'm not going to support the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, since we like to influence and educate anti-trapping groups throughout the world, and since the money here is used to try and educate those groups about our way of life, I will not be supporting the motion to delete this particular section. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I hope you grant me the same privileges that you granted other Members in asking some questions. I need more information before I can vote appropriately. The department officials said they have a trainee on the job and I thought I heard that this trainee has been on the job for three years, and has been doing quite well. I may have got that wrong. This situation brings to mind, if he is a trainee and has been working in the job, what kind of equipment has he been using to date? And, now, because we are going to delete this piece of equipment, we don't need this individual or he can't do his job? That doesn't make sense. I'm really curious as to the status of this trainee and if he is as professional as I heard. It doesn't make sense that one new piece of equipment all of a sudden makes an individual obsolete and not able to do his work. I would just like clarification on that point.

I will be supporting the motion. A motion was passed last year by SCOF to..."The committee recommends the Department of Renewable Resource's video equipment be removed and the activity privatized." Under that, the response was, "The department will be reviewing their video equipment." Now the Minister is saying, give us that leeway. You had a year. A point of clarification, the intent of the $15,000 is not for a camera. In 1995-96, they want to buy a $60,000 camera, but the intent of the $15,000 is to buy a BVM 1910 monitor, which, to me, is a TV screen. It is a pretty expensive TV screen. It doesn't justify the intent of last year's motion or this motion. The intent is to have the department review these things and come up with better justification. So I will be supporting the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the big problems with the mandates of departments is they are sometimes shifted around. At one time, we looked at all the departments that were involved in training. We found there were seven of them. Everyone had their own little training unit. It was decided all of the training would go into one department. That is why we have Mr. Nerysoo's department.

The same thing with computers. Everyone was going their own way with computers, until it was decided we would have a system for looking after computers. I have raised this issue many times in the past. In fact, I remember talking on this issue with Renewable Resources some years ago and I asked them why they are in the movie business. Why are you doing this? They said, I am glad you asked that, we happen to have one of the best movie makers in Canada on our staff. He just won a big award. So everyone gets all excited and says, we have to give him the equipment. Within one year, the big movie maker was not there any more. So the equipment just sat there with no one to do anything with it.

I take issue with this business of just automatically saying this is great because the cause is wonderful. No one will argue with that. But why should every government department be in the movie business? What if the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation decided they wanted to promote housing? Mr. Morin says, we have to get the message out, I want a camera man who will do a good job for me. Then Mr. Kakfwi says, I need another camera now because I want to show how aboriginal justice could be better done in our communities. I want to have my own PR man to tell the real story. We are always hearing about safety. Mr. Todd might say, I have to get that message out there, I need a better camera and monitors. I need really good advertising people. I could go down the list.

So I am going to move that we amend this motion to put in the word "defer," so this government could come up with a policy on what it is we are trying to do with promotion. I understood that this whole business of cameras was in Mr. Nerysoo's department. If you want it, why can you not make a deal with them so you can get the work done, and they can get the resources.

Committee Motion To Remove "Deleted" And Replace With "Deferred", Out Of Order

I would like to move that we amend this motion by deleting the word "deleted" and replacing it with the word, "deferred."

Mr. Chairman, I'm not too sure what this $15,000 is for. I'm getting signals that it is for a television screen. Are we talking about television monitors? You have stuff in the bush that is stationary so that animals that are around are not interrupted by humans. Is that what we are talking about? I'm confused here. We are looking at public awareness, public education and this equipment is required for that.

Mr. Antoine, coming back from Brussels, has indicated that, as much as possible, we have to educate the European people about the animals and the way we live. But, I'm afraid if we eliminate this essential equipment that is for that type of thing, then I could very well see the death of a nation. I would like to get some clarification. What do you mean by a television monitor? There are television monitors for security and other reasons. I suppose if it is the kind of television monitor I think it is, then I would think it would be a lot easier for people to have television monitors, as opposed to being present and doing all the shots with a big camera.

Agreed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason for SCOF having this motion is not to go against any of the things that honourable Members are saying about providing information to the public on natural resource development. The point here is that, last year, this department had equipment we asked them to do away with and we asked them to privatize this area because of what Mr. Lewis is saying about each department having their own production system.

In this particular case, Renewable Resources is buying a monitor for $15,000 and in their substantiations for next year they're going to be asking for a $60,000 Betacam 400 camera. In the following year they're going to be asking for editing equipment for $40,000. The point here is that it is more than $15,000. The department is setting up their own television production centre. We've asked them to look at privatizing this work. The Department of Education, Culture and Employment has equipment like this, as well.

Are we going to be buying equipment like this for each department, or is there a policy that the government has that says to put all this type of equipment in one area and share the work? That is where we are coming from. It is not to go against fur management or any of that. The point is we're looking at capital. It starts with $15,000 and is going to add up over the next couple of years. The point is, is the government heading in this direction? We asked them, last year, to privatize it and they haven't done that. That is the reason why the motion is in place today. Mahsi.