Good afternoon. Before we begin I would like to make a ruling.

Speaker's Ruling

On Thursday, February 18, 1993, the honourable Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, raised a point of privilege in response to remarks made by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Stephen Kakfwi. To put the issue into context, some background may be of assistance. The Member for Thebacha was questioning the Minister on the enrolment of a particular inmate at the Territorial Women's Correctional Centre in an Arctic College program in Fort Smith. The Member was interested in pursuing the Department of Justice's rationale in supporting the enrolment of the inmate in that particular Arctic College program.

The Minister responded by stating in part, "I have always been reluctant to discuss individual people and cases" and "I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with this questioning." The Member for Thebacha then raised a point of privilege stating, in essence, that the Minister's response was an infringement on her right of freedom of speech as a Member. Mr. Kakfwi also stated in the debate which followed the point of privilege that, in his view, "the questioning should stay focused, without naming particular individuals, on the policy of the government."

The issue of naming particular individuals when asking questions is one which has been raised with growing frequency. Accordingly, I asked for a debate on the question of privilege to provide all Members with an opportunity to express their views on the matter so that I could decide if there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege. Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6th edition, citation 75, refers to the privilege of freedom of speech as being both the least questioned and the most fundamental right of a Member. Erskine May, 5th edition, page 70, states that freedom of speech is a "privilege essential to every free council or Legislature." Speakers throughout Canada have consistently upheld the importance of protecting Members' freedom of speech. The Honourable John Fraser, Speaker of the House of Commons, stated on May 21, 1987 in relation to a similar issue raised in the House, that freedom of speech was necessary because "Members of Parliament have to be able to speak freely without fear."

Clearly, the essence of democracy is that a Member must feel free to raise, in the Legislature, all issues of concerns to his or her constituents without fear of retaliation or action being taken by others. I think all Members would agree with these learned comments on the importance of this privilege.

Nonetheless, the freedom is not absolute. On some occasions, the right of a Member to speak freely on an issue must give way to other rights that the Legislature feels are worthy of protection.

One example of this is the sub judice convention, a Member may not speak on matters that are currently pending before the courts. Another example is the limitation with respect to unparliamentary language. The importance of protecting the dignity and respect of the parliamentary process is deemed to take priority over an individual member's right to free speech. These limitations on free speech are rare and, generally speaking, are well known and supported in parliamentary law.

On the facts of this particular debate, the Minister of Justice appears to be reluctant to answer the honourable Member's questions on the basis that her questions referred to an individual and as such were inappropriate.

I find that asking questions which name a particular individual is not contrary to parliamentary law or tradition in most cases.

However, I find that the honourable Member for Thebacha does not have a point of privilege. When asked a question in the House, a Minister may answer the question, take notice of the question or refuse to answer the question. There is nothing in parliamentary tradition or law which compels a Minister to respond to a question in a certain way.

Indeed, Beauchesne states, in citation 416, that "A Minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for refusing, and insistence on an answer is out of order."

Beauchesne goes on to state, in the same citation, that "A refusal to answer a question cannot be raised as a point of privilege." Confusion sometimes occurs because two strong parliamentary traditions are in seeming conflict; the right of the Members to freedom of speech and the right of the Ministers to refuse to answer questions.

It must be made very clear that in most cases, a Member has the right to refer to an individual by name when asking a question of a Minister. A Minister has the right to refuse to answer a question, but it must be clear that in most cases, the decision to refuse to answer a question is not based on parliamentary law and tradition. However, in the complex dynamics of the Legislative Assembly, parliamentary rules and procedures cannot be the only road map to guide us. All exchanges between Members must be tempered by consideration, common sense and civility.

While questions naming specific individuals are, generally speaking, appropriate, I must caution all Members to take care when asking questions about specific individuals, the effect of which might harm the reputation of an individual outside of this Legislature who is unable to defend herself or himself.

Members have the privilege of free speech and immunity from criminal or civil prosecution for statements made inside this Legislature. In the interests of order, common sense and courtesy, I would ask all honourable Members to be extremely careful in these matters. Our Legislative Assembly has a long and proud history of respect, civility and cooperation which has been an example to the world. I ask Members to attempt, at all times, to show respect for each other, for the Assembly and for all northerners, no matter what their circumstances. Thank you.

Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Todd.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of publicity lately about mining activity in the region between Yellowknife and Coppermine. You have heard about Minnova's Izok Lake base metal property and Lac De Gras diamonds. There has been much talk about a deep water port near Coppermine, ice breaking ore ships and a road corridor between Yellowknife and Coppermine.

I would like to share with you and Members of this Assembly, the government's position on these developments.

The region we are talking about is called the slave geological province. It extends in a broad band north from Great Slave Lake to the Coronation Gulf. The geologists tell us that this is one of the richest and most promising regions in Canada, perhaps the world. We are told it contains unknown billions of dollars in gold, base metal and diamond reserves. Despite the formidable challenges presented by climate and poor access, this region is the exploration hot spot in Canada - and it is getting hotter. Exploration and mining companies are pouring tens of millions of dollars into finding minerals, proving reserves and assessing the economics of production. The opening of a single new mine, such as Izok Lake, will require the investment of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Should we encourage exploration? Should we welcome investment? Should we participate actively in mineral development in this region? Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I will give you ten reasons why we should.

Our mineral wealth is one of our major strengths. It is the envy of most nations. Mining offers, by far, are the best short and medium term economic growth potential of any sector of our economy.

Mining offers jobs for northerners, and lots of them. Not just as miners, but in construction, transportation and a variety of service industries.

By taking an active role, we will be in a better position to ensure that northerners receive the necessary training and get first consideration for these jobs.

Mining and its support activities will provide a wide range of business opportunities for northern entrepreneurs.

There will be promising new opportunities for northerners to invest in northern development.

This development will stimulate major improvements in our infrastructure including road, marine, air and hydroelectric developments. Our participation will help ensure that this infrastructure serves all our needs, not just those of individual developments.

Business and employment income will result in significant new sources of revenue for government to help pay for a wide range of public programs.

These revenues will reduce our dependence on federal transfer payments and thereby increase our ability to determine our own future.

These developments will and must provide considerable benefits to aboriginal claimant groups.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to consider the spin-offs resulting from re-spending of income and from the better facilities which will reduce living costs, encourage tourism and improve mobility.

Mr. Speaker, just for good measure I will throw in one more. Roughly half of this region falls on each side of the line which the two new territories will share.

Mr. Speaker, I have said we should encourage and welcome these developments, but there are conditions. I think with our active participation we can ensure that the following conditions will be met.

We must ensure the maximum benefits to the north and to northerners. The benefits must far exceed the costs.

We must protect our environment - our water, our game and our fish for the continued use and benefit of future generations.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, we will not be supporting this development at the expense of other regions. We cannot and must not abandon the transportation, economic development or other program priorities of other regions.

Communities must be fully involved in all aspects of any development in their region. This means being informed and consulted and participating in decision-making.

Mr. Speaker, how do we propose to participate? The answer is by providing the public transportation infrastructure. There needs to be a land transportation corridor connecting Yellowknife to a sea port near Coppermine. How will this infrastructure, costing tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars be paid for? This will happen only if it is a sound investment. If it is, the project can be financed through contributions by mining companies and through a share of the increased revenues which will be accrued to the federal and territorial governments. In other words, this investment should be financed by the new wealth it would generate, not by taking money from other programs or from other regions.

Let me conclude, Mr. Speaker, by telling you what we plan to do next. We are consulting with northern stakeholders to ensure that we fully appreciate their objectives and their concerns and I invite Members to help us in this task. We are also consulting with the mining companies to ensure an understanding of their plans. Based on this input, we will propose a rational approach to the development of this region. This must involve the federal and territorial governments, industry and all the stakeholders. We must then convince the Government of Canada that this is a worthwhile investment and that they should provide financial assistance.

I believe everyone can be a winner in these exciting developments - governments, the mining industry, small business and most importantly, all northerners. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

Item 2, Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In November, 1992, the RCMP Complaints Commission released a report on the complaints laid against the RCMP by Kitty Nowdluk Reynolds. I am sure no one in this House will forget the heart-wrenching story of the abuse and humiliation that this sexual assault victim suffered at the hands of the Northwest Territories justice system.

The RCMP Complaints Commission report makes it very clear, for anyone who may have doubted, that our justice system is failing the needs of the victims. The system simply does not care.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the report has exposed some of the lack of consideration and insensitivity that victims have to face, especially when they happen to be women of aboriginal descent.

Mr. Speaker, the process took far too long. Kitty Nowdluk Reynolds was assaulted in her home in June of 1990. Her ordeal at the hands of the criminal justice system continued through August and September of 1990. She complained, by letter, to the RCMP in October of 1990, yet the commission to inquire into the complaints was not constituted until January of 1992, nearly one and a half years later. By the time the report was issued, over two and a half years had passed since the incident occurred. Mr. Speaker, this delay demonstrates that the rights of victims do not have any priority. This attitude must change.

I also have serious reservations about the process used to inquire into the treatment of Ms. Nowdluk Reynolds. The justice system is failing miserably to meet the needs of aboriginal people. I do not think anyone needs to read the formal report to recognize that. The review of the system, once again, uses an adversarial court like process. This is not the aboriginal way to resolve issues. As my honourable colleague for Baffin Central pointed out to the former...

Mr. Gargan, your allotted time has elapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like unanimous consent to complete my statement.

The honourable Member is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Please proceed, Mr. Gargan.

Thank you. As my honourable colleague for Baffin Central pointed out to the former Minister last June, a victim testifying before the complaints commission could find the review process even more stressful than the trial itself. When this was raised last June, the former Minister of Justice stated he would be willing to direct the department to evaluate the RCMP Complaints Commission process once it had been concluded. Nearly one year later this evaluation is even more crucial.

The federal government is now apparently giving some consideration to combine the complaints commission with the RCMP internal review committee, as a cost-saving measure. The territorial government must step in now to represent the views of aboriginal people on the RCMP review process before things go from bad to worse.

Mr. Speaker, there is much talk about re-designing the justice system to make it relevant to the needs of aboriginal people. A complete overhaul of the RCMP Complaints Commission must be included in this process. It is time to see some action.

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to be addressing this whole issue of justice of the aboriginal people. Thank you.

---Applause.

Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. An article appeared on the front page of the Globe & Mail, yesterday, written by Miro Cernetig who has been following the workings of our Legislature for some time now. I know that many of his comments upset people because some of the non-aboriginal people tend to be cast in the mould of the "continually critical" of the consensus form of government that we have in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, I have been interested in our development for the last 30 years, beginning with the Carruthers Commission and the travel in the eastern Arctic in the mid 60s. Now that I am in political office, I value my freedom of speech and the right to express my opinion on situations in our system.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we are in the process of evolution, and although I am seen as one of the strong proponents of party politics, I would like to make it absolutely clear that party politics, as it exists in this country, is not in good shape. I am not in favour of any kind of system where a party dictates every single thing you say, every movement you make because it is, in my opinion, as inconsistent with the idea of being a representative of people. That is fundamental to our system of government, we represent people. Although what we have now has its weaknesses, I see us evolving in a way that is consistent with the idea that we are represented by people and that we are not controlled by big, large, powerful interest groups. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am aware that certain comments I made in the Globe & Mail article, tabled yesterday, have given offence to some Members. My comments were intended to describe what I saw as a spirit of antagonism, intolerance and ill-will in this House that has rarely been seen before and that has surprised and disappointed many of our constituents through the Northwest Territories.

If we search our hearts, most of us have felt the negative forces. Perhaps, my own very painful experience while attempting to be a Member of Cabinet in this 12th Legislature has coloured my view of the situation. Perhaps I was too candid in suggesting that some of the undercurrents swirling beneath the surface are rooted in racial intolerance. Undoubtedly, I have offended those who are least deserving of those comments. However, Mr. Speaker, even though in my view it is battered and bleeding, as I once described myself as a Minister, I still believe in the spirit of consensus government which I saw working so well in the 9th to the 11th Assemblies. I certainly do not believe in the quick fix of political parties suggested by some observers. I am aware that Members of the western caucus have been working hard recently under the guidance of Mr. Koe as chair, and making good progress on a new Committee of Western Political Leaders to plan for the constitutional future of the western territory. I know that this work has the full support of Mr. Kakfwi, as the responsible Minister, and the Cabinet. I am looking forward to hearing the results of this work and discussing the report of the Commission on Western Constitutional Development during this session.

I also welcome the initiative of the government to sponsor a strategy session between MLAs and Cabinet to discuss, among other things, the issue of consensus government and how it can be improved. I believe that the people of the Northwest Territories expect us to confront and openly discuss this difficult issue. I do not think we should pretend that everything is all right. I hope the work of the Committee of Western Political Leaders and the joint strategy session goes well. These are encouraging developments in the spirit of tolerance, cooperation and hard work, which I believe all of our constituents expect and deserve from our Legislature. Qujannamiik.

Item 3, Members' statements. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the topic on the point of order that I raised yesterday was discussed in the Ordinary Members' Caucus. We had very much hoped that a ruling would have been made today. The Members of the Ordinary Members' Caucus agreed that the language used by the Minister of Housing yesterday was inappropriate, and will not be tolerated by Members on this side of the House.

---Applause

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate you are unable to make a ruling on my point of order of yesterday. I am not, by any means, challenging your procedures. However, I do not feel I am an irresponsible Member. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, until a ruling is made, I have decided to leave this House in a form of protest. I want you to be aware, and Members to be aware, that I contemplated the idea of moving to adjourn the proceedings of this House, however, I do not feel it is in the best interest of the public. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you. I would like to remind Members that it is very important to remember that the Speaker must remain impartial. The Speaker must be allowed to take the time to deliberate on a decision, enough time that he thinks is necessary to give a proper decision. The Speaker cannot be seen to be, or be intimidated by the views of individual Members or blocks of Members. So, the Speaker will make the decision in due course and the Speaker's decision will not be affected by any of the concepts put forward here or anywhere. Thank you.

---Applause

Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today because I want to talk about cruise missile testing in the Northwest Territories. Honourable Members will know that for several years the Government of Canada and the United States have had an agreement to test cruise missiles in northern Canada. There are no warheads on these missiles, I am told. They are unarmed and are only being tested. However, these missiles fly through Dene airspace in my constituency. Mr. Speaker, I have talked to people who are in the bush on their trap lines and they have seen these missiles fly above the trees. They

are followed by B-52 bombers. From the way they described it, it was a very awesome and astonishing sight.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I am opposed to cruise missile testing and I am also opposed to war. Last January I saw the coverage on television which showed how cruise missiles were used in the war in Iraq. I saw how destructive these cruise missiles could be. I saw on television where they wiped out a hotel and a bomb shelter. We were not allowed to see all the destruction that was caused by these cruise missiles. In both cases, there were pictures of Iraqi people who were bleeding, including women and children. I had troubled feelings in my heart, Mr. Speaker. I felt like the Northwest Territories had contributed to that destruction by allowing those missiles to be tested in the air over our traditional lands.

I am still troubled today, Mr. Speaker. The 1983 pact between Canada and the United States which allows cruise missile testing over the Mackenzie Valley, is about to expire. However, last week Ottawa announced that it will be renewed for another ten years. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you recall that three previous Legislative Assemblies have passed motions expressing their opposition to continue with cruise missile testing in the Northwest Territories. My predecessor, Nick Sibbeston, and my honourable colleague from Deh Cho have spoken out in the House many times against using the peaceful north as a testing ground for these war machines.

I truly hope that our Premier and her Cabinet make these views known to our federal counterparts in Ottawa. I think all northerners would be very interested in knowing more about the process that surrounded the decision to involve the Northwest Territories in further testing of the cruise missile. Mahsi Cho, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a reply to Mr. Antoine's question on Thursday, February 18, 1993.

Funding for non-insured health benefits for alcohol and drug treatment outside the Northwest Territories is provided, in full, by federal government contribution dollars. This program has had a financial ceiling on it for the last two years. Funding for this contribution agreement has been fully utilized before the end of each fiscal year.

The contribution agreement clearly states that this funding is provided solely for the treatment of the chemically dependent person. Unfortunately, this fund cannot be used to provide services for non-addicted family members.

While there is currently no family treatment available in the Northwest Territories, the Department of Social Services is currently reviewing options to consider the provision of family treatment services. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 4, returns to oral questions. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Whitford.

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what was broadcast over the news, at 23:51 on February 22, a total system outage to the Yellowknife/Snare system did occur. Relaying indicated a phase to ground fault on the Nerco feeder. Subsequent line patrol located a location where wire had been thrown over the circuit. The power was restored at 12:25 a.m. Mr. Speaker, this matter is presently under investigation. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Whitford.