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.

Ms. Cournoyea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member did ask a question on the previous outage, and I did not receive any information from the NWT Power Corporation. However, I will take this into consideration, find out what happened and report back tomorrow. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Like many northerners, Mr. Speaker, I was annoyed to learn that a ten year agreement had been renewed between Canada and the United States to allow more testing of the cruise missile over the Mackenzie Valley. I am not satisfied with this, Mr. Speaker. I was further annoyed by the silence from our government. Can the Premier indicate whether the Government of the Northwest Territories had any input into the decision to finalize this deal between the federal government and the United States? Thank you.

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, over the last number of years there have been several initiatives to have the voice of the Northwest Territories, on behalf of its people, be heard. The former Government Leader had endeavoured to have this relationship considered on a discussion paper. In October, 1991, the Department of National Defence responded to the discussion paper, which we did send in, regarding the ongoing negotiations to determine measures which can contribute to world peace. They said it did not include the establishment of a circumpolar zone of peace and security. The federal government considers cruise missile testing and low level training missions in the north as an important contribution to NATO's defence capabilities.

Canadian Armed Forces will continue to maintain considerable air and sub-surface surveillance to reinforce Canadian sovereignty in the north. National Defence is committed to working with the Government of the Northwest Territories respecting its military activities in the Northwest Territories and has established a new directorate in Ottawa to assess the environmental, economic, social and community relations impact of defence activities. Changing the national/international circumstances are contributing to an ongoing review of the Canadian military's mandate and future direction. As Minister Campbell's recent announcement demonstrates, this review produces decisions even though United States administration has only been in office for a few weeks. A letter has been sent, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Defence Campbell expressing the Government of the Northwest Territories' concern about the absence of advanced consultation on recent cruise missile testing missions and notification of the decision to renew the agreement. Mr. Speaker, we were not consulted. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is sad to see that people of the Northwest Territories are powerless to influence what happens in the skies over their own homeland. The Premier knows that the people of the Northwest Territories, many times in the past, have passed motions in previous Assemblies and that we do not favour testing of these destructive missiles. Can she explain why her government did not take a more forceful position in making these views known, before this agreement was renewed? Thank you.

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I feel that the previous Minister did take a forceful position by preparing a position paper to be presented to identify the areas of concern which have been put forward and the need to look at the north in a circumpolar concept, and deciding on future policy and strategic military decisions. Mr. Speaker, we certainly did anticipate or expect to be consulted, be knowledgeable and be told about any reinstatement. Even though we did receive an October, 1991, response to our draft paper, we did feel that there would be some honour and respect paid to the concerns of Northwest Territories' residents and that we would continue to try to agree on a set of guidelines which would satisfy the residents. Mr. Speaker, in the relationship with the Department of National Defence, as the honourable Member knows, this particular segment of the Government of Canada tends to have a very insulated activity mandate where they do not really like interference on the mandate of what they call "peace and security." Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that we would have a detailed response in reply to the response from the Department of National Defence on our issue paper for November, 1993. I hope the honourable Member knows that, as Government Leader, I am fully aware of the issues which this House has raised and the position which people feel in regard to having no involvement and no input into terms of particular cruise missile testing and military activity. However, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to try to press for recognition, and we will do this in any way we can. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At Expo in Vancouver and in Seville, the people of the Northwest Territories have tried to show the rest of the world how we live in a peaceful homeland with traditional values. Also, we are trying to build economic links with countries where previous traditional relations have been poor, such as Russia and former communist countries of eastern Europe. I am concerned that the decision to renew this agreement will show other countries that we are the home of the cruise missile. This is not an image I think the Premier should be proud to present. It is not a very good image. Mr. Speaker, will the Minister agree to meet immediately with the Honourable Kim Campbell, federal Minister of National Defence, to express our displeasure with this agreement? Thank you.

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I have sent a letter to the Honourable Kim Campbell requesting a meeting to

review the substantive issues related to military activity in the Northwest Territories. This letter has been written. We have had an acknowledgement, but no date set. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. I would like to take this opportunity to welcome in the gallery, Bertha Allen, the president of the Native Women's Association of the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

Mr. Gargan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Health. Honourable Members will recall that in June of 1992, the abortion service review committee submitted its report to the acting Minister of Health, the Honourable Nellie Cournoyea. This report was subsequently tabled in this House. The Minister will recall that the review committee made a number of recommendations that responded to various problems raised at that time. I understand that, with respect to medical care and the complaint procedure, the recommendations have been addressed. However, I am interested in the recommendations that suggest improvements in the information counselling and education services available to women. Can the Minister advise the House whether policies and programs that address each issue are now in place?

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will provide the information and the policy to the Member. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions.

(Microphone turned off)

That was not taken as notice. I have said many times, I have to take it as notice verbally. Supplementary, Mr. Gargan.

The review committee found that patients who are given an accurate description of the intended treatment will experience less anxiety and, as a result, less pain. Can the Minister indicate whether she has requested management of the Stanton Yellowknife Hospital to periodically review case files to ensure that patients are provided with this information?

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take his question as notice and provide the Member with more information at a later date. Thank you.

Question has been taken as notice. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am going to direct my question to the Minister of Renewable Resources. In 1992, when I was an ordinary Member, I brought an issue up in the House regarding funding provided to Sanikiluaq for environmental assessment projects. Some communities in Nunavut were also given funding to do environmental assessment projects. They will hold public hearings. Could the Minister of Renewable Resources update me as to what has been happening in that area? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Allooloo.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be able to table the report regarding the environmental assessment projects. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a supplementary to my question to the Minister of Renewable Resources. Since the environmental committees have been provided by the Department of Renewable Resources, should the Minister be thanked for providing the funding? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Allooloo.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Regarding my involvement with Sanikiluaq and the Keewatin committees, when they wanted an environmental assessment panel, I applied for funding from the federal government, funding that would be used by Sanikiluaq and other communities. My department will coordinate any presentations by our government at the environmental assessment hearings in regard to the hydro project in northern Quebec. However, at the hearing, I am not really involved. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance advise how much revenue this government will generate in the 1993-94 O and M budget by implementing the new government staff housing strategy?

Mr. Pollard.

I think it was somewhere in excess of $5 million. Now, there has been a setback, Mr. Speaker, that would have to be taken off, so I think there is $3 million to be gained. I will check those numbers and confirm them tomorrow. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister advise us how much savings of expenditures will result by the government getting out of the staff housing business?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, we are not looking at getting out of the staff housing for a savings, per se. There is a great deal more to it than that. There will be savings to us. I cannot give you those numbers. It depends on the number of houses we sell, the areas that we sell those houses in and the price that we get for those houses. Cabinet is approaching selling our houses for a different reason. It is to get an economy and home ownership going in communities, to get people investing in equity which is ownership of physical structure, as opposed to just paying rent out constantly and having nothing to show for it at the end of a period of time. I will go back and see if we have any long-term numbers crunched, Mr. Speaker, and bring them back to the House. I will take the question as notice. Thank you.

Question has been taken as notice. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Pudluk.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This question is directed to the Minister of Transportation. There is a problem that has been ongoing in my community. A driver's licence has to have a picture of the person on the card. The people who have taken the driving test have their own numbers. Once the driver's licence has been sent to Yellowknife and it has been sent back, they always categorize it as class five. I wonder why there is a different classification after it has been returned from Yellowknife. They send it off as a class three and it is returned as a class five.

Mr. Todd.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. I will have to ask the department why. It does not seem to make any sense to me why it is determined in Resolute Bay as a class three, and it comes to Yellowknife as a class five. I would have to check with the department and get back to you. I will take it as notice.

Well done, Mr. Todd. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Whitford.

That was two questions, Mr. Whitford. Would you like to ask one question?

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Inuvik regional health board has three x-ray units: a primary unit - Picker 6X-650 with starlight Fluroscopy; a secondary unit - Picker K-300; and a portable unit - Hitachi DGC-100. We are planning to replace that sometime down the road. It will be replaced with a new unit in the proposed new health facility when it is built.

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

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It will be replaced in approximately five years.

Supplementary, Mr. Whitford.

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The representatives from the Department of Health, the Inuvik regional health board and Department of Government Services and Public Works will be meeting on February 25 to 26, 1993, to develop options and prepare a plan of action for replacing the X-ray unit at the Inuvik regional hospital.

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

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realize this X-ray unit has to be replaced, but at the same time, the electrical wiring cannot handle this type of machine. Even if we could replace it by August 1993, up until the time DPW goes to Inuvik and makes the assessment on the electrical wiring on the hospital, we would not be able to replace it. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, the X-ray machine in question is going to be condemned by May of this year. The estimated cost to renovate the rooms is about $900,000. Why should the hospital have to wait until the department gets their act together. Why can the department not act now?

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I have just stated in responding to Mr. Whitford's question, representatives from the Department of Health, the Inuvik regional health board and the Department of Government Services and Public Works will be meeting February 25 to 26, 1993, to develop an option and prepare a plan of action for replacing the X-ray unit at the Inuvik regional hospital. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this Assembly, during the last capital budget session, a motion was passed recommending that the planning for a new health facility in the Inuvik region be started at the beginning of this fiscal year. What is the department doing to start the planning for a new health facility in the Inuvik region?

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take that question as notice and get back to the Member.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Whitford.

Ms. Mike.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I have stated earlier, representatives from the Department of Health, Inuvik regional health board and the Department of Government Services and Public Works will be meeting February 25 to 26, 1993, to develop options. Up until that date, I cannot provide you with any more information.

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

You are asking an opinion of the Minister. I think the Minister has answered on three occasions the question that has been asked in a slightly different way. I think that line of question is closed. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Education. In November of 1992, a joint submission was prepared by the Beaufort/Delta board of education, the Inuvialuit social development program, the Gwich'in tribal council and Arctic College. This proposal was submitted to the Department of Education to establish a teacher education program in the Beaufort Delta region. As far as I know, they only received acknowledgement of this proposal a few weeks ago from the new Minister. What is the status of this proposal to establish a teacher education program in the Beaufort Delta region?

Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to indicate to the honourable Member that the status is that we, as a department, supported the proposal. We have submitted it for funding, through the aboriginal language program funding, but we have not yet received indication as to whether it is going to be funded or not, other than to indicate Cabinet is supporting it as a priority.

Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Who is responsible for the aboriginal language funding?

Mr. Nerysoo.

Mr. Speaker, if I could clarify that particular matter, the actual responsible agent is through the Government Leader's office. However, I want to indicate to the honourable Member that all the submissions which have received approval and support require a meeting between the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government to agree on the priorities and expenditure of the funding that has been allocated under the languages agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We have supported the submission, now it is a matter of an agreement between the two parties.

Item 5, oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Koe. New question, Mr. Pudluk. Mr. Patterson next.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for the Power Corporation. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, if the government's new long-term staff housing strategy is implemented July 1, 1993, some 1,800 staff housing units will change their status from government housing to a private residence and thereby subsidized rates for the purposes of billing power to each one of those units. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister is, will this change of categories for these 1,800 or so units affect the revenues of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation?

Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, yes.

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

In preparing for this budget session I would expect, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister has calculated the impact of this revenue adjustment. Could the Minister provide this House with an estimate of what precisely this revenue change will be on the Power Corporation's revenues in the coming fiscal year?