Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Further to questions from Mr. Lewis, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian polar commission was established with the full support of this government as a body to monitor activities of the Government of Canada and its agencies in scientific research in the north. It is a body with a mandate to report to Parliament on research priorities and research needs of the Canadian north. Mr. Lewis has referred to the conference held in Edmonton, replete with federal officials, which recommends that Canada should develop an economic strategy for the north.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, who has just surprised me by describing this conference as a success, would he not agree that the realm of economic strategy for the Northwest Territories is public policy within the responsibility of the Government of the Northwest Territories and very far removed from research and research priorities for federal agencies in the federal government in the north?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Bailey was invited to the conference. I thought it was a good idea that he attend the conference. I think there is a problem in jurisdiction, and it is something that Mr. Patterson is well aware of. We do not have sovereignty in the Northwest Territories as a province would. Consequently, there are a number of departments involved in the economics of things in the Northwest Territories. I think we have to face the fact that we do not have total responsibility. I guess we could have said, "No, we are not going to attend that conference," but we felt that it was in our best interest to have a representative there. I think these are some of the things that the Northwest Territories, when it divides, is going to have to address. That is, who will set the policy for the north? That means we have to get more powers into the Northwest Territories, be it in the western Arctic or in Nunavut, Mr. Speaker. When it comes down to the public policy, I guess there are two sets of policies. One belonging to the federal government and one belonging to the Government of the Northwest Territories. Many times, Mr. Speaker, they overlap which causes some confusion. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am concerned about the willingness of the Minister and the Government Leader to appear to be surrendering responsibility to the Government of Canada because we do not have sovereignty or because we depend on them for money. Given the attention that has been paid by this Legislature and previous Legislatures on economic strategy, developing an economic strategy, and consulting our people of the development of economic strategy, would the Minister not agree that this government and this Legislature should be the primary voice for determining economic priorities and economic strategy in the north, whether or not the federal government wants to do it? Does the Minister agree that our voice should be the primary voice?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could recount last night. Madam Premier and myself met with Shell Oil, who were up here for a visit yesterday. They told me, at the end of the meeting, that in previous years they had not known who to do business with and primarily they had liaised with the federal government. They told us last night that obviously this is where they should be dealing. I think we are making inroads into saying that this is the government that you should be dealing with in the Northwest Territories. I think we also have to respect the fact that many aboriginal organizations feel the federal government is the government they wish to liaise with. When it comes down to issues of CAEDS, where it is a federal program, aboriginal organizations look to the federal government.

At the conference Mr. Bailey attended, there was recognition that there is confusion between who is doing what and who they are doing it with in the Northwest Territories. There was a discussion on the strategy to coordinate development in the northern parts of Canada, in northern Quebec and in the Yukon as well, so we each know the ground that each other is staking out. I would like to be able to respond to Mr. Patterson and say, "Yes, this is the group that you should be dealing with, the Government of the Northwest Territories will set all the policies and we will set the guidelines and say what the rules are," but, Mr. Speaker, we do not have all that legislation at our disposal. There are things that the federal government is involved in. We have to accept that. When Mr. Patterson was Government Leader, he was keen on the responsibilities devolving from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. That is the way we are going to gain total control. In the meantime, we have to recognize there are many interests out there and we should be trying to cooperate with all of them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept that, as far as federal government programs and legislation, we may not fully occupy the field of economic planning, but we are talking about an independent agency of the federal government called the Canadian polar commission, which is purporting to tell us what strategies we should be following in the Northwest Territories. One of the ideas was we should create a country food marketing board. I do not know whether or not that is a good idea, Mr. Speaker, but would the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism not agree that decisions of that kind should be made by our government? Would it be appropriate to clarify with the Canadian polar commission that their priorities, as we understood them when we supported their creation, were to set research priorities and discuss research needs and they have no business telling our government what our economic policies and strategy should be for our people?

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, when I receive Mr. Bailey's report, and I see what the recommendations from that polar commission study says about the Northwest Territories, when I get a feeling of what their intent is, then I will definitely respond to them. In the meantime, I am going to keep my counsel, and let us see what was written first of all. As far as us participating, I would rather have someone at the table who can speak for us, who can understand what is going on around the table, than boycott the conference and not be there and not know what was said in that particular meeting, Mr. Speaker. I will respond when I receive a copy of the report. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Supplementary, Mr. Zoe.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Government Leader. I received a letter from Mr. Whit Fraser, the chairman of the board of the polar commission, expressing his concerns about statements that are being made in this House about the mandate of the polar science commission. He states, "Our mandate instructs us to promote northern institutions and issues and provide information to the Government of Canada, either in the way of recommendations or proposed policy statements." So my question to the Premier is this, since we are so pleased with this, from the report by Mr. Bailey, is she prepared to accept that the polar commission makes policy recommendations to the federal government as to what should happen in her jurisdiction?

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, so not to overstate anything, I believe in the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism's reply, he stated that his deputy minister was pleased that the meeting went well and that the discussion was well-received. He did not refer to the role of the polar commission and the role it was playing. Thank you.