Good afternoon. Before we proceed with the orders of the day, I would like to recognize in the gallery a former colleague, Mr. John T'Seleie.

---Applause

I understand John has been drafted to play for the media hockey team. Orders of the day. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my statement concerns the health billings dispute with the federal government. On December 8, 1992, the Government of the Northwest Territories began a legal action in the federal court of Canada against the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Health and Welfare Canada.

The legal action is claiming about $80 million in unpaid invoices for hospital care services provided to aboriginal persons in the Northwest Territories. Payment for treatment of aboriginal persons in the NWT is a federal responsibility and is covered under contribution agreements dated October 28, 1986 and August 23, 1989.

The preamble of the contribution agreement reads as follows, and I quote: "WHEREAS Parliament annually approves the payment of a contribution to the territories (in addition to the amount payable pursuant to the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act) so calculated that Canada will assume the total cost of hospital care provided to status Indians and Inuit as interpreted in the Indian Act."

Clause one of both agreements states, and I quote: "This contribution is being made available to the territories for the purpose of financing the total cost of hospital care for status Indians and Inuit."

Mr. Speaker, it is the position of the GNWT that Canada's legal obligations under these contribution agreements were not altered by the 1988 health transfer agreement, although the method of calculating the reciprocal billing amounts was affected slightly. During the year 1990, disputes between Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories arose relating to aspects of the calculation of hospital costs and the legal status of nursing stations providing care.

During subsequent discussion between officials, Canada began to advance the position that the 1988 health transfer agreement had devolved to the GNWT all responsibility for the provision and funding of hospital care for aboriginal persons.

This position is advanced by Mr. Richard Van Loon, who was then the assistant deputy minister of the Department of Indian and Northern Development, in his letter of April 4,1991, to Mr. Bob Cowcill, former deputy minister of Health for the GNWT. Mr. Van Loon states, and I quote:

"DIAND's position is that Health and Welfare Canada transferred, and the GNWT accepted, a fully funded hospital and health care system when it took over the responsibility for the Baffin health services in 1986 and 1987 and the remainder of nursing stations and health services in the west in 1988. The acceptance of these program transfers also assumes GNWT's responsibility for the subsequent delivery and complete funding of these services to all residents from existing financial resources."

Mr. Speaker, it has always been the understanding and position of the GNWT that the effect of the 1988 health transfer was to mandate the GNWT to deliver, but not to fund, hospital care to aboriginal persons. This position was clearly articulated by the Government Leader, the Honourable Nellie Cournoyea in her letter of September 28, 1991, to the Honourable Tom Siddon when she stated, and I quote:

"In our telephone discussion, you inquired as to why the health transfer should be treated any differently than other federal program devolution's to the GNWT. The answer is simple. The Government of Canada, represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, had in place before each health transfer, and renewed after each transfer, separate contribution agreements with the GNWT so calculated that Canada would assume the total cost of hospital and medical care provided to status Indians and Inuit.'

"With each of the successive health transfers, the GNWT assumed the full service delivery responsibility for the areas affected and the financial risk for growth beyond the health transfer funding amounts received for Health headquarters costs, medical travel (excluding the non-insured co-payment for status Indian and Inuit), and for hospital and medical care services for non-natives. The GNWT was, however, afforded protection through the DIAND contribution agreements against escalating hospital and medical care costs beyond any transferred amounts received for Indians and Inuit.

"In our view, DIAND must recognize its fundamental responsibilities to registered Indians and Inuit, which were not altered by the transfer of health services, and the unique role of GNWT as the agent of DIAND in managing a health services delivery system on their behalf through a legal agreement. We believe we are doing so in an effective, efficient, and culturally sensitive manner."

Paragraph 32 of the statement of defence states, in part, and I quote: "The phased devolution and all associated federal funding provided a complete and unified health service for status Indians and Inuit utilizing the hospitals, nursing stations and related health services previously operated by the Department of National Health and Welfare."

Canada goes further and alleges the following in paragraph 34 of the statement of defence, and I quote: "Status Indians and Inuit groups were consulted and they approved of the phased devolution of health services from the Department of National Health and Welfare to the Government of the Northwest Territories."

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories is determined it must take all lawful steps and means to resist Canada's devolution interpretation of the 198 health transfer agreement for two basic and compelling reasons:

1. Financial

If the GNWT has total responsibility for the funding of aboriginal hospital care then there is no limit to the amount of financial off-loading that can be done by Canada to the detriment of hospital care for aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories.

---Applause

2. Historical And Political

Historically and continuing to the present day, there has always been a special relationship between Canada and aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories with respect to health care. It would be wrong for Canada and the GNWT to interfere with and change that special relationship without the informed consent of aboriginal people.

---Applause

It is the position of the GNWT that it has not been, nor will it every be, a participant in a transaction which interferes with any special relationship enjoyed by aboriginal people with Canada, unless prior informed consent has been given.

---Applause

The GNWT has made every effort to induce Canada to return to the negotiating table pursuant to finding an interim solution for the next three years. Thereafter, Mr. Speaker, tripartite discussions will have to be held by the Government of the Northwest Territories, Canada and Nunavut to transfer the Nunavut portion of health services.

In the view of the GNWT, if Canada wishes to attempt to devolve aspects of its special health care relationship with aboriginal persons, the opportune time to explore the question is during the Nunavut discussions. Mr. Speaker, Canada refuses to return to the negotiating table and continues to insist that it no longer has any responsibility for aboriginal hospital care in the Northwest Territories.

The Government of the Northwest Territories will not materially interfere with the special relationship between Canada and aboriginal peoples concerning health care, without first obtaining the informed consent of the aboriginal people.

Accordingly, the GNWT can never acquiesce or agree to Canada's devolution interpretation of the 1988 health transfer agreement.

As a result, the Government of the Northwest Territories has instructed its lawyers to take the position that if the court accepts that the legal effect of the 1988 health transfer agreement is to devolve all responsibility for aboriginal hospital care to the GNWT, then the court must go on to rescind the 1988 health transfer agreement on the basis of mistake or fundamental error as to the nature and effect of the agreement. If the court was to order rescission the result would be a return to Canada of the hospitals, nursing stations, equipment and personnel that were transferred in 1988.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories regrets exposing the current health system to the possibility of being returned to Canada, but there is no other reasonable alternative presently available to resolve the impasse with Canada. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Pollard. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories strives for excellence in its programs and services. I am pleased to announce that the conference board of Canada selected Qitiqliq School in Arviat as a 1992-93 winner of the national award for excellence in business-education partnerships in the elementary and secondary category...

---Applause

...and Arctic College and the NWT tourism training group as a winner in the post-secondary category.

---Applause

A community planning team made up of representatives of Qitiqliq School and other partners in Arviat have been developing innovative approaches to secondary programming since 1990 in areas such as trades technologies, business and entrepreneurship, as well as skills for independent living.

In the trades area a local business, Leonard & Associates Ltd, has agreed to participate in partnership with the school to provide students with a mentor, job shadowing and work exposure. Students gain employment skills and practical experience in using tools and equipment. The school has also developed an office management services and local organizations have referred their bookkeeping and secretarial work to the school business program.

Qitiqliq School exemplifies the kind of success we can experience when secondary programs are extended to communities. In 1992 this school graduated 12 students from the grade 12 program. Businesses and other organizations are full partners with Qitiqliq School and the school's accomplishments are a source of community pride.

The winners in the post-secondary category, Arctic College and the NWT tourism training group, have been working together since 1989 in the delivery of tourism training. So far the college has trained over 400 people for the NWT tourism industry, 90 per cent of whom are aboriginal residents.

Programs such as guide training, tourism management and hospitality training are offered as part of tourism training. In partnership with the NWT tourism training group, the college is striving to develop professionalism and quality service in the NWT tourism industry.

I congratulate the community of Arviat, Arctic College and the NWT tourism group for their accomplishments. These two successful partnerships between business and education are achievements we all can be proud of. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Whitford.

Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have been concerned for many years about the inclination of governments across the country to seek a big bang solution to economic problems. It has long been my opinion that mega projects such as a natural gas pipeline or massive mining projects would proceed despite what governments do and not because of what governments do. They would be largely self-financed and what they would ask from government is consistency, stability, fairness and the clear framework from which they can operate. They do very little to advance our economy for the long-term growth of our people. They often help to create a boom and bust cycle which is socially destabilizing. However, in the large Canadian context they help fill the federal government coffers where we have to recognize we get 85 per cent of our money from. It is obviously in our interest to make sure that they proceed and that we do not put unnecessary obstacles in their paths. The mistake is in believing that mega projects will provide a future for our people. We have a small population spread over a very large area. The challenge for our people is to identify some small niches where we can support the few families in every community if possible.

This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there is a very important session at the winter cities convention dealing with the issue of transportation. I shall be absent from the House because this is of great concern to my constituents and of interest to many people of the Northwest Territories, and it may have some impact into our future economic development. Thank you.

Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Over the past few months honourable Members and government employees have been concerned about the implementation of the government staff housing strategy. On March 11, 1993 discussions were held in this House and Motion 81-12(3) was passed in committee of the whole. This motion detailed some of the strategies and directions that ordinary Members felt were fair in implementing the strategy. During the discussions the Minister of Personnel responded to the motion expressing the government's concerns regarding the motion and what they could or could not accept. However, to date we have not heard any official response from the Cabinet on this motion. Mr. Speaker, there is still much confusion in the communities and tenants are still

not aware of the official position and strategy at this time. I understand that a letter has been sent to all tenants on March 17, 1993, and it details the changes made to the staff housing strategy. In the letter, implementation dates have been specified. I believe it is 15 per cent on August 1, 1993, 15 per cent on August 1, 1994, and increased to full market rent on August 1, 1995. There were many other issues and items detailed in this letter to the staff. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that, again, this government is proceeding full boar on a strategy without consulting MLAs. Mr. Speaker, I will be raising questions on this issue at a later time today. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Koe. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of visiting Nanook School in Apex. I visited some very dedicated young people in class. At the time I visited they were discussing leadership. The children and their very dedicated staff, including the caretaker, Mr. Aku Kownirk are making the very best of their temporary accommodation at the old IODE hall. Also, they have been very closely following the political process, discussions in this House, letters from the Minister of Public Works, the Baffin Divisional Board of Education, the Minister of Education, the Niaqunguut Education Council about their new school. The students have seen the plans and they have participated in discussions about the site. This process has been a great education in the political process for these children. I do hope their involvement in this process will lead to good results.

Mr. Speaker, these children are very anxious to have a gym in their new school. They want to find ways of actively participating in the decision-making process. They have given me a package of messages they made themselves, including drawings of each MLA, including the Minister of Education. I will now distribute these. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that these young people have taken it upon themselves to participate in our political process. They also told me that in addition to these messages, they will now be praying for a new gym. So will I. Qujannamiik. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance, the Honourable John Pollard, made a statement today about the health billings dispute. I am finding it very difficult to sit back and not say anything about it. Mr. Speaker, I am a treaty Indian and I am proud to be Dene. This dispute affects my immediate family and the majority of the people in my constituency that I represent in this Legislative Assembly. The people who are non-aboriginal or Metis people in my constituency understand that the majority of people in my constituency are treaty and running for this position, I indicated to people that one of the issues which has to be cleared up is the issue between treaty Indian people in the west and the federal government. This government does not take that very seriously because there are many chiefs and band councils in the west who are saying that there are programs and services which they are entitled to that are being handled in a public government forum, and they are not satisfied with that arrangement. This health billings dispute is a good example, Mr. Speaker, about that arrangement.

The Government of the Northwest Territories has made arrangements with the federal government to provide health services to treaty Indians and Inuit. In my particular case -- I am speaking only about treaty Indians -- treaty rights are in jeopardy. There is a danger and I am scared of this situation on behalf of the treaty Indians in the west. My rights are being negotiated between this government and the federal government, and the treaty Indians themselves who are going to be affected by the results of this dispute are not directly involved. They have to be involved.

---Applause

I know the federal government's position...

Mr. Antoine, your allotted time has elapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to continue. Mahsi.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the federal government's position says that the status Indian and Inuit groups were consulted and they approved of the phased devolution of health services from the federal government to the Government of the Northwest Territories. I totally disagree with that. Never, in my opinion, was approval or consent given. My understanding is that the territorial government will administer the health services on behalf of the federal government. Otherwise, if the treaty Indians knew this was the case, they would never have approved this arrangement in this first place. Mahsi.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Antoine. Item 3, Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to oral question asked by Mrs. Marie-Jewell with respect to the purpose of licences to retailers.

Section 58(1) of the Liquor Act requires that all money received from licence fees are deposited to the credit of the Government of the Northwest Territories in a special account called the "liquor revolving fund." Subsection 58(2) states, "all other money derived from the administration shall be deposited in the consolidated revenue fund." The fact money received from licence fees are deposited to the consolidated revenue fund implies that at least part of the purpose of the fee is to raise government revenue.

The act empowers the Liquor Licensing Board to make regulations "prescribing the rights, privileges, conditions and obligations attaching to the licences" and also to fix the fees that are payable. Holding a liquor licence is a privilege, and is a privilege for which a licence fee must be paid.

There are many other privileges for which the government charges a fee. For example, there is a fee to register a vehicle and another fee to drive a vehicle. There is a fee for a hunting licence and a separate graduated fee for hunting tags. All of these fees produce revenues. Thank you.

Item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Pollard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a return to oral question, asked by Mr. Gargan on March 11, 1993, regarding the impact of changes to federal UIC legislation.

On December 2, 1992, as part of the economic statement, the federal Minister of Finance announced a number of changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. These changes included:

1. A freeze on unemployment insurance premium rates for employees and employers, at 1992 levels;

2. An exemption from additional UI premiums for small businesses which increase employment;

3. A freeze on average UI benefits at 1992-93 levels; and,

4. Disqualification from receiving benefits for those who quit their jobs without just cause, or who are fired for cause.

The first change will benefit all employers and employees in the Northwest Territories, including the Government of the Northwest Territories. The second change will benefit new and small businesses in the Northwest Territories and will provide an incentive to create employment. The third change will mean that benefit levels for NWT recipients in 1993-94 will not increase. Finally, the last change will reduce slightly the number of eligible claims from what would otherwise be the case. In 1992, approximately six per cent of UI claimants in Canada fell into these categories. The corresponding percentage for the Northwest Territories is not available.

As a result of representations by various interest groups, the legislation originally tabled in the House of Commons has been amended to broaden the definition of "just cause." Nine reasons are being added to the five reasons already in the Unemployment Insurance Act.

In 1992, on average, there were 1,866 recipients of regular unemployment insurance benefits in the Northwest Territories. On average, the total amount of monthly regular benefits paid out was $2.4 million.

There will be no change in the treatment of seasonal workers such as fishermen, fire fighters or surveyors, who are laid off at the end of their employment. Seasonal employees, as with all employees in the Northwest Territories, will need 20 weeks of employment in the last year to qualify for benefits. However, if they have worked at least 14 weeks in the year before that, only 10 weeks are required in the last year to qualify for benefits. These eligibility criteria have not changed as a result of the amended legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member's statement today I raised issues related to the implementation of the long-term government staff housing strategy. A motion was passed in this Assembly on March 11, 1993, giving direction to the government on implementation of the strategy. However, it seems that the government has ignored some of our recommendations and wrote a letter to all tenants on March 17 outlining what their implementation plan is. Mr. Speaker, the MLAs were not even given a copy of this letter, nor were they notified of the implementation strategy. My question to the Minister of Personnel is, when does the Minister intend to officially notify this House on their response to Motion 81-12(3)?

Mr. Kakfwi.

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

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I was not 100 per cent certain that the comments you made on that date, March 11, were the official position, since in your preamble you stated, "We are prepared to make some amendments to the strategy which is called for in the proposed motion in which the Members are going to vote on." No amendments were officially proposed at that time. Then, you proceeded with the statements which you just quoted. I am a little confused and so are tenants as to what the official position is. One of the items in the motion passed by this Assembly, and you alluded to it, was that a working group be established to oversee and advise the government and report in the next and future sessions of the Assembly. Will the Minister be establishing a working group as per Motion 81-12(3)?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Many times the Minister has stated that he will keep MLAs informed and will talk to MLAs on this issue, yet on March 17, a letter was sent to tenants with much detail on all aspects of the implementation strategy and we as MLAs were not even given the courtesy of being informed or given a copy of this letter. Why were MLAs not informed or given copies of the implementation strategy, the details which were passed out to tenants?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Final supplementary, Mr. Koe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One other item which was in the motion passed by this Assembly was that the NWT property tax rebate be reinstated at $400 per year. In the Minister's response if it is the official position of the Cabinet, no mention was made to this item. Can the Minister please advise us as to their official position on this issue?

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Further to Mr. Koe's questions, some of my constituents have received a letter dated March 17 signed by Ken Lovely, deputy minister of Personnel, with a seven page attachment outlining adjustments to the long-term staff housing strategy which I will table later today. Mr. Speaker, one of the concerns which was expressed in the motion before this House earlier in committee of the whole was about the legality of the actions being taken by the Department of Personnel, whether they were acting in accordance with the Residential Tenancies Act. The letter from Mr. Lovely refers to the Landlord Tenants Act and that notices will conform to the format set out in the Landlord Tenants Act. Mr. Speaker, in searching the statutes of this Assembly I cannot find any reference to the Landlord Tenants Act except reference to an act that was repealed in 1987. I would like to ask the Minister of Personnel, since this act is repealed and it is referred to in the deputy minister's letter of March 17, 1993, which legislation is the Department of Personnel using in determining its legal obligations as a landlord to its tenants? Thank you.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously a major error in the information which has been given out to my constituents about this policy, Mr. Speaker, because it refers to an act which does not exist. Mr. Speaker, this same letter also repeats earlier statements in documents tabled by the Minister that tenants will get a rent increase effective August 1, and that if they do not agree to sign a new lease, they will then have an electrical charge added to their rent which reflects average community consumption at the higher rate per kilowatt hour which the government is obliged to pay. I think the Minister has seen a legal opinion that was provided to me through the offices of the law clerk which indicates that it would be illegal to make more than two rent changes in a year. I wonder if the Minister could tell me whether this legal opinion has been taken into account in the drafting of the letter of March 17, 1993, which seems to propose two rent increases in a year, contrary to the Residential Tenancies Act? Thank you.

According to our rules, that particular question asks the Minister for his interpretation of a legal opinion and is not proper under our rules, Mr. Patterson. Would you like to re-phrase that question? Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask it as a written question. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Government Leader. Since the Members are hoping to conclude the budget by the end of the month and hope that the session can come to a conclusion fairly quickly, there are a number of outstanding questions posed to the government to various Ministers which remain unanswered today. Would the Government Leader make every effort on behalf of the government to reply to the outstanding oral questions, perhaps by the end of the week if at all possible? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware there are some outstanding questions and of the request to have the responses as quickly as possible, hopefully we will have them by the end of the week. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the health billings dispute statement he made today. My concern is, the people who are affected by this legal action which is taking place do not know what is going on and how this issue is going to affect them. What is the Minister doing to inform the public about this crises to the treaty and Inuit people? Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, last July, I believe it was, our Premier called together the leaders of the aboriginal groups in the Northwest Territories and from southern Canada, and there was a discussion on this health billings dispute and how it affected aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories, and how it might affect people south of the 60th parallel, as well. We had agreement at the table at that time, that we would keep those people updated as to the status of our claim. That has been done and there is another letter which has just gone out, I believe yesterday, that did the same sort of thing. There will be information provided to MLAs so they can advise their constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. According to the statement that the Minister made earlier today, there is legal action that the federal government is not reimbursing to the territorial government for hospital care services for status Indians and Inuit people. I would like to ask the Minister, what is the nature of this dispute? When did this dispute start? Thank you.

Two questions for Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the question as notice and I would like to reply in writing because it is fairly technical. It involves the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the federal Department of Health, transfers into our base, our formula funding agreement with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and it is a very complicated situation which has arisen. I would like to reply in writing, taking the question as notice to read it into the record, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

The question has been taken as notice. If I can make one comment, this particular issue is a difficult one for the Legislative Assembly to deal with because it is a matter before the courts. It is a civil matter and the line of questioning as put forward by Mr. Antoine I will allow, because I can see no harm to an individual coming from those questions. I ask both Members and Ministers to be very cautious in the questions that are asked and the responses that Ministers may make on this particular issue. However, the question has been taken as notice. Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Kakfwi.

Item 5, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of the NWT Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, on February 19, I asked the Minister of the Housing Corporation a question on the new home ownership program. I asked if a person could own the land outright, or whether a band could grant land. The Minister said that people could own the land outright or have a lease on the land. I wanted to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am referring to band lands. Can the Minister advise if a person can have a lease on band lands in order to get access to a home ownership program? Thank you.

Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the bands lease the land to their members. I think it is done by band council resolution. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

I recognize that band lands, Crown lands for band members, are designated for use by a particular band member. However, Mr. Speaker, I am not clear as to whether the new home ownership program allows for the band to designate that land, or whether they have to be under a lease through a band council resolution in order to be eligible for the new home ownership program. Can the Minister clarify that, please?

Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the bands assign the lots to the clients. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

All right, maybe I will try it in another context, Mr. Speaker. On February 19, I had asked the Minister of the Housing Corporation if he would review and

determine the eligibility for lands which are to be used in order to access the new home ownership program and to advise the House of the particular criteria. Mr. Speaker, the Minister said at the time that he would do this, however I have not received a response with respect to that as of yet. I will make my questioning simpler in order to get an answer. Can the Minister tell the House today what is the eligibility for lands which are to be used in order to access the new home ownership program, particularly for band members? Thank you.

Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question which was asked on February 19, was replied to, Mr. Speaker, on February 26. Units delivered under the access program can be built on the following types of land: fee simple titled land; long-term leased land; and, band land, also known as Indian Affairs branch, (IAB) land or land reserved for Indian use, as long as a band council resolution is obtained allowing long-term use of the land.

These are the same criteria for land tenure that were used in the previous home ownership assistance program, the HAP program. I made that reply on February 26. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Speaker, thank you. The Minister has somewhat set out the criteria in respect to the eligibility for lands in order to access the home ownership program. However, I have been advised that the Housing Corporation is changing its housing programs for the access, particularly because now it is seeking repayment for loans in connection with the houses which it builds. Can the Minister inform the House whether CMHC has placed any restrictions on the corporation as far as its housing programs are concerned, particularly when they are designated for band members? Thank you.

Mr. Morin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Under the CMHC cost-shared program, we do not have any programs which are designated for band members. They are designated for the general public and we have to follow CMHC's programs and policies whenever we deliver any cost-shared program. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. You had your final supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There have been questions asked earlier this session about the proposed transfer of the parks division of Economic Development and Tourism to Renewable Resources. In her response on Wednesday, March 17, I believe in the absence of the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, Ms. Cournoyea said this is not a new issue, it has been studied before. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, what studies or reviews have lead the department to consider this transfer and, particularly, was this motivated by the Strength at Two Levels report which was one of the first documents tabled by this government once it came into office? Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I think when Madam Premier said that this was not a new idea, it was something which was discussed in the last Legislature, especially by committee, I believe. It was a suggestion from Renewable Resources, to the then Minister of Economic Development and Tourism, that the parks area and also the exploratory fishing area, areas which are of interest to Renewable Resources, be transferred over to Renewable Resources, and that the business side of using the parks, advertising for visitors to come to the Northwest Territories, encouraging people to start up fishing lodges and then encouraging people to use those fishing lodges be handled by the Department of Economic Development and Tourism. It makes some sense because then you are not setting the quota or determining the parks, and also trying to encourage as many people as possible to use those quotas in parks. That is where it came from, whether there was a formal study, Mr. Speaker, I do not know, but I know it was looked at by both departments in the last Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell the Minister that the Strength at Two Levels report, which I think the government does give some currency to, studied the issue, and that may be the most recent study, and recommended that it is the integrated division of parks and tourism which should be transferred to Renewable Resources. Since parks and tourism are obviously linked, if the tourism division is not being proposed to be transferred to Renewable Resources, does the Minister agree, in light of this close linkage between parks and tourism, that new resources will be required in the Department of Renewable Resources which are not there now, to develop products, to promote and market the parks and to train outfitters and the like. Have these additional staff requirements been developed and calculated? Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, I would not say we were into that kind of detail at the present time. I know there have been discussions between the deputy minister of Renewable Resources and the deputy minister of Economic Development and Tourism. This stems from the practice in other jurisdictions. If I could give a small example, Mr. Speaker. For instance, in Banff National Park, the visitors to that park became so many and the hikers, in particular, wanting to travel a particular trail became so many, that there were only so many people allowed on the trail at any given time. It becomes a question of wise use of land resources and what other jurisdictions have looked at, what we are looking at, and someone has to say "How much can the land take? How much fish can you take? How much use can you make of a particular park area?"

On the other side, there is a group of people out there saying "Let us bring more visitors to the park, let us bring more visitors into the Northwest Territories." So, it is very difficult to be the promoter of a park, in my opinion, and also be the person who wants to conserve the park. For that reason, I personally support the division of these two responsibilities, so there is a balance. Then, people can say "Renewable Resources says you cannot do this and it is getting overcrowded." It is not seen as a conflict, Mr. Speaker.

There is also a clarification of roles, who does what and who trains people. This can be done by dividing the two responsibilities. There may be some requirement in future for more resources, that is yet to be worked out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued that the Minister says we are not into that kind of detail, such as person years and budgets, and roles and responsibilities. The Government Leader said earlier the plan has not been concluded, the work has not been done and it would be premature to put anything on the table or present anything to the working group. In light of all of these comments, which indicate a great deal of work is yet to be done, why have the staff in the department been told that they are working to a preconceived July 1 deadline, if all this work and thinking has yet to be done? Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, we do not want to keep it a secret from the people who are going to be ultimately affected by this change, and obviously if they are the people delivering the programs, then we are going to have to consult with them to find out what these details might be. We cannot run around like thieves in the night and say "I guess it is going to be this much." We are trying to involve those people and, ultimately, they are going to have to give us their expertise and tell us what those details, allocations and responsibilities have to be, and if there is any legislation that has to change as a result of a transfer. There has been no date decided upon. They may have been told July 1, which may be the date we are requiring implementation by, but to my knowledge there is no firm date of July 1, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is all very helpful to me in understanding what is being planned. I take it, from the Minister's previous comments, that regional staff, superintendents and the zone and regional tourism associations will be consulted and have a chance to have input into this major reorganization before the plan is finalized? Thank you.

Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Speaker, obviously we will be consulting with our staff, and the staff in the regions will give us the views of the people who ultimately might be affected. Their views will be taken into consideration, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through the normal process, in order to get more money and programs into a department, would be through the OPPLAN process. Thank you.

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

Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My experience with the OPPLAN process varies from starting in May up until September, between that period of time, where the government gets together and does an OPPLAN process to come up with a budget which the Legislative Assembly will ultimately have to approve through this process. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Dent.

Mr. Allooloo.

Yes.

Item 5, oral questions. Mr. Whitford.

Mr. Pollard.

Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Supplementary, Mr. Whitford.

Mr. Pollard.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.