There must be something wrong with the agreement. I am wondering if the same agreement is still in place. We know it snows, we know it blows in Arviat and Chesterfield Inlet, so someone must have been aware and someone must have known that we have to be -- I know you do not predict storms but you know they come -- ready for these types of emergencies. Again, I would like to reiterate what Mr. Dent said, I hope this is not a way we are going to negotiate future settlements with the federal government or other people. We made a mistake and we will saw off 50/50, that is a pretty poor way to do business.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

It is the opinion of myself, based on reading the document and knowing this issue, the department did not make a mistake. I have told the honourable Member, these were extraordinary emergency costs on ten Arctic airports that were not predicted. That is not an unusual situation given the current conditions which we operate under. An arrangement was reached, which is perhaps unique in this particular case, which I think was in the best interests of the GNWT.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance said this is not the normal practice, what concerns Members is the fact that, where does this stop when government officials decide they are going to write-off debts which we have to concur with and bring to this House for approval, if that is not the normal practice. That should be done by the Department of Finance and not officials in the transportation division. The other concern is the fact that if this has been an unusual circumstance, and there is no doubt that provisions could be made for that, then why was consideration not made to take this funding from within, as opposed to coming to the House and asking us to write it off. With regard to the $250,000 write-off, is that the process used to request this write-off was not proper. I believe this is what Members are concerned about. Does this mean that every official in every department can start negotiating on our behalf to say, "That is no problem. We will write it off if you absorb 50 per cent." If we are here to rubber stamp things such as this then I would suggest that you take your department budget work with it, and do not even bring it to us for concurrence. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

This was a unique situation, in my opinion. It was the final negotiations with respect to the

transfer of responsibilities for Arctic B and C airports. I cannot speak for the government but I do not believe it was government policy. It was done in a manner which I think was fair and was not meant to circumvent anyone or any process. It certainly is not a process that we would encourage as part of government policy. It was a unique situation, the transfer of the Arctic B and C airports, there were overexpenditures for things such as Fort McPherson emergency snow blower repairs, Fort Good Hope, Pangnirtung, Repulse Bay, Lake Harbour, et cetera. It was an honest attempt to reach an appropriate compromise in a situation that gave us two legal opinions which were going nowhere. Again, I cannot speak for the government, but it certainly is not part of government policy. I suspect this was a unique situation due to the negotiations which were under way between the GNWT and Transport Canada, with regard to taking over the responsibility for B and C airports.

Thank you. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make it clear to the Minister that it is not the situation and it is not the amounts which were incurred that are of concern to the committee or Members on this side of the House. The concern which we have is the process used that was concurred with half of this debt requesting to be written off. The process which was used is not a proper process. It is not the proper practice of the government to use this process. This is the concern we have. I want to ask the Minister of Finance to make sure that government officials are not going out and making deals for write-offs that they would like us to rubber stamp. I resent having to feel I have to rubber stamp something which is a fait accompli. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I think all departments are aware of the proper procedures to handle disputes that they have with either governments or other people who owe them money. I will commit to sending a reminder letter around to Ministers for their departments to make sure the point gets home. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

This is not about a big item, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the issue of student loans, is it still the process that when you have taken a student loan you still pay interest on it, I think it is one point above the prime rate, and you are still allowed a certain amount of time to pay it off. Is that still the policy of the government?

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

I will defer that question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that is still correct.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

It looks as if one student who is listed on this schedule owes for four years of student loans. How long must it lapse before the government determines that this debt should be written off?

Thank you. Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, in our estimation this loan is still alive. We have received a $100 per month for the last three months, and that was collected by our collection agency. There is still some hope of getting some of this money back. As far as how much time must lapse, I think it depends on the circumstances which we find ourselves in. It depends on the recommendation that comes from the Department of Finance after talking with the Department of Education. I cannot really say a time. I think it depends on each person's situation, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, in this particular case money is being collected, on what basis does the department determine that a debt should be written off.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.