Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, may I thank the committee for taking the trouble to visit Iqaluit and seek the views of my constituents this summer on this bill and other bills. I know the chairman was ill and was unable to come along, but I think that Members of the committee who did attend those hearings felt that they got a good turnout and good advice from constituents who presented the presentations to the committee on this bill and other bills.

I would like to reiterate what I said when the committee was in Iqaluit, that I firmly support the principle of the bill of dividing Arctic College. I think it's critical to prepare for Nunavut, and I think it's timely that it should be done at this time. I believe, as well, that there's no question that the constituents who came to the committee hearings also gave that firm endorsement of the principle of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I know that there is a lot of concern about the changes made to the Science Institute through this bill. I would just like to make a few quick points on that. Some Members have reminded me that when the issue of amalgamating the Science Institute or integrating it with Arctic College came up while this House was in session last year, along with Mr. Lewis, I asked some questions of the Minister about this move. I would like to clarify now, Mr. Chairman, that I felt at the time that the process of consultation with the Science Institute was not handled as sensitively as it might have been. Perhaps whenever one proposes changes there is going to be a sense of anxiety, if not betrayal, on the part of some of those persons who are feeling threatened by such a process, but the thrust of my questions and interventions at the time was more directed at the process rather than at the principle of integrating the Science Institute with Arctic College.

I would like to remind Members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that although it's fine to talk about the lofty goals of the Science Institute acting as a body to refer questions from the Legislature on science and research and development issues, if we examine the history of the Science Institute, we find that this provision and this capability in the legislation has indeed been very rarely used. So those who are concerned about losing that particular ability and accountability between the Legislature and the Science Institute should openly acknowledge that it hasn't been used very much, and, when it has been used, I am not sure that it was used particularly effectively. I am not sure how valuable the advice that we got from the Science Institute was on the uranium exploration issue, as one of the members of the Science Institute of that day was a very prominent Canadian pro-uranium, pro-nuclear activist who need not be named today. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that those who object to that principle should really ask themselves whether it's ever been actually seriously utilized in this Legislature.

Now, I am not saying the Science Institute hasn't done many good things in many areas, and they have been discussed in this House and reported on by various Ministers responsible, but that particular function of receiving scientific enquiries from the Legislature has simply not been well utilized, Mr. Chairman, and we should admit today that if that is what we are concerned about losing, we will not lose something that's been used very often.

Now, having said that, I think it may still be useful, if Members of this Legislature can ask questions about scientific issues and about research and development issues to people who have the expertise to provide answers, and I am hoping that as we discuss this bill we may find a way to retain that capacity in case future Legislatures might want to use it more than past legislatures have. I understand there may be some amendments, either from the Minister or from Members of this House, and I am hoping that issue can be addressed, Mr. Chairman. So, I think we should move on with this.

The reality, Mr. Chairman, is that because the government stated its intention to divide Arctic College, because that stated intention was approved by the Legislature and by the Reshaping Northern Government committee and because the government then went ahead and undertook planning to prepare for the implementation of two colleges, including the creation of headquarters offices in Fort Smith and Iqaluit for those two new colleges, what we are really doing now is finishing what has begun. So the legislation will legitimize a lot of administrative changes that have already been put in place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I think it's critical that we do pass this bill, that we wish the employees of the Science Institute every success and that they continue their good work, albeit in a new relationship with a new department. But I am confident that the good works that have been initiated, including the IRAP program, the support for science fairs and the monitoring of scientific research, can continue at the same calibre that has been undertaken already, because we still have many of those

same capable people still in place. So I have no hesitation, Mr. Chairman, in endorsing and indeed welcoming this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we travelled to Norman Wells, Fort Smith and Inuvik -- at least I did -- to discuss this bill. When we met in Fort Smith, we arrived during the evening and waited most of the evening for people to show up to discuss the access bill and the Arctic College Act, but we really didn't have anybody that evening. We tried again the next morning; no one showed up, or in the afternoon, either. I can say that in Norman Wells we had people make presentations but they were mostly on the access bill itself. In Inuvik, we had no presentations, even though the Science Institute was there and Arctic College was also there. We didn't really get any kind of concern expressed with regard to the bill itself, so we went ahead with discussing it.

The only thing I want to say is that, again, some of the Members are saying that we really don't have an argument that says we shouldn't do it, so they support the bill as is. I would like to tell the Members that everything that happens henceforth or from now is that...The purpose of the bill itself hasn't changed any; the Minister would still decide on the naming of Arctic College. I haven't heard anything to suggest that the Minister has indicated, in any way, shape or form, that he's willing to amend the act to reflect the committee's recommendation.

The other thing is that during the next few months...More and more, we see the need for the Science Institute to do work in the areas of radiation levels, baseline studies, studies on animal habitats and also studies on plants, those kinds of things; the level of pollution that's occurring and also the pulp mills down south. It hasn't helped a bit.

My feeling is it still should be separate from Arctic College. I also feel that the Science Institutes in the rest of the country are big organizations that operate based on a large budget. They get donations and they also raise money. I don't know whether or not, by amalgamating it and making the Science Institute part of the Arctic College budget, it would be up to the Science Institute then to justify the monies. I think that's what was said last week when we dealt with the access bill. Nobody supported it because of the amount of money that's going to be used. And in this case, I think the amount of money the Science Institute gets and their accountability will be lost to Arctic College.

We see a situation in which you have a concern, then you express it to the Minister. The Minister, in turn, advises the Arctic College board and the board will decide whether or not it is important enough for the Science Institute to address. While the arrangement now is that under the Science Institute of the Northwest Territories, the Legislative Assembly has some direct input into the way the Science Institute can conduct itself.

I think that's very important because if we start having 52 communities and all the 52 communities have certain concerns -- for example in Fort Providence, we getting more kids who are having kidney problems. What's wrong? Nobody has an answer for it. What about lead contaminants? This is really a complicated type of technology. Lead in water is very hard to detect. We need that professional help on those areas. I don't see Arctic College overly expressing themselves over those kinds of concerns.

I just don't know. My concern is we have one Arctic College in the west -- that's the intent of the legislation -- and one in the east and we want to include the Science Institute. I know we don't even influence the Arctic College budget. It comes under Arctic College as an information item. We don't see the details of the budget itself. So I could imagine what it would be like if part of the budget of the Science Institute is part of the Arctic College budget. How do you know how much they get? Or whether or not they exist?

I have some real serious reservations about the act being passed as it is. I think I speak for most people in the Mackenzie Valley and the Slave River area, that we are, in the next few years, going to be seeing a lot of changes as a result of pollution, the ozone and everything else. I think all the Members should be concerned about that. We can express our concern in the House, but it's really up to Arctic College to determine whether or not it even warrants the Science Institute to study it or look at it or analyze it or anything.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Agreed.

---Agreed

Thank you. If I could, Mr Chairman, introduce the witnesses. On my right is the assistant deputy minister of culture and careers, Mr. Mark Cleveland. On my left is Carol Whitehouse, legal counsel.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we are aware, the act that is before you, Bill 7, is to amend the Arctic College Act and will strengthen, in my view, the Northwest Territories post secondary education system and its role in the field of science and technology. The proposed amendment removes references to Arctic College in the act and allows for the creation of one or more college.

In addition, it also provides for more flexibility in establishing a student association. The bill also recognizes the importance of scientific research and investigations. It gives the board of governors of the college the functions previously held by the Science Institute, as well as the power to establish a science advisory council to which the board may delegate these functions.

Mr. Chairman, I have much more to say about this particular legislation, but in responding to the House here, I would like to deal with a couple of issues. While I didn't necessarily agree with everything in the report of the Standing Committee on Legislation, I think that the important component is that it highlights concerns that have been raised by many. Despite the concerns that have been raised, it is my belief that the new relationship that has been established will only improve the quality of service and quality of the institution that we're establishing.

I noted, Mr. Chairman, some of the concerns that were raised about baseline data and health issues. I, too, and I think also the Cabinet Members, realize these are important components of research that have to be conducted. But, with respect to those concerns, we already have departments that are responsible for carrying out that research. In the case of habitat and wildlife, we have the Department of Renewable Resources. In the case of the health issues, the Department of Health and Social Services, through its responsibility, has to be held accountable for that kind of research.

I think what is most important, as well, is that an important component of any post-secondary institution in the north, as we lead to an institution that might be an institution which delivers four-year university degree programs, is to play a high profile role in research and technology. We cannot have an institution in the north where our students or our institution don't play that role.

I do appreciate the concern that was raised by the Standing Committee on Legislation. Without question, in my view, it has to be a serious consideration in any of the deliberations that the science advisory council will take in the future. It is something that the public colleges also have to consider. I think everyone recognizes the importance of science and technology. What is important, though, is that we haven't paid a great deal of attention to it in our post-secondary institutions. We need to do better. I think this will allow us to take advantage of the quality of people already involved in the system.

With those opening remarks, Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to deal directly with Bill 7.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, I support the bill. I have a couple of concerns that I would like the Minister to address. I have publicly stated before that I have a concern about the incremental costs of division and the possibility of letting the federal government off the hook.

There's a good argument about why we have to start doing things. Division can't happen overnight, and we have to start, in an orderly and structured way, to get there. I'm willing to support this bill as long as I know that any time we do this type of thing, any time we do anything which leads towards division, a letter goes to the federal government telling them we are doing it, that we expect there are going to be incremental costs, that we will make an accounting of those costs, and at the end of the day, we expect it to be part of the discussion about incremental costs.

I think it is important that the relevant departments, whether it is DIAND or Finance, know exactly that this is the beginning of a process. We would be foolish to leave everything to the last moment. We should tell them we have a concern that at the end of the day there will be incremental costs to dividing Arctic College into two.

I would ask the Minister to give me some assurances that the incremental costs will be recorded and the federal government will be informed that this is the process we are going to undergo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the information of the honourable Member, we are in fact putting in place tracking procedures of all the costs relating to the establishment of two colleges. We are not only doing it for the colleges, but also the incremental costs for other programs in the department. That makes sure we keep track of the ongoing costs of all aspects of delivering educational programming, including Arctic College programming.

I want to make one point. While I appreciate the position taken by the honourable Member for Iqaluit, in my own view, the attempt to equalize dollars also requires the participation of the federal government in the development of the institution as part of division. I think we cannot, as Mr. Ballantyne has pointed out, allow the federal government off the hook for paying for their responsibility in terms of the creation of institutions, whether it is this post-secondary institution or other institutions in the future.

We will be developing a tracking system to deal with incremental costs. I will be able to show that in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are a number of issues that I think can obviously be dealt with, in which the institution can play, I think, a more important role. In the area of construction, there has been a great deal of work that has been undertaken in terms of delivering construction programming in our college, in the trades area. The component that's important that has not really been dealt with in terms of utilizing our students is the whole area of teaching them about northern engineering and northern construction technology. The other issue is housing construction. The other matter is social issues and how we address and utilize students in dealing with some of the research that is now being conducted. Much of the research that is being conducted in the Northwest Territories is not done by this government. In fact, it's being done by agents outside, including post-secondary institutions. What we need to do is to utilize our students to be part of that research.

Another component is health issues. It's all nice and well that we have an institution like McGill carrying out health studies on aboriginal people in the north, but the issue is, what are we doing in terms of utilizing our own, now newly-created nursing program to give those students an opportunity to deal with some of the research, even on a summer program? We're not doing that.

There is archaeological work that is being conducted. I guess I can probably point out the chair of the Dogrib Divisional Board of Education, Mr. John B. Zoe, who does a lot of archaeological work in the summer time. In my view, that kind of work is really helpful for us, but we need to do it collectively with our post-secondary institutions, including our educators. That's the kind of stuff that, in my view, needs to be done.

The other thing is, in science technology programming, we're doing very little and we need to improve the programming in our institution. We're beginning to see it in terms of the need, particularly for our land claims negotiations, we have now for a lot of land water management people, people in renewable resource technology and in wildlife. All these are not necessarily part of the programming. So, for scientific research, that's necessary. Water shed management, which Mr. Gargan raised a few minutes ago, that's part of the responsibility of some of the aboriginal organizations now. We just don't have the trained, skilled people in place and we don't have the programming in place to provide that kind of expertise.

I guess I look at it in terms of all these issues and I say I think we need to change our institution around so that it's more responsive.

Thank you. I think what is interesting here is a debate of this type occurred when the Yukon College, which is a newer institution, was established. It established after our institution. Much later, in fact, within the last maybe five years. In terms of its major development, that was in place a little earlier. They're already into scientific research and research generally. They're already in the

business of doing that. We're not at that point yet and they're not a very big institution.

The other point is that within the last year, because of the work we've been doing with this amalgamation, we've been able to work with the local science centre in Fort Smith. We conducted a number of research opportunities with students in the area of social programming, so we're already doing it now and we're just beginning the process. But we're new at it and we're just getting our feet wet. We're already beginning to see some success in it.