Thank you, Mr. Nerysoo. Good afternoon and I hope you had a good break.

Speaker's Ruling

Today, I would like to make a ruling on a point of order raised by the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Nerysoo, on March 10, 1995, concerning the tabling of unsigned letters and the use of individuals' names in the House and in documents.

I would like to provide the House with some background on the point of order raised. The point of order raised two points for consideration: one being our practice for the tabling of documents; and, the other being the use of individuals' names in the House, whether it be by direct reference or through reference in other procedures such as the tabling of documents.

The Members will recall that when the point of order was raised, I permitted those Members who wished to provide comments on the point to do so. I would like to thank those Members who spoke and, as I indicated, I thanked the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Nerysoo, for raising the point of order as the issue of tabling of unsigned documents had come up on March 7, 1995. At that time, I had concerns about it, but it is not the chair's responsibility to raise points of order unless they are an obvious infraction of the rules or of parliamentary precedent.

I carefully considered many authorities while preparing this ruling and found that what has developed as practice in our Legislature does not occur in many other jurisdictions. This is not to say that our practices are improper but, as with most procedures and practices, they have to be tested and reviewed in light of changing circumstances and when they arise. I feel it is important to start at the beginning and go through the whole aspect of a ruling on a point of order. A point of order, as outlined in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 317, states:

"(1) Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time by any Member, whether that Member has previously spoken or not.

"(2) A question of order concerns the interpretation to be put upon the rules of procedure and is a matter for the Speaker or, in a committee, for the Chairman to determine."

It could be argued that the point of order raised by the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Nerysoo, should have been made earlier when the event occurred, and again I quote from Citation 321: "A point of order against procedure must be raised promptly and before the question has passed to a stage at which the objection would be out of place."

I considered this but was guided by Citation 319 which states:

"Any Member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of a breach of order. The Member may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. This should be done as soon as an irregularity is perceived in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House. The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred."

I would suggest that the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Nerysoo, raised the point of order as soon as practicable after he had an opportunity to review in detail the tabled document in question, that being Tabled Document 56-12(7), tabled by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, on March 8, 1995. This issue raised by the Member is not an easy one and I suspect required the Member to carefully review the facts and rules prior to drawing the attention of the House to this issue. As indicated, I asked for Members' opinions on the matter which, again, was permissible and confirmed by Beauchesne's Citation 325:

"In all matters of doubt, the Speaker will consider attentively the opinions of Members. Sometimes, instead of expressing an opinion on either side, the Speaker may ask instructions from the House or reserve his decision on the point of discussion, or suggest that the House may, if it thinks proper, dispense with the Standing Order in a particular case. In doubtful cases, the Speaker will be guided largely by circumstances."

I would like to advise the House that the point of order raised by the Member for Mackenzie Delta became quite far-reaching and I was required to address a number of procedural points. I would now like to address the first issue, that of the tabling of documents, and then I will specifically address the issue of the unsigned letter that was tabled as Tabled Document 56-12(7).

The item "tabling of documents" appears on the order paper daily and, until 1991, there was not even a rule that addressed this item. We now have a rule that only addresses the permissive nature of allowing a document to be tabled. Rule 43 states, and I quote:

"Under the item, "Tabled Documents," a Member may provide to the House any document which is required to be tabled in the House by any Act or order of the Assembly, or which may be in the public interest. A Member may make a brief factual statement to identify the document."

In the majority of other Canadian jurisdictions, documents are only permitted to be tabled by a Minister. Beauchesne's Citation 431 states: "Standing Order 32 provides a way for Ministers to table documents in the House. It does not impose an obligation on the Minister to do so."

The tabling of documents in other jurisdictions is restricted to documents that fall into the following categories and is outlined in Beauchesne's Citation 435:

"(1) Papers are laid before the House in pursuance of:

(a) provisions of an Act of Parliament.

(b) an Order of the House.

(c) an Address to the Crown.

(d) Standing Orders of the House."

I note that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba does permit Members, other than Ministers, to table documents, but with some restrictions. The Senate of Canada, as recently as 1991, amended their Standing Orders to make reference to the tabling of documents as, like us, they did not have a specific rule regarding the tabling of documents. The Senate rule allows documents to be tabled but they must be presented by the leader of the government in the Senate. They do, however, permit a Senator to table a document as provided for in Rule 29(3) and I quote: "with unanimous consent, any Senator may table a paper relating to the business before the Senate."

It should be noted that the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, did raise concerns regarding certain letters that were tabled by the government on March 2, 1995 as Tabled Document 40-12(7). The Member also noted that the letters were unsigned and that we have no specific rules concerning the tabling of unsigned letters.

Beauchesne's 6th edition again provides us with some guidance in this matter as it relates to the productions of papers:

Citation 444: "There is a general rule that papers should be ordered only on subjects which are of a public or official character."

Citation 445: "The House shall decide after debate, if desired, whether it will order a document to be laid upon the Table."

Citation 446: "In 1973, the government tabled in the House of Commons its view on the general principles governing Notices of Motions for Production of Papers:

1) To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of Government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible, consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below, in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production."

In addition to the aforementioned citation, there is listed in Beauchesne's Citation 446(2), the criteria that should be applied in determining if government papers or documents should be exempt from production. There are five specific exemptions that I took into consideration in reviewing this matter.

Citation 446(2) subsections:

"(f) Papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual.

(j) Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded.

(l) Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence.

(n) Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character.

(o) Internal departmental memoranda."

In undertaking the review of authorities, there are a number of procedures that may be appropriate for consideration by the House as to what should or what should not be permitted to be tabled in this House. For example, there are limitations in the House of Commons when it comes to the correspondence of Ministers of a personal nature, or dealing with constituency or general political matters. This limitation is contained in Beauchesne's Citation 446(3), and I quote:

"Ministers' correspondence of a personal nature, or dealing with constituency or general political matters, should not be identified with government papers and therefore should not be subject to production in the House."

If we were to apply the restrictions provided for in the House of Commons, it would require us to cease the practice of allowing any Member to table a document, and I quote from Citation 495(6):

"A private Member has neither the right nor the obligation to table an official, or any other, document."

Do you understand it so far, Members?

This is used as an illustration that there are restrictions in place in other jurisdictions. There is also specific guidelines regarding consultant studies and whether documents which are requested of the government to be tabled, either by oral or written questions and are, in the opinion of the government, confidential, do not have to be tabled. It should be noted that up until now there has not been the need to apply similar restrictions to the tabling of documents in our House, as is the case in other Canadian jurisdictions. However, the time has come to address some of these issues and the point of order raised by Mr. Nerysoo affords us the opportunity to address them. As Members are aware, there have been a number of items that have been tabled in this House over the years that, of course, would not strictly be considered a document and I refer to such items as fish heads, a piece of sewer pipe and photographs. Like all Members, I would hope that our rules and procedures are flexible enough to permit all Members to fulfil their duties to their constituents and the general public without being unduly impeded. There are times, though, when rules or procedures have to be in place to protect not only the elected officials but to safeguard the basic rights of all individuals, despite their status.

On the question of what documents should or should not be allowed to be tabled, I would like to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges with the instruction to develop procedures and guidelines and recommend rule changes if they feel necessary. The standing committee should consider all aspects of the tabling of documents as to the types that would be permissible with the guiding principle that the privilege of tabling documents is to afford Ministers the opportunity to present documents that provide factual information about the operations of government. Any procedures recommended should also recognize the ability of all Members to table documents also to provide factual information to the House in the interests of the public good. I would further request that this matter be considered in a timely fashion by the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges so that a report is presented to the House as soon as is practicable.

The other question that has arisen is the tabling of letters that are unsigned. There are two incidents that have occurred that have given rise to the concern. The first was raised by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, on March 7th concerning unsigned letters tabled by the government. The comments on that point are contained on pages 1228 and 1229 of unedited Hansard. The second was raised again by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, on March 8th with the tabling of an unsigned letter. The Member, while tabling this unsigned letter, indicated in her tabling statement, and I quote from page 1280 of unedited Hansard:

"Mr. Speaker, since we have no rules on unsigned documents in this House, I'd like to table Tabled Document 56-12(7): it's correspondence that I received as a Member, from a Tu Nedhe constituent regarding improper use of government vehicles and warehouse facilities in the community of Fort Resolution."

The Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, went on further to explain in her tabling statement, and I quote again from page 1280 of unedited Hansard:

"Mr. Speaker, this correspondence was received in January and it's not my responsibility to address Tu Nedhe concerns as the elected Member for Thebacha. Therefore, I'd like to table this document so the appropriate individual can address it. At this time, I would also like to table the envelope that this letter was sent in. Thank you."

The point of order raised by the Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Nerysoo, is threefold; the first point being the practice of allowing unsigned letters to be tabled. The second point is the use of individuals' names and, in this case, in an unsigned letter, and also the general reference to individuals in the House. The third concern expressed was that the unsigned letter tabled by the Member for Thebacha contained certain allegations against a civil servant. I have reviewed many authorities on this issue and there are no direct references to whether it is or is not permissible to table unsigned letters in an Assembly or the House of Commons. It was necessary to refer to other rules that require documents to be tabled. I refer to the practice of presentations of petitions. The rules currently require the following, and I quote from our Rules 42(1), (2) and (5):

"42(1) A petition to the Assembly may be presented by a Member at any time during a sitting of the Assembly by filing it with the Clerk, or in the manner set out in Rule 42(2).

42(2) A Member may present a petition from his or her place in the House under the item "Petitions." The Member shall endorse his or her name on the petition and shall confine the presentation to a statement of the petition, the number of signatures and the material allegations. A Member shall not exceed five minutes in presenting a petition.

42(5) A Member presenting a petition shall be answerable for any impertinent or improper matter that it contains."

I think a link can be made to the requirement for petitions to be signed as well as having to be endorsed by the Member presenting the petition. Further direction in this regard can be found in Beauchesne's Citation 1020: "All petitions must be endorsed on the back of the first page by a Member and be dated." Also Citation 1024 states: "A petition must have original signatures or marks, and the addresses of the petitioners. The signatures must be written on the petition itself and not pasted upon or otherwise transferred to it."

It should be noted that there are alternative methods for presenting petitions. They may be filed by a Member with the Clerk who will report it in accordance with Rule 42(3). Citation 1038 of Beauchesne's 6th edition also provides for the following:

"(1) A Member cannot be compelled to present a petition;"

"(2) The presentation of a petition does not necessarily commit a Member to the views expressed in it."

I use these references to illustrate the obligations on Members as they relate to the presentation of a document, in this case a petition. I am of the opinion that the basic right of the residents of the Northwest Territories to petition their Legislative Assembly is an important process that has to be protected. The Chair feels that the fact that there are rules and procedures that have to be observed indicates the importance placed on protecting the integrity of the petition being presented and that of the Member. These rules are explicit. The text of a petition cannot state implications or allegations and I quote from Beauchesne's Citation 1029 (1), (2) and (3):

"(1) The language of a petition should be respectful, temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign or offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of Parliament, the Courts of Justice, or any other tribunal or constituted authority.

"(2) A petition should seek the redress of grievances and should refrain from expressing an opinion with regard to the House, the Government or the positions taken by Members of the House. Expressions which would be in order from a Member of the House may not be in order when presented as a petition.

(3) A petition should not contain statements which constitute charges of a very strong character against a Minister or senior officials."

The tabling of the unsigned letter by the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, gave rise to the point of order, but I noted that the same concern was expressed concerning unsigned letters that were contained in Tabled Document 40-12(7) which was tabled, at the request of a Member, by the government on March 2, 1995. It should be noted that the Government House Leader, the Honourable John Pollard, indicated on Friday, March 10th, and I quote from page 1416 of unedited Hansard:

"Mr. Speaker, I had made a commitment to table a document today which was an update of the Fort Smith aircraft facility, history of GNWT decisions and communication with Fort Smith, revised.

"Mr. Speaker, in light of the point of order by Mr. Nerysoo today and in light of the fact that you're going to give us a ruling and because there are still some documents that are unsigned in this particular document I was going to put before the House, I will not do it today but await your ruling. Thank you, Mr. Speaker."

One of the most relevant citations that I considered while examining this aspect of my ruling was Citation 498 (1) and (3):

"(1) An unsigned letter should not be read in the House.

"(3) When quoting from a letter in the House, a Member must be willing either to give the name of the author or to take full responsibility for the contents."

Although in the case before us, the unsigned letter was not read in the House, it was tabled and therefore did become part of the public record.

I would also suggest that similar points are made in the Fourth edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Practice and Procedure in the Dominion of Canada, and I quote from page 336:

"It is not allowable to read any petition referring to debates in the House, and where the language of the document is such as would be unparliamentary, if spoken in debate, it cannot be read. No language can be orderly in a quotation which would be disorderly if spoken."

In my review I was also guided by two rulings of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba on the same point regarding the tabling of unsigned letters. In Mr. Speaker Rocan's ruling of November 14, 1988, he ruled as follows:

"On November 4th, the Honourable Member for St. Johns tabled in this House a document respecting the Free Trade Agreement. Following precedent, I took the admissibility of the document under advisement because it was unsigned, not directed to any specific individual or organization and its origin was in no way identified. Neither the rules of this House, nor the practices of the House of Commons specifically address the question of admissibility of tabled documents as it applies in this case. Reviewing previous Manitoba Speakers' rulings, I noted that Speaker Hanuschak, in a 1970 ruling, stated that "all letters, when read, must be signed and they become part of the documents of the House." In the same ruling, he indicated that it would not be correct to allow the tabling of such a letter (ie. an unsigned letter.) In 1981, Speaker Graham ruled that "an unsigned and unidentified document is an incomplete document and cannot be considered to be properly before the House. Based on these precedents, I must rule that the document, in its present form, is inadmissible and cannot properly become a document of this House."

After reviewing Parliamentary precedent and rulings from other jurisdictions, I have become clearly aware of the requirements and limitations as to the content for petitions and tabled documents including the concern as to the verification of authenticity of letters and any facts contained therein. It is my ruling that it is not an acceptable practice to table unsigned letters in this House, so therefore all letters tabled, whether it be by the government or by ordinary Members, will have to be forthwith directed from a specific individual or organization, dated and signed.

The other issue that has arisen pertains to the content of letters or documents and in particular the identification of individuals in letters or documents and any allegations that may be part of a letter or document. To provide guidance on this particular issue, I once again could not find any direct ruling or procedure that dealt with naming individuals in tabled documents, or to tabled documents that contain allegations or potential defamation of an individual. As with the requirement for petitions, I had to look at other procedural practices and points that could assist the Chair in providing a ruling on this point. In considering this, I was guided once again by citations from Beauchesne's 6th edition. The two areas of procedure I felt appropriate are covered by the use of oral and written questions. I would like to offer the following citation -- Citation 409(7) -- which refers to oral questions, and I quote:

"In 1975, the Speaker expressed some general principles in order to clarify the regulations and restrict the negative qualifications which traditionally have guided the Question Period:

(7) A question must adhere to the proprieties of the House, in terms of inferences, imputing motives or casting aspersions upon persons within the House or out of it."

A number of points outlined in Citation 428 which refers to written questions may provide further guidance, and I quote:

"A question must not:

(h) contain inferences.

(i) contain imputations.

(n) reflect on or relate to character or conduct of persons other than in a public capacity.

(q) contain or imply charges of a personal character."

As Members are aware, our own rules also give us guidance in dealing with what is considered appropriate in debate. In reviewing the matter further, I considered the issue of whether the general rules of debate that apply to Members in the House should apply to references to those individuals who have traditionally been referred to as protected persons. Beauchesne's offers us some assistance in this regard and I quote to give examples of protected persons. I quote first from Citation 493(1):

"All references to judges and courts of justice of the nature of personal attack and censure have always been considered unparliamentary, and the Speaker has always treated them as breaches of order."

Citation 493(3) goes further by stating:

"The Speaker has traditionally protected from attack a group of individuals commonly referred to as "those of high official station". The extent of this group has never been defined. Over the years it has covered senior public servants, ranking officers of the armed services, diplomatic representatives in Canada, a Minister who was not a Member of either House, and the Prime Minister before he won a seat in the House."

Included in the section on protected persons and under the same citation, it provides the following under subsection (4):

"The Speaker has cautioned Members to exercise great care in making statements about persons who are outside the House and unable to reply."

I further considered citations dealing with the requirement that if a document is read or quoted from by a Minister then it may have to be tabled, and I quote from Beauchesne's Citation 495(1):

"A Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House without being prepared to lay it on the Table."

There is, however, a limitation on this and I quote from Citation 495(2):

"It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The same rule, however, cannot be held to apply to private letters or memoranda."

There is also a long-standing practice that procedures cannot be circumvented in one case by actions that would accomplish something that you cannot do by other means. Once again, I must rely on the procedures for petitions to assist me with this. I also took some time to consider parliamentary privilege as it may or may not apply to the point of order and would like to offer the following from "Parliamentary Privilege in Canada" by Joseph Maingot, Q.C. who states: "that while standing order sets out that: "Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter," a petitioner nevertheless could, in a proper case, be held in contempt for delivering to a Member, whether or not it is presented in the House, a petition containing abusive matter notwithstanding that the petitioner would be immune from civil action."

This extract from "Parliamentary Privilege in Canada" of course deals with petitions but in his book, Mr. Maingot goes on to address contempt respecting documents and I would like to provide his comments in that regard which I feel are of assistance:

"Similarly, should any person present documents to a committee of the House of Commons which have been forged, falsified, or fabricated with intent to deceive such committee or the House, or, to be privy to such forging or fraud, this will constitute contempt of Parliament because it is an obvious affront to the House of Commons to present it with such documents. The House of Commons is not only entitled to but demands the utmost respect when material is placed before it for its scrutiny, investigation, or study."

I am of the opinion that a direct relationship can be drawn with our procedures as they pertain to a Member's privilege when a complaint is founded on written words. The most common example of a complaint founded on written or spoken words is based on a newspaper article, editorial or broadcast. When an obviously flagrant case is found to be prima facie by the Speaker, a motion can be introduced to resolve that the article or broadcast was libellous and that its publication is a contempt of the House. This procedure is an indication of the extent to which a Member, or the House collectively, can address allegations or correct wrong information.

As Members are well aware, the privilege of being protected from prosecution for what is said in this House is a fundamental and long-standing right that has been tested and consistently upheld in many court cases. However, as the previous citations and precedents demonstrate, it has also been a long-standing convention that the rights of individuals outside of the Legislature are also protected. The privileges that we have, as Members and as a Legislature, also carry with them great responsibility to ensure that those outside the House are protected. The way in which Members conduct themselves individually and collectively reflects on the institution of the Legislative Assembly.

The chair appreciates the comments of Members who spoke to the point of order which assisted me in preparing this ruling. The respect in which Members hold this institution is clearly evident. In order to uphold and enhance this respect, I will not permit comments, whether written or spoken, in this Legislature that have the tendency to question the personal integrity of others outside the House, or impute motives to those unable to respond or which have the impact of adversely reflecting on the character of those persons outside of this Legislature. The general principle will be that documents will be governed by the same rules that govern debate.

I apologize to the House for such a lengthy ruling but I felt it was important to address as many of the issues as possible, that arose as a result of the point of order by the Member for Mackenzie Delta. Mr. Nerysoo's point of order was quite far-reaching, and I wish to be satisfied that I did not infringe on the rights of any Members or of the House itself. Thank you.

---Applause

I would also like to advise the House that I have received the following communication from the Commissioner: "Dear Mr. Speaker: I wish to advise that I recommend to the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, the passage of Bill 29, Interim Appropriation Act, April 1 - June 30, 1995, during the Seventh Session of the 12th Legislative Assembly. Yours truly, Helen Maksagak, Commissioner."

---Applause

Mrs. Marie-Jewell, your point of order.

Point Of Order

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order for a remark that the Member for Iqaluit, Mr. Patterson, used on March 10th. Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote the comments made by the Member, Mr. Patterson, which are contained on page 1371 of unedited Hansard, and I quote:

"Mr. Speaker, a Member's privilege to be free from prosecution for defamation or slander for what is said in this House is a very sacred and a very special privilege, given to MLAs speaking in this House alone. It is aimed at the full and free discussion of issues and it is aimed at the pursuit of truth. But, Mr. Speaker, in my view, if Members are allowed to act irresponsibly and table unsigned documents which may be furnished to Members for malicious or political purposes, then this is, in fact, an abuse of the privileges we enjoy as Members. And, it will diminish the reputation of this Assembly."

Mr. Speaker, I regard the use of the word "irresponsibly" as unparliamentary and it implies allegations toward myself. Not only should I request an apology from Mr. Patterson, which I won't...However, I, most importantly, would like to request that you respectfully rule on my point of order. Thank you.

I would like to again ask for the Members' advice on this one. I would like to hear what the Members have to say because you have to be able to...The way it is said is what I would like to hear the Members' advice on because in the context that it's said, whether it's unparliamentary or not, is what I would like to...To the point of order, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was aware from reading a press report that Mrs. Marie-Jewell was concerned about remarks I made in this debate. Perhaps I can assist better than anybody in quickly resolving this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made quite a good speech the other day...

---Laughter

...since it was off the cuff and I wasn't really prepared. But the Member has quoted me correctly; if Members are allowed to act irresponsibly and table unsigned documents, then this is in fact an abuse of privilege. I would like to clarify, Mr. Speaker, to the Member and to Members of this House, I didn't say the Member was irresponsible. What I said was that the Member's actions or any Members' actions in tabling an unsigned document would be irresponsible or were irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, there were nine other Members who spoke -- eight or nine. I've just been scanning the Hansard and I think they all agreed, basically, with that point of view. Just looking at the Hansard, Mr. Morin said, "I don't think that in tabling letters that are unsigned we are showing respect for the public." He didn't say the Member was disrespectful, but perhaps the action of tabling unsigned letters was not showing respect. I think there's a big difference between the act, the process, the rule, the practice, the procedure, and the Member's individual character, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kakfwi described this practice of tabling unsigned letters as going "beyond what are normal bounds of decency to which we all try to adhere," page 1374. Again, I think he was talking about what he called here "the business of tabling letters," the practice, not the individual.

Mr. Pudlat, page 1374, said he didn't think it was appropriate.

I think Mr. Todd used the same words, that this kind of behaviour is inappropriate.

Mr. Speaker, if you find my remarks in describing the Member's actions as irresponsible, if you find them to be unparliamentary...I don't know why I was picked on, because you better also censor other Members of this Assembly who made reference to decency, respect, appropriateness.

You invited debate on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you've done today. The point of order requested a ruling on the practice of tabling unsigned letters. That's what we were talking about: the practice; we weren't talking about the individual. And I would like to clarify to Mrs. Marie-Jewell, I was not talking about her, I was talking about the practice. Her actions triggered the debate, but the debate was about the practice.

So I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Thebacha works very hard, she takes her job very seriously and I respect that, but when I was talking about the actions that she took which triggered the debate and your ruling, I was not calling the Member irresponsible; I was talking about the practice which appeared to be triggered by her actions. And I think there's a big difference here, Mr. Speaker.

So with respect, I think the Member has got it all wrong in taking my comments personally. She shouldn't take it personally. The debate was about the rules and the practice of this House, not about the Member or her character. So I would recommend that you not call my remarks unparliamentary. If you do call my comments unparliamentary in being critical of the actions of tabling an unsigned letter, then I bet eight or nine other people who spoke and said it was inappropriate or didn't show respect for this Assembly or was not an act of decency, then they're all guilty of unparliamentary conduct too. But we weren't talking about Mrs. Marie-Jewell, we were talking about the practice.

So I hope I made myself clear, Mr. Speaker. I didn't intend to attack the Member personally, but I will say again and I think your ruling makes it clear, that those kinds of actions are -- what words shall I use -- not recommended. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member for Thebacha did raise a point of order which requires my ruling, Mr. Patterson. I appreciate your comments on it and I don't wish to make any

rulings now but I would have to say that unsigned documents have come from both sides of the House. Are there any further comments on this? Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize Mr. Patterson has indicated that it's the process that Members had questioned. But, at the same time, when you read all the comments which I did, I recognize some Members felt it "inappropriate." "Inappropriate" is a totally different word, in comparison with parliamentary procedures and determinations of parliamentary language, with "irresponsible." Looking through unedited Hansard, Mr. Speaker, the word "irresponsible" was only used by the honourable Member for Iqaluit.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to refer to the ruling you made this afternoon, which I thank you for and respect. You indicated that you would not permit comments, whether written or spoken, in the Legislature which have a tendency to question the personal integrity of others outside the House or impute motives to those unable to respond. Unfortunately, I was not in the House on March 10th and I was unable to respond to the comments which were imputed towards myself which I did not appreciate. As I said to the media, and it may be unparliamentary, I found it to be a cowardly act because it was something that was spoken behind my back when I was away.

Shame, shame.

It is unfortunate that we could not discuss this issue while I was here. However, I recognize that I was not in the House and I did not speak on it. I find that the comment "irresponsible" was imputed towards myself and that's why I'm trying to determine what is parliamentary and what is not parliamentary. If it is deemed that Members find the comment "cowardly" to be unparliamentary, I apologize for using that word. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate your review of my point of order. Thank you.

Thank you. I will take that under advisement. I think I was just asking for comments on the point of order, not debate. Mr. Patterson, to the point of order.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to confine myself to the point of order, although the Member for Thebacha did not and tried to debate your ruling today. Mr. Speaker, just to look at what I said -- as the Member has suggested I was imputing motives -- and to take Members of the House through this: "Mr. Speaker, in my view, if Members are allowed to act irresponsibly and table unsigned documents..." Now, I think that refers to the act of tabling unsigned documents. It doesn't refer to the Member or an individual, it talks about the act of tabling unsigned documents. So, Mr. Speaker, how the Member is imputing the motive out of those words requires a great deal of imagination. I specifically referred to the action, the practice.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the Member has pretty well called me a coward for participating in this debate in her absence. Mr. Speaker, I'm not responsible for the fact that the Member was not here and I'm sure she had very good reason for not being here that day. What happened, Mr. Speaker, was that the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta raised a point of order and I would like to inform Mrs. Marie-Jewell that I had no idea or advance warning that this point of order was going to be raised. I suspect that was the case with most other Members. I had no idea it was going to be raised.

When it was raised and you invited debate, I welcomed the chance to debate because I had been thinking about the matter and I had been discussing the matter with other Members, and was beginning to feel some unease about what was going on. I had also heard media reports about the matter. So, Mr. Speaker, was I to refrain from expressing my opinions because the Member wasn't present? Was it somehow disrespectful to offer opinions because the Member wasn't present? Mr. Speaker, I offered my opinions because you invited debate and I thought, being a Member of this House for some years, I might have something to offer.

I wasn't afraid to offer my opinions in front of the Member and I'm not afraid to do so today. I stand by the opinions I offered on that day and I'm not afraid to say so in the presence of the Member. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm now concerned that there has been a second allegation added to the Member's point of order which is an act of cowardice. I'm not afraid of the Member, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not afraid of free, full and frank debate. Whether the Member is here or not, I'm not afraid of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Do we have any further comments? Okay, I would like to thank the Member for Thebacha for raising that point and also for the comments of other Members. I will take this under advisement and make my ruling. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Morin.

Mr. Speaker, before the session break, I made the commitment to Members to provide the number of tenants who have received counselling on the new rent scale. I would like to advise Members that we have requested status reports from the 50 housing organizations across the territories. The information is starting to come in and I want to assure Members that I will report on the rent scale implementation during this session.

As I have mentioned to the Members before, implementing a new rent scale is a very big job. The local housing organizations, through their agreements with the Housing Corporation, are taking the lead role in getting the new scale up and running in their communities. There have been some incorrect reports in the media, and some misconceptions that the local housing organizations are not doing a good job. This is far from the truth. I want to correct that impression because the staff of the local housing organizations are doing a great job. They are working very hard to make sure all tenants understand the new rent scale.

From the information received so far, I can say that implementation of the rent scale is fully complete in 10 communities. The majority of communities are over 85 per cent complete with their implementation. Some people received their notices late and will be seen next month. A few communities are having some problems and Housing Corporation staff are working with the staff from the local housing organizations to resolve those problems. I will provide Members with a fuller briefing shortly after the end of March. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Ng.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the national biathlon championships were held in Canmore, Alberta from March 9 to 12, 1995. I would like to congratulate Cathy Ayalik, Paul Green, Ian Elsy and Mary Beth Miller, our biathlon team, on their strong showing at this competition:

- Cathy Ayalik from Yellowknife captured two silver medals in the 30 plus category for her performance in the 10-kilometre individual race and the 7.5-kilometre sprint.

- Yellowknife's Mary Beth Miller, fresh from her appearance at the Canada Winter Games, finished 14th overall in the junior women's category.

- Hay River's Paul Green placed seventh in the open men's class.

- Yellowknife's Ian Elsy did well for his first competition at this level.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure our Members will join me in congratulating our NWT biathlon member for their fine performance at the national biathlon championships. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Item 2, Ministers' statements. Are there any further Ministers' statements? Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, today I will talk about the government's program for finding summer jobs for senior high school students and post-secondary students. As Members recall, last year this particular program was clouded by controversy and accusations. I don't think anyone in this House wants that to happen again this year.

I note, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has revamped their whole approach regarding summer student job creation. There was a news bulletin that came out and the federal government has put together a six-point program, which includes: summer career placements; summer youth service Canada, where kids do municipal work across the country; student business loans for young entrepreneurs to get interest-free loans; a native internship program; and, partners at promoting summer employment, and this is a partnership between businesses and the government to hire students and the Canadian Employment Centre.

Mr. Speaker, last year, even though it was a controversial year, the GNWT hired 785 students, which was 117 more students than the year before. This is the best record, I am sure, in the country for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students for governments finding them jobs. So that we don't have this kind of controversy again, we have to look at some imagination in our approach in the summer that is coming up.

First of all, we should dovetail our program with that of the federal government, taking advantage of the programs they have. I also think a certain number of positions should be reserved for kids who excel in class. For instance, anyone with over an 85 per cent average in their university year or at high school is guaranteed a job with the government.

There are two obvious areas, Mr. Speaker, where we could use summer students. One is in the area of the environment. Members will recall a very successful program that the Metis Nation sponsored last year where a group of students went out for a number of weeks to clean up areas around Great Slave Lake.

Mr. Speaker, my time is up. I seek unanimous consent to continue my statement.

The Member for Yellowknife North is seeking unanimous consent. Are there any nays? There are no nays. Continue, Mr. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that program last year...I was down at the send-off for this group of young people, and there was tremendous enthusiasm. A group of young people who went out on the land doing something very, very constructive, and I think it was a very good example for all of us of what's possible with some imagination.

Another area that I think is a very logical place to put summer students is in community projects. There is a tremendous need all across the Northwest Territories in communities. There are a lot of opportunities for young people to make positive contributions to communities. This also could dovetail in with the youth service Canada program, and some of our kids perhaps could go to southern Canada and some southern Canadian kids could come up to the Northwest Territories.

The concept of encouraging our entrepreneurs is a good one. I think we should again dovetail with the federal program and provide programs to young entrepreneurs. Whether they want to set up a chip wagon in downtown Yellowknife or another business somewhere in the territories, I think it would be a tremendous way to encourage our young entrepreneurs. I think we could improve the career orientation, and the Department of Justice, Department of Finance could be out actively pursuing young students to follow those fields and then to devise a program over a number of years that would help these kids to eventually come back to work here in the north. We've done some of it, I think we could do more.

I think there's a real need for at least a small number of these students to be involved in international exchanges. I think our kids should really have some perspective of what's happening out there in the world. Sometimes in the north we're quite insular.

I also think that one area where we haven't really done nearly enough is formal agreements with the private sector, whereby we'll be prepared to work with them to provide jobs for students in the private sector. That means that we'll top off what the private sector is prepared to do. We could get a lot more bang for our buck.

So what I hope -- and when I make this statement I hope that the Minister is listening -- that this will be a summer of no controversy, that we'll build on our record, and we have a tremendous record in this area. We use some imagination and some enthusiasm. We'll harmonize our program with the federal government. I think by doing this, we'll send out the message that, one, the young people are a major priority with this government. Two, that we'll reward success, and that means kids who are successful in school will be rewarded. We'll encourage partnerships between the GNWT and the federal government, between native and non-native kids, between big communities and small communities.

What I hope to see this summer is that our government will show imagination and some energy and come up with new and innovative approaches, and our students, both native and non-native, will be able to say they're very proud of the fact that no other jurisdiction in the country can offer the same opportunities as those that are found in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ballantyne. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm very pleased to be able to stand in the House today and pay tribute to a young woman from Keewatin who has taken, in my opinion anyway, the country by storm. I'm, of course, referring to Susan Aglukark. The people in the Keewatin and the Northwest Territories...

---Applause

...have known for a long time how talented this young woman is. It seems that the rest of Canada is now beginning to fully realize the depth of her talent. Last night, Susan was awarded a Juno for the best solo artist award in Canada. At the same time, her album Arctic Rose took the Juno for the best music of aboriginal Canada.

---Applause

Mr. Speaker, the Junos recognize the best of Canada's musical talent. As a double winner, Susan joins a select and talented group that includes artists such as Jann Arden and Celine Dion. What pleases me most, Mr. Speaker, is that aside from the fact that she is very talented, Susan has also been a great model for our youth and a tremendous ambassador for the Northwest Territories. I hope that all the Members will join me in offering congratulations to Susan on her success, and long may it continue. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Todd. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Pudlat.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand today with regard to the rental scale. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Housing Corporation said that they were going to delay some of the introduction of the rental scale, but I know in some of the communities they have not delayed some of the process. Some of the clerks who are responsible for the introduction of the rental scale are having a hard time in dealing with the new rental scale, especially the rental clerks. It has to be recognized that their job is very difficult. But, Mr. Speaker, some of our communities have no idea what is happening and they have a lot of concerns with regard to the

fact that they do not understand the implication of the rental scale on their livelihood. We were provided with a whole lot of

material that has to be read and I know, myself, that I receive a lot of material to read.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, they are starting to understand the process now but will require a lot more time to understand it further. During the times we meet here in the House, I have tried to convey the information to our constituencies. I even met with the Housing Corporation official in Iqaluit. He came over to our community and realized that the translated materials were not available regarding the rental scale introduction. It is not only the territorial government that is setting up the process, but Ottawa has also given reasons to start the rental scale changes. We always inherit problems from Ottawa so I think that should be explained to the communities as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The most important work that we do in this House is to really deal with legislation, that is why we're called what we're called and there can be nothing more important than developing laws for the people we represent. Mr. Speaker, during the 11th Assembly, I worked very hard on a bill to do with the environment because the economy and the environment were dominating themes. That bill was passed and has been used and has not been a terrible burden. In fact, it's useful to have such an instrument in place. Also because of our interest in the economy, import replacement and renewable resources, Members supported the idea of a bill which would in fact support some kind of attempt to brew our own product in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, the price for private Members to work on such items is very, very dear because, in the first case, all the mining people were mad, all the oil and gas people were mad, all the development-oriented people were mad and that alienated a whole bunch of people because of the particular stance people took. In the case of the brewing bill, you make all the social agencies upset, the people involved with addictions got upset, family-oriented groups got upset and you end up alienating an awful lot of people because of the particular position you take.

The last group, apparently, according to my sources in the community, which I could upset would be politicians. Everybody else has been upset so, therefore, following from Mr. Kakfwi's earlier statement about the need to do things with teeth and not to just have fine words, I will be proceeding with a bill where we can begin at the top and say we are people who are accountable. "Accountability" is the key word in this 12th Assembly and I will be proceeding with a bill on recall that will, in fact, have teeth. We'll be able to do the things in exactly the way that Mr. Kakfwi suggested we do when we have serious problems to deal with. I know I'll get incredible support from all the Members of this House to do that.

Hear, hear.

Thank you.

---Applause

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on May 12, 1994, a report was prepared by Avery Cooper Consulting on the Arctic College environmental programs evaluation report. I believe the consultant was engaged by the Arctic College board of governors to do a formal evaluation.

Mr. Speaker, I'm mystified by some of the recommendations in this report. It was undertaken and completed when it was well-known that two colleges would be established in Nunavut and the western Arctic. Mr. Speaker, there are at present two environmental programs offered: in the Thebacha campus, the renewable resource technology program; and Nunatta campus, the environmental technology program. I believe there are plans under way to offer an environmental technology program in the Inuvik region.

Mr. Speaker, the environmental technology program in Arctic College is evolving to meet the specific needs of implementing the Nunavut land claim and managing Inuit lands and resources, which I understand is the main motive behind the proposed Inuvik program for the claims in those regions. This is, therefore, not the time to try to make the program similar. With the establishment of the new college and the implementation of the Nunavut land claim, this is the time to allow the environmental technology program in the Nunavut college to evolve and grow, not to be confined. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

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

Thank you, Mr. Whitford. Item 3, Members' statements. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, some time ago, through the Kitikmeot board of education and at a meeting with the Premier of this government, hamlet representatives and myself, we talked about the hamlet request for infrastructure money to build a gymnasium attachment to the school. I believe the Minister of Education is aware of the request. Also, some time ago, the Kitikmeot board of education requested funding to build a gymnasium attachment to the Pelly Bay School.

Mr. Speaker, for about five years we seem to have been unable to find funding for this very important project. Mr. Speaker, I'm told that infrastructure money that was given to the territories from the federal government has lapsed over the past year. I'm wondering if there is perhaps some funding left over that was to be allocated to communities but communities did not use. I wonder if money is still available and, at the appropriate time, I will be asking the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Item 3, Members' statements. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, prior to breaking, I questioned the Minister of Housing about the rural and remote program. This program was 75 per cent CMHC funded and 25 per cent NWT Housing Corporation funded. The payment schedules include that 25 per cent of rental income are deemed mortgage payments.

Mr. Speaker, over the break in my constituency I did some work on the rural and remote program and found out how many of my constituents are affected. It was discovered that I have 10 constituents who have taken advantage of the rural and remote program. However, what concerns me is that one is a senior citizen and one is disabled. Many have paid a mortgage for a number of years, Mr. Speaker. For example, one constituent purchased a unit for approximately $62,000 and after 11 years still owes $54,365. Even if they paid out the mortgage, the amount would be $52,499 and that's after paying $675 a month, totalling $8,061 a year, of which $6,200 is applied to interest.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge this government to address the rural and remote program that they were once involved in. I know the Minister stated that it would cost $3 million to purchase all these rural and remote program units in the Northwest Territories and I recognize this is a lot of money in the tight fiscal environment we're in today. However, if we don't, Mr. Speaker, we are creating inequities in our system. On the one hand, the senior citizen units being used by seniors, which are considered public units, are rent free as of April 1st -- and I know some seniors welcome this while many seniors have said they feel very uncomfortable living rent free but I believe they deserve it -- but on the other hand, where seniors are clients of the rural and remote program, paying 25 per cent of their pension towards their mortgage causes great hardship.

Therefore, I would urge this government to address the rural and remote program, which was initially intended to be a good program but has since been deleted by CMHC, probably because of the hardships it does cause. Thank you.

---Applause

Thank you, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Item 3, Members' statements. Are there any further Members' statements? We'll take a 15-minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

We're on item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Todd.

Mr. Speaker, a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Ningark on March 3, 1994, with respect to information on staking claims.

Staking mineral claims is a straightforward process that anyone, not just mining companies, can do. The DIAND mining recorder's office has detailed instructions and information about staking claims that outlines, for example, the maximum size allowed for a single claim, or the type of information needed to be marked on claim posts.

Any person over the age of 18, with a $5 prospecting licence, can stake a mineral claim. Claiming an area for minerals is a matter of:

(1)Finding out whether the mineral rights are available for staking;

(2)Going out on the land and marking the claim or claims with stone markers or marks on trees and claim posts; and,

(3)sending in a form and a map of the claim to the DIAND mining recorder's office, so that they can record the claim.

I have instructed my staff to send a summary of the specific details to the Member's office.

The Department of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is in the process of hiring an individual who will provide direct assistance and advice at the community level on local geology, prospecting and exploration potential in their area.

Mr. Speaker, a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Koe on March 9th with respect to WCB rates.

This matter was referred to the board of directors for consideration at their March board meeting.

Employers are classified by the type of industry and the classification is intended to reflect the total activities and output of the particular industry.

Administrative support services form an integral segment of each industrial classification. The GNWT -- subclass 81 -- is a good example of how diverse an employer's operations can be: for example, we have clerks, heavy equipment operators, inspectors, et cetera.

The board's classification methodology conforms with all other WCB's across Canada, and there is no basis for the board to consider changing this methodology at this time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another question asked by Mr. Koe on March 10th with respect to communities selected for EDO teams.

The regional superintendent committees in Nunavut and the west are discussing deployment options among themselves and with the deputy minister. Some of the factors that have to be considered before selecting the locations are the specific nature of work requirements in each area and potential demand for services. The needs that have to be met vary across the north and have an impact on how the resources are deployed.

The base communities for the itinerant EDOs have not yet been selected. However, it is my intention that they operate from outside the capital and from locations close to the people they serve.

The plan is to have these teams based in a location which will make it possible for them to efficiently carry out their mandate. The primary objective of the teams is to service smaller communities but they will also respond to other opportunities as they arise, Mr. Speaker.

We are working towards having the base communities for these positions selected and the positions filled by June 30, 1995.

Thank you. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Lewis on February 27th with regard to student achievement rates.

Last spring, NWT students participated in the reading and writing assessment conducted as part of the Canada-wide student achievement indicators program.

Over 75 per cent of 13 year olds and over 60 per cent of 16 year olds in the NWT achieved acceptable or higher levels of results in the writing assessment. Overall, these writing results were about 15 per cent below Canadian student outcomes. Half of the students who took part in the reading assessment achieved an acceptable level. However, most of the students are achieving below the national percentage of 72 per cent in reading.

A second assessment in reading and writing will take place again in about three years. This year our students will be participating in a science assessment as part of the Canada student achievement indicators program.

Thank you. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Ms. Cournoyea.

Mr. Speaker, I have a return to an oral question asked by Mrs. Marie-Jewell on February 20th regarding consultation process for the proposed hangar facility in Fort Smith.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the review of the forest fire management program which was carried out in 1993, there was extensive consultation with many interested parties, including community consultations, northern businesses, federal and most provincial jurisdictions, and internal departments, including Renewable Resources, Public Works and Services, Economic Development and Tourism, Financial Management Board Secretariat and Finance. This process was significant in identifying the extent of northern content in the provision of these services, and the potential for reducing the leakage to the south. A complete list of consultations will be tabled later today.

That study was followed by continued interdepartmental considerations by Renewable Resources, Public Works and Services, Economic Development and Tourism and Financial Management Board Secretariat, leading to the decision by the Financial Management Board in June of 1994 to negotiate a comprehensive contract with the Dene-Metis of Fort Smith for the provision and operation of air tanker services.

The Member made mention of two letters. The letter of April 14, 1994 from Dene-Metis Holdings to the committee of deputy ministers was replied to by the deputy minister of Renewable Resources on April 28th. Dene-Metis Holdings sent a fax to the Minister of Public Works and Services on July 11, 1994. The deputy minister of Public Works and Services replied with a letter on July 21, 1994 and the Minister replied on September 7, 1994.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the Northwest Territories did not issue any press releases stating that the NWT Metis National Assembly would be given the project.

Beginning in November 1994, a consultant was retained to assist in consulting with Transport Canada as the owners of the CL-215s, with Canadair, manufacturer of the CL-215s, with representatives of the insurance industry and other jurisdictions having forest firefighting experience. The consulting role was to address such specialized issues as the impact on maintenance schedules, certification and insurance. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Item 4, returns to oral questions.

Mr. Speaker, I have a return to an oral question asked by Mr. Koe on March 7, 1995; GNWT policy on general contractors paying subcontractors.

It is important to realize that the statutory declaration is only one means to protect subcontractors. Other means are equally important, such as bonding or contract security, holdbacks and the GNWT's right to withhold disputed amounts for the general contractor or even to pay the subcontractor directly.

Thank you. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Ms. Cournoyea.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a reply to an oral question which was asked by Mr. Dent on February 24th regarding the assessment of FAS/FAE.

The national population health survey and national longitudinal survey of children were combined and carried out with approximately 1,500 households across the NWT over the past few months. Several survey questions related to the use and amounts of alcohol consumption during pregnancy. This information will provide an indication of the number of children who are at risk for FAS/FAE in the Northwest Territories. Although it will not provide us with the incidence of FAS/FAE, the survey will allow us to determine if further research into this area is necessary. In addition, those children identified as "at risk" through the survey will be followed up in subsequent surveys for assessment of developmental and behavioural problems. This has the potential to provide valuable information on the nature and severity of the problems faced by these children.

As part of the national survey, it will also give us a sense of how our situation compares to the other provinces. I expect the survey report this summer and I will provide a copy to all the Members.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further reply if I may continue. A return to an oral question also asked by Mr. Dent on February 27th regarding the provision of speech therapy to students. Mr. Speaker, Stanton Hospital has two speech pathologists providing services to Yellowknife catchment area, the Kitikmeot and the Inuvik regions. Because of this huge workload, Stanton has had no choice but to limit services in Yellowknife to preschool children. This situation is not workable in the long term and the hospital board has been looking for ways to increase the staffing. It has been possible, Mr. Speaker, through a combination of increased efficiencies and the repatriation of services currently provided in the south, to identify additional resources to resolve this problem. As a result, the hospital will add three speech pathologists to its organization over the next year.

These additional resources will clear up the backlog for both preschool and school-age children. Mr. Speaker, the team will also assess the continuing need for speech pathology services in cooperation with Yellowknife schools. This technical support will help the schools to develop more effective teaching strategies by differentiating between students whose speech difficulties relate to a medical problem as opposed to those who are having difficulty for other reasons, such as learning English as a second language.

Mr. Speaker, I have a further reply to an oral question. It is an oral question asked by Mr. Allooloo on March 7th regarding the government liaison officer acceptance of revised job offers.

Mr. Speaker, between February 13 and 15, 1995, nine GLOs in the Baffin region were offered new half-time positions by the Department of Personnel and asked to confirm their acceptance of the offer within five business days.

Following issue of the revised job offers:

- The Arctic Bay GLO position has been reassessed and, as that position also serves the community of Nanisivik, it has been returned to a full-time position for the fiscal year 1995-96. The part-time job offer has been rescinded, and the incumbent has been advised that her services will be maintained on a full-time basis at this time.

- Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Social Services has agreed to provide funding for part-time positions for the delivery of income support in the communities of Pond Inlet, Igloolik and Pangnirtung. The incumbent Pond Inlet, Igloolik and Pangnirtung GLOs have been offered, and have accepted, amended, full-time job offers which will include responsibilities for the delivery of services for both the Department of Executive and Department of Health and Social Services.

- The remaining Baffin GLOs have not accepted the half-time positions offered. The government is now proceeding with notifications of lay-off, but incumbent GLOs can still accept the half-time position offered until such time as the notification of lay-off is received.

Incumbent GLOs who wish to proceed with lay-off will be given priority status on other employment competitions within the GNWT for a period of one year following their date of lay-off.

Mr. Speaker, I have one further reply. It is a return to an oral question asked by Mrs. Marie-Jewell on March 7th, regarding the transfer of responsibility for staff housing to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, as part of the long-term staff housing strategy, the responsibilities for the various components of the program will be transferred from the Department of Personnel and from the Department of Public Works and Services to the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and to the Financial Management Board Secretariat beginning on April 1, 1995.

On that date, the present headquarters responsibilities of the Department of Personnel for the administration of staff housing will be transferred to the Housing Corporation. Personnel responsibilities for staff housing policy will be transferred to the Financial Management Board Secretariat.

A timetable for the transfer of the remaining property management functions to the Housing Corporation, and for the consolidation of staff housing maintenance functions, is being prepared and will be tabled in the Assembly during the next session. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Are there any further returns? Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Lewis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like you to recognize Mr. Tom Eagle who is in the gallery opposite me. He is a distinguished elder from the city of Yellowknife and the executive director of the Tree of Peace Friendship Centre.

---Applause

Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize Mr. Ben McDonald of the Union of Northern Workers.

---Applause

He is back in the gallery. I would like to thank Mr. Whitford and Mr. Ningark for drawing his presence to my attention. And I would like to say that he was here Friday, March 10th, but I did not recognize him which I regret, that was irresponsible of me not to have done so. Thank you.

---Applause.

Thank you. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Are there any further recognitions? Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Renewable Resources. Prior to the break, the Minister had given me 14 volumes of the fire management review which his department had commissioned quite some time ago. Mr. Speaker, this review cost the department $392,000. The review had some 27 recommendations. I would like to ask the Minister if he knows

how many recommendations were accepted from this particular review. Thank you.

Thank you. The Minister for Renewable Resources, Silas Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier a question with regard to the response that she gave me regarding GLO acceptance. I would like to thank the Minister for seeing that the bigger communities in Baffin need their GLO positions to be full time. I would like to ask the Minister of those nine positions the government is allowing to be full-time, what happens to the rest of the GLOs? If they are let go, are they are allowed to be participants of the workforce adjustment program? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.

Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, following my Member's statement I made earlier today, my question is directed to the honourable Minister for Education, Culture and Employment, as he is responsible for the infrastructure money that is given to the territories for distribution across the board. Mr. Minister, Pelly Bay has been requesting, in the past, funding in the neighbourhood of $1.2 million to build a gymnasium attachment -- that seems like a lot of money; I am reading the amount from a note which was given to me and it's very sloppy handwriting -- for the school. The person who wrote me this note is wondering if there is money left over in the program after communities who requested funding were given their money. Is there any money left over from the old year? Thank you.

Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will just indicate, Mr. Speaker, that some of the communities have not completed their applications for the resources that have been allocated to each community. To date, 26 projects have been approved, valued at approximately $2 million, and it is the intent of these projects to create 142 short-term and long-term jobs. An additional 36 proposals have been received by the management committee and will be going forward for approval shortly. In this particular year, I believe, the matching dollars are approximately $6 million.

Thank you. Mr. Ningark.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the same Minister is, if in fact there is some money left over, surely the community of Pelly Bay that has requested funding for a very useful purpose should be able to get money that is no longer used by other communities. My supplementary to the Minister is, what is the status of the Pelly Bay request for funding under the infrastructure program? Thank you.

Mr. Nerysoo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that the allocation that was made to Pelly Bay does not match the request for $1.2 or $1.4 million. What is clear is that there is probably a need for the region, the community and the divisional board of education to rethink how they are going to fund a project of that magnitude.

There are a number of options we are looking at, but none of which includes the use of carry over dollars because, while the funding may not be totally allocated this year for the infrastructure program, we have an agreement with the federal government that we will carry those dollars over for the next three years. In fact, we're in the process now of negotiating a potential agreement of making the infrastructure program available for up to five years if we don't spend the resources. In that time, we might have the appropriate applications completed.

The one thing that is not clear to me is, even though we're considering extending the project period for five years, if that includes additional resources then we need to have a discussion with the federal government about that matter. It may mean more dollars or it may just mean use of the same amount of dollars over a longer period.

Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Allooloo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Premier. On April 6, 1994, I asked the Premier about a progress report on the official languages directive given to employees and she promised me she would attempt to complete the directive by the end of that session. I have not seen the report or directive for employees. I wonder if the progress report on the official languages directive is now complete. Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, on the basis of the previous funding, we had the directive almost completed. What we're doing now with the present language agreement and the limitation of resources is we're adapting it to recognize that fact and it should be available very soon. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, in the Premier's reply to oral questions today, she indicated that a consultant was retained to assist in consulting with Transport Canada's owners of the CL-215. I would like, just for clarification, to ask the Premier was this consultant in addition to the expenditure the Department of Renewable Resources made on another consultant? Is this a new consultant who was retained in November of 1994 after the forest fire management review had taken place? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, yes.

Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier whether or not she would be able to provide us a with a copy of the terms of reference for this consultant and advise us who the consultant was? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice.

Thank you. The question has been taken as notice. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to hear that, through negotiations between the Executive and Health and Social Services, full-time jobs have been restored, as I understand, in four communities in Baffin Island for GLOs who are now going to take on duties delivering social assistance, I believe. This is great news, Mr. Speaker, but I would just like to ask the Premier why it was necessary to put these people through the hell of getting notice that their jobs were being cut in half and all the anxiety that entails -- five days to reply and all of that -- when, as I think Members of the House said at the time, there was a possible solution at hand?

Why did the government do it backwards? Why didn't they negotiate the new jobs rather than giving lay-off notices and then negotiating the new jobs? Thank you.

I would like to ask the Member for Iqaluit to rephrase his question and I would also like to ask Members to watch the kind of language they use in this House.

---Applause

Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No disrespect was intended. I guess I would like to ask the Premier, very simply, why was it necessary to put the employees through the ordeal of having their jobs cut in half and to give them notices, when there was a solution that could have been worked out, as has been done in these four communities already? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, during the last few months when we were going through the role and work that the GLOs were doing, the regions were well aware that some of the GLOs were carrying out, in fact, work on behalf of Social Services and perhaps other areas and not necessarily a job for the executive directorship. It's not something that was splashed upon the GLOs and they were not aware. Maybe there was an unbelieving state of mind but, at the same time, it was requested to see what these positions were doing and what type of workload there was. At the time of lay-off, we did not receive an alternative to what partial employment they could have in whatever department they were doing in carrying out some of this work. We were not able to determine in time to meet the schedule of lay-off to say exactly what it is that we could have offered up for the half-time position that they would be missing out of their daily job function. That is why the lay-off notices were given, because the answers to the questions, particularly from the Baffin, were not forthcoming. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask a supplementary. Who's responsibility was it to prepare alternative plans, such as have now been developed, prior to the time of lay-off? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, given that the GLO offices were in direct relationship to the Executive, it should

have been the regional director working in relationship with the respective department. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the Premier doesn't want to make the regional directors responsible for her office. Since she's in charge of the Executive, I'd like to ask the Premier wasn't it your responsibility as Premier to have ensured that alternative plans were in place prior to a lay-off notice having been given and if the alternate plans weren't in place, to direct that the lay-off notices should not be given?

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier did attempt to get the procedures in place prior to notification of lay-off, working in conjunction with a person who works with my office known as a regional director. Also, given notice that we should be trying to coordinate, if necessary, the function so that they would be full-time functions. As a result, this did not happen and the procedures fell in place. Thank you.

Thank you. Final supplementary, Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Premier why should the employees suffer if the Department of the Executive couldn't get its act together to develop an alternative plan by a certain deadline? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, it was not our intent for employees to suffer. Thank you.

Thank you. Item 6, oral questions. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Premier. In her reply for transfer of responsibility of staff housing to the NWT Housing Corporation, the Premier indicated as of April 1st all staff housing will be transferred over to the Housing Corporation. I'd like to ask the Premier, the Housing Corporation, as we have been advised in this House, is a corporation even though they don't have a body of directors. In some replies, it's referred to as an "agency." Taking on the responsibilities of providing staff housing as of April 1st, I'm wondering whether or not the corporation is going to remain with its stature as a corporation, as it appears to be looking like a department, taking on these type of departmental responsibilities. Can the Premier identify for this House, what the corporation will be after April 1st? Thank you.

Madam Premier.

Mr. Speaker, on April 1st, the Housing Corporation will be the Housing Corporation in its present form. However, it's recognized that we'll have to look at it as a different entity very soon because it is taking over some staff housing as well as some of the other housing. On April 1st, it won't change but hopefully after that we can get our implementation plans together to see what type of a structure would best serve the needs of an umbrella department to look after the two types of housing. Thank you.

Thank you. Supplementary, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the Premier what type of implementation plans are now being developed. Thank you.

Madam Premier.