Mr. Chairman, I would recommend that we consider Tabled Document 90 and 91 together as one document followed by the reports from the Standing Committees of Social Programs, Resource Management and Infrastructure.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we may wish to wait until tomorrow on that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was the Chair the other day when the issue of community empowerment was discussed, and I had made a few notes, and I would just like to share a few thoughts on community empowerment.

I think it was a good exercise. I am glad it was moved into committee of the whole. I think it is good to talk about it, and to talk it over.

One of the issues of concern to me is one that has not been talked about a lot. But it has to do with liability of this government. When we turn programs, funding, responsibilities over to communities and if there is a failure to deliver that program to the level that is required to meet the needs of the residents, I am wondering about the ultimate responsibility of this government, and how that might be addressed.

Several people mentioned that communities can take on responsibilities at whatever pace, and as quickly as they feel they can manage them. But the valid point has been made that a lot of the personnel involved in departments which serve as support and back-up for those communities has been, or is going to be taken out of the picture. If we do have this kind of incremental approach to community empowerment, and different communities are at different levels of assuming responsibilities, in fact, a parallel system is required by this government. I am wondering how cost-effective that is, and if in fact we should not have something a little bit more organized, and set targets whereby a certain department would try turning over certain phase of responsibilities to different communities that were ready at the same time. So that we do not end up with a real patchwork.

There has been talk about saving money, by putting the dollars into programs as opposed to the administration of programs, and I think everybody agrees that there has been seemingly an uncontrolled growth in the area of bureaucracy in our government. We say that, but I just would like to point out that we sure like those government jobs in our communities, in those larger communities. So we talk about breaking down bureaucracy and we talk about community empowerment, but people have to realize that those jobs are not going to be there. I hope that is not a contradiction.

When we talk about the diminished role of the central government, and running communities at the community level. A lot of those people that work at that level, are volunteers. If we are going to diminish the role of the central government, I am wondering if we are looking at some form of compensation to those people. Are we going to share out pay cheques with them? Are we going to sit less, pay MLAs less, and pay people at the community level more money?

---Applause.

Even in a town the size of Hay River, we have a mayor that basically performs almost a full-time job for $16,000 a year.

When we talk about community empowerment, I think we should be thinking about sharing our pay cheques with those people. I do not think we can expect to run any

corporation, or any organization well on a strictly voluntary basis.

Just a last comment on something we have heard over and over again. We have heard it said, I would say I have probably heard it said about a hundred times, that, with respect to community empowerment, mistakes are going to be made. I am wondering why we do not talk more about the opportunities of community empowerment. Maybe we should talk about the positive side, and ask questions, and set goals, and say, is community empowerment going to result in things such as less income support, more economic development, addressing our social issues of drug and alcohol abuse. Are we going to be able to attain goals such as that through community empowerment? I think if we focused on those sorts of issues instead of the fact that mistakes are going to be made, I think that community empowerment might be more palatable. Maybe people would be even more willing at the community level to buy into it, if we could hold up those opportunities a little bit more, and not scare people.

Mr. Henry, I believe, mentioned the other day that the communities that have the most empowerment at this point in time, are the ones who have an economy, and the ones that are the least dependent. I think that while we are looking at cut-backs, and so on, we also have to consider that maybe one of the most empowering things that we can do for communities is in the area of training and job creation and creating an economic base, and I am not really sure how we will do that. There is talk of job strategies, and training programs. There are benefit impact agreements. I think it is part and parcel of community empowerment. People have to have an economic base. They have to have a job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is more in line in regards to how do you involve the different organizations, especially in relation to band councils, Metis locals and also the groups that are presently negotiating self-government agreements are trying to negotiate for similar arrangements as communities are, through community empowerment. Is there a mechanism that you are looking at using to involve those people, either prior to the transfers or even during the transfer, so that maybe they can take over those initiatives?

The reason I asked the

question is because there are several initiatives happening in my riding, especially in regards to the self-government negotiations between the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in, also the Aklavik community aboriginal council. There are initiatives out there, but they might not fall within the same circumstances. There are different circumstances for different areas. Because of that, I am wondering if there is a way that you can allow those groups to take on those programs as they proceed, either as a pilot project or what not, within those communities. So they can take them on now by piecemeal, instead of taking over everything, just take over sections of it, instead of just formulated through the municipal council or the hamlets. If there could be some mechanism there for aboriginal institutions that are being developed, looking at public government, to be able to allow to take over these initiatives now?

Well, they are basically doing the same thing we are looking at through community empowerment. The aboriginal council in Aklavik for instance, consists of the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Metis, and also through the hamlet council. So there are already these structures being developed in communities to take over these things, but they are doing it sort of at their own pace, they want to make sure that they take it over with the adequate resources that are there. And also sort of formulated into what they are doing through self-government negotiations. So these initiatives are already there, these institutions are already being developed because of land claim agreements, or because of self-government negotiations. So in light of what we are doing here, we have to also keep in mind that those procedures are both going to eventually clash, because they are going after the same thing. So you have to keep that in mind when you are doing this initiative.