Can you rephrase your question, please?

Mr. Todd.

I think what my honourable colleague is saying is what were the criteria for negotiations? If that is what he is saying, it was based upon the targets that were set by Cabinet to be met with respect to the total wages and benefits package that is incorporated into the N.W.T.T.A. agreement. Thank you.

Oral questions. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I would answer by saying that an appropriate accommodation could not be reached with respect to the overall package that we were trying to negotiate, therefore, negotiations came to an end. I, under the authority of the PSA Act enacted what we believe was a fair and reasonable package, given the current fiscal climate that we all operate in. The N.W.T.T.A. understandably so, in representative interests of its membership, appealed that and they are in the process of taking a variety of actions in an effort to overturn our decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Mr. Henry.

He has asked for two Ministers. What are the rules regarding question period? Just by way of process, if Members are not clear as to who is responsible for any particular portfolio or agencies, boards, commissions, then you can direct your questions to the Premier or the Deputy Premier. In this case, it would be the Deputy Premier, Mr. Arlooktoo.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask Mr. Todd, in his capacity as the Chair of the Division Planning Committee, to respond to that question.

Thank you. The Minister responsible for the Division Planning Committee, Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, we are all responsible for the division of the Territories, although I do have the lead in terms of trying to put together a consensus in this House, Cabinet, and the Ordinary Members as to what the position of the government is, as we move forward towards negotiating the division of the two Territories and seeking the appropriate resources.

As I mentioned earlier, I believe, and in questions asked of me by Mr. Miltenberger yesterday or the day before, we currently have the NIC report, Footprints in the Snow 2, which has provided a model for the new Nunavut government that we have reacted to, and indicated what our assessment of it was. We are one party in the arrangement on the Nunavut side. There are two other parties on the arrangement on the Nunavut side, that is NTI, that has a legal obligation to the Nunavut Act, and the federal government, that ultimately will pay the bill. We are still waiting for, with a great deal of anticipation, the response from both those parties, I hope a comprehensive response from both those parties, to determine if there are similarities and parallels with the response that we have done to the NIC report. It is our hope that, once these responses are in place, we will then be in a position to negotiate or reach a consensus on what kind of core structural framework will be in place for Nunavut. It is premature at this time for us to know what that is, because we do not have all the information on the table, and that is the two responses from the two other parties.

On the western side, at the present time, we are making the assumption, because there is nothing to compare it to, that the status quo would be a starting point, if you want, for negotiations. Now I think it would be fair to say that while we are waiting for the NTI and the federal government response to the Footprints in the Snow 2, we are also looking at what we think we can do as a pre-implementation of the division of the Territories. We cannot sit idle and wait until April 1, 1999, and I have said this consistently, and assume that somebody is going to wave a magic wand and everything is going to fall into place. We have a responsibility to at least develop some form of pre-implementation plan that will put some framework in place to ensure that the two new governments can be up and running effective April 1, 1999.

So, I have instructed my deputy, and those involved in the Division Secretariat to do a greater review of the Footprints report, to determine from that report what we think we can realistically accomplish, and within that, what we believe is affordable, because the issue at the end of the day is going to be affordability, and we are moving on that exercise right now. Once that has been concluded, and hopefully by that time of course, we will have the response from the two other parties, we will then share that information with the Legislature, again seek consensus because that is what this is all about, and try to bring in some pre-implementation plans in the late part of this year, and the beginning of 1998. I will be providing my honourable colleague and others in the Budget Address on Monday with a much clearer picture of what our position is. At the present time, that is where it stands. Thank you.

Thank you. Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that explanation by the Minister. I think it is fair to say that there are a number of parties who are contributing to the creation of these two new Territories and all the decisions are not made by the Government of the Northwest Territories. What I wanted to know, about the action plan, was if the Minister would consider, as it is in the half-way right now, an action plan drawing out things that have to take place between now and division, and also the groups that are responsible for input, so the public at large can see that this government is moving on division as fast as they can, and there are other parties who are maybe not moving as fast, or who are maybe not making decisions as fast as they could do to help this government proceed with the creation of two new Territories. I think it would be important if there was some kind of a chart like that, and the parties that are responsible for making decisions highlight their area and a date that they have to respond by, so that the blame for slowness, if that is what it is, can be directed to the party responsible for it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Todd.

The one valuable commodity that we are running out of, Mr. Speaker, is time. There is no question. I would remind everybody that there are 22 months left, if there is going to be an election in Nunavut in February of 1999, assuming that it is there. The reality is 22 months left. So time is a valuable commodity; it is actually even more valuable than money at this stage, in my opinion. My honourable colleague is correct. We need to provide a pre-implementation plan, there are some things that we have to do now, sooner rather than later. That has been my attitude from the very beginning. It has to be approved, as my honourable colleague said, by all the players to make sure that we are all happy, if that is at all possible, and we need to ensure that it is done in a timely and orderly way. We need to, more importantly, establish what can we realistically accomplish in the 22 months that are left.

I think it would be fair to say that we are gearing up the Division Secretariat to ensure that we do have a plan in place that will accomplish what I believe are the bare minimums that are required. I am confident that, once we receive the response from the other parties, and hopefully consensus will be reached, we can then move forward in terms of negotiations that I talked about the day before yesterday or yesterday, I believe, on the fiscal framework necessary for the two governments.

I have struggled for awhile here. I still have to understand and we have to reach consensus on what the basic core framework of the new government is going to look like so we can cost it. Nobody in NIC has taken the time to cost the new government as they currently are proposing, never mind any amended designs that may come about through discussions with the two other parties. This has got to be done quickly. We are simply running out of time. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hear the Minister responsible for the Division Secretariat Committee saying that there are many items that cannot proceed until other parties outside of the Government of the Northwest Territories have responded to the government regarding the set-up of the Nunavut government in particular. The Minister has acknowledged that, at least in the west, there is something we can price out, the status quo. It does not mean that it will stay in place, but at least we have something that we can price out already. We are then, waiting for two other parties. My question to the Minister is, will he consider within the next month putting a time frame in this lobby beside the number of days left, indicating who is responsible for what decisions, and when they should be made by. Thank you.

Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me say, again, to the point of being repetitive, that this Minister, who is charged with the responsibility of division, understands the division of two Territories requiring two new formula agreements, and there has to be a balanced approach to the negotiations and to the pre-planning and pre-implementation of any division of the new Territories. I think it is important to say that. So if I say it now, hopefully I will not have to continue to say it in the coming months, because I have said it until I am blue in the face.

I fully understand the responsibilities I have been charged with in relation to the division of the Territories and the need to find a balance and that there has to be two new formula arrangements. I cannot unequivocally say today that in the next 30 days I can put together the kind of framework and kind of timetable that my honourable colleague understandably is asking for.

What I will commit to, and have already committed to, is to move as quickly as I can to provide exactly that, so there is some minimal blueprint as to the basic needs that we have to put in place whether or not consensus is reached by all the parties. Okay? Thank you.

Oral questions. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as Ordinary Members, we of course are very limited in our questions over the last couple of days because of the budgets. We have to be very careful in what we ask. If that is boring to the people, who do not like fungus questions, that is all I can say.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my Member's statement, we have to look at other revenue-generating areas in the Northwest Territories. Over the past several months there have been discussions of different types, but nowhere, to my knowledge, has there been discussion around taxes on income from gambling, that includes lottery, video terminals, bingos and other such funds that could be used to help offset losses to Delta House and other treatment centres, have been mentioned. So my question is to the Minister of Finance. Has he looked at other alternate revenue generating sources, such as taxes on gambling, to alleviate the pain that we see in Inuvik over the closure of Delta House, and some of the other ramifications of the deficit that we have in the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.