Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That we proceed with Bill 5, the Adoption Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One of the concerns of the Adoption Act was the order of the different sections. During the public hearings, we heard that it was difficult to determine what sections apply to private adoption versus departmental adoptions. Addressing this concern requires a major reformatting of the bill for that reason. The Minister agreed to table a new version of the Adoption Act. The original version would be allowed to die on the order paper. In the new version of the Adoption Act, the committee expects to see changes to reflect the issues raised during the public hearings. This includes the following points. In determining the vast interests of a child, child and parental preference should be considered. A mother should be required to identify the father of the child if she knows who it is. While we recognize the mother's right to privacy, it is our opinion that the right of a child to be aware of his background overrides the right to privacy of the mother.

Section 14 backs to restrict financial assistance for adoptive parents to those with special needs identified prior to the adoption. We acknowledge the Minister's concern about liability. However, there must be some flexibility to address congenital problems which surface after the adoption. This would be consistent with the intent of the section.

Section 14(4) allows the department to change the amount paid to adoptive parents. We would like to see a process available for parents who want to dispute a decision to change financial support.

In determining preference of an adoptive placement, we would like to see preference given, not just to the grandparents, but to members of the extended family, including siblings, aunts and uncles. For private adoptions there should be a requirement for adoptive parents to attempt to have a pre-placement report done prior to accepting a child, whether a child is adopted through a private or departmental placement. There should still be that initial check on the home.

For out-of-territory adoptions, all aboriginal groups need to have the opportunity for input. The original bill only covered Dene chiefs. We would also like the bill to allow more pro-active involvement in out-of-territory births, where the Director revokes consent for departmental adoptions. Written reasons should be provided.

Section 27 deals with a parent revoking consent. We were concerned about a case where, for example, the mother has physical custody of the child before the adoption, but the father revokes the consent. The placement of the child needs to be clarified in a timely way which protects the best interest of the child. When a child revokes his consent to an adoption, we would like a mandatory requirement for investigation.

Adopted children and biological parents should be able to readily access adoption information. The Minister has agreed to take further steps toward open adoptions. This will include eliminating the distinction between identifying and non-identifying information. Many people said that although, legally, a biological parent ceases to be a parent with adoption, they thought that bond was still important. We think this should be addressed in the preamble.

In keeping with the intent of providing complete information through the adoption registry, the bill should allow other interested parties to have information placed on the registry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I move that this committee defer consideration of Bill 5 at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We should proceed with Minister's statement 110-13(4) concurrently at the same time as Tabled Document 108-13(4), Creation of Two New Territories, Transition Action Plan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that we report progress.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make some general comments, which I would like to put into question form later on, but they really relate to the document in terms of two areas. One is the transitional costs which this document has been very good to identify what that may be and the importance of us to address that question because it was originally, as we all understood, throughout the process that the federal government would pick up the transitional costs and the incremental costs, at least that was my understanding. So that is an area of tremendous concern to all of us because without that being covered then the territorial government, this particular government, is picking up those costs and it results in program areas being cut in order to pay for that.

The second area of concern that I have, and I have some questions on that with respect to clarification, is the effect on Yellowknife because of the creation of the two territories, and again this document deals with staffing size and how it will effect office areas. But interestingly enough, the document does refer to the fact that the establishment of the ability to operate departments in Nunavut is behind; and therefore, there needs to be contracting of services and presumably the west can fulfil those needs and that we need to address in turn here because Yellowknife may be losing staff and we have to ensure that adequate staff is maintained to provide those services. The other is that ,I think, it is important to point out for the public that there is a training program, and there are many training positions being established, some of which are established in Yellowknife until the availability is made in Nunavut for the positions to be located there. So those are the areas, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to present some questions on. Thank you.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, I will let Mr. Steen proceed because I wanted to address some questions further to my comments. If Mr. Steen wishes to proceed with general comments or questions, please go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have two specific concerns in regard to this particular document. One centres around the costs, time and resources to this government to put forward this document and plan. The other centres around my concern as to whether we are advising these people or whether we are actually drawing up government systems for them.

Mr. Chairman, if I may expand on the second one at this point. I noticed that we were supposed to be third party to all this process of establishing a Nunavut government. With that understanding in place, we would just simply take part as to advising these people as to what would be a proper type of structure of government for a number of people down there and for the size of the area. However, I am getting concerned as to the amount of time and effort we are actually putting into this thing. If I may go back a little in time, I recall about this time last year we were presented with Footprints 2, which was second phase of Footprints in the Snow. We considered that particular document and we put forward a fair number of recommendations as to changes to that particular structure. I wonder if we are losing sight of the thought that these people, NIC and I presume the Interim Commissioner are in fact mandated to design this government for these people, and not us, not this government. I am beginning to think if we have not already, we are very close to the border where we are no longer advising these people, but we are actually telling them and doing for them what they should be doing themselves.

Mr. Chairman, in this plan that is being put forward, although there was some exceptions to the plan, by the Members, I believe it was said in more than one instance by more than one Member that in absence of any other plan, we are supporting this plan. I think that is a very important point and that NIC, the Interim Commissioner and whoever else is involved including the feds, should pay attention to that particular statement. Many of us here still believe that it is the responsibility of those people from Nunavut to design and structure their own government, and not this government.

I would further like to point out that in this plan for two territories. We suggested that since they would not have any system in place themselves by 1999, that they adopt this government's system for the time being. That includes the bureaucrats, policies and everything else of this government. I think it is a fundamental and accepted fact that if you want to control anyone, you simply give them a government you designed. My suggestion to these people is that we are giving them a bureaucratic system, they can hire from this government for a minimum of two years. We will be suggesting very strongly to them what type of government they are going to have in the future. If Nunavut people do not take this thing for what it is worth and still proceed with their own type of government, they might just as well continue to belong to this territory. Mr. Chairman, I am very convinced in my mind that, if we look back in history or history in any part of this world, whereby one people wished to take over another country or another small country, the simplest way to do it without actual war is to take over their government and infiltrate their government with their ideas and thoughts. The best way to do that is to supply them with all the bureaucrats. That is the simplest way to do it. I believe that is what is being suggested here.

I have no doubt in my mind that in the past history of this territory there were only two items needed to conquer this territory from the native people. That was the Bible and school books. That is all they needed to conquer and that is what they used. That is what the white man used to conquer this territory. To me, this looks like a simple process which is still continuing, whereby, we are having white men suggesting to the native people what kind of government they want rather than letting them do it themselves. I, for one, do not think we have any right to do that. I feel strongly that Nunavut people fought for many years for the right to design their own government, and we really have no business doing it. Although this document may be called a transition document which would address the design of the two new territories, I believe it is more properly branded as Footprints 3 because that is what it looks like to me.

I really believe this government is stepping out of line by suggesting to these people what kind of government they want. I, for one, do not support this idea that we are going to slowly infiltrate Nunavut by bringing them a whole prepared government. We are going to charge them for it, mind you cost plus, cost plus 10 percent, cost plus 20 percent or whatever we can get away with. I will not accept that. But I believe, Mr. Chairman, that is what Footprints 2 is saying. Those are my comments. Thank you.