Thank you. Members' statements. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you. Members' statements. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am confused by the comments made by some Ministers in this House in the past few days. Several Ordinary Members have pointed out there is an urgent need for legislative amendments to be made because we have several acts that are outdated and cumbersome. The Labour Standards Act and the Condominium Act, for example, are preventing people in the Northwest Territories from carrying out reasonable and necessary arrangements that any employer, purchaser or business person located elsewhere in Canada would be entitled to make.

Under our Labour Standards Act, an employer or employee in the Northwest Territories cannot even come to an agreement about the hours of work that best suit them both. We do not know how many employees our legislation is forcing to work outside of the system, possibly illegally. Another prime example is our Workers' Compensation Act. I venture to say there are no other Workers' Compensation Boards in Canada who have the ability to sue an employer.

Mr. Speaker, Members have been told by the Deputy Premier, by the Minister of Finance and by the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development that the legislative agenda of this government is full and that the government has set its priorities and apparently, that is that. Division is coming and our hands are tied. There is very little they say they can do.

On the other hand, new initiatives are being brought forward and we cannot seem to get a clear answer as to whether legislation will be required to implement them or not and I refer to the Keewatin pilot project.

Mr. Speaker, the government seems to have its priorities misplaced. With division coming, there is even more reason to clean up the field. The last thing that the two new governments need, is to inherit obstructive legislation. Our outdated statutes are causing enough problems now. Surely, we do not want to duplicate them. Before we spend all our efforts putting into place grand new initiatives that may not even be appropriate for Nunavut, we need to make sure we do not perpetuate past mistakes. That is where our priorities should be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause.

Thank you. Members' statements. Item 4, returns to oral questions. Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have two returns. The first one is one asked by Mr. Barnabas on February 13th in regard to the impact of freight cost increases.

On Friday, February 13, the Member for High Arctic directed a question to the Premier asking how NAV Canada's phase I introduction of fees for air navigation services on April 1, 1998 will affect the cost of living in the north. As the Premier indicated, this is not an easy question to answer precisely.

The creation of NAV Canada as a not-for-profit private corporation was the result of the federal government's decision to put Canada's air navigation system on a commercial footing. Commercialization meant that Canadians would pay for the cost of air navigation services differently than they had before. Formerly, the government of Canada paid for most of the costs of air navigation services through the Air Transportation Tax (ATT) that was added to the price of every air passenger ticket sold. As NAV Canada brings in its new service fees, collected directly from the air carriers instead of the passengers, the Air Transportation Tax will be eliminated. Passenger fares would go up to cover the new fees, but the old tax that was added on top of the ticket price will be gone.

NAV Canada's new fees will come in two stages, one effective April 1, 1998 and the second on November 1, 1998. At the same time, the Air Transportation Tax will disappear in two 50 percent reductions.

How the air carriers, in turn, plan to recover NAV Canada's fees from the customers is a matter of each carrier's corporate pricing strategy. Depending on its competitive position, a carrier may decide to pass on all or a portion of the fees. The carrier also has the additional flexibility to distribute its fee recoveries between its passenger fares and its freight rates.

The new fee structure could not be avoided as NAV Canada put the air navigation system on a full cost recovery basis. Nonetheless, in a vigourous lobbying campaign with the northern air carriers over the past year, the Department of Transportation has been successful in minimizing the impact of the new fee structure on northern routes.

The department was able to make NAV Canada recognize that the fee structure, as it was originally proposed, would have had a greater effect on northern than southern air routes. As a result, NAV Canada agreed to raise the weight limit of the aircraft which the phase I fees would apply from 5.5 to 8 tonnes. The higher weight limit exempts Twin Otters and aircraft of similar size from the phase I fees. The department also won the concession that the new fees would not apply to flights departing from northern and remote airports where the air navigation services are delivered by CARS stations.

The phase one fees are set to come into effect on March 1st. The department is still in discussion with NAV Canada on the phase two fees that will come into effect on November 1st. Although I cannot be specific at this point, I am confident that we will have similar success in reducing the impact of phase two fees as we have already had with phase one fees.

For all that, I am sorry, I cannot give the Member an exact answer on the overall effect the new passenger fares and freight rates will have on the cost of living in northern communities. Too much depends on how the air carriers themselves decide to factor NAV Canada service fees into their fares and rate schedules. The final effect on the delivery costs of air cargo will vary from community to community.

I can tell the Member that the effect of the new fees on the northern cost of living will is less than if the Department of Transportation had not intervened with NAV Canada as early and as vigorously as it did.

My second return to oral question, Mr. Speaker, was a question asked by Mr. Erasmus on February 13th, in regard to NorthwesTel rate increases.

First, I would like to remind Members that my role in relation to NorthwesTel is to ensure that the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories are made clear to the CRTC. It is the CRTC that makes the rules and sets the rates for phone companies.

I can tell you that providing local telephone service is very expensive, especially in the north. For a long time, phone companies structured their rates so that every house could afford to have a phone. This meant that long distance rates had to be higher in order to help pay for the local costs.

When phone companies were deregulated, competition for long distance services became intense. In order to compete for long distance customers, the companies that provided local access decided that the local system had to pay for itself, instead of depending on long distance revenues.

The rate increases we have seen so often in the Northwest Territories in recent years are the result of NorthwesTel getting ready for competition. They are increasing local access and balancing that with decreases to long distance rates. This works out well for customers who make a lot of long distance calls. Their total phone bill will probably go down. However, the CRTC has specifically ordered the introduction of long distance competition by July 1, 2000. NorthwesTel has been directed to increase local rates by $4 effective August 1, 1998 and by $6 effective August 1, 1999.

This government made a submission to the CRTC when they were holding hearings last year to decide on whether long distance competition should be implemented. We supported long distance competition. We realized that it would mean some increases in local rates, but we recommended to the CRTC that they introduce subsidies for areas like the Northwest Territories where costs of providing service are very high.

I am pleased to report that the CRTC took that recommendation seriously. They will be holding hearings across the country and in the north starting in May of 1998. We intend to continue to be aggressive on the need for subsidies to help northerners and we will be making a submission to the CRTC to make sure that northerners' interests are represented on this important issue. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

--Applause

Thank you. Returns to oral questions. Item 5, recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Welcome to the Assembly. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Welcome to Assembly. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Welcome to the Assembly. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Krutko.

Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am happy today to introduce two members of Fort Simpson, two of my constituents who are also here with the friendship centre delegation. First of all, I would like to introduce Dwayne Lafferty, he is the executive director of the Deh Cho Society Friendship Centre in Fort Simpson, as well as, Alexa Tsetso, she is a youth representative with the Deh Cho Society Friendship Centre in Fort Simpson. Mahsi and thank you.

--Applause

Welcome to the Assembly. Recognition of visitors in the gallery. Item 6, oral questions. Mr. Ootes.

The Minister of Transportation, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to clarify that I wear three different hats as Minister here in this House and, I think, my role as Minister of Public Works and Services is what my relationship with NorthwesTel is. Again, we are there to represent the interests of all the people in the Northwest Territories and the request that we made is for all the residents of the Northwest Territories in regard to the subsidies which they should consider in their increases to their telephone rates. Thank you.

Oral questions. Supplementary, Mr. Ootes.

Mr. Antoine.