At this time I would like to thank the Minister and his witnesses. Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses out.

The next item on the agenda that we need to deal with is Motion 1-14(5). The motion has been deferred to committee of the whole. At this time, I would like to ask if there are any general comments on the motion. General comments? Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments on the motion. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank my four colleagues who brought this motion forward and have done a lot of work in this area, and I think are certainly very passionate about the establishment of a committee that will address some of the rural community issues and affairs. I think with good reason. I certainly would not sit here today and try to deny that there are inequities between the predominately larger tax-based communities and the smaller non-tax-based communities. I think that is a fact of life that you would see anywhere across this country. I think the Northwest Territories is no different in that respect.

I also think that further compounding the problem here is the fact that when you analyze some of these services and some of the facilities in the larger centres, what people may not initially realize and grasp is that a lot of these are paid for and have been paid for with municipal tax revenues. Clearly the smallest economies and smallest communities cannot raise their own tax revenues. There simply is not the critical mass to be able to generate any kind of meaningful revenue through municipal taxation and I understand that, but I think that it has to be said that much of the facilities are a direct result of the generation of municipal tax revenues.

I do have some concerns about the way that this committee has been structured, in that it appears to have a fixed four-Member membership and these four Members represent rural communities. I think, structured like this, it may give the perception that there would somehow be some have and some have-not rural communities.

It is no secret that much of what communities strive to do is lobby the government. All of our committees have that as their mandate and try to influence how funding is allocated, how programming is developed and I think that in fairness to other Members in this House who do represent constituencies that do have small rural communities, for instance the Premier, Minister Steen, Minister Antoine, Minister Handley as well representing Detah, I think in fairness to their constituents, we would have to allow for them to have representation in a committee of this nature.

I think what makes more sense is to structure some sort of a committee that would recommend to this Assembly how our internal structures and how our government structures are set up might better reflect rural issues, because I really do believe there is a case to be made here and this is something that I would support. I think it will have to be seen to be fair in that regard. I am hoping that if this does not pass here today that the four Members who have done this work to date will not be disheartened, but will work with their other colleagues, and indeed, the entire membership of this House, to try to see how we might reflect these rural priorities and see what kind of work we can do going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. General comments on the motion. Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. McLeod.

I did not put my name down.

-- Interjection

Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for volunteering my comments here. I do have some comments. I was going to make them later, but now that you have recognized me, I will state them. I think, like Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Nitah, I speak in favour of this motion. I think this whole concept has come about and has been an issue that has been growing for some while now because of frustration and really because our communities are somewhat different from the larger centres.

We have different values, different philosophies, different culture. The community dynamics are certainly different. The majority of our communities in the ridings are predominantly aboriginal. When decisions are made by this government and they are voted on and we see budgets that come about that, for instance, reduce capital plans and really effect our communities, what we consider the smaller communities in the North, more so than it does the regional centres and more so especially in the case of Yellowknife, we have seen the result of that. We have seen very little activity, very little investment in the last while because of our financial situation, but it has really made a drastic effect on our communities.

A lot of our communities are built around capital projects, especially housing. When we see those programs and projects reduced, it affects us. I have seen a number of companies in my riding having to close their doors now because we have reduced our investment in the capital plan over the last couple of years.

However, we have to recognize that we have 29 communities that are being represented right now through seven Members. We have four larger centres that are being represented by 12 Members. It makes it very difficult to get your position across when you are that badly outnumbered. Of course, this is a fallout of the division of the Northwest Territories and the court challenge.

When there are statements made in public presentations by our Ministers and our Premier describing a very positive future and a rosy picture of activities that are happening across the North and the employment that is available and the training that is going on, a lot of times it is difficult to share that enthusiasm because it has not filtered down to our communities. We do not have these things going on. We are still struggling to access dollars for training programs. We are still struggling with our people in the communities being able to qualify to get on some of these programs.

It really demonstrates that there is a huge difference about how people are viewing the future and how they feel about what is happening in the North. The four different people that were named to this committee all have communities that are similar in size, similar in dynamics, similar numbers of communities in their riding. They all have multi-community ridings. It has been obvious to us that we have to start working together. Not only do we have to start working together and start lending support to each other, we also have to start finding resources so that we can start really doing a lot more serious research and taking a more proactive approach.

I think it is important that we have our voice heard, that we are not drowned out by the many votes that are out there that outnumber us. I think we have a lot to offer. I do not view this move as a negative approach. I do not agree with anybody that states that we are trying to cause a split in the House. I do not agree we are trying to create any attacks on the larger centres, especially Yellowknife. I do not think that is the intent of this committee.

The reason all of us are here is to improve the quality of life in our communities and we have to ensure that we do that. I do not think it has ever been reviewed by any group how the numbers were going to affect us, and maybe there has to be a change in our system. I think this group can do that. We have already identified in this motion that this standing committee will not affect or interfere with any other standing committee or committees that are set up by this House.

We are just trying to build and develop a stronger voice and by working together, we can do that. I think we all agree that the North has a bright future ahead of us. We have heard that many times in this House. We want to be part of it. We want to be proactive. We want to be able to contribute like every other Member in this House. I guess if we are going to vote on this motion today, the outcome will demonstrate how this House functions and how strong we feel about providing equal representation. If there is a weak sector amongst us as Members, then we should be looking at ways to help them get the proper investment, like every other Member has. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think this motion is not a threat, but I think it is a means of getting the best from the government to the people of the Northwest Territories, especially the people in the rural communities. The reason I say that is because the motion is pretty clear what we want to do -- consider and make recommendations in regards to the equitable distribution of Government of the Northwest Territories resources in the Northwest Territories communities.

Those Members who may not have been here during the 13th Assembly where we had a major deficit and where we had to cut back on programs and services, and also that there has been a change in the way the distribution of capital allocations have been done.

In the past, in the Northwest Territories when we were one large territory, every community was assured an allocation in regard to infrastructure. It did not matter what size your community was. That was the awareness that everybody had. Everybody was going to be treated fairly and everybody would have the ability. It did not matter if you were Colville Lake or Pond Inlet or Lutselk'e or Tsiigehtchic, everyone had a basic idea that they would have infrastructure in your communities. You will have schools, you will have health centres, you will also have the resources to carry those out.

I think we have to look at exactly where we go in regard to developing capacity in small communities. Small communities need just as much capacity as larger communities. In most cases, their needs are probably more urgent than say the larger communities because you can depend on existing resources that are already there.

In most major centres, you will have consultant companies. You will have people who deal with accounting firms, lawyers, you name it. Those people have set up shop, they do run a business in a lot of these centres and I think that we have to realize that a lot of communities have to be able to develop capacity so they can run programs and services and be accountable, not only to the communities, but to the government. Without proper resources and proper distribution of those resources, I think we are setting these people up for failure. I think we do have to ensure that when we say community empowerment, it really means empowerment, not just a downloading of services and programs that we know at the end of the day are not going to work anyhow.

I think the other recommendation that the committee wants to consider looking at is the geographical makeup of the Northwest Territories. One thing we have not really done or seen in this building is, where do we see the cultural makeup of the Northwest Territories? We have the Inuvialuit, we have the Gwich'in, we have the different aboriginal organizations. We have communities that have a unique history but it is not reflected even here in this Legislature. It is not reflected in regard to information materials that are given out by this government. Every aboriginal group from the Inuvialuit to the Cree to the Slavey and Dogrib, all have their own unique cultural aspect and traditions that they have practiced for hundreds of thousands of years. I think that is something that we as a government have to build up into the fabric of who we are.

I think that with division, with regard to Nunavut and other territories, they seem to put a lot of focus into their culture, as to who they are as an Inuit people. I think here in the west, we need to start exploring that more to ensure that we do have resources to develop materials and develop the information that will be handed down to other governments or other people within the Territories, so they get a better understanding of what the Northwest Territories really is. I think that is something that we do not seem to take enough time to realize.

I also think that with regard to where we are going as a territory, we have to realize that change has happened. Change has taken place in the Northwest Territories with division. Change has taken place with regard to the make-up of this House. At one time in the 13th Assembly, the majority of the Members in this House represented rural communities. There has been a switch now where the majority of the Members in this House represent urban communities and large municipal tax-based communities. We cannot lose sight that there is a definite need to change how we conduct ourselves as a government and conduct ourselves as the Legislature and seriously review what we are doing by way of ensuring that the legislation passed by this government and the process for distribution is fair.

One of the arguments we hear a lot, especially from Members in small communities and Members from rural communities, is the whole way government distributes capital. One of the requirements of this government and the whole area that we talk about is based on per capita distribution. On the other hand, when we go knocking on Ottawa's door and looking at federal funding we are telling them, "Sorry, you cannot use per capital distribution because it is not fair to the Northwest Territories." That is the same argument put by the small communities to this government.

It is not fair to small communities because you are penalized for having a small population. The same thing applies nationally in Canada when we go to Ottawa pounding on their door for funding for highways or funding for social programs and housing. That is the exact argument that we use to the federal government, yet when it comes to us, we tell the communities, "Sorry, that is the formula we have to use, it is based on per capita." For things like that we have to practice what we preach on both sides, if we tell the federal government that is the way they should conduct themselves.

The other thing, just for the comfort of the communities, with regard to the establishment of the committee and how it conducts itself in the manner approved by the committee and in accordance with the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, we will have to be accountable to this Legislature. We do not want to impose, enhance or encourage what is going on in other committees. They have their mandate. We will have ours. There will not be overlapping mandates because that is something we can make sure of.

I think it is important as a Legislature that we do seriously take a look at this, knowing we have over a year left in our mandate. Once this business plan is concluded, we will have one more business plan cycle. If we as a government are serious about really looking at ensuring that we listen to the concerns of our rural communities, realizing that they are unique and realizing that they have different problems with regard to circumstances, we will make our best effort to allow them to be heard and for ourselves as a government to have another debate when the report comes forward to this Legislature. We will have an opportunity to get input from other Members of this Legislature.

I also think it is important to realize that the communities are feeling threatened by development and threatened by what is happening around them, especially when we talk to a lot of our elders in a lot of our small communities. They and a lot of us here are born and raised in our communities. That for us is home. We cannot go to Vancouver or Edmonton or wherever and say, "This is my home." It is not our home. Most of us are stuck in a situation where we have a land claim and obligation because of geographical claim settlements in the Northwest Territories, that we have to somehow take into account the geographical differences in the Northwest Territories.

I think we have to seriously look at where we do go with self-government. Where do we go with claim settlements? Where do they fit into the economics of communities and the well-being of the Northwest Territories? I think it is important as a committee and as legislators that we take the time to allow the committee to go forward and do its work. To come back and make recommendations to the House and debate those recommendations in this House to see what the findings of the committee are, and not to feel threatened. I say that it is a style of consensus government when you look at ensuring that the people who are feeling threatened and feeling left out, we have to make room for them in a consensus style of government by allowing them to have their day to find whatever information is out there and ensuring that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the well-being of our rural communities will be preserved and protected; and the people living in those communities do not feel threatened.

I would just like to thank the Members for listening and I hope you will support the motion.

Thank you. Mr. Kakfwi, to the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the motion, there is a view from Ministers and myself as Premier that the motion is one that Members of the Legislature should debate because it is addressing a need some of the Members have on the other side. How you organize and try to keep the government accountable is really the prerogative of the MLAs, so it is our view that we think the MLAs are in the best position to decide that. As Ministers and certainly as the Premier, we will not take part in the debate or vote on it. We think it is a commendable motion that the interests of small and outlying communities should be held in the highest esteem by this Legislature and the way you do it is for the Members of the Legislature to decide. That is the position we will take on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I think we have heard from a number of Members in this House just the frustration that they feel with the allocation of resources by the government to some of the smaller communities. I know that it has been a topic that has been discussed, I think quite extensively in the last session of the Legislature and carried on through this one. I have certainly heard a number of Members express their concern about that issue. I can therefore understand why Members would feel it important to try and develop a process to deal with it, so I understand where the motion is coming from.

However, I think we need to spend a little more time looking at what is here. I am hoping that we are not going to conclude this item today, but that we have had a chance to go around the room to hear the comments that Members have made, and maybe think about it for a couple of days to see if there is not something that we can do to either amend the motion or look at doing something differently.

I have a number of problems with the process as laid out by this motion and I am hoping that we are going to have some time to address that, maybe look for some innovative ways to move this process along.

For one thing, the way that this motion is set up, and I do not think that the Members were intending this to be a very expensive operation, but the way it is set up, there is no way to say that it would not have the same sort of budget as any other special committee. I think most other special committees in this Legislature cost in excess of $1 million. I am not sure that was the intent of the Members who were trying to bring this forward.

I think we need to, as Mr. Roland said earlier, set out a timetable if we are going to move this along. I certainly, as it is laid out now, could not support it because it seems too open ended, so I think we are going to have to address that issue.

In spite of what the Premier just said in terms of the government seeing this as an issue for the Regular Members, I disagree. I would point out that the two special committees that this Assembly has established to date have had representation by Cabinet Ministers on them. I think that if you count up the number of smaller communities represented by people on Cabinet, they have at least half, if not more, within their constituencies. I think it is unseemly that we would not look for some method of broadening the representation to make sure that if we were going to establish this kind of committee, there was some kind of representation from Cabinet.

I think if we are going to take a look at changing the structure of this House by establishing a committee, it is important that all Members participate because it is not just a Regular Member's issue. It is an issue that we are establishing a committee of the Legislature and recommendations that come back and get adopted by any committee become owned by the Legislature. It is not something that is owned by just one side of the House or the other.

I am a bit troubled by the process here, in how it has come to pass. I worry that we might be setting a precedent. If the not-so-large, tax-based communities feel that they are not being treated well because we have a committee representing the smallest communities, and there is a feeling that the largest community, being Yellowknife, has enough Members to form its own committee, we are liable to just divide the whole Legislature up into different camps. I think we have to find a way to deal with the process. I am not sure we have found that with the way that the terms of reference are set out here.

The one thing that really causes me some concern, and I have heard a number of Members today speak about item (a) at the bottom of the motion, which says that the committee will conduct its business in a manner approved by the committee in accordance with the Rules of the Legislative Assembly, which does not impinge or encroach on the mandate of any existing standing or special committee.

Yet much of what I have heard the Members speak about relate to things like the capital plan. If we are going to talk about specific issues, as Mr. Lafferty did -- he mentioned the number of $10 million, for instance. If we are going to get into that level of discussion, we are actually dealing now with a discussion that should be happening at the existing standing/special committees through the business plan and review of draft mains.

So there is a problem with me understanding. I have to tell you I really do not understand how the mandate of this committee meshes or would mesh with the other three standing committees. I think we are going to have to put some thought to that rather than dealing with this today. I think we have to find a way to examine just how this could possibly work with the other committees that we have.

Mr. Chairman, as I said when I started, I am hoping that the intention is not to conclude this item today. Instead, to allow Members an opportunity -- and I think most of us have had that opportunity now -- to make comment on the issue. I think it is time now for us to put it aside for a couple of days, think about it and see what sort of compromise or an approach we can come up with that will answer the questions that have been raised and deal with the issues that are seen from the Members from the smaller communities and the Members who represent the larger communities and see if we can find some middle ground. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Any general comments on the motion? If not, I have no one else on the list, so what is the wish of the committee? Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, I recommend that we set this item aside for another day and we will move on to resume consideration of Bill 2 and Committee Report 2-14(5). Specifically, to get into the budget of the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development.

Does the committee agree?

We will resume with Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. We will take a 10-minute break.

-- Break