Thank you, Mr. Bell. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of ITI and it's with regard to ITI's role in this caribou issue. Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that I have read every e-mail and have talked to the outfitters inside and outside of Yellowknife, and the constituents have come to talk to me. I understand that this is a very complicated issue and we do need to address the caribou herds. Let me just get myself into more trouble by clearly stating that I can see a situation where it is possible for the government to make a decision to eliminate an industry where public interest is warranted. In this case, if the numbers of the caribou are such that and all the other actions were taken, which is questionable, that that industry has to be eliminated by government, it's incumbent on the government to have an implementation strategy that addresses the consequences. I don't' see that coming from ITI.

I could tell you that when we met, when the MLAs met with the Premier and the industry on January 3rd, there had been no plan or discussion with the Minister of ITI in that regard. I would like to ask the Minister of ITI, on the basis of the information that we have does he see any future for the barren-ground caribou outfitters industry? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

We do see a future for the outfitting industry, Mr. Speaker, but we're not so naive as to recognize that the caribou are under immense pressure, and that means that the outfitting industry is going to be under immense pressure. I've said that not only are we working to support the association through the Wekeezhii board process, we are working with the industry to identify options and approaches, depending on what kinds of recommendations come forward for 2008.

I think it would be negligent and naive of us to not recognize that the Wekeezhii board could come forward with a no harvest level is sustainable, and that would really put some serious pressure on the Minister of ENR to make recommendations that see no tags or very few tags. So we've got to talk about industry support and industry aid in the event that happens. I'm hopeful that that won't happen, Mr. Speaker, but we are preparing for it and are presenting options and will be discussing options with the outfitters association. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that it is well beyond the time of being hopeful. Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister is aware, as well as everybody here listening to the Minister of ENR, who is very determined and committed to addressing the caribou herd issue. I think it's quite irresponsible for the Minister of ITI to suggest that he's going to sit around and wait until what happens with Wekeezhii. He's government, he's Minister. The Minister of ENR has said that the quota we're looking at is 350 next year and I'm telling you that will be the end of the industry. It is now incumbent on the Minister to tell us what he is going to do. He mentioned earlier about doing similar things to Aurora industry. What exactly is that and why does he have to wait until Wekeezhii decides? Shouldn't the plan come before the horse is run out of the barn? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, a number of these questions are hypothetical; we don't know what the Wekeezhii board will determine. Yes, ENR has come forward with a proposed plan. They are taking that out to Wekeezhii who are going to do a public consultation. We are very interested in hearing what the leadership of what the regions affected has to say about this. We're very interested in working with the Barren-Ground Caribou Outfitters Association to come forward and make their case that they play a vital conservation role and can, in fact, help the sustainability of caribou if it's managed in the correct manner, Mr. Speaker.

The Member doesn't need to tell us that 350 tags would be devastating to this industry. We know that and that's why we advocated that there be another plan put in place in the short term, because we were certain that that was going to spell sudden death for the outfitters association and the outfitting industry. That is why we came together with the Premier, we worked on a solution that we think provides the balance between conservation and sustaining this industry; however, we do have to take a long-term approach to this. We do have to have a plan for 2008. We will work on options with the outfitters association, and look at scenarios that talk about what happens if Wekeezhii comes back with a recommendation of very low tags. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That's a lot of words to say very little, Mr. Speaker. It is very well known that the Minister has burned up his portion of gas flying to Alaska and Washington on behalf of the pipeline industry. He has appeared before the board, before the Joint Review Panel, and various boards to argue on behalf of industry. This is before the industry even is in place. Now we're talking about a demise of an industry and he's talking about waiting until the board's decision, until this happens, that happens, and I think he needs a reality check. We are seeing the end of an industry. Government has made a decision to do that. This is the first test of what could be done with separate jurisdiction of ENR and ITI, and I tell you ENR has done its job and ITI is not pulling up its end of the bargain. So I'd like to know, in very specific terms, what has he done as of

January 3rd? Even after the letter had gone to the Wekeezhii board, the Minister didn't even have a meeting on that. There is no plan and he is still saying there's not going to be a plan and he's going to wait to see what's going to happen, and somebody has to tell him that he's facing the end of an industry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is the plan?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Speaker, maybe the Member didn't hear me; I could restate the plan. But the plan is to help the outfitters association make their case to the Wekeezhii board. Part two of the plan is to work with them on options and scenarios should the Wekeezhii board come back with a recommendation of very low tags. I'm not sure if the Member is interested in seeing the end of the outfitting industry. That's not what we're advocating for. We want to help support them. Conservation is paramount, we recognize that. We're not denying, as a department, that the herds are under pressure. We agree with ENR that they in fact are. We're trying to find a way that strikes that balance between conservation of these herds which are so critical to the people of the Northwest Territories and the support for the Outfitting Association and industry in general. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs and I'd like to ask questions about the New Deal. My Speaker, in my last set of questions, I asked the Minister did he know what the contributing factors were to why Hay River was getting subsidy at the level they were under the previous formula. Does he know what the factors were that justified that level of support? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the extra money that was being provided to the Town of Hay River was under a special arrangement, and I'm not sure if that was related to water and sewer subsidy programs directly, but it was not part of the Water and Sewer Subsidy Program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if that level of contribution to the community has been changed under the New Deal, I think it's important to look at why Hay River was getting that in the first place, in order to say it's not valid for those reasons to be considered anymore. I'd like the Minister to do that, if he could.

The other thing that the Minister mentioned on Friday was that Hay River had realized a 91 percent increase in funding for these various programs that are now in a formula under the New Deal. I don't think it's fair to mention only Hay River. I think that all communities have seen an increase in their support from MACA through the New Deal. So 90 percent, saying that number in isolation of what the other communities are getting, could be misleading because it sounds like a lot. I'd like to know what kind of range of percentage increase have the other communities in the Northwest Territories realized in the same period. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've worked very hard to put tools in the communities for all the different communities to have the ability to deal with taking on a lot of the responsibilities that come with the New Deal initiative. Some of the communities were ahead of the game, especially the tax-based municipalities, and our attempt was to have all the communities on a level playing field so everybody can make decisions on what happens in their communities. There's been a real broad range when you start looking at the different pots of money that were increased and changed, and we've gone from some communities having a negative growth balance to some cases where there's well over 110 percent in the case of Hay River. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you for that, Mr. Speaker. I'm a little bit confused, but let's move on to something else.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has suggested that Hay River should, effectively, rob its other O and M and capital funds to make up for the water/sewer shortfall. I'm not sure if this is what communities had in mind when they heard the words like "flexible, open and transparent" in promotion of the New Deal. Does MACA typically advise community governments to cross-subsidize O and M and capital funds? Is this considered responsible community financial planning by his department? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker, in the old system or the old formula, there was an allowance or requirement for the community to provide a capital reserve or a physical assets budget and start breaking out

a budget line for that amount. In this situation with our new budget, there is no budget line in the Water and Sewer Program for capital. That's taken out. Historically we didn't provide money for capital; we do now. So I'm not sure why there's such a reluctance to use capital money for capital in that budget. We've calculated what Hay River is probably paying for some of the capital. We know it's well in excess of what is being reduced, and the new dollars for capital are double that amount. So I'm not sure why there's such a reluctant to cross-subsidize some of these programs. We have to look at these as one lump of money, Mr. Speaker, it's money for the community, and not to stovepipe these issues. Thank you.