Just a brief comment. Before I opened my mouth, Mr. Chairman, about the lack of policy -- and in fact, I did it twice today -- we did get confirmation from three departments of government last week that there is no such thing as a sustainable development policy which has been approved by our Executive Council. So, whatever may exist may be some guidelines.

What I find, Mr. Chairman, is that they are the mines, themselves, that propose guidelines. If you go to a mine, you see a whole list of what you can and cannot do. They decide. In other words, they've taken the bull by the horns and have said the people operating in this camp can do this and do that, but can't do that. They are doing the kinds of things that this government should have done in the first place. They have said, if there is going to be a mine, this is the way aircraft will behave, this is the way construction people will behave, this is the way archaeological sites will be looked after; a whole list of things.

In fact, all the letters that went from the various departments to the Department of Indian Affairs within the last few weeks about the mitigating circumstances surrounding the building of that little road contained all the issues they were concerned about. You shouldn't have to do that if you have a policy which outlines all these things. Because we don't have one, each department has to say, well for us, you have to make sure you do this; for us, you have to make sure you do that; and, for us, you have to make sure you do that. If you had a government policy, a real one, you wouldn't have to have different departments expressing all their concerns about the project.

That's what I mean about a policy. You've got to set it down. Don't let the mining people tell people that they can't hunt with this or they can't fish there. You should know and tell them what the rules are. Environmental matters are this government's responsibility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. This morning I mentioned the need for us to become more self-sufficient, and I know that other Members have pointed out some of the political difficulties of achieving all of this stuff. But it seems to me that we have not only the political problem; we have the general problem of how we approach development. And for some reason, we haven't been able to make this as clear as we could.

I also went to a meeting in the fall, to the very first international environment management meeting, sponsored by the world mining industry. The whole conference dealt with the whole issue of development and the image that the industry has throughout the world. I spent most of my time with people from Africa and South America and I learned an awful lot. But it seems to me that the key at the government level is the fact that you have to have your act together.

I know that the Standing Committee on Finance has said we should give some focus and we could do things better, we have always had too many players and too many voices; but what I learned is this: if the government has a policy on development that is done in the way that many of us have suggested, everybody, every single person, becomes pro-development. If you say that you are in favour of responsible development or sustainable development, everybody is onside. We all agree that this is good, that development is a good idea, and you don't end up polarizing people.

It doesn't matter whether you have one person at the table, two people or 10 people, as long as there is only one person who speaks according to the policy of one government. The government has a policy. It doesn't matter who in fact is the person that then sits down to represent that group, because you have a policy that you have all bought into and you have all agreed with. That was something that came through very clearly at the meetings I was at: it is very difficult for people in the industry to come to grips with stuff if they don't know where everybody is coming from.

So it is absolutely essential for this government to have a policy which is clear and it doesn't matter who sits at the table, that is the policy that he or she is talking about; the one of this government. Not this department's policy or that department's policy, but this government's policy. And you don't need two, three or four voices, you only need one. Because it is backed up then, by the whole system that supports you. So that is why it is important, it seems to me, that we find some way of speaking with one voice so that we are all pro-development, but in a way that everybody can accept.

That is the first thing that I wanted to say. And for some reason or another, that penny hasn't dropped for the last five years when we've been pushing to try to get some agreement on how we are going to handle the interface between the environment and the economy. How do we do it?

We tried one thing, apparently it didn't work, for whatever reason. And now we have another group in place which is a replacement for it, which is called the Slave province regional study group, or whatever. But it is important for us anyway, that as a government we have something, and if the round table wasn't a way of doing it, maybe the priorities people can come up with something and say this is where we stand. Do all the consultation that you need to do so that everybody feels that this is all right, it is a good policy to have, then that becomes our position that we take that into the system.

The other thing that I learned, Mr. Chairman, at the meeting I went to -- again, these are people from all over the world, about 70 countries -- is that the technical people, the people who are involved in the engineering side of things say we have all kinds of people -- and we did have a few environmental groups at this meeting who came out of interest. So the biggest problem we have is this: with the people who come in who represent the particular interest groups, they won't tell us what the problem is. They sit and they bellyache, they moan and they whine and so on, but they don't say this is the problem, because we are convinced that if you tell us what the problem is, we know on the basis of the technological advances that we have made in our industry, that we can solve that problem. But there seems to be a reluctance to say, well, you know, that it's the water, or it's the this, or it's the that. People just want to make a statement, very often a political one. But if it is always presented in a practical, down-to-earth way so it can be looked at, examined and understood, then the people in the industry are convinced that with knowledge and expertise we can solve those because they are solvable problems now.

And we have a huge new industry of environmental technology which Canada is becoming a world leader in. It is a huge export industry for us, where all of these people in South America and even in Africa, can turn to Canadians and say here is an environmental problem that we have; do you think you could handle this? And we say, we have done that, we know how to do that. So now, environmental management is becoming a huge sector of our economy simply because we have the know-how to help people to solve those problems, as long as you have the people who are prepared to sit down and identify the problem that has to be solved.

So that was the second thing that I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, about the way we should go in relationship to developing this sort of primary industry, if you like.

I know many of us have the hope that we will get beyond being what we were called at one time: the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Canada has had that kind of reputation for over 100 years, where all we are good for is to hack out stuff, supply the wood, supply the energy and somebody else will have the thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.

I know that other Members have looked at the potential of mining in the north as a way in which perhaps we could branch off into doing secondary things; and there may be some potential there. But it seems to me, that we have to be very careful in the way we pose our demands because there are some things that would not be economic to do. We have to be realistic about what it is that we could do in a secondary way to do the value-added things that we agree would be good for us to have so that our people can benefit from employment.

If we end up being too demanding and say well, look, you know, no-go, unless we can have...Our bottom line is this. You may find out that because it is a very volatile industry, people

say forget this one, it's cheaper to go ahead and develop this deposit somewhere else.

I think that we can play the game as well as anybody to get the maximum advantages that we should get if you are the owner of a resource. And I think we have to be very careful, before we push the buttons, about what our bottom line is and so on, about what we would like to see in the territories.

But I do agree with the comments that have been made, that we should try to maximize the benefits, but not in such a way that you end up driving industry away from this part of the world because it is all ready happening. Several Members have pointed out that already you find investment going elsewhere because the climate is better -- I am talking about the economic, political, social and every other kind of climate -- and you wouldn't want to do anything that will say, well, let's forget all about this, we would be just as happy if it's not developed and nobody develops it. Because we would be better off in finding another place to do our work, where the returns will be better, there will be less hassle and the investors will be happy and so on.

But I do applaud the Minister for the efforts he has made in this area and I would urge him during the months of the summer, when perhaps the pressures are not quite so great, that he will look very carefully at trying to bring some of this home for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

---Applause

Diamonds are important, very important, as Mr. Ballantyne continually points out. But without an accord, we remain just bit players, just not very important at all. Unless we have an agreement as to how we're going to develop, it's meaningless. All the activity is meaningless to us if we continue to have the same kind of dependence on the federal government.

I would also urge Mr. Todd -- and I can't stress this enough, Mr. Speaker, because it's another part of the equation -- to make sure we have in place a sustainable development policy. Because if we don't have that, the north will continue to be a battleground where the environmentalists and the industrialists are going to be fighting it out and there are going to be groups from all over the world wanting to join in the fray because we don't have our act together. We should have a policy on sustainable development so that I can say, no, I'm not an environmentalist, I am a person who supports sustainable development. I'm in favour of development, like everybody else, but it can't be a battleground any more, where we have armies fighting against each other on each side of the equation. If we don't get this accord and we don't get a sustainable development policy, the federal government knows quite well now as it sits there with a huge proposal in front of it, that the challenge it faces is to get some headway in helping development in our part of the world without doing it in a way that will antagonize the World Wildlife Fund and the Sierra Club and all the other groups around the world that are just waiting for the chance to jump in. So we should support all those initiatives right now to do those two things: the northern accord of one kind or another, whatever we can get that makes sense to us; and also, a sustainable development policy so we don't end up having huge fights up here which nobody wants and will be debilitating and I think will end up destroying all the good efforts that we've made to date. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an address in response to our Finance Minister's budget address. There may be other Members, too, who would be interested in what I have to say.

Mr. Speaker, when times are tough, it is not easy to be a Finance Minister. Since we depend on the Government of Canada for 72 per cent of our budget, any dilution of federal contributions really hurts us. We have had four successive years of deficit budgets. This is a reflection of unforeseeable expenditures, but mostly because of federal refusal to meet its commitments and also because of additional cutbacks.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to you, a second person contacted me to join the lobby for a spring election. Members will recall that on Monday I had indicated the public was suspicious about rumblings for a spring election. People like to have very good, solid reasons for the things we do here. Well, Mr. Speaker, a very well-known Fort Smith consultant supplied me yesterday, with a good, solid reason people seem to be searching for. He indicated that four successive annual deficit budgets should be a good enough reason for a vote of non-confidence in this government.

Mr. Speaker, I have been a big supporter of balanced budgets. During the 11th Assembly, on a few occasions, I did compliment the then-Minister of Finance, Mr. Ballantyne. It was to compliment him on keeping under control some of the trigger-happy Members of the Cabinet who wanted to borrow a few hundred dollars to build needed infrastructure. There are some Members here who will recall that. So he must be blushing that today, at least, I compliment him for keeping that expenditure under control while he was the Minister of Finance.

The pressure was resisted, Mr. Speaker, and we now have a fiscal position as a government which, although it proposes a small deficit, most provinces would envy the position we find ourselves in. Our deficit is not the horror show some would like to make it out to be. Some Members are now waiting until next week to see whether Mr. Martin's budget will have a major impact on us, before they reply to the budget address. Members should be aware that for this budget we have before us, there is an agreement for the next fiscal year that there are no changes in our formula funding agreement.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, unconditionally, that I have confidence in the Minister of Finance. He has done a very good job in very difficult times and I fully support him and his efforts in managing our fiscal affairs.

One of the problems in our system is that it is very difficult to construct a budget that can be anything more than a survival budget. Restraint -- and the document is very clear on this -- is the main fiscal objective. Nevertheless, there are signs of shaping our priorities under the envelope system. The emphasis on developing our human resources is very welcome because without this major economic development, we really remain an empty promise, we really need a well-trained workforce in order to take advantage of our economic potential.

Protection of our health and social network is also an objective in this budget, although I know Members would like to see it expanded.

One aspect that I find inconsistent, however, is the clear message that we must be prepared to be more self-reliant. Yet this budget contains several measures that will curtail, rather than advance, our economic development. It is no good to say that it was the envelope committee that made me do it. If we are truly to become more self-reliant, the economy needs a boost and not a kick in the pants, Mr. Speaker. We all know that these various fees that are being levied and proposed or increased are really hidden taxes. And the Minister can expect some debate on this particular aspect of his budget.

I have one more final appeal to make to this government, Mr. Speaker; and Mr. Ballantyne and others have all ready referred to it. Without some kind of northern agreement, a northern accord or mineral agreement, the north is doomed. I am not just talking about this government, I am talking about all northerners. Whatever level of government we are talking about, we are doomed; simply because unless we get some way of which we can generate our own wealth, we are going to be squeezing water out of the same stones. Unless we can get more to do to create more wealth, we are going to be stuck where we are and we are going to die the death of a thousand cuts.

As other Members have pointed out, Confederation is continually changing. Provinces will control more and more of their own destinies. I don't believe, however, that Quebec will separate. In fact, I'm confident of it. But the demands of Quebec will be altered by other provinces, as well, and will be echoed throughout the country as each province wants to have the same. This will directly affect the role of the federal government.

We've already felt the effect of federal cutbacks. We can't expect them to continue, over the next few years, to provide us with the kinds of services that we have automatically come to expect, as we were still under the wardship or the guardianship of the federal government.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it would pay all northerners to urge Mr. Todd -- because he's a key player in this -- to get this accord signed this summer. I know that many people are afraid of it or are concerned about it, but there are many other groups that are afraid of whatever motives there may be and whether they are good or bad. But the overall motive should be to provide some kind of protection for all northerners so we're not stuck as a have-not with no potential to grow and no potential to reduce our reliance on the federal government.

That's why we need this summer, Mr. Speaker, it's absolutely essential. We need this summer for Mr. Todd and his colleagues, where they don't have the continual pressure all the time to do this and to do that, to set some priorities to get us in good shape so as we go into the next fiscal year, in 1996, we know that at least we have some degree of certainty about where our future is going to lie.

Well, maybe not the Power Corporation, but we do have enough. A few gallons is not going to make a difference to the cost of power in the territories, Mr. Speaker. This is a gentle kind of industry done at home which most people seem to be enjoying and which seems to have resulted in quite a reduction in the sale of the more damaging kinds of brews that come in from the south and which possibly cause people damage. At least that's the evidence that I have.

In the next few weeks, there will be the second annual beer tasting festival in Yellowknife and those people who have been brewing and have perfected their art over the last 30 years will be competing with each other to see which individual has created the most palatable brew. So, Mr. Speaker, I wanted Members to know that this is a small industry which is flourishing quite well and is, in my opinion, having a good effect on those people who are very moderate in their needs to consume any kind of alcohol. This is, in fact, a very gentle sport, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to mention today a small business which seems to have done very well over the past several years. A Mr. and Mrs. Koshynsky run a little business called E-Zee-Brew and many, many people go there to buy all kinds of supplies so they can make their own product at home. It has become a bit of a tradition now in the north that more and more people are beginning to make these things which normally, if they go to the local liquor store, cost them a lot of money.

I know that some proprietors are getting very concerned because this year, Mr. Speaker, the sales of alcohol in the Northwest Territories have gone down significantly. That's a good thing because when you brew gentle stuff at home; it is mild and often good for your system. I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that nearly all the stuff that we bring in from the south, especially if it's not distilled, is water. Northern people know that we have lots of water.

Since this has been raised in this House so many times as the biggest project this territory has ever seen, and since BHP has to know by March 15th whether this road will go or not because it has to get equipment in by the summer, and since this Minister is the Minister responsible for environmental matters that affect all the people of the Northwest Territories under the responsibilities of this government, I would like to ask him whether that decision is promised in the very near future, so the deadline can be made.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. BHP's application to have an amendment to its land use permit in N93C043 is obviously supported by all the government departments in the Northwest Territories. I am not quite sure if the whole government supports it, but individual departments have agreed that this should go ahead. So now that those recommendations have been made to the chairman of the regional committee, I would like to ask the Minister, what other groups have been involved? Have any of them opposed this particular project?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe also the Department of Education, Culture and Employment because there are archaeological sites of a cultural interest so that department was also involved. I would like to ask the Minister, since this is an environmental issue, did the government have one position on this road, or did it have three or four departmental positions on this road?