Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Premier with regard to the Prime Minister's recent announcement. I am sure that the Prime Minister, with his colleagues in Ottawa, probably talked about a deep sea port and military facility over the past few months or so. They probably decided at that time that Nunavut would be an ideal place. Given the recent announcement by the Prime Minister that Nanisivik and Resolute Bay would be identified for these two applications, I would like to ask the Premier if he will continue to work with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to lobby for the West. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member's statement today, I talked about the deep sea port and military exercise facility that was announced by the Prime Minister to be located in Nunavut. We all appreciate that our community rangers do a lot of exercises with the military in the wintertime. But at the same time, I think it is important that the West be considered for one of these facilities, either a deep sea port or a military exercise facility. The Premier has been talking with the Prime Minister on occasion with regard to Canadian sovereignty. I would like to ask the Premier, in his discussions with the Prime Minister, on whether he raised the issue about a deep sea port in the West? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Nunavut to announce the deepwater port. During his visit to Nunavut, he made two announcements for a deepwater port in Nanisivik, Nunavut, and the military training base in Resolute Bay, Nunavut.

Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to see the federal government is concerned about the Northwest Passage and Canada's claim for the Far North. It appears that the fellow government will move forward with a deepwater port and military training centre because of this announcement. However, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the Prime Minister did not consider establishing a deepwater port for military training as well in the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, a logical location by the deepwater port for a military training facility would be Tuktoyaktuk, as Tuktoyaktuk already serves as a major transportation centre for the Canadian Coast Guard and NTCL operations. With regard to a military training facility, Tuktoyaktuk would also be an appropriate location because we have the facilities available to accommodate over 200 personnel at two camps located at Tuktoyaktuk.

Mr. Speaker, although the announcements made by the Prime Minister establishes a deepwater port and military training facility in Nunavut, I would like this government to lobby, on behalf of the Beaufort and the Northwest Territories, to request the federal government to reconsider establishing a deepwater port for military training facility in Tuktoyaktuk or Sachs Harbour, Northwest Territories. First, by establishing a deepwater port or a military training facility, it will bring economic and business opportunities to the Beaufort-Delta.

In closing, this will enable the Beaufort-Delta residents not to rely on the oil and gas activities presently taking place. This will bring much needed long-term employment and business to the region. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just briefly, although we were provided some information, a lot of information isn't before us with regard to the trip to China. I think it's important that although the mission seems like it would be a good one, I think at this time, without the information required, I will have trouble supporting the motion. Thank you.

The committee has received advice that the SCAN legislation itself may not directly violate the Charter the way it is written. The committee does recognize that the evolving nature of the law believes that all steps should be taken by government to ensure respect for individual rights. One area of concern is public comments that the Minister of Justice has made with respect to the purpose of the legislation. The concern of the committee is that SCAN must not be an attempt to infringe on federal jurisdiction with respect to criminal law or be a vehicle to chase citizens from the Northwest Territories.

The NWT Human Rights Commission also pointed out in its written submission that the comments made by the Minister in the consultation document are problematic in relation to section 6(2) of the Charter as it relates to mobility rights in Canada.

It has been suggested that if the government wants to ensure the viability of the SCAN office, it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify the comments that the committee has brought to his attention.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to turn it over to the MLA for Range Lake. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There were also the previously mentioned concerns with having all investigators located in Yellowknife. People who came to talk to us would like to see personnel in their communities. At minimum, a regional presence is required. This is not what is being proposed. From what we have been able to learn as to how this bill would be implemented, the committee is unable to see how it could work without substantially more resources and effectively setting up a second tier of policing services in the NWT. If the end result of this legislation is the setting up of almost a parallel policing service, there is a need for a public policy discussion on the merit of such a policing structure in the Northwest Territories. This would, in turn, require an in-depth cost-benefit analysis of whether this is how and where we need to invest as opposed to enhancing our existing policing and justice services.

In a presentation to the standing committee in the community of Fort Smith, Ms. Mary Pat Short, who is the chair of the NWT Human Rights Commission but was speaking as a private citizen, offered the following observation: “Manitoba has a population of one million people. They introduced SCAN in 2002. Initially, they had two investigators and four employees. Now they have expanded to seven. They have investigated 13,068 complaints, and this has resulted in 198 evictions over four years. Now, if we put these figures in terms of the Northwest Territories, the Northwest Territories has one twenty-fifth of Manitoba's population, which would be eight evictions over four years, if it was the same pattern. So we spend $1.0 million a year for two evictions. Obviously, I don't know if that is actually what would happen here, but that would certainly not be a good use of public money.”

In talking about the role of community in dealing with social problems, Yetta Finsborg of Fort Smith stated that, “So I can only agree that this legislation seems more or less a waste of money, a waste of time for everyone involved. It does take a community to raise a child. It also takes a community to deal with drugs. So that is where I think we need to look. We need to get together and decide for our community what we want to do about people who deal drugs and bootleg and whatever else.”

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the worst-case scenario, will the Minister at least provide the...(inaudible)...funding if it has to come to that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister right now, at the present time has he talked with DFO and FJMC on the Tuk issue to see about this horrible problem? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A quick follow-up here. The Minister indicated they will wait until probably early September. I don't know at what point in time, but if it's decided that they require assistance for monitoring and trying to lead them out of the Husky Lakes, I'm just wondering if the Minister can sit down with the HTC at a certain point in time before it gets too late, unlike last year, and provide the funds required to either harvest or chase them out of Husky Lake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.