Despite all of my good contacts, Mr. Speaker, no. Thank you.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The purpose of the statement which we are preparing, and I hope it will be simple and understandable, will be to explain thoroughly to Members of this House precisely why this policy was arrived at, with a view to having Members understand the full implications of the change, so that they will understand why it was necessary to redefine the level of income to determine if a person is principally engaged in hunting and trapping.

So yes, I intend to consult Members. I believe previous Members of this Legislature were consulted at the time the change was made, but I recognize there are new Members present now. So we will try to give you the fullest background and the most complete information so that Members can understand this policy and can contribute to a discussion of that policy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Legislation implementing a program for hunters' and trappers

' coverage through the Workers' Compensation Board was implemented without any real anticipation of what the program would cost. The policy and legislation that was put in place, which covered all general hunting licence holders, was very generous. It essentially ended up providing coverage for individuals at a level far in excess of their normal incomes, even counting the value of country food.

Mr. Speaker, therefore, because of the very high costs which were being borne directly by the Department of Renewable Resources, it was unfortunately necessary to come up with a more restrictive policy. In recognition of this, a new policy was developed, which I understand the Member is concerned about. The policy is based on the value of hunting and trapping and sets a level of $10,000.

Mr. Speaker, because it is a complicated matter, I propose to present to this House early next week, along with my colleague, the Minister of Renewable Resources, a comprehensive statement on the background to this hunters' and trappers' coverage, where we are at, and why changes had to be made. I hope that that will give me an opportunity to give Members all the background so that this program and its evolution can be better understood.

I also suggested to caucus that a briefing would be a very good opportunity for MLAs to ask the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board themselves for a briefing on that program and other issues that may be on their minds. I am hoping that we can soon arrange an in-depth briefing for MLAs on this issue and others. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said, the Oldman Dam decision was concluded January 23, 1992, and the Daishowa application had been adjourned pending that decision, although I would note, Mr. Speaker, that it was not the GNWT that agreed or consented to the adjournment. The adjournment pending the Oldman Dam case was granted by the court despite the objections of the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, as to when the case might again be adjudicated, I will have to get more detailed information and get back to the honourable Member as soon as possible. I do not know at the moment whether the next step has been taken, or what the status is at this time. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of the NWT is involved with a case concerning the Daishowa pulp mill. The issue in that case is whether or not a proper environmental assessment review was conducted by the Province of Alberta before the permission was given to proceed with that mill.

Mr. Speaker, the status of that action is that the court hearing that case reserved the next step in the proceedings pending the Oldman Dam case, which touched on similar issues. Mr. Speaker, the Oldman Dam case was recently concluded in the Supreme Court of Canada and therefore the way will now be clear to address the issue in the Daishowa matter, but I would say, Mr. Speaker, that my understanding is that it is not likely to resume until sometime hence. Even with the Oldman Dam case being concluded, we may have to wait some number of months before the Daishowa matter proceeds to the next stage. Mr. Speaker, that is the only litigation that I am aware of that our government is involved in relating to pulp mill issues. Thank you.

I will have to take that question as notice. I cannot recall if I have answered that letter or not.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, February 5th was a very busy day. I signed all those letters, and I hope the honourable Member has had time to read them before the session opened today. It sounds like he has, Mr. Speaker.

To answer the Member's question, I am not aware of whether the chairman of the WCB has met with that group, and I will have to take it as notice.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the honourable Member for giving me notice of his question. I would like to assure him and Members of this House that even though there are some difficulties with the financial situation and the negotiations surrounding the RCMP contract and restraint imposed by the federal government, I want to assure him that our objective, in working with the RCMP, is to locate a policeman in every community, and in places like Coral Harbour where there is a single member detachment, to find ways of providing back-up when those members must leave, as they have to from time to time.

I want to assure the honourable Member that I do understand there have been some difficult situations arise in his constituency and I would certainly very much like to explore with the Member and the community, what can be done locally to provide back-up in those times when the member may not be in the community. Qujannamiik.

Hear, hear!

---Applause