Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm having a very hard time that John Doe from Iqaluit can go to the government and say he would like to buy a tractor from Montreal, bring it to Coral Harbour and start a little company there, a subsidiary of his Iqaluit company, and when that Coral Harbour company goes bankrupt, that you decide to forgive him. The tractor that was used for work in Coral Harbour cannot think, cannot talk, cannot make deals and goes bankrupt because it has broken down. But, the owner who made the deal is still doing very well in Iqaluit. Who is the one who made the deal to get the loan? Not the tractor in Coral Harbour, that he's hiring to do the work.

I cannot see the logic in those kinds of business deals the government makes with the company, where such persons are not accountable for their loans. They just file bankruptcy and they do very well in other places.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Recognizing Mr. Pudluk's statement earlier, it is Arvaluk. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have no problems with other bills. Usually, there is a motion to make amendments to bills, but with this bill, there are specific companies dealt with. What I don't see here is submissions about which ones should be forgiven and which ones should stay on the record. Even if you don't collect them this year, next year, or the next year, is there an absolute requirement for the government to write off all these debts?

There is a company who is still operating and who has a debt that will be written off, for economic reasons. There's another company that will be written off on the basis of bankruptcy where the principal who owned that company still holds a functioning business somewhere else. Isn't the whole idea of running a business to make money? And, that if you cannot make money in one area, another company you own that is making money should bear the costs? Don't people care any more when one of their companies go bankrupt and the others are doing okay? I'm trying to understand this bill and the purpose of being in business. The purpose of being in business is not like government trying to serve people, but trying to serve people and make money at the same time.

That's the name of the game. Shouldn't you be responsible if one of your companies go bankrupt, as a person?

Why aren't those kind of considerations given, that although the company is bankrupt the owner is still doing very well in some other area? We can say we cannot forgive that, but we'll defer the collection. Or, at least introduce a new act preventing the companies with multi-companies from doing that. My question to the Minister is, have you looked at any other alternatives or have you considered the introduction of amendments to the different acts to allow yourself to collect debts easier so you don't have to introduce this kind of act because you're cornered?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I cannot see how he can say a divisional board has any business whatsoever to decide on behalf of the student what kind of course that student should be taking in high school. The CECs and divisional boards' responsibilities are to accommodate students to give them an education along the standards given by the Department of Education, to accommodate the students so that they may take a proper course if they wish to prepare themselves either for Arctic College, university or other trade schools. My question to the Minister is that the parents or the education administrators -- meaning CEC or divisional board -- do not really know what is the best for that particular student who may be entering grade ten, 11 or 12, if he should take 10, 20 or 30 courses. Can the Minister tell the House that these students who want to take academic courses will be accommodated to the best extent possible, rather than given the run-around, telling them this course is not available in Pond Inlet, Coral Harbour or elsewhere? Would they be accommodated to the best of their ability? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that both courses are available in the grade extensions. However, there are some instances, like in Pond Inlet, where there were so many students taking general that it did not warrant having academic classes being held there because there were only one or two students who wanted to take them. Can these two students, for example, be sent to Yellowknife or another centre or another high school where they will be allowed to take academic courses, rather than general?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Do I understand the Minister then that it does not mean that those who want to study academics would not qualify? I will rephrase it, Madam Speaker. Those who want to study academic rather than general, will be qualified to come to Yellowknife if academic courses are not held in the Kitikmeot, for instance.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment for clarification. There are so many broad words that can be used. My honourable colleague for Natilikmiot asked whether students who want to attend school in Yellowknife could be accommodated. My question is, what does the Minister mean by qualification, those who qualify? If a general course is being conducted in Cambridge Bay and if the student wants to study academics, is that part of the qualifications? What is the meaning of qualification? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. (Translation) What I'm trying to say is that the renewable resource officers have to make sure that they relay the legislation to HTA. I was blaming the renewable resource officer because he is supposed to inform the HTA. I wanted my statement and my questions to be understood by the Minister of Renewable Resources. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement. Thank you.

(Translation) Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, during committee of the whole, I was asking questions to the Minister of Renewable Resources regarding the role of renewable resource officers in explaining complex rules and legislation to the public. This morning on CBC, what I had said was made to sound as if I was making a personal complaint to the Minister of Renewable Resources. I was merely using myself as an example. This is what I said according to the transcripts on page 2007. "When polar bear season arrived my name was included with those eligible to have their names entered into a draw for polar bear tags and my name was drawn. Unfortunately, I was informed by the HTA upon my arrival that I was no longer eligible to be included in a draw. Later I met with the chairman of the HTA and was told that I was eligible to be included in a draw and to participate in a polar bear hunt. Even though I am an MLA, since I am still a resident of Coral Harbour."

Yesterday, I was trying to say that the local HTAs are not familiar with the legislation that pertains to them. Some of the legislation is quite complex. However, the government pays the renewable resources officer's salary and provides him or her with housing. For that reason, it is the responsibility of the government employee to inform the local HTAs about this legislation, so they can adjust their practices in order that they follow the original agreement.