Thank you. One more question on the field operations. I have asked this question several times before, a couple of years ago and last year, but I haven't really received any answer yet. However, through someone else, the renewable resources officer was asked by the HTA member, if Coral Harbour organizes a hunt to fly to -- the only way to get to Repulse Bay, by the way, is flying -- Repulse Bay to hunt narwhal in Aqiarurnak Bay -- unless Mr. Todd would like to build us an access road there; just a hint. Mr. Chairman, however, he advised the HTA member that, no, you cannot hunt your quota from other communities. That was his answer. However, the Repulse Bay community and Coral Harbour have the same area for narwhal. Repulse Bay now goes to Aqiarurnak Bay to hunt narwhal, where Aqiarurnak Bay is in the Coral Harbour area, so they have the same hunting area, and of course we cannot go by boat because of the ice on the Hall Beach side or the east side. And the west side is so shallow that it is awfully dangerous to travel on. It takes about a week to go through there. Can the Minister tell me, why is the policy or regulation stated in such a way that it is restrictive? I mean, you give Coral Harbour a quota, but you are not allowing them access to that quota by preventing them hunting from other communities, where Repulse Bay already completely welcomed them to go through their community.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that the time is getting short. I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman. I move for an extension of the sitting hours for today to conclude this department.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I put that to rest. I was using that as an example. There must be other ones like that. I understand the Minister is leaving that all up to the HTA in the local communities, but there is an inconsistency. We take a leadership role in promoting education, and Mr. Nerysoo knows that very well. We also promote the home ownership program, and Donnie Morin knows all about that. What I find inconsistent in the government as a whole is that we encourage a student to go to university or college. There are not too many jobs in Coral Harbour so we give them training. They spend four years in an apprenticeship program and they go to work for Rankin Inlet, for example, where all the capital plans are, as we found out last year. They work for six months there. Six months plus one day and they come back after the construction season and they are denied allocations for polar bear tags, whales and things like that.

It is fine and dandy to give all kinds of authority to HTA, but I think the government should also take a leadership role in encouraging HTA to give consideration -- as part of the government's leadership role -- to encouraging education and finding jobs elsewhere if there is nothing in the local community. We should be able to welcome students back with the full privileges they previously held. I think we should take that role.

I'm not down-playing HTA, but most of the HTA membership so far have been hunters. They are not economists. They are not educators. They are not normally political leaders of the community. What they do fits them well as far as conservation is concerned, as far as subsistence hunting is concerned, fair distribution, et cetera, but they can't see a global picture about how other populations of the community should be treated in terms of benefits that they, themselves, enjoy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not disputing what is the opinion of the HTA. I am disputing that the HTA, in their own meeting, went through the list of eligible GHL holders and chose which names should be put in the hat. After pulling it out, they had been advised by some jealous hunter that should not be because I was in a meeting in Yellowknife. That was what the dispute was. Why did they change after they informed me my tag had been pulled to come home quickly. Before I could arrive, I was no longer eligible. That is a great expense on my part because I was not eligible for some kind of travel home trip or anything like that. I found it ironic that inconsistency was practised and the wildlife officer did not advise that while they have authority and advisory capacity as an HTA, they also have to be consistent. He did not inform them of the consistency required by the government policies. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question on field operations. These renewable resource officers are trained either in some colleges or perhaps Arctic College in Fort Smith to uphold the legislation or regulation of the government. When I was coming back to Coral Harbour because I was told by my friends, you better come back quickly because we are pulling names from the hats of the eligible polar bear tag and your name is in it. I said, sure, I will try to come back there as soon as the committee meetings are over. However, when the tag was pulled, my name was pulled. Somebody complained that if I spend so much time in Yellowknife because of the meetings, how can I be eligible. The HTA agreed that they will not have my name on the hunters list until this is cleared. I packed up and went home hoping that I would get my tag. I didn't because there was a question on it. I went to attack the renewable resource officer verbally, Mr. Chairman, and asked him about the legal procedures or regulations for the GHL holders, if they are a resident of the community, which I am, and so on. Why didn't you, as a government employee, with a full salary and housing subsidy and VTA, with your responsibility to legally advise the HTA what is proper according to regulation and what is improper, tell the HTA that, legally, they have to grant it to me because I am no different from anyone else in the community?

I am using me as an example, but I am worried that, sometimes, there is a political game played in the community that a hunter or trapper wants to be liked so much by the HTA in the community, he starts listening, not advising what the regulations are. What is the measure of those individual employees of the government who have no direct supervisor including the supervision from the GLO? What is the mechanism to ensure that the government's regulations are fairly practised and the HTAs are advised that this is improper according to law?

I am not interested in the Minister starting promotion of commercial hunts and things like that. I am just talking about quota too. I think what we are looking at here is the department made a scientific mistake in the past by holding back so long in starting to harvest the animals over there, to the point where the growth rate was so fast. After that certain point, by the time they introduced the unlimited quota for subsistence hunting, the community was not big enough to sustain that or keep that population under control. That is why I think it is extremely important that the department tell the NWT Development Corporation, Japan or other people. Some department should do something in stating that we have a very good and healthy caribou herd and we need to do something about it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that this can be looked at. But we are being told right now, before the wildlife management board is recognized or active, that Coral Harbour can go ahead and start killing about -- I don't know, perhaps the Minister knows about the figure better than I -- 2,000 to 4,000 animals and if they don't start doing that, the same incident is going to occur that has occurred in Coats Island a few years back. I don't know if they got sick, but most of them starved to death there because they over grazed the island.

It is not strange or unusual, and they've probably been doing that for thousands and thousands of years. But we, who became landlords of the whole globe, don't want to see that happen because we should be able to manage the population by changing the old methods, and by providing animals for commercial products.

I understand there were 500 caribou harvested for commercial use in Rae-Edzo not too long ago. This population is not in danger of overpopulation. I haven't heard that the caribou population was in danger of overpopulation. Whereas, in Coral Harbour, you have that problem. Why didn't the department say that this population is not in danger, but they are in another area, so why don't we try to do something about it and have the commercial hunt in that area?

I guess I'm not a very good politician, but I see common sense in controlling the population at the same time, where it is needed. My question under 2.6, Mr. Chairman, is why is this kind of conservation program to control possible overpopulation not in the principle of the strategy?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Section 2.6, line four, reads "Commercial development of renewable resources will be encouraged, where resources are surplus to domestic needs." I am not arguing with that, but section 2.6 does not really cover situations about the Sachs Harbour muskox overpopulation or the Coral Harbour caribou overpopulation. Is there any measure anywhere in this document that covers those kinds of things, so that the animals will not overpopulate themselves by means of isolation?

I don't know if this fits under general comments, but I have a question about section 2.6 under principles of the strategy. Can we go into that now, Mr. Chairman?