I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. I have an experience in many communities where I have friends who are on minimum wage as janitors and make less of an amount of take home income than those on welfare with families of ten. That person on social assistance would not be eligible under that program. Although he's a hunter, no matter what he does, he can not get 25 per cent of his income from traditional harvesting. With a family of ten, you can't match that even if you have a fairly good job under the present government's assistance program.

I am also leery about the appeal process for those who are rejected because an adjudicator got up on the wrong side of the bed. Will you ensure that a similar experience is not done to the harvesters who probably will not be very literate, as much as those people covered under the regular workers' compensation. Will there be a process that will not give them so much red tape and discourage them from applying?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, welcome this very much. It is a good amendment to the present act. As

far as its principles are concerned, I also have a few more questions. Let's say there is a full-time worker. Because of a lack of work as construction season is over, he is laid off and is no longer eligible under the Workers' Compensation Act because he was laid off two months ago. He does not earn 25 per cent of his income from the land because he has only been harvesting for two months. How would he qualify under this act?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The annual remuneration shall be deemed to be $24,000. Does that include those who are non-trappers, strictly harvesters, who may be on welfare or on the hunter income support program?

Would there then be a regulation, or not necessarily a regulation, but guidelines as to what items may be normally collected by harvest to determine some of those things?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It still doesn't answer me, because, if I get seven caribou, does that represent $7,000 or does ten caribou represent $10,000, or a two ton walrus represents how much? How do you determine that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions. I welcome this completely, but I have some questions. When you say that you can earn $24,000, how do you determine that country food harvesting worth $7,000 represents an overall similar price per pound of other food? How much is it for walrus, Arctic char, or caribou? Or, would it be priced differently? How do you determine the dollar amount?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the problem is not with just clause 2, the title has now changed in the French version. It has probably not changed in the meaning but maybe the grammar. Probably the spirit of the law is still there. However, I do have a problem not so much with this particular clause but as a non-legal person, you have given me a bill that I would never be able to understand as long as I don't go to school and learn the legal language. However, what I usually expect for most amendments to acts, including Bill 5, are clear, explanatory notes.

It seems that the actual bill explains better than the explanatory notes. For example, in those notes what the French version change in the title really means and how it was read is explained. As it now reads, it doesn't indicate if there is any change in the meaning or in the spirit or in grammar. I think that is what Mr. Zoe's concern is. I know we are legislators, but in the spirit and principle of what our people want and for the purposes of protection and service, I think we should have better explanatory notes. Maybe in the next session when we are dealing with these bills. Qujannamiik.

Another question I had for MACA was when I was making general comments. There is a feeling in the community, especially the council, that they have been given more responsibility for policy and planning. It takes much of the council's and staff's time to deal with the community transfer initiative, the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and other agencies and bodies that must deal with the hamlets, Department of Economic Development, construction, capital planning, five year capital planning, et cetera. But, these are not funded, other than by the present formula financing that MACA has with the hamlets. A letter was recently written to the Minister from the Hamlet of Coral Harbour, dated February 11. Are there any plans to review the formula financing to allow the councils to devote time and funds to meet those policy planning developments for their communities?