Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Committee Report 11-12(2) and wishes to report that Committee Report 11-12(2) is concluded. with two motions being adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the chairman of committee of the whole be concurred with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my concern or general comment is very much similar to Mr. Zoe's, especially on page three. I fail to understand the clear direction in that document, New Directions. It says, 'However, this has meant that we had to reduce expenditures in other areas to a greater degree. Unfortunately, that is the choice we face in sustaining our most important social programs and continuing to offer our rapidly growing numbers of youth the best possible education. We must be prepared to invest in our young people and meet our obligations to our elders." This sounds great, but how do you say that and take away 12 of the Keewatin teacher education program at the same time? I cannot understand how those two are supposed to fit together as logic. The action and the document New Direction conflict.

A paragraph after that also talks about more independent or real economic development. In other words, something independent from the government. Now, I want to believe the document has a general interest to develop more economic development that can be self-sustaining; yet we are not seeing this in the small communities. I understand "Communities such as Fort Simpson and Rankin Inlet are stranded in a never-never land by being too small to be big, but too big to be small." I understand that, but still this particular program does not reflect the small communities. Mr. Chairman, I will need some clarification of those particular paragraphs, using examples of what they mean with those statements. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I had so many questions. I did not mean to put two of them at the same time, but yes, that is what I meant. That probably would have to be a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education. The Minister of Education must remember that when Mr. Kakfwi was the Minister of Education, he initiated an affirmative action program -- or at least the. government did -- to allow that aboriginal people to become qualified teachers and qualified for other positions within the government. Now he is the Minister of Personnel. My question is to the Minister of Education. With that government commitment, will he make the teacher education program permanent rather than a three-year program when they are re-evaluating that three-year project?

Also, it has been reported that Baffin is bound to lose approximately one million dollars; Keewatin probably a similar portion, maybe smaller, but a similar portion; that had allowed the divisional boards to produce Inuktitut programs and hire cultural inclusion programs from that quarterly contribution from the government. Would he then make it a permanent program rather than just a two-year program, because everyone recognizes that they are essential?

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Education. As he is aware, there are 12 students that are training to become teachers and they have completed a year. My question is, how can he tell us they need people in the Keewatin, if he wants to allocate funding? Because the government is in a deficit, how can he reserve more money if we were just to seek social assistance? Can the Minister answer my question? If his answer is 'Yes, the funding is available", it is discouraging to see the teacher training come to a halt. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Madam Premier's statement, page seven, states, "it will also encourage community involvement in the justice system." My question is to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. With that statement, what has the Minister done so far regarding that paragraph on page seven?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There have been some comments regarding that the western part of the NWT has not been well informed of this. I am sorry that is the case. The previous plebiscite vote in 1982 was carried out and there was a majority of residents who voted in favour of splitting the NWT. From there on we have been rather active in determining where is the most fair boundary that both East and West can agree on. We came up with different ideas, but eventually through an arbitrator -- there is so much overlapping interest from the aboriginal standpoint, there has to be a compromise made. So we have now been informing our constituents in Nunavut that this is the boundary that is the most fair, although we informed the communities closest to the boundary, i.e. Arviat, Baker Lake, Coppermine and other places, that the boundary itself will not necessarily represent their traditional interests.

However, in the TFN land claims agreement, the traditional hunting and camping areas and also the landmarks will not be jeopardized by this boundary. In fact, if we can remember, the jurisdictional boundary lines between Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the NWT have never stopped any Saskatchewan or Manitoba people from hunting and trapping in their traditional areas within Nunavut, inside the proposed Nunavut boundary. We strongly feel that will not change, because we, too, as Nunavut members, also have interests that will be inside the western side of the boundary. We hope, too, very strongly, that we will not be jeopardized from going in that area pursuing our traditional hunting, trapping and other aboriginal practices.

So with that, we have been consulting with our communities, and we are active in trying to make our communities understand the pros and cons of the situation and give them absolute freedom to vote on the May 4th plebiscite.

Mr. Speaker, to supplement my friend's question here. Can the Minister of Renewable Resources assure this House that if he finds out it is illegal to hunt -- I know it is legal for scientific purposes to do scientific research by helicopter; that is not in dispute. But in his statement he stated that these bears will be hunted and after that will be given to the participating Inuit, and they will have the right to sell them by using regular tags. If that turns out to be illegal, as we were told many times not to use airplanes and helicopters to hunt such species, if he finds out that it is illegal, will he have no option but to go by dog-team?

On the second page, in the middle of the paragraph, it states that the hunters throughout northern Canada will then have a reliable understanding of any human health risks that may be associated with the marked bears, or in this case I guess it will be drugged bears. What will be the method of finding out whether they are acceptable for human consumption?