(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Renewable Resources. The Minister stated earlier, with regard to the survey on tranquillizing polar bears, that this type of survey has been going on for quite some time now and there was a concern whether the meat was consumable. Is this true?

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Bills 13, 24, 17 and 1, and wishes to report that Bills 13, 24, 17 and 1 are ready for third reading, with two motions being adopted. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the chairman of the committee of the whole be concurred with.

Mr. Chairman, similarly to the previous bill we just dealt with, Bill 13, these two sort of show that it will now be no longer illegal to go over your budget from individual activities of the capital estimates. I suppose sometimes you do go over your budget, but my concern is still that we are very serious about eliminating the deficit of the government, but this will not help to eliminate that deficit. However, if it is genuinely a good intention of the government not to abuse the right of having the bill, Financial Administration Act, No. 2, in place, then I suppose we will have to wait and see. But I still have that concern that we will have to watch very carefully.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a very short general comment and perhaps a question, if I may. I know this bill, with good intentions, would try to eliminate hassles of introducing legislation every time they need to collect $500 or more. However, my concern is that it seems to give a message to the social workers or other government employees to become even more careless in dissemination of government funds to individuals who may have been eligible at first but later become ineligible, through employment or uncollectable financial loans from the government. Will there be a policy or statement of intent somewhere from the government that available means will be used to collect the outstanding overpayments or loans, despite this bill being in effect, if it is passed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Justice. In his response to Mr. Pudlat, he stated that the interpreters' liability, if any, will be defended by the government. What would happen if the interpreter loses her case or defence even with the help or defence by the government'? Who would be ultimately responsible for that suit?

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Education. I received correspondence stating that they will be short one teacher in Chesterfield Inlet, according to the government goals and objectives. Is it changed now?

With respect to $50,000 for the Chesterfield Inlet water supply improvements, can the Minister tell me if that will still go ahead this summer?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a concern that the territorial government is footing a very large part of the expenses and the RCMP, similar to NCPC, is one of the most money-wasting things that the government spends money on. For example, anything that may be required, even if it is not necessary -- it used to be even more, but I think they have cut down quite a bit, that they must have skidoos and all-terrain vehicles, suburbans and canoes; they have to have everything, including their own garage and their own warehouse for personnel, even in the small communities. They are still operating under traditional government, colonial administration, for the development of the 1960s northern vision.

Will the Minister of Justice renegotiate a more affordable policing program in the North? Because a lot of the expenses are fringe benefits to make the officer as comfortable as possible, the most luxurious living style that is possible in the small communities. I think everyone knows that they have all the services required to make life as comfortable as possible. Yet, as was complained to us before, there are no evening services. Are there any plans by the Minister or the government to have a better use of that scarce dollar by eliminating some of these fringe benefits?

What would happen in the event that $1,153,000 is not approved by this House?