Madam Speaker, with regard to reference to the constitutionality of the Payroll Tax as it relates to the Dene Nation, I would like to ask whether or not the Minister has sought legal opinion under the Legal Opinions Act, I think it's called.

Thank you again, Madam Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance regarding the payroll tax of Dene Nation. I guess my interest is with regard to what legal authority the government has to compel the Dene Nation to register.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today on a point of order. I have had the opportunity to review the unedited Hansard for Friday, November 4, 1994, with reference to comments made by the

honourable Minister responsible for the Public Utilities Board on the Standing Committee on Legislation review of Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Public Utilities Act.

The Honourable John Todd stated in the House on November 4, 1994, and I quote from page 1856 of the unedited Hansard:

"Just for clarification, we did go before the Standing Committee on Legislation and it recommended, I thought, to support the bill based upon the two amendments they asked us to do. Now the Standing Committee on Legislation Members are naying the bill. I don't understand what is going on here. By resolution, they passed it, the last time I met with the standing committee."

Madam Speaker, this quote was repeated in a CBC news broadcast this morning at 7:30 am.

Additionally, the Minister stated in the House, and I quote from page 1856:

"Maybe someone could help me out in terms of procedure, being the layman that I am, why some aggressive Members of the House have decided to raise their voices louder than those who don't."

The honourable Minister appears to be suggesting that because the Standing Committee on Legislation considered this bill in committee, Members of the House should rubber-stamp the bill. Madam Speaker, regardless of what recommendations the standing committee makes with respect to any bill, Members of this House are, and should be, free to fully debate the bill on the floor of the House. This debate may be delivered aggressively if it is necessary to fulfil their obligations as Members of the Legislature.

For the record, Madam Speaker, I must note that the Standing Committee on Legislation's report, as contained on page 1853 of the unedited Hansard dated November 4, 1994, makes reference to problems that the public had with the bill. Additionally, the report refers to committee concerns with respect to the bill representing an additional tax on the consumers. During the public hearings on September 8, 1994, the public record clearly shows that there was no agreement between the Minister and the standing committee as to support of the bill.

Madam Speaker, the committee did not "approve" this bill. The committee did its job, heard submissions from the public, considered the bill and moved the bill into committee of the whole for consideration.

The point of order, Madam Speaker, is the Minister, by stating the committee had recommended support of Bill 8, has mislead the House and the public. By his remarks, the Minister is leaving the public and this House with the perception that the Members of the Standing Committee on Legislation say one thing and do another.

I would appreciate, Madam Speaker, if you would consider this point of order on behalf of myself as well as Members of this House who believe that Members should feel free to fully debate all legislation in this House, aggressively if necessary.

Further, Madam Speaker, I would ask for an apology from the honourable Minister. Mahsi cho.

---Applause

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, as I understand it, the law allows for a maximum fine of $1,000 for this offence. The offender was advised by Renewable Resources what to do with the animal, but did not act on that advice. The judgment has been made in this case, Madam Speaker, and I won't debate it after the fact. I expect that the officers and the people of the Department of Renewable Resources who are responsible for the enforcement of the Wildlife Act are as upset about this as I am. I fear that this case has sent a message to others who may find themselves facing the same situation. That is, there is an easy way out and you don't need to go to the trouble of preserving the animal after it has been destroyed because it won't cost you anything.

Madam Speaker, our laws with respect to wildlife are not a matter of convenience. They are there for a reason and must be respected by everyone. I hope, by raising the issue here today, that our legal system will take these comments to heart and consider applying much stricter penalties allowed by the law in such cases, so that we may see fewer cases like this in the future. Mahsi cho.

---Applause

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak about something that happens far too often in the north and must be condemned yet again. I am talking about the needless slaughter of wildlife which is sometimes left to spoil and rot. There is a common trend that runs through our many aboriginal cultures here in the north: our relationship with the land and all of its creatures. The land and the wildlife have sustained us for hundreds of years. Because of the respect that aboriginal cultures have with the wildlife, we look upon the animals as our brothers and sisters who have given their lives so that we may live. Out of respect, our people make the most possible use of the entire animal.

Members may have guessed that I am referring to the incident this past August where a scientist shot and killed a grizzly then left the carcass to rot. I won't go into the details of the incident, Madam Speaker, for they have been documented already. Whether or not everything was done that could have been done to get this bear to leave before having to shoot it is debatable, and I won't go into that. But I am sure that things were all considered in the courts. What upsets me and I'm sure most northern residents, is the apparent failure to address the seriousness of the issue. This person was charged with abandoning a dead animal and allowing the hide to spoil. He was convicted of that charge. What I find appalling, Madam Speaker, is that the penalty enforced by the court was a fine of $115. Not only was no part of the animal able to be used, but the belly of the hide alone would have been far greater than $115.

I have to ask where is the justice in this. Where is the deterrence factor to keep others from doing the same? I am not saying it is never necessary to kill an animal to protect yourself or your property, but to kill and throw away is not our way. And it's shameful the penalty being proposed should reflect this.

Madam Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude by statement.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, November 7th, I will move the following motion.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik, that the name of the Advisory Committee on Social Housing be changed to the Special Committee on Housing;

Further, that notwithstanding Rule 88(2), the membership of the Special Committee on Housing shall consist of:

-three permanent Members from the east;

-three permanent Members from the west;

-the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation; and,

-two alternate Members, one from the east and one from the west;

And furthermore, that the following be adopted as the terms of reference for the Special Committee on Housing:

The Special Committee on Housing shall:

a)inquire into such housing matters as may be referred to it by the Legislative Assembly;

b)review and recommend on major new or revised policies or programs proposed by the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation;

c)review and recommend on major issues arising from existing policies and programs of the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation;

d)review and recommend on major housing issues arising from community consultation undertaken by the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation with members of the public, local housing organizations, community governments and interest groups;

And furthermore, that the Special Committee on Housing may, on its own authority,

e)provide advice to the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation;

And furthermore the Special Committee on Housing shall:

1)conduct its business in a manner approved by the Legislative Assembly;

2)elect one of its members to serve as chairperson;

3)elect one of its members to serve as deputy chairperson;

4)establish its quorum to consist of four members;

5)be provided with the necessary funds for the special committee to carry out its responsibilities from the appropriations of the Legislative Assembly;

6)have the authority to sit during sessions, adjournments and recesses of the House;

7)undertake such travel as a whole or by individual members as required and approved by the committee to carry out the assigned responsibilities of the committee;

8)make regular reports to the Legislative Assembly;

9)report to the Legislative Assembly on any advice provided to the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation;

10)be provided with the necessary administrative support by the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation and the office of the Legislative Assembly.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, are we the only jurisdiction that has this kind of legislation?

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, by virtue of this House adopting the Aboriginal Custom Adoption Recognition Act, does it still remain aboriginal law, or does it become Euro-Canadian law?

Madam Speaker, thank you. Madam Speaker, yesterday we passed the Custom Adoption Recognition Act. I was opposed to it being put into white laws, but now that it has happened there is nothing that I can do about it, except to say that now that we have incorporated what is considered aboriginal custom into white laws, are we going to start looking at a directive to eliminate some of those barriers that existed before? In other words, can we still be able to build buildings for aboriginal people that don't have to be so restrictive based on codes? That is what I was referring to, Madam Speaker.