I do not see anything on the POL review. I only see special purpose reviews. What is the special purpose review?

Mr. Chairman, the reasons for special warrants is if there are not enough moneys or if it is of an urgent nature. In the event that approval was given September 11, 1991 to provide funding for unanticipated costs associated with special purpose reviews, I would like to ask the Minister what the special purpose review is. Was this with regard to the funny things that were happening within the department?

Mr. Chairman, I do believe that most Members will be going home for Christmas, but other than that you have the winter session that starts in February, so from February right up to the end of the fiscal year, March 30th, there are about seven weeks we are going to be in session. But also you have to look at maybe we are not going to be in session for the next month and a half. Am I

correct to assume that -- the Finance Minister has done an estimate on how many times a Minister is going to be travelling to their home community, back and forth -- for example in Mr. Allooloo's riding, for him to go back to this community it is going to be $28,000. Are we assuming that Mr. Allooloo is going to be doing $28,000 worth of travel between his home community and here? I would assume that every week he would be looking at travelling back to the home community.

When you say "home community" -- I know for myself my home community is Fort Providence because that is where I live. Do Ministers also have homes that they reside in? What you call "home" in this place and your constituency is where you come from. Maybe you could enlighten me on that.

Are we going to be in a deficit or not?

Could the Minister enlighten me on the breakdown of the travel? I also wanted to mention that in light of the fact that we were anticipating a deficit, that because we were not aware of those costs or hidden costs, should the Executive realize that we might run into a deficit and practise restraint?

Mr. Chairman, we just passed a motion to not increase our travel or indemnities and here we have another to provide funding for the increased costs due to inflationary increases associated with Ministers' home air travel of $72,000. I believe we did accept the principle of restraint. I would like to ask the Minister that the ordinary Members restrict themselves on the increase and the Minister's will get an increase. Perhaps the Government Leader may enlighten me on what this is for.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, the deletion of clause 25(1) refers to the $65 that is being paid to the Deputy Speaker and the deputy chairmen of committee of the whole. That is not very much money, $65 a day, and if you look at the Speaker, the Speaker's salary has gone up, I believe, to the tune of about 200 per cent. Even with the cut, it is still a large increase. In the presiding officers' indemnities there is not that much of an increase, $65 a day, keeping that the same and not increasing it, I find this could be difficult because I know, Mr. Chairman. I have been the Deputy Speaker for the last eight years and it does not pay to be a presiding officer, as far as I am concerned. I think it is really unfair to the presiding officers, once we get them, to let them know that they have to put a cap on their honorariums, if you want to call it that, to keep them in the chair.

The other comment is with regard to section 26(2). This section refers to when you are serving on a special or standing committee and the honorarium for that is $190 a day. I only serve on two committees and whenever the opportunity arises for those people to meet that is the only time that the Members actually get paid that indemnity. A lot of meetings occur without the indemnities being paid. When you are in session, for example, the committees meet and the people do not get the extra for meeting in the evenings or before 9:00 a.m., because the day is filled with other agendas. The dedication is there to work outside normal working hours, and it is difficult for Members. I do not know whether restricting them from this is fair, when you have to travel to Yellowknife most of the time for committee meetings as opposed to going to other communities, but I would think it is fair.

The other one is with regard to section 28(1) where a Member gets a 90-day indemnity or else they get an indemnity when they start travelling between their residence and communities. It is either one, either you could delete the indemnity you pay Members when they leave their community. For example, I travel to Yellowknife in one day, a few hours, I do not benefit from this. But I certainly could feel that the Members from the Eastern Arctic are going to be put in a bad position if we start not paying them that part of the indemnity. I know accommodation is pretty high in the Eastern Arctic and some Members take as long as a week to get here. So not compensating them and having them pay out of their own pocket is unfair, as opposed to Members that live in the West. Most of the western Members could make it here in one day. So they do not have to make those kinds of sacrifices.

I think it is really unfair if we have to restrict Members from the Eastern Arctic by limiting their indemnities in that area. I think most of the sections being deleted have to do with travel and accommodation. Things are going up and so is everything else when you travel. Limiting those indemnities would probably limit your function as a Member. So I would hope the Members could support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the reason why I would like to get those deleted is that I believe the intent is to put a cap on salaries, but it would make it very difficult for Members to function as Members if we start restricting them based on what they have for their constituencies and also to do committee work and that. I think the principle is to put a cap on or else to cut back, and in this case I think we are, as 18 Members, not increasing our salaries but keeping it the same.

At the same time, I think it is important that the Members realize that you do have a certain amount for your constituency work, and I hate to see gasoline, air fares and everything else increase and these do not. We might be limiting ourselves in our capacity as Members, so this is the reason why I would like to make a motion to delete those and I hope to get the Members' support on that. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, be amended by striking out "25(1), 26(2), 27(1) and 28(1)" and substituting a period for the comma immediately following subsection 23(1).