Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, December 12, 1991, I will move the following motion: Now therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kivallivik, that the Legislative Assembly recommends that the community of Kakisa's need for a walk-in community freezer be considered a priority for inclusion in the Department of Renewable Resources' five year capital plan; and further, that the long-awaited policy concerning community freezers be formalized by the cabinet. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that there is a freeze, but the request was made prior to the government's position on putting on a freeze. The other issue is that there was also an agreement signed by the community, which I believe the Minister only had to sign and then the transaction is completed, but I guess, while the community did sign, and before it got to the Minister, the government decided to establish a position on restricting expenditures. I think that in this case the government would view that as one of the bases for maybe approving the $25,000. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider that.

Mr. Speaker, all I said is that I have worked just about three years on this whole issue of the church in Fort Providence, and I realize that there is a new Executive and there is a restraint. But what I have also asked the Minister responsible is whether or not he made a point to his other colleagues to make an argument on my behalf to the Executive Council so that it could be approved. I do not know whether he has consulted with his colleagues on the circumstances leading to the request, and so I would like to ask the Minister whether or not he did, in fact, consult with his Executive Members to make an argument on my behalf so that the community might be able to receive $25,000, which is not very much, from the original $150,000.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a supplementary question to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I have worked on this project for almost 20 years. What he had to say was not very hard to say. I wonder if the Minister had really worked toward that and if he had told cabinet that.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Culture and Communications. On the committee that I represent in Fort Providence I made a motion and had asked for $25,000 to help them out with this project. Last Thursday they said they had changed their mind and they said that they cannot supply them with the $25,000 toward this project. Now that they cannot get this $25,000 the community will not have a church. With Christmas coming on they will not have any Mass for the people. We have been working on this project for a long time now, and they have changed their mind and said they will not help them with the funding.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister if he could provide the Members of this House with the names of the people who are serving on the Workers' Compensation Board and where they come from.

I am aware that there are no aboriginal people on the board, but those are non-aboriginal people who have drafted up a regulation on "principally engaged", without really any consultation with aboriginal organizations, or for that matter, hunters and trappers. If you read the document, you need to be a lawyer to do that. Most people have limited education. I would like to ask the Minister if he can assure me that aboriginal people will be consulted, including Members of this House, when the definition of "principally engaged" is worked on.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister responsible for Workers' Compensation whether any of the Members of the board are of aboriginal descent?

I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr. Speaker, under section 10(1) of the Workers' Compensation Board, it describes the occupations of hunters and trappers as "principally engaged in hunting and trapping." But under the regulation it also puts a price tag on what that means. In other words a person has to make over $10,000 in order for them to be principally engaged in hunting and trapping. I would like to know why the Minister or the department has chosen to put a price tag on what "principally engaged" means, since the definition does not necessarily restrict it to only money. I think it is a way of life for aboriginal people and I do not think there should be a price tag on it. Why did they decide to put $10,000 on it in order for a hunter or trapper to be eligible for compensation?