Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We do not anticipate that anybody will be signing an agreement unless they intend to comply with the requirements.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is a good question because we do not expect the Department of Social Services to do this monitoring. I think the monitoring will be incumbent on the groups that have accepted the agreement with the Government of the NWT to deliver the program. It is anticipated that the groups themselves will do the monitoring. This Minister and this department will not accept anonymous tips, anonymous phone calls. If anybody is considered to be in violation of the sobriety clause after having signed it or after their group has signed it, then they should be willing to stand up and put their name to that. I think it will be incumbent on the groups themselves to ensure that the staff that are working there abide by the intent of the guidelines set before them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, we do not have any plans in the immediate future for any of the items mentioned by my honourable friend across the way. The present issue deals primarily with the sobriety clause in the treatment of alcohol and drug patients. We intend to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a return to an oral question asked today by Mr. Koe dealing with the victims' assistance progam in Inuvik. A letter was sent by the former Minister of Social Services, Mrs. Marie-Jewell, on November 12, 1991, to the president of the Society of Friends Against Family Violence, indicating that the full proposal had not been received from the society but the proposal would be reviewed once submitted by the family violence prevention program with the Department of Social Services. The response of November 12, 1991, still applies. The department is awaiting the complete proposal so that a review can be done and suggestions can be provided regarding shelter development in Inuvik. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to make a few comments prior to this motion being introduced and I did not have a chance because the motion was made. What I was going to say, and it deals with the establishment of a special committee on health and social services, that although I did state that I would not call for such a special committee to be struck, the reasons that I had for doing that were that we had just recently gone through a couple of reviews. The Beatty team had presented its paper or report in which it gave some recommendations that may or may not, of course, be adopted by the government toward dealing with these two departments that I am involved with. Prior to that or sometime during that, there was also another report that had been conducted. It was conducted by the firm Peat Marwick and is not yet tabled, and I was proposing to the department that I table this as soon as possible, which would have been in the next session. It did a review of the Department of Social Services as well and made some good recommendations dealing with some of the problems that the group saw. Some of those subsequently have been

introduced and the recommendations put in place, and would have steered the department in a positive direction.

After becoming aware of all this, these are my reasons for saying that I would not have supported a review at that time, and I want that to be known. I needed time to conduct my own review of both departments, and they are very complex departments, as my predecessor is well aware, and there are many areas that intertwine between Health and Social Services. I needed time in order to review these and see how we could implement some of the recommendations into the amalgamation process that would eventually take place and there would be only one department, not two departments.

I am concerned with the special committee and the work that is necessary. I will abide, I guess, by the direction the Government Leader and cabinet take, and the direction that the House gives, but in support of the department and the people that are actually working there, they have to face another committee and another group studying them. It is going to take away valuable time from the work that they are trying to do, and put the clients at a bit of a disadvantage. I have their assurance after speaking with both departments that they will co-operate should a special committee be struck. It is not that we will be uncooperative, it is just that we are saying that under the present conditions that the whole government finds itself where we are going into the "Strength At Two Levels" trying to implement some of the recommendations; we will be looking at that and how to do it and we will be consulting with Members on a number of issues in the recommendation process.

To have a special committee at this time look at it, maybe -- I would not go so far as to say "counter-productive" but it may impede the direction and the force that we would be using to make both these departments more streamlined and provide better service to the clients. That was my concern, in defence of both departments. Yes, we will co-operate, but it will be almost overwhelming to people to have three or four studies done within two years. I just wanted to share those particular thoughts with you. I think that any recommendations that come out of such a study will be given every consideration, but I just wanted to say that if it is the intention -- okay I will leave it at that and say that I probably will abstain from voting either way because it directly affects departments that I am with, and we will comply with whatever direction is set by the Government Leader, cabinet and this House.

I will have to track down and see what the original agreement was, but I understand that there have been several agreements dealing with the subject of health. Specifically to the question, I will undertake that, yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know the answer to that and perhaps I can take that question as notice and try to ascertain why this situation is allowed to continue or has continued. If the Member will bear with me, I will endeavour to find out what kind of situation prevails in Nahanni Butte and how this can be improved.

Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to be meeting with groups as we go along. If there is any particular concern that can be addressed specifically, I think that would be a good way for me to proceed because to say that health services across the whole of the NWT is not good, would not be accurate. Since the transfer from Ottawa, we are more accountable and we have better services in the communities and in the North in general.

There may be specific areas that are not quite up to par and there may be specific instances that may need addressing as we go along. I do not know whether we can work on that. I would certainly like to meet with Members as time allows and issues present themselves to discuss some discrepancies with health services in a community and match them against what we are trying to deliver in those areas. I would entertain that, but that is about all I can say at the moment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is a difficult question to answer because I do not have references to what it used to be, but if I could express an opinion from my own personal observations over the years as a northern resident, it has tremendously improved.