Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On my left, shortly I hope, Mr. Bob Overvold, the deputy minister, will join me. On my right is Terryl Allen, director of finance and administration for the ministry.

I don't have a Hansard with me, perhaps he could repeat the question.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't get a copy of the Hansard, so I was not aware of what the question was.

Mr. Chairman, it is my view that this is a question which would be properly addressed to the Premier, since she is ultimately the one answerable for the way that the Executive and the Cabinet assigns its different duties. For instance, this particular division is being set up in the Executive and I think the Premier should answer that question. It is more properly left for her to answer that question and not myself, if I could defer that question to her.

Mr. Chairman, along with the Department of Finance, we have a very similar role we have always played in relation to that question. For instance, the entire exercise brought on by the Legislative Assembly and Cabinet in looking at division; the implications of it; the work schedule; and, the work done by the Legislature and Cabinet over the last three years in preparation for division were all largely organized and followed up on by the ministry staff in conjunction with the Department of Finance. So we do play a large role in helping the Cabinet and the Premier's office answer questions related to division, in setting up and proposing processes for dealing with issues that arise out of that. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I had said yesterday that because self-government negotiations is a new initiative that requires some focus and some clear mandates in order for it to be expedited, this government has suggested that we should come up with a clear mandate and a protocol, to be clear to the Members of this Legislature and the public, on what we see is our role and our mandate in how we will conduct ourselves in the course of self-government discussions and negotiations.

With that in mind, the Cabinet directed us to develop a draft mandate and protocol paper. We did that, the Cabinet approved a discussion paper for consultation purposes. We have gone to the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Deh Cho, Treaty 8, Dogrib, and I think the Metis Nation to get their input as to whether or not this is a good idea and what they think of the draft paper.

We are presently getting feedback from the different groups. As I said yesterday, there are a couple of points: one, there is an uneasiness about the fact that the federal government itself does not have any clear policy, they don't have a self-government paper. Although they have committed in their red book of the Liberal Party to recognize and support the inherent right to self-government, there hasn't been a paper yet and we expect that this month. It looks like it is unclear at this time when the federal government will come forward with it. I would suspect that they may need more time before they are prepared and able to come forward with a good paper.

In the meantime, this government has elected to try to do the same. It has been our view that we are a required party to the negotiations because we are funded and mandated to serve the public in delivering certain programs and services. To leave us out of it will make the process very cumbersome, since the federal government will need to consult with us continuously in order to be able to expedite the negotiations. So we think the best way is for us to be involved.

As well, the federal government has insisted from the beginning that we should be involved. Having said that, I have taken the view that we should be involved. I feel that because I think, as a government, we can help the aboriginal groups to get many of the things that they want. Certainly our paper, in our view, is unique in Canada, the extent to which we are prepared to almost dismantle ourselves in face of the call for self-government by aboriginal people. We put this government on the table. That is done nowhere else in Canada. If the aboriginal groups are insistent and all of them insist that we shouldn't be party to the negotiations and that we should sit it out, we would give that serious consideration. At this time, we are just going through the consultations. It will be a few weeks yet before we put all the discussions together and have something definitive for Cabinet. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we put this paper together because we think we take a rather progressive view nationally in our approach to self-government negotiations. The principles that we list are fairly wide-ranging. We use words that perhaps could, upon discussion with aboriginal groups, alleviate their concerns. We used "territorial" to define a central government because if we say we should be one central government, the animosity level rises incredibly. When we say "central," for instance, people think I'm talking about one government, no community governments, no regional governments, just one central government. I learned the lesson the hard way. Now we use the word "territorial" to mean that in a single western territory, there will be a territorial government made up of at least two, perhaps three, levels of government.

The principles are there. Some of them we have no choice. For instance, we think self-government arrangements must respect the Canadian Charter of Rights. We don't see any way around that. There are other draft principles that different groups have taken offence to and have questions about, certainly with the wording. I asked for consultation because I want to know what they think of these principles in the draft paper. That's what we're doing right now. The Deh Cho has made very little response to it.

As I say, if the whole paper is objectionable, then we need to know why. If it can be clearly articulated, then we may be convinced that, perhaps, the very people we want to help don't want our help at all. If that's the message, we're going to take that very seriously and bring it back to Cabinet. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if the Deh Cho comes back and says they would like to change the wording of many of the principles and suggest a number of principles are unacceptable and give reasons for that, we are prepared to listen to them because the principles are supposed to guide us in the conduct of negotiations. If they are seen to impede the advancement of certain positions, then we have to rationalize why we're doing that. I understand what the Member is saying. It's kind of funny to be consulting with the very groups we're negotiating with but, in our case, the aboriginal groups are also part of the public we serve, so it's important for them to know how we're going to conduct ourselves, the same way as we're consulting with the municipalities.

We're also asking the federal government to look at our protocol and mandate for their review. One of the things that I raised yesterday and I think the federal government has raised as well, is the Deh Cho paper says they want to set up a separate territory within the Deh Cho traditional boundaries. I don't see it as a starting point in negotiations but the federal government has said that themselves. However, the federal Minister, I believe, has also instructed his officials to conduct exploratory talks -- which is all that is going on now with the Deh Cho -- to say that let's explore the reasons why people are asking for a separate territory and what it is that they hope to achieve and how they how to achieve it so we can better understand the position that they're taking. Once we know that, we'll be in a better position to see what we can do to

meet the aspirations of the Deh Cho people. That is going on right now in the discussions with the federal officials.

While I understand that the federal government has said no to a separate territory, they haven't hard-lined it in the exploratory talks. They have taken the time to hear out the Deh Cho on a number of occasions to let them flesh out the parameters as the Deh Cho see it; how they envisage self-government for their territory. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see Mr. Overvold appear -- as I hoped he would -- on my left as of yesterday and the same today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what the Member is saying and I would have liked to hear him say that the federal government is very slow and they should have jumped the gun in delivering a policy but they haven't. The government said that they were going to deliver it last fall; last fall came and went and there is still no paper from the federal government. The last we heard it was due this month, in April. As a government, we had tried to take a positive approach. I did not want, as a Minister, to be told that I'm taking an ad hoc approach to self-government negotiations. I had asked the ministry, and the Cabinet had supported it, to come up with a draft that would tell the aboriginal groups and the public how this government is going to conduct itself and on what principles it would build its positions in negotiations.

The officials have just sent the draft to the aboriginal groups, the Association of Municipalities and the federal government for feedback, and if it appears that the aboriginal groups all want us to stay out, that they don't want a draft mandate and policy, then that will go to Cabinet. I'm preparing to go to Cabinet in the middle of May for a decision on this. We may defer, we may adopt it, we may withdraw it completely and take an ad hoc approach to self-government negotiations.

I should let the Member know that I think it would be totally contrary to the interests of anyone if no one in the north tries to capture an opportunity to put focus on the self-government aspirations of the six regional groups that make up the western part of the territory. How are we going to make sure that the Inuvialuit, the Gwich'in, the Sahtu, the Dogrib, the Deh Cho, Treaty 8, the Metis Nation and the Metis of the South Slave and the North Slave all work towards self-government that has some semblance of commonality? We are categorically against the balkanization of a western territory; but the federal government, on the other hand, may not be. They may be very happy to see the aboriginal groups set up little enclaves for themselves. This government is not interested in seeing that. If there's some other way to ensure that people get to appreciate the merits of having a common front of all aboriginal people and northern people to deal with self-government issues, political and constitutional issues, then we have to provide that direction, that leadership. That's what we're trying to do. Thank you.

Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. I would like to touch on a different area than my colleague from Nahendeh. I would like to touch on the area of community transfers. In the budget there are many staff in the community transfer division of the ministry. I would like to ask the Minister how many staff we have in terms of PYs, if there are any vacancies within those number of PYs and the cost of their salaries and wages?

I have further questions, Mr. Chairman, after I hear from the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have eight person years that are assigned to community transfers. Presently, we have one vacancy. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that there is both an eastern and western section, both with four employees assigned to each division. Is the one vacancy that the Minister made reference to in the east or in the west? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, there are actually three vacancies. One is in the east and one is assigned to the west. Also, under the western Arctic community transfer, we had two community liaison coordinators. One was vacated voluntarily a month or so ago and the other person is on loan to the self-government function. Technically, it's a vacancy but it has been vacated on loan, seconded. In the east, the executive director position that was formerly filled by Sheila Bassi is presently vacant.

Mr. Chairman, with all these people under the community transfer section, could I ask the Minister if he could update us on the number of communities which have been involved in the community transfer initiative?

Mr. Chairman, there are 74 communities, I believe, in the Northwest Territories. I wonder whether the Member will simply allow me to provide briefing documents which would show the history of community transfers since the beginning, some four years ago, and the amount of activity and work done to date. We do have, for instance a listing which shows the number of communities that have expressed initial interest or have requested information workshops on the community transfer initiative since 1992; which is some 45 communities. The interest has been high.

In some communities, we have started having discussions and workshops, and the communities are taking the time to have internal discussions about whether or not they are prepared to make further commitments. Other communities -- for instance, McPherson -- have indicated that, at this time, they are not prepared to do any further work. The implementation of the Gwich'in claim and the business interests of the community have taken centre stage, the entire stage, so to speak, at this time. The leadership has indicated to us that they support the concept of the community transfer initiative but they are not prepared to do anything specific at this time.

We are continuing to hold the position that we're not going to go out and actively sell the initiative. We know that people are interested and they will do it when they are prepared and feel their priority is transfers. As a government, we're prepared to do business. The store is open, so to speak, but we're not taking the approach that everybody should be doing it. We're simply open for business and when business is called for by different communities, we shall respond. We're prepared and organized to do it. Thank you.

I am looking forward to that summary, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, the Minister indicated that there are a number of vacancies. Can I ask the Minister how long these vacancies have existed?

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the executive director position, which was vacated at the end of January, is presently being advertised. Once that position is filled, we will move to advertise for the community liaison coordinator for the western Arctic part of the community transfers. Regarding the other community liaison coordinator, which I said was on loan to the self-government task, we have no intention of advertising for that since the person still holds that position. They're simply on loan to help with the self-government aspect of our work.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister indicated that there were two positions. One was the executive director for the east, which is being advertised and one is a secondment into the self-government area. The other position he said was also vacant is the community liaison coordinator. What about that position? Is that being advertised? How long has that been vacant?

The Member just missed part of my comments. I said we're presently advertising for the executive director position and once we fill that, we will move to advertise for the community liaison coordinator position, which was vacated in February. The second community liaison position is not a secondment, it is a loan. We're simply aiding the self-government task which is burdened with work because we are also helping with the Constitutional Development Steering Committee work, and have been for some time; namely, Mr. Iveson.

In order to help, one of our staff, Gabriela Sparling, has been assigned temporarily to help with that workload. She still fills the community liaison coordinator position so we have no intention of advertising that position. We're advertising for two positions; one presently and one in the near future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, earlier, the Minister indicated that there has been a lot of interest expressed by a number of communities. If I recall, out of 70 odd communities, he indicated about 45 communities expressed interest. If I recall correctly, Mr. Chairman, when we first announced this initiative, there was great interest expressed by all communities; particularly medium-sized communities such as Cape Dorset and Fort Good Hope which have successfully completed transfers. But, after looking at how the initiatives were being handled, a lot of communities were turned off because of the complications of the process we have in place.

I disagree, at this point in time, with the Minister saying that there's a lot of interest out there. I don't think that's the case. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the interest is no longer there. I would like to ask the Minister if he could provide to our committee the names of the communities that his staff have travelled to in the last year and how many of these communities are seriously pursuing transfer of this particular initiative; transfer of programs for this initiative?

Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions ago I had asked the Member if he would be prepared to accept, instead of an hour-long presentation from me on all the work that we've done -- all the travel, the workshops, the funding that we've provided to communities, the visits, and all the transfers that have been completed, the ones that are being negotiated now -- if he would simply take that in the form of a briefing papers and he had agreed. This is where we got into difficulty with the Member yesterday as well. He's also now saying that we haven't done anything and interest is waning. I would suggest to the Member that he should wait before he makes categorical statements like that, because they're simply not true and it makes it difficult to have a good discussion when you make categorical statements like that based on whatever it is that you're basing it on.

For instance, there are more communities than just Fort Good Hope and Cape Dorset that have completed transfer agreements. I can, just for the Member's appreciation, list them and then give him an indication of the amount of work that has been done to date.

In Fort Good Hope, for instance, we've done the one on economic development and we've done one on renewable resources. We've done an aide memoire that sort of leads to a framework agreement; that's going to be resulting in the community looking, for instance, at social services and all the agreements that they could take on under that scope.

In Cape Dorset we've completed social services, economic development and public works and housing.

In Holman we've done public works.

In Aklavik we've done economic development and renewable resources and we have a memorandum of understanding under which we will continue to look at other transfers.

In Tuk we've done economic development and public works.

In Fort Providence we've done economic development plus we have a memorandum of understanding there as well.

In the town of Inuvik, we've done economic development and lotteries which was a significant development last year.

In Fort Norman we've done economic development plus we have a memorandum of understanding.

In Fort McPherson and Tsiigehtchic we have economic development and an MOU that we completed before McPherson indicated that that's as far as they were prepared to go at this time. We're continuing with our discussions with Tsiigehtchic on other elements as they come up.

Coppermine, we've done economic development and a trainer memorandum of understanding.

Cambridge Bay we have social services and economic development.

In Grise Fiord we've done renewable resources and a memorandum of understanding.

In Resolute we've done renewable resources and a memorandum of understanding.

Arctic Bay, we've done renewable resources and a MOU there as well.

There are transfers pending in Holman for the executive service officer; in Pelly Bay for the executive service officer; in Gjoa Haven for the executive service officer; Arviat, for lotteries; Cape Dorset is now looking at government services and an officer position; in Deline we're looking at lotteries; Fort Norman, we're looking at lotteries; Tsiigehtchic, we're looking at social services; Aklavik, we're looking at social services, public works, housing maintenance and the power maintenance. These are all pending final negotiations.

In Inuvik we're talking about social services; Norman Wells, we've just completed transfer of the natural gas system so they are now prepared to continue picking up discussions where they left off some years ago on other interests they have in taking on other transfers.

In terms of contributions, the amount of money we've given out, in 1993-94, we gave out a total of $294,500. In 1994-95 we've given out the same amount, $296,830. In terms of the work done and the amount of money that we're advancing to continue the work, it's looking good and I don't understand the Member suggestion that interest is waning. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, in my view, although this initiative was a good one when we first announced it -- sure, it had a lot of interest -- the interest isn't there now. There are some communities that want, say, an EDO position and a lot of them that the Minister outlined are only one-program positions. No substantial... various programs where the community itself would be more in control of, for instance, social services, public works, housing, et cetera. Although the Minister indicated that these programs are being negotiated and they are still liaising with the communities, there hasn't been that much movement, in my view, because a lot of them that the Minister outlined are still pending. How long does it take? It doesn't take four years. We completed, in my view, basically two communities. One is Fort Good Hope and the other is Cape Dorset. Those are two substantial ones that you can really say were a success.

I disagree with my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, when he says there is a lot of interest, that everybody is asking for his staff to come in and provide these types of workshops and to start negotiating and developing memorandums of understanding, et cetera. I don't think that's the case. The public has to know exactly what's happening. For instance, in my area there is no interest. Even south of the lake; I haven't heard the Minister mention any communities south of the lake. You mentioned primarily the east, the Inuvialuit area and some in the Delta. I agree with him that when we first started this initiative, there was a lot of interest expressed but once they saw how complicated it was, it was more difficult for the communities to deal with the process that we put in place. Although the Minister indicated that in 1993-94 we expended, in terms of conservation, $294,500 and in the following year $296,830, that isn't a substantial amount that we are talking about; only a few positions that we've given them and maybe a few office supplies to go with them. But, there hasn't been a substantial transfer taking place in a lot of our communities; I can really say something has happened in our only two: in Cape Dorset and Fort Good Hope. In that respect, Mr. Chairman, in my view, the progress has been very slow in this area.

Mr. Chairman, funding which was identified for community transfers is scattered, not only within this department here but it is scattered throughout the entire budget. Why hasn't the Minister considered consolidating the funding for communities evolving in this initiative in single-line items in the budget; this would better allow monitoring of the effectiveness of the transfer and might provide more flexibility to communities in using the transferred funds. I would like to ask the Minister why hasn't he considered doing that?

Mr. Chairman, there is a school of thought that says the same thing as the Member: everything is well the way it is so we shouldn't change anything. It is true that some communities have other priorities at this time. For instance, the Dogrib are focused very much on their claim, self-government negotiations; and business interests also seem to be occupying a great deal of their time.

We have economic development positions that are answerable right now, not to the communities, not to the Dogrib, but to this government. The Dogrib seem content to leave it the way it is. We have renewable resource officer positions in the Dogrib communities; again, they are not directly answerable to the Dogrib. Some communities have decided they want to do something about that, and we have done work with them. The Dogrib feel that is okay for now and that is their business. This initiative is community-driven and we are not going around beating our drum trying to get the Dogrib or anybody else to say...They have to show that we are needed and that this initiative has to be shown to be highly in demand, otherwise we're a flop.

The government has shown a tremendous initiative here; I believe very, very strongly in it and so does this government. As communities are prepared to move...It is not a big deal, it is not any great initiative to request that Lac La Martre should take over the economic development officer position; they have recently expressed interest in doing that. There is no great magic trick to it, you just ask if you can take that over by coming to an arrangement with the government, you do the same with renewable officer positions and we are in business.

These people can, on a day-to-day basis, answer directly to the Dogrib authority, whatever it is in those communities, if that is what the expressed wish is; but if they don't want to do it at this time, that is fine. I just tell them that this government stands ready to do business, and we are doing it. The Member is saying I don't think you are doing any work. I disagree with him categorically. We wouldn't be here today if the Member had won the day in the Legislature three years ago; not at all.

Mr. Chairman, I agree they shouldn't be provocative. In response to the Member for Iqaluit, I still say categorically, we would be in deep doo-doo if this government was not prepared and had not assigned the kinds of resources it had some three years ago to this task. Members were clamouring, saying what is this government waiting for; why is it not assigning staff for this very, very important function that everybody in the eastern Arctic wants to discuss? It's not easy to conjure up the reaction if we had done nothing.

I have to remind Members that they were wondering why we couldn't assign a fixed budget for this initiative when we first introduced it. I had refused to put a budget on it because I had said I cannot do it until I have a realistic idea about how much it would require. I know that if it was too low, it would be severely criticized as a motley commitment to an initiative that is in high demand in the communities. I suffer now with the probability, at least in the view of the two Members, of having assigned too much money to this task. I don't disagree with the Members there.

They will note as the details come out that there is, in fact, a proposed reduction in the area of community transfers for the coming year. We acknowledge that the amount of money we have assigned to this task is more than we what we require. I'm prepared to downsize. There's no difficulty. But I say again that we have to be ready and are ready to do business. The work we did in Cape Dorset has been a tremendous achievement. We have worked out many of the kinks and wrinkles and I'm very happy that Cape Dorset took on this initiative at the time it did. We're all doing an evaluation of that.

The Nunavut Implementation Commission has involved itself and wants to be part of that evaluation, as well. They have involved themselves in community transfers and see it as a positive initiative. They want to provide some more suggestions on how we can approach this work. I agree, not all communities are prepared to get involved. Some have said that they recognize that we're ready to do business but they have other priorities. They're not prepared, for whatever reason. The blatant truth is, some communities may not be administratively stable enough to take on community transfers at this time.

Other communities, as I've said, are unable to agree politically or internally. Housing associations may not necessarily agree that the hamlets or other political groups should take them over. We just tell them that we need some agreements before we can conduct business with them. Those kinds of discussions are ongoing, I'm sure. But, until then, we have to be ready. There are a tremendous number of barriers. There are bureaucratic barriers, civil servants who have been very supportive, some loudly silent on the initiative, and some have been blatantly scornful of the initiative from the beginning.

I recognized that from the beginning, as a Minister. People will know from their own communities and regions that some people are actively supporting and encouraging transfers and others are strangely silent about it. Some are almost openly scornful of it. The barriers are there, some are human barriers, some are our own. There's an inability of communities to take them on administratively. There's an inability to find the kinds of personnel they want and need in order to take on these transfers. There is the internal inability at this time to move transfers such as housing. There are staffing concerns that need to be dealt with before people get serious about them. Those are the realities. The fact is we can't shove this initiative down. We can downsize the amount of money that we assign to it, but there is never going to be a day when this government refuses to do transfers. We have opened the door and we can never close the door again.

Thank you, Madam Premier. The chair recognizes the Member for North Slave, Mr. Zoe.

Standing Committee On Finance Comments

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Finance, I would like to make a report with regard to Personnel.

The Impact Of Reorganization

As we noted last year, Personnel has essentially been stripped. Three functions remain. These functions are recruitment, workforce adjustment and staff housing. The staff housing function was originally scheduled for transfer to the Housing Corporation by April 1, 1994. However, that transfer has been delayed to April 1, 1995.

The Premier indicated that further changes to the department were imminent. In any case, committee Members feel that the issue of the department's future should be resolved quickly.

Student Summer Employment Program

For many years, Mr. Chairman, the government has provided an employment program for students in the summer months that is the best in the country for both aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. This program has provided northern students with work experience which was relevant to their course of studies and increased the usefulness of the student when they completed school and began permanent work. Within the program there has been a priority system to ensure northern students received the available jobs rather than students from the south.

Last summer, as a result of mishandling the situation by the department, the program unfortunately became the centre of a controversy which had strong racial overtones. The committee feels that the situation was not handled as well as it could have been and a simple misunderstanding became a major issue.

For the coming summer, the committee expects the department will provide clear direction so the public and students understand the program, its objectives and how it will operate.

Video Recruitment

In response to recommendations of the committee, the department has begun using video conference calls for job interviews rather than flying southern candidates north. This provides a major cost savings. About five years ago, NorthwesTel promised it would implement enhanced technology in the north. This technology would have assisted departments such as Personnel in reducing travel and meeting costs. However, the proposed technology has never been fully implemented. The committee urges the government to continue pressing NorthwesTel to implement technology which would allow all northerners to communicate more effectively.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the comments from the Standing Committee on Finance. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe, for your comments. I forgot to introduce you as the spokesperson for the Standing Committee on Finance prior to the introduction.

Is the Minister prepared to take the witness stand? Do you need someone to help you at the witness stand?

Always. Sergeant-at-Arms, fetch Mr. Always. Does the committee agree?

Thank you, committee.

Madam Premier, would you be so kind as to introduce Mr. Bohnet?

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Bohnet. General comments. Department detail, total O and M, $4.13 million. I'm sorry. My apologies, page 05-8, staffing, total O and M, $4.137 million. The chair recognizes Mr. Zoe.

General Comments

Thank you. Before we get into detail, I wonder if I could ask the Minister if she could update the committee as to what the future holds for this particular department?

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Staffing, total O and M, $4.137 million. Mr. Zoe then Mr. Patterson.

Mr. Chairman, I have another question to the Premier with regard to this department. The Standing Committee on Finance has urged the government to put pressure on NorthwesTel so that they can provide the technology which will allow all northerners to communicate more effectively. Could she give us an update as to what progress they have made in that respect?

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. The chair recognizes Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Sorry, I thought you had your hand up. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Mr. Patterson.

Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. All done, Mr. Patterson? Thank you, the chair now recognizes the Member for Thebacha, Mrs. Marie-Jewell.

Thank you, Mrs. Marie-Jewell. Madam Premier.

Thank you, Madam Premier. Mrs. Marie-Jewell.