Mr. Speaker, the Member may be able to understand the meaning of that if he just reads the previous paragraph, which reads:

“Part of the treatment process is discharge planning where the client is actively involved in and takes responsibility for decisions and planning focused on maintaining sobriety post-treatment. This involves identifying community supports and making pre-discharge contacts to prepare for return to the community. Counselling services, AA groups, supportive family and friends, etc., are identified and contacted, if that is the wish of the client.”

The point is, Mr. Speaker, that post-treatment and aftercare programs are available, and the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services are actively involved. You know, we take the addiction issues and helping the people who want to address that very seriously.

I am very serious when I say that a huge part of recovery and healing is individual responsibility. I think the Member should give the people more credit in terms of controlling their own conduct and their own recovery process.

Well, I guess that if the Minister didn’t want to answer the question, she could have just said no.

Mr. Speaker, my next question — and I’m hoping to get a better answer out of this. I would also infer from the response in that letter that, if the client does not contact the referral service, there is no follow-up at the local level by the Mental Health Addictions counsellors. So the problem is, what is the Minister’s difficulty with the issue of the additions treatment folks contacting the client to ensure that there’s some follow-up? She seems to have some apprehension about it. What’s the problem?

There is absolutely no program — I mean, there is absolutely no problem. There is no problem. I’m happy to give answers to the Members, and I think that should be considered. The answer that I’m saying is that it’s a partnership effort, it’s a group effort. And our staff is ready and available and provides support as clients need them, the bottom line always being that it is always client focused.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate an honest answer from the Minister. There is no program, unfortunately. It’s great that she corrected herself because probably she wasn’t allowed to reveal that fact.

The fact is: what is the problem here with this situation? Do we hog-tie these mental counsellors and addictions folks to not contact their clients? Is there anything that stops them from contacting their clients? If there is nothing, then why don’t we follow through on this and create a program that allows them to phone these clients? I am sure they are not that busy.

Mr. Speaker, the issue of addictions and pre- and post-care treatment and the need for the Assembly to work really hard to address this issue in the whole spectrum is really serious. I would like to ask the Member to take that issue very seriously. This is not a game.

I am telling the Members that I sent in a two-page letter that explains the pre- and post-care program dealing with the addictions issue. It states very clearly what it says.

I am telling the Member again that clients are involved in all aspects of dealing with the addiction issue. They will have to take a driver’s seat. Our staff are available to work with them in any way they want to have it done. I don’t know what else I can say to that.

A final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

I wish to assure everyone that this is not a game by any standard. The fact is that this department seems to stonewall the approach of building up any relationship with these clients of aftercare. Mr. Speaker, I am sure we do better care

with follow-up of our capital assets and taking care of them than we do with these clients after they receive treatment.

Do we have a process that we can engage today that would allow, and set it up in such a way, that these addiction treatment counsellors, once they are done a program with these clients, we can continue to follow up with them from time to time?

Treatment is a two-way process. We don’t have to wait for them to call. We should reach out and take their problems very seriously through aftercare. Like I said, we take care of capital assets a heck of a lot better than we do people who struggle with difficulties in their lives.

I am glad to hear that the Member acknowledges that treatment programs are a two-way process. That is precisely my point, Mr. Speaker. That’s what my letter says.

I say it again: there are lots of programs and services available to those who want to take advantage of them. The success of dealing with addiction depends on the individual’s motivation and their facility to deal with that. The 1-800 number the Member was referring to has to do specifically with messages to Nats’ eeje K’eh, where those clients who had been there could use that number if they wanted to.

But it is expected that all of those who are in recovery programs develop their own personal contact and their own way of dealing with that. We have to respect them to do that. And when they want assistance, it is available.

The questions are for the Premier with respect to my Member’s statement earlier.

In my language, when we say, [non-English term] it means: “This is our land.” I believe that should be the focus of any discussions the government has with Ottawa or with other aboriginal groups: to build a focus around it. Mr. Premier had discussions in Ottawa which didn’t go very well — if we can ask the circumstances around those discussions there.

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity, from the Member’s question, to set the record straight and clear up some of the comments that have been put out there through the media about the fact that my discussions with the Prime Minister went badly and, as a result, I’ve come back home to say no devolution talks are occurring.

The fact is, early after the election, I had an opportunity to meet with the regional aboriginal leadership across the Territories. We had an

opportunity to sit down and give an indication of the fiscal environment we were in, as well as ask if there was support for moving ahead with the continued talks on devolution and resource revenue sharing. It has remained about the same as it had in the previous government, with some groups agreeing and other groups saying they had other interests at this time.

It was after that meeting that I said — and I stated at that point and, as well, informed Members — that reviewing our fiscal situation and where we are at with these discussions, we would be prepared, or at least from my end, to put that on the back burner. So it’s not a result of our discussions with Ottawa. Ottawa, in fact, is favourable to continuing the discussion. But we have to make sure the deal we get is one that will actually benefit Northerners.

Indeed, that is the focus I was looking at. How do we best work together with all the partners here in the North? One of the ways of doing it, I would suggest, is we still have to have some kind of office or some lead personnel to address this issue, to work the North and garner support from all our partners.

I don’t have to remind the House how many millions of dollars continue to leave the North, how many millions of dollars worth of carats, of oil and gas, et cetera. If I can get Mr. Premier to state what kind of plan does he have in place to address this very important issue of ours?

Mr. Speaker, one of the areas of building on the relationship we have in the Northwest Territories between the Government of the Northwest Territories itself and the aboriginal leadership is a commitment to sit down on a quarterly basis to discuss issues of common interest where we can move forward together and build on that. That process we started in November and are following up, potentially having a meeting at the end of this month or early March, if we can hold the parties together.

We are committed to a process that we will formalize, and work with our regional aboriginal leadership and this government, and commonly discuss issues that are of interest to all parties where we can build on the strength we have already.

To have common ground, Mr. Speaker — and I’ve always said that our common enemy has to be greater than our common differences here in the North. How is Mr. Premier going to…? What strategies does he have in place to speak with other aboriginal groups?

I know in the past we have talked about the heritage fund idea, and it’s a really good idea. Has the Premier addressed this with other aboriginal groups?

Mr. Speaker, let me restate the fact that we have established a working relationship on a quarterly basis with our regional aboriginal leadership and the Government of the Northwest Territories. We’re formalizing the process where both parties would put agendas on the items and build on those. I have initially addressed the issue of devolution of resource revenue sharing to see if there is continued support or if we can grow that support. And we’ll build on that situation.

I think, first and foremost, Mr. Speaker, when we talk of ourselves in the North, we must also present a business case to the rest of Canada about the benefits of getting a deal in the Northwest Territories as well. We can’t just get a deal for the sake of a deal. We have to ensure we get the proper deal, where we see lasting benefits. If that means we come up with the solution of a heritage fund, I would say that is something we should seriously look at.

But first and foremost, before we can even invest in that or put money into it, we have to ensure that any dollars that do come North don’t get swallowed up by the existing system we operate in.

Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

I guess one of the biggest things, Mr. Speaker, is that outsiders continue to make money from our land and our resources. And our people are tired of that.

I’d like to ask the Premier: what kind of hammer can he discuss with the other aboriginal groups so that we can stop this flow and start keeping some of the resources that rightfully belong to us and our land? Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, the position that already exists is through land claims that have been settled. Through those claims, as a number of Members around the table here are aware — and they are aware that these agreements are negotiated with the federal government — there is a category. They do get resource revenue sharing as part of the package through the claims. It is not as large as we would like in the North.

But if you take part of the Dene/Métis Comprehensive Claim process and the resource revenue sharing piece of that, the federal government has gone through and given a percentage to each organization as they settled. My understanding is that it is equal to the amount they discussed in those early days of the Dene/Métis Comprehensive Claim. That is the process they're using now.

Our process is one where we see the rest of the revenue, and we need to get that addressed. Part of it was addressed, for example, during the

discussions around equalization formula financing and the inclusion or exclusion of resource revenues. That has been set at a 50-50 set-off.

My questions today are for the Premier.

We elect people to our cabinet to serve and protect the public interest. The Premier, as the former and current Finance Minister, must be fully aware of the demands on our limited resources. Today, as I speak, our high school in Hay River is closed because we have not had the capital required to do a mid-life retrofit on it, as one example. And there are so many more.

Our financial exposure on the Deh Cho Bridge could impact the financial capacity of our government for many years to come and our available capital dollars. Although it would cost us money to get out of this agreement for the Deh Cho Bridge, would the Premier please commit to seeking a way to determine that cost for us?

Cost overruns on a project — on any project in the Northwest Territories — are a real factor that we have to look at, in terms of the potential impact it may have on us as the Government of the Northwest Territories and our future ability. That's why, as part of the agreement signed during the previous government, a guaranteed maximum price was put in place, as were a pre-funded contingency, insurance, bonding, an independent engineer auditing the construction, and a project management board made up of the Government of the Northwest Territories, the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation and the lending agency that's involved in this. So those factors have been put in place.

As for the request to look at what that impact may be — if I understood the question correctly — of us withdrawing from the process, we shall endeavour to get that information.

I appreciate that response from the Premier because in order for us to really have an effective discussion and dialogue with the people of the North about this, that is a very key piece of information that we need.

The Premier outlined some of the precautions and undertakings the government has put in place with respect to this contract. But we've been told — and I need to understand this — that there is a fixed price on the construction of the bridge. I'd like to know what measures have been put in place in the agreement to protect this government in terms of cost overruns.

In terms of potential cost overruns, I've gone over some of those areas where, as we've been at the table, we have been looking at the potential impact around that guaranteed price, the fixed-price contract. The pre-funded contingency is in place. The bonding, the independent engineer auditing the construction, and the project management board are also going to be put in place as this project proceeds.

Those are the general areas that are being looked at. As we deal with those, as well there are the eligible and ineligible costs that could affect the different firms involved in this. And that has also been put in place.

I am obviously worried about the eligible cost overruns because those are the ones that could very much affect the total price of this project.

To the total price…. We understand we have a business plan in place through a toll charge to recover much of the capital cost of this project. But to the integrity of that business plan and the business case and the projected volumes of traffic that are contained in the business plan, I’d like to know how our government has protected our interests by contemplating the effect of a private operator setting up a ferry on the Mackenzie River to haul traffic and also the possibility of a private contractor actually constructing an ice bridge over the Mackenzie to haul freight over.

What has been put in place in the agreement to protect us from seriously impacting our business case by that happening? I don’t know why they couldn’t do it. It seems cheap enough to build an ice bridge.

We have to look at those scenarios. They have been brought up from time to time in discussions. But anybody accessing those areas would have to get proper permits to proceed with, for example, building an ice road or a ferry for construction. They’d need to work on landings and so on. We’d have to look at that piece to see what could be put in place, if anything.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.