I’d like to thank the Minister for that. I think it’s a great program. I’m really happy to hear that they’re looking to going mandatory. I’ve done some research on this as well, and everything that I’ve seen has suggested that mandatory will save us a lot of money. To the Minister, how long do you think it will be until we can make some sort of decision as to whether or not we are going to make this mandatory for the sake of the children?

Certainly the program will be rolled out within a couple of weeks, three weeks. Certainly we will continue to monitor the program itself and how the program is going, and also looking out for other jurisdictions and how their program is doing, with mandatory or without mandatory. We can probably say late fall we’ll certainly look at this as if it could be mandatory at that time. Certainly we need to have some time to deliver the program, see how it turns out. From there we’ll certainly decide to move forward and we’ll certainly give the standing committee an update at that time.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. It’s regarding my Member’s statement earlier today. I’m wondering if funding to daycares...Well, we know it fluctuates quarterly in unpredictable ways. I’d like to know what we are doing to stabilize that funding and make it more predictable for daycares so they can provide consistent service.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Certainly I appreciate the Member’s comment on this area. This is one of the priorities within our government, within our own department as well. Early childhood and the daycare facilities, the daycare funding is a priority for us. We do provide ongoing funding. We have increased our funding as well. Back in 2007 we increased our contribution to licensed, non-profit, early childhood providers by 30 percent. So through investment of $600,000. Also, 2007-2008 we included funding to assist eligible providers with basic rent or mortgage expenses. So the subsidy can contribute a

maximum of 25 percent rental towards the mortgage expense. So those are areas we continue to improve in our programs and we continue to monitor and evaluate our programs where we need to increase funding.

Thanks for the comments from the Minister. I really am appreciative of the increased funding and the help with mortgages for daycares. Specifically on the consistency and providing predictable funding, which would really help budgeting for these daycare centres, do we still penalize the daycare centres when a child is missing for five consecutive days? Do we still penalize them financially? And are we still assessing the daycares four times a year instead of providing them funding on the basis of average attendance?

The daycare funding is based on the enrolment of the children in the daycare, similar to the school operation. We continue to monitor that. We talked about it within our department how we can improve in those areas where students may be missing for up to five days. I guess you can say the organizations get less funding due to that fact. But we will continue to look at that. Certainly we continue to re-evaluate our position, our programs within our current system, again, highlighting what kind of penalization is there for an organization and how we can improve in those areas. We continue to monitor that.

I just have to comment that rather than more review and monitoring we really need actions now. Our daycares have highlighted that this is a problem. Let’s not review and monitor; let’s act on those problem areas.

Are we considering legislation or at least setting standards for early childhood and child care workers?

I believe the Member alluded to the Early Childhood Certification Program through Aurora College. We do certify them in that respect. Whether it be the legislation to, I’m not sure what the Member’s referring to, but certainly those are the areas we need to continue to discuss. I’d like to hear more feedback from the Member on where he’s going with this. Certainly we’re open to ideas and suggestions within our department. As I stated earlier, we will be going through our next phase of business planning process, so we continue to look for options from the Members.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the issue of training our child care workers, it’s been

highlighted in the past that we are not providing certified child care workers up to national standards. That’s the basic fact. We really need to address that. I appreciate the Minister’s willingness to do that. Finally, given the new recognition of the clear benefits associated with economic stimulus packages that focus actually on early childhood development and child care, what has the Minister done to increase funding this year since we’ve learned about the recession that is now impending on the Northwest Territories along with the rest of the globe?

Certainly early childhood and the language nests, more specifically, has been sunsetted by the federal government. We continue to pick up that program through our territorial government. That has been our commitment. We believe that it is an important piece of program that we need to continue with. New Initiatives Program increased funding in the early childhood. So those are the areas we continue to improve and increase our programming dollars. We continue to monitor those again. We will continue to work with the Members on updating them on current status and where we’re going at the next level. We’ll continue to work with the standing committee.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Transportation with regard to the Deh Cho Bridge Act that was passed in this government to build a $165 million bridge across the Mackenzie River at Fort Providence. As part of that proposal, which was to look at the design, build, and finance and own the bridge by way of the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation in which the government will be responsible for paying the cost for what the ferry operation is today with the cost of the bridge crossing, which is about $101.8 million, and then they topped it off to about $2 million a year going forward. We also found out we’re paying for the cost of the tolls that have to be collected for that bridge. It was a proposal that was given to the Minister and Premier by the Gwich’in Tribal Council to look at the possibility of doing a similar project with regard to the Peel River. Yet in response to a letter we see back from the department and especially from the Department of Transportation it seems that they’re not too enthused to do anything like that. They are saying this has to fit within the government’s capital planning process. I’d like to

ask the Minister why it is that other bridges built in the Northwest Territories cannot follow what was agreed to under the Deh Cho Bridge Act.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding is that the unsolicited proposal that came from the Beaufort-Delta was brought forward with a price tag and request to put it through the conventional capital process and that’s what we’re doing. I don’t believe I’ve seen a request to a proposal outlining the concepts similar to Deh Cho Bridge.

That’s exactly my point. Under the conventional system of putting this into the GNWT capital planning process, it ain’t going to see the light of day. Yet the Deh Cho Bridge was billed for $165 million by simply passing an act in this House. Will the Minister bring forward a Peel River Bridge Act so that we can do it under the same circumstances as the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation?

The Deh Cho Bridge Act was brought forward as a result of many years of discussions and a very detailed proposal. If the Member would want to bring a proposal for us to consider, we would be pleased to take a look at it. Thank you.

I heard a yes there, so there is hope for this project after all. Mr. Speaker, I believe that in order for this proposal to see the light of day, we do have to find a unique way of doing it. We may have to consider tolls. We may have to consider how you finance it, the cost for the ferry operations, the cost for the ice bridge going forward and also exactly how long a term of the lease there is.

Right now, there is a proposal being developed looking at the different scenarios of a 30 or 40-year lease commitment. Will the Minister consider looking at the possibility of looking outside the GNWT capital planning process and finding ways to finance these projects?

Again, we have an act in place. There was supposed to be some legislation coming forward in regards to a P3 project. I would like to ask the Minister to consider some flexibility in regards to how we look at these projects -- this is not the only bridge that is out there -- and to be able to have the flexibility to at least make an attempt to look at what our options are, looking at these types of big capital projects.

The Member is correct when he states we have to be creative when we

look at the projects, and that is going to be the way forward, in my opinion.

There are a number of projects. There are a number of bridges that need to be built across the Territories, five fairly large ones in all told that we need to, at some point, address. Right now, the challenge is to find the financing. If there is a way to do the work and package it up so that it is attractive, affordable and viable, then certainly we would be willing to look at that and talk to my Cabinet colleagues and the federal government or whoever the sources of funding would be arranged through.

Up to now, Mr. Speaker, the request for me to process the submission that was made through the conventional methods, that is what I am doing. That is where the project has been forwarded to for consideration among other projects, Mr. Speaker. Up to now, we have not seen a detailed proposal nor have we asked for one, actually, Mr. Speaker. Until that time, it is difficult to analyze what the concept would be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, we talked about unconventional ways of building capital. That is what the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation Act is. It is an unconventional way of building a bridge for $165 million. All I ask from the Minister is to allow other organizations or bridges to be considered for replacement or being built under public infrastructure that we consider having that option on the table similar to what was in place with the Deh Cho Bridge in light of what is being considered for the Peel River Bridge.