As the Member knows, the whole trail is under the auspices of the federal government. It is federal land. It is under their control, but, nevertheless, we as a government will be spending funds to put up proper signage to make sure that all members of the public that enter into this area are aware of who owns the land. Also, I understand, the first 18 kilometres is Sahtu lands that have been selected by the Sahtu governments. We are also holding meetings with the Sahtu beneficiaries. We will be holding workshops to make sure everybody understands the importance of protecting the land. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister consider adding some monitoring stations at the border here in terms of monitoring the use of vehicles on the proposed CANOL Heritage Trail?

We do work with ENR and we do have a checkstop there during the summer months. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister consider having a working partnership with the Sahtu people so that if these land rovers ever do decide to come back to the Northwest Territories, they would be stopped there and not to go any further on this CANOL Heritage Trail?

The Member is getting into the areas of enforcement. Certainly we have to make sure that we are well within our authority to do that. As I said, the land in question is currently under the ownership of the federal government and the Sahtu aboriginal governments. This is something that we would probably have to make sure that we are well within our authority to do if we were to intercede with anybody who was enjoying their normal public use of the lands. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health and Social Services, the Honourable Sandy Lee. Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up on my question that I was trying to ask last week, which was in regards to medical travel. Mr. Speaker, the issue at hand is, quite simply, this: in many cases, it is actually cheaper to rent a car than it is to be reimbursed for taxi fares in that particular case. Recognizing that sometimes that type of flexibility helps the patient, but it also helps the bottom line of the territorial government, because it is considered relatively reasonable and these rates are relatively well established.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Health and Social Services is: would she be willing to amend the Medical Travel Policy that recognizes the ability to rent a car as a particular option rather than just having to seek reimbursement through taxi fares? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the Member for giving me an opportunity to answer that again. I just want to advise the Member that the department has been reviewing this. There are a couple of complexities, but we are looking to see how this can be possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Minister today if she could express to me, or certainly this House, what are the complexities and what exactly are they reviewing that is holding

up this possibility of an option, whereas renting a car can be seen as a reimbursable expense on medical travel. Thank you.

There are at least three things, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at. One is the liability issue. The second one is the fact that our NWT resident act says medical travel by many different ways. Some of them are covered by third-party insurance, like government employees. They are covered by a third party. NIHB receives the benefit in a different way than we have extended health benefits that go to seniors and those who make under $80,000. Those who make over $80,000 have different programs. It is often the case, whenever you look at these health issues, there are a lot more wrinkles to it. The third thing is, Mr. Speaker, it is true right now under this economy, some rental fees are cheaper than taking cabs, but that depends on the distance and size of the vehicle and everything else that is involved. Those are the things that, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at. We are looking at that. I should be able to give the Member a more definitive answer shortly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister really hit one of the areas that I am concerned about that is holding up this potential policy change. It is the liability issue, because I have done a fair bit of research on this issue. From the perspective that I have taken, as long as the GNWT is not renting the vehicle specifically, and certainly as long as the GNWT doesn’t put their name on the rental agreement, I am trying to understand what, from the Minister’s perspective, is left as a liability. From the research I have done, the government is not liable if it comes down to the person on the medical travel putting their name on as the person renting the vehicle, not the territorial government. Could the Minister clarify as to what she sees is the basis of this liability? Thank you.

It may be that that may the way it turns out, but we do need to look into it more, Mr. Speaker, because government sometimes gets to be found in a more onerous and responsible position than would a private person. If it is found that our government does fund for renting vehicles, there might be extended liability to the government, and also we understand that government faces liabilities in all kinds of things and we have waited to protect that by insuring it and it is not certain that we could cover that insurance to those who are renting vehicles for their use, but that they will be asking us for reimbursement. So there might be some element of extending the liability from the government to the private individual. It may not be the case, but we have to look into that further and that’s what we are doing. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can see a lot of thought is going into this problem and that’s certainly the direction of a solution in my vision that, you know, it does require a lot of thought. Mr. Speaker, what I’m talking about is that if somebody’s approved to go on medical travel, if that option is the one that they wish to pursue, which is rent a vehicle on their own, you know, it’s built around a flat fee that, therefore, they can’t seek reimbursement for anything else other than what they’ve done. Certainly, a waiver whereas in they acknowledge that they have to be the renter, because the issue is...I’m trying to understand; has the department done any work in comparison that puts the government in a more liable position if they’re seeking reimbursement from the taxi cab versus a car rental? From my point of view, it isn’t. It’s the exact same expense at the end of the day. Mr. Speaker, has the department compared the liability issue when someone rents a cab? Thank you.

As I indicated, liability is just one of the issues. For example, the Member just indicated we could just institute a flat fee. Well, even doing that we need to set out what is a flat fee, what is a reasonable rental fee, what vehicle are you allowed to rent.

I know that the constituent that the MLA is trying to assist, that particular assistant needs a wheelchair. So then what is the standardized flat fee for that rental vehicle? The additional issue is the fact that most of our residents may not be able to use this new provision if it was changed. What I want to say is that under NIHB and under third-party insurance and other insurance regimes right now, rental vehicles are not allowed and those are not areas that we could change. So if we were to change a little bit for a very, very small group of people and build up a whole infrastructure but it won’t really benefit others, that’s another thing. It’s hard to explain, but that’s one thing that we need to look into too. So we have a lot of work to do before we could say I will get back to the Member whether this is something that we could do right now and whether there is a benefit in that if we’re dealing with maybe up to five people who could possibly benefit. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think it was two weeks ago I brought up an issue with the Minister Education, Culture and Employment in this House with regard to trying to get some resolution about guidelines for a young student from Trout Lake. I just want to inform the Minister, as well, that I was just informed today that

the young student had to quit school. So I think that we failed this student. This student was a resident of the Northwest Territories and is a band member of the Trout Lake band. So I would just like to ask the Minister, how can we prevent a situation like this in the future? Because we stand up here, we espouse of how much we’ll bend over backwards for our students and our residents and yet we fail this young lady in this situation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that the student had to drop out of school. Certainly our view is to have success in all students. There are certain protocols that we need to follow. One of the protocols is to work closely with district education authorities and divisional education councils as well. They’re the ones that have policies in place. If a student from the community wants to take on with home boarding, they’re the ones who made those decisions at the community level, because they’re experts at the community level. We work closely with them, as well, so we will continue to support those DEAs and DECs with the policies that they have and if there needs to be some changes, then, certainly, we are willing to work with that as well.

Absolutely, there are going to have to be some changes made. I think when I brought it up a couple weeks ago I was trying to make the case that we are responsible for aboriginal education here in the Northwest Territories, the Government of the Northwest Territories is, and it’s got to be the same, like a hunting right. Aboriginals can hunt anywhere and I believe that same right should extend to education, if anything else, and that’s the kind of flexibility that I was asking the Minister at that time, because even though the parents had left, the young lady was still here for about 11 months. I don’t know if there was a one-year guideline or whatever has to happen there. Maybe the Minister can inform me exactly what guideline or what rule was used for our government and our education system to not support her. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think the education council was quite open to have this student attend their school. It was just a matter of a home boarding issue.

As a parent, we’re also responsible for our kids. Like, if I send my kid to another community, I feel responsible to support my kid through the transition. I think parents also need to play a part with this. I realize that parents are working out of town, but they need to make prior arrangements, prior arrangements before the school started, because they knew that policies were in place, they needed to work with the superintendent, the education

board. If there were issues, then they should have dealt with it before the school started.

Mr. Speaker, I think it’s important that we follow those terms. Our education is one of the best educations, the program that we offer. There is no denial to the student to access school. The school is still there. It’s just the home boarding aspect. We have to keep in mind that there’s a difference there. The education facility is still there and we very much support that as well. Mahsi.

Absolutely, the Minister is correct; we do have a very good education system and that’s exactly why this young lady wanted to continue the education in Fort Simpson. But then again, the rule was so inflexible. The parents left, not the student, Mr. Speaker. In fact, she was left here under the guardianship of her auntie. At the same time, education also means the provision of services to have that education, especially for people from small and remote communities such as was in this case. I would like to ask the Minister again: what exact rule was it? Was it a rule because her parents didn’t live here or was there a firm rule that there is a residency requirement for the student? Thank you.