Mr. Speaker, one of the alternate sites that was considered was an area that the Town of Hay River is currently working on developing. I believe it’s called the Sundog Subdivision. The problem with that is it’s not going to be ready for about another four years, and the other thing is that it’s definitely on the wrong side of the tracks. So if you had an ambulance coming in off the highway or something and there happened to be a train going by, of course the train would...You would have to wait. So that is the difficulty with that location.

It seems otherwise that the current ENR/ITI office is the perfect location for the new hospital, and we can’t go out to RFP on anything until we nail that site down. So where is the Minister at in terms of determining that we can have that land and relocate ENR and ITI off that property? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Site Selection Committee is recommending the property that the Member is speaking to. I need to get more into the details about how to make that happen, so I will take that under advisement and get back to the Member. Thank you.

As far as ITI is considered, it’s long been discussed at the ITI offices with the economic development officer and the various positions in there. It should be located in downtown Hay River anyway, not out five miles south of town on a river lot.

There are some advantages to ENR being located there, with the helicopter pad and so on, but ITI can easily be moved downtown and co-located with other ITI offices that are downtown. I know the Minister can’t answer for ITI, but has any discussion taken place with these other departments about moving? Thank you.

I’ve been to Hay River many times, but I’m sure the Member knows all the ins and outs of these areas much better than I.

The latest information that we have is the Site Selection Committee…We have a committee that works to look at all the advantages and disadvantages of the sites. They are recommending the particular site the Member has preference to. I am sure there are other parties in discussing that, so I will work on that further and keep the Members advised. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the beauty of that site, too, is the government already owns it. It is extremely prime real estate and the Government of Northwest Territories already owns that place. There is very little footprint from any buildings on that property already, so it seems like it would be fairly straightforward. Does the Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, have to get agreement from the current government departments that are occupying that site in order to move forward on that site? Thank you.

In planning a health facility, the Health department…My department’s role is looking at the programming, the functioning and the flow and that sort of thing. Once it gets into the planning study, DPW takes over, but obviously we are talking about government departments working together. Be mindful of the fact that whenever we

are talking about land, there are all kinds of titles, descriptions and complexities that could arise. So I will undertake to get back to the Member upon consultation with the DPW Minister and the ITI Minister and looking at the ownership and site and such. So we will work closely together with the Members on the other side and the community on this project. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it’s with regard to the NTPC review report. The last update I recall is there had been a delay from August to September, but we are now going into November. I am wondering when will we see the report. There is a lot of fundamental issues to be dealt with that will take a lot of effort, so what date can we expect this report?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the group undertaking the review asked for an extension on the work they’re doing on data collection granted that. We expect a copy of the draft very shortly. I don’t have an actual yet, but I am expecting it soon and we can then get it into the hopper and system here. Thank you.

So that’s great. We will expect to see that soon. Does the Premier have a plan for a review of the report by committee? What is the process that he’s anticipating? Thank you.

As our process is laid out, I would take the report to the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee, then to standing committee for further review of it and go from there. Thank you.

That’s good to know about. Given that the electricity review report, when it comes out, and the one on the ATCO proposal will all be relevant, will there be a stage planned where we take a comprehensive look at all these before we act on any one individual part and put all this together? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The reports and the rollout of the reports in coming back were all looked at in timing for exactly that reason; they are linked together. We are not going to make a decision without having all the pieces lined up, so that’s the intention, is to look at this all in a comprehensive approach. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the attempt to deal with what has been identified as naturally occurring incidents of arsenic in the soil, there has been a working group struck. There have been consultants brought in to examine the issue, to do the testing. There are meetings going on this month. Work has been done, things are being analyzed as we work towards getting enough information to determine what next steps should be in terms of remediation and other steps. Thank you.

Again, I would like to ask the Minister what is this government doing to include the aboriginal governments in that community, especially the First Nations government and the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the band in Inuvik? What role are they playing? Because, as I understand it, they are totally out of the picture and are not being consulted. Thank you.

My understanding is that all the affected stakeholders, property owners, were invited to sit on this stakeholders committee to oversee the work, to look at what the issues were and look at the work plan that was being laid out and agreed to. Thank you.

As we all know, the standards that are set by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, they set the national standard for arsenic at 12 mg/kg. From the results that we are getting, it’s well past that in regards to Inuvik. So by exceeding these national standard numbers, what are the public health concerns relating to the possibility of cancer and other effects that we hear about arsenic? What is the health risk to the people in Inuvik?

This issue is being looked at. It has also been dealt with in Yellowknife, where the rates are 160 parts per million for residential and 340 parts per million for industrial, when they looked at areas like the old Con Mine and such. So I don’t think we should get ahead or predetermine the outcome of the work of the consultants and the stakeholder committee. I just want to reassure the people that this is being looked at. All the appropriate people are involved and we are looking forward to the results of that work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a third supplementary. Mr. Krutko.