Mr. Speaker, I strongly believe it will. As being a private negotiator with the Dene-Metis claim, the Gwich’in and the Sahtu, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Canada has always had the principle that you can only negotiate for existing programs and services and nothing more. So has the Government of the Northwest Territories changed that position? If so, is it in writing?

Once again, the Government of the Northwest Territories has not changed its position. We have not changed any legislation. This will not change the Education Act unless this Assembly agrees to change the government structure of that or the Territorial Health and Social Services Act. Again, unless this Assembly agrees to change the governance portion of that, and that is what the board reform is looking at, the governance side of it, the programming side, day-to-day delivery of education in our schools, day-to-day delivery of health care in our communities, is not going to be changed by this process. In fact, we are trying to make sure we

have enough revenue to keep what we have or try to enhance it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly the fear factor that is out there in our region. It is because we are negotiating self-government to govern ourselves and not depend on Yellowknife in the future. That is what self-government to us means. By you saying that basically we now will have to agree to seven boards in the Northwest Territories and you have to live with what the decision of this government is, that is a change in regards to the organization structure in our regions. Again, I would like to ask the Premier...That is a very crucial change in regards to the structure of governance in our regions which will have an effect of the outcome of our negotiations for land claims. I would like to make it clear to the Premier that the decision you are making here today will have a drastic affect on our land claims negotiations, but more importantly our own right to govern ourselves in our regions by this decision. Have you got a legal opinion from the Department of Justice or from Aboriginal Affairs what the legal ramifications of this decision are on those land claims negotiations and those agreements that this government signed?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is there is no change in our direction at the negotiation tables. The matters that are being discussed at the Deline table, the Tulita table, the Gwich’in table, the Inuvialuit table or the Dehcho table have consistently been on the table. None of those factors have been removed. What we are trying to do through this process is come up with all the information necessary for the next steps as Mr. Miltenberger laid out. Once this Assembly agrees what steps to take forward and if we are going to make some more changes, then we will take that to the appropriate tables -- I would think that, for example, to the regional aboriginal leadership -- and put that on the table and see if we can continue to work with them on implementing and improving our services. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Like my colleagues on this side of the House and I think many members of the public, I am struggling to understand how this particular model that has been proposed was arrived at. My questions are addressed to the lead Minister for Refocusing Government committee, Minister Miltenberger. I would like to know how much

research and analysis and what kind of research and analysis was undertaken prior to the determination that this model that we are currently looking would be used to affect the board reform that we are talking about. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The lead Minister for refocusing government, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Tlicho model which has been in existence for probably at least 10 years has been one that the territorial government has been involved with throughout its development. It has won awards. It seemed to bring together in a way that supported the consensus model that allowed for integration of services for a small jurisdiction where we have not many people and the need to be efficient. It is one that we have a considerable history with. When we look at other things like territorial boards or the status quo, it seemed to be one in the North, designed in the North that had applicability outside of the Tlicho region. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for the answer, but I am afraid I would have to agree to disagree with him, unfortunately, again. It seems to me that there was no analysis or research. The Tlicho Services Board model was looked at. It was determined that it was the best one. There was no other option presented for Regular Members and for the public to look at. So again I want to ask the Minister, other than looking at ideas which were presented perhaps by other members on the Refocusing Government committee and the Tlicho Services model, what research was done to determine that this model should be the one that has gone forward in the proposal? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would just be restating or repeating the answer that I just gave to the Member. Clearly, April is a milestone date we have targeted to see where we go from here. The Tlicho model is a made-in-the-North model that we looked at and we think had applicability. Our initial concept was to move that forward and that is what we have done, recognizing and building in the milestone date of April. Thank you.

I guess I will have to take that answer as no, there was no research or analysis done. I would like to ask the Minister why, in that case, when a model was proposed that the consultation, such as it is, that is currently being undertaken, why was there not a number of options presented? Why was one model or option presented as the way to go and people asked to comment on that one? Why were there not four, five or six different models proposed and people asked for comment on that? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully disagree that there wasn’t enough work or research done. It may not meet the regular standards that the Member had in mind, but we did enough, in our opinion, to move forward with a model. We decided to pick a model that already had a track record in the North that looked to hit a lot of what we would see as key points and abilities to build, to integrate service, to be able to streamline governance, streamline finance and administration, look at the ability to do better work on the case management approach. Based on those factors, a decision was made to advance the initial phase with this particular model. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the answer, I think. I guess I really don’t understand why a decision was made to go with one model when there are opinions being sought from Regular Members, from members of the public, from board members, et cetera. I guess to ask the Minister again, what rationale did you use to determine that it was up to either Cabinet or the Refocusing Government committee to pick this one particular model and not allow other options out there for the public to comment on? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this process was stretched out with a long timeline to 2010-11, recognizing that there was going to be a lot of work to get us from where we start to where we may end up with the issue of board reform. We are not precluding those types of discussions at this point. We took the first step to say, here’s a model we think has applicability and we have been doing the work to get us to April that will give all the information for us collectively to talk about and look at to decide on next steps. If it is not that model, not that approach, then what approach and if the broader discussion is as a Legislature, we want to collectively put off the table the whole issue of board reform, then come April, I suppose that would be a discussion we could have in this House today during the time that we are going to be sitting here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that his research and analysis for coming forward with this 70 to seven regional super board model came from watching the Tlicho model over the last 10 years. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Tlicho people and some of the wonderful

things they have done in that constituency, surely the Minister would recognize the fact that the Tlicho Community Services Board serves one group of people, the majority by far from one nation, who speak the same language, who have one large central community and three outlying smaller communities. How did he think we were going to transpose that to a region like Yellowknife finds itself in or Hay River finds itself in? How were we going to overcome those differences? I mean, was no thought given to the fact that the Tlicho region is actually extremely unique in terms of its makeup? How could he think you could transpose that model to these other extremely diverse regions? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The lead Minister for refocusing government, the Honourable Michael Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This model, the Tlicho model, is not one that’s necessarily one that’s based on ethnicity or having homogeneousness to the population. We recognize that there are unique characteristics in every region. What we’re talking about is a governance structure that has applicability. We believe, where we currently have regional boards of governance now in every region, either one or two, dealing with education and health, we believe that we could integrate the current...use the current board structure, expand the scope and integrate the program delivery oversight into that structure, that we believe with the appropriate policy reviews and legislation changes would lead to a more effective delivery of programs, streamlining the governance admin allowing us better case management. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, part of this approach has also been premised on the theory that it’s kind of a one-stop window for people who come in contact with government through their need for housing, education or health. You know that basically we’re serving those three agencies, or those three departments are serving the same clients. Mr. Speaker, I think that is another ill-conceived premise. I would like to know from the analysis that the Minister and his committee has done how many people are actually in that category. Because you know, for myself, I don’t have a housing issue, I don’t have an education issue, I don’t even have any kids in school anymore, and for now, I don’t have any health issues. So how was this idea that somehow we were going to have this consolidated approach to all these constituents? How many constituents in the Northwest Territories do each of those departments deal with collectively? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the clientele for housing,

education and health are very common. We have small communities where, for example, the predominant form of accommodation in the smaller communities is housing. We know -- I know from personal experience, having worked in Health and Social Services -- that when there are health issues or social service issues there tends to be a related housing issue. If there are troubles in school, if there’s not enough food on the table, if there’s alcohol abuse in the home, if there’s FASD, that these services link. Our intent was to be able to have that case management facilitated to a greater degree than it is currently, where we would have a structure that would encourage social workers and the housing people and the educators to be able to come around the table to try to sort out issues, pool their resources, avoid duplication and those type of areas.

Anybody that has been blessed with good health should be very grateful and I hope that the Member continues to be healthy. There are many, many people in our jurisdictions that struggle. Thank you.

Thank you and I really appreciate the Minister’s well wishes towards me.

Going back to the issue of analysis and how we’re going forward with this, the issue of changing legislation, all of our boards and agencies in the Northwest Territories are creatures of our legislation. We’ve had a piece of legislation we’ve been trying to get to -- the Wildlife Management Act -- for 10 years. We don’t have the people to write the legislation; we don’t have the workforce to...I’m just wondering what kind of analysis went into what the cost would be to put in place changes to existing legislation, overarching legislation, which would then see these new structures operate within that legislation. What’s the costing on something like that? Thank you.

We shared with the Members and we put on the executive website the work plan over the next seven weeks. The work that’s currently underway, a lot of it is going to bring us those figures; the modeling costs, the transition costs, the potential implementation costs, some of the human resource issues. We’ll look at it at that point. Those are legitimate issues that we have to look at and intend to address moving forward. Thank you.