Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated before, the lights have already been replaced on a number of occasions. The cost factor is getting to be very huge. We have one community in his riding where they have paid for the repairs of the lights. We would certainly consider that if the Member would be willing to talk to the leaders or we can talk to the leaders to see if they would be interested in doing so. I can certainly provide them with the information on how much it costs and maybe if we shared the responsibility or looked at a way through this, that the community would bear the burden of the cost, we certainly can consider it. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What can this Minister commit to to help our community?

---Laughter

The request is simple there, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister to consider the needs of the smaller communities’ infrastructure there. Can he look at re-establishing runway lights in these communities? Thank you.

I certainly can commit to the communities continuing to use their flare pots…

---Laughter

…and having the people in the communities to put these in place whenever there is a need for the aircraft to land in the time of darkness. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, we are very reluctant to do it on a continual basis where the lights are damaged from improper care or maintenance or vandalism. It

has become very costly and it is not something we can afford to do over and over again. Until we can find a better system, that is the only answer I can give him. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement today, I talked about the issue of abandoned gas stations and the environmental liability that that could potentially pose to a community. Mr. Speaker, I can easily ask this question to MACA under Commissioner’s land and about how to deal with land. I think it is better suited under ENR, with that Minister, under environmental protection. So I wouldn’t want the other Minister to get off easy here today. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of ENR is, would they take a look at the situation by coming up with regulations that if a gas station closes with no plan to reopen, within a year they have to start remediating that site to make sure that there are no contaminants left in the ground and we do this in the interest of the public? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will commit to work with the department and other related departments that have an interest in this, with MACA and such, to get a common briefing note to find out what the issue is, where the gaps are and what are the potentials to close those gaps. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that was fine.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister of Health and Social Services as a follow-up to my Member’s statement. During the debate on the Supplementary Health Benefits Program, it became clear that, although they were prepared to review the program, which is obviously great, the Minister and Cabinet are still committed to the concept of means testing. In the absence of any research or financial analysis, I am

confused by his position, to be quite honest. I was wondering if I can get the Minister to please help me understand why Cabinet is so committed to the concept of means testing, especially in the absence of any financial analysis, the information needed to make reasonable and sound decisions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe in all of our discussions in the House and listening to the Members and the public, I have stated that we have listened. We understand that there is a lot of work that needs to be done. We are taking it back and putting it under full review. I am not sure if we are just debating on semantics. I want to reconfirm to the Member and this House that I have already directed the department to review the changes proposed. We expect that we have to do a lot of analysis before they get brought back. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that I am still confused. I still don’t quite understand how anybody can make decisions and commit to things like means testing in the absence of financial information such as financial analysis. The Minister has indicated in the debate that they are still committed to affordability, which includes some level of means testing. I was just wondering if she can help me understand that aspect of their argument, why they are still committed to means testing while they go through this review. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are examining the policy, the changes. I am not going to put anything off or on the table. I think that the message is loud and clear that we need to review the program changes. The government is undertaking to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for that response from the Minister. I am curious. Does that mean that the government and Cabinet are no longer committed to means testing and that any policy they bring forward will go through a thorough research and analysis which includes the possibility of no means testing on the supplementary health benefits when it does come forward? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We will look at all aspects of this program. Mr. Speaker, I think there is still a good analysis we need to do to know how to address the situation where, under the existing program, while a family that makes $50,000 gross are having to pay some of the benefits, but somebody who is making $150,000 net might not

have to. I just want to let the Member and the public know that the government is taking these program changes back. We are going to review it from top to bottom and we pledge that we have to have very good financial analysis to bring them back. I am committed to working with the stakeholders and the Standing Committee on Social Programs on the process and the substance of this review. There should be no question about our commitment to make sure that we have reviewed this program again to see how we can make it work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again, thanks to the Minister for that. It still doesn’t sound like there is any commitment that means testing is completely off the table, but I will leave that one alone for now.

In the motion we talked about timing. Is the Minister now ready to commit to pushing off the implementation date of this program to no sooner than April 1, 2010? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We received the motion on Friday as a recommendation from this House. Cabinet and I, as Minister, are reviewing that recommendation. We will communicate back to the Member as soon as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Before I go on, colleagues, I am concerned. I have noticed one Member using a BlackBerry in the House. Our rules do not allow BlackBerries in the House. I would request the Member to remove any BlackBerries from the House. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are addressed to the Minister of Health and Social Services. At the risk of being repetitive, I am kind of on the same wavelength as my colleague, Mr. Abernethy. As I heard the Minister answer questions earlier last week, the Minister to me…I heard her state that the intent of the policy as passed by Cabinet in September of 2007 will remain the same. If the policy is not up for review, it is my feeling that we will have some residents in our Territory who are going to be paying more for supplementary health benefit costs than they do at present. When this change takes effect in April 1, 2010, can the Minister promise that an NWT resident will not pay more for supplementary health

benefits than a resident anywhere else in Canada at that time? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think that answering that question yes or no could predetermine the review process. Really, I just want to make it clear that we have heard loud and clear that the packages as they are presented were inadequate, and are in need for some real sound financial analysis and justification. We need to go beyond the changes proposed on the implications. There are myriads of issues and concerns that we have been hearing since we launched in December, 2008.

It was suggested this morning that we should cease to implement that. I think putting off the effective date has effectively done that. I am committed to...First of all, we have to set out a process on how we are going to review these, and I expect I will be coming back to the Standing Committee on Social Programs on that and I am open to making sure that the review is full and comprehensive. I don’t want to put anything on the table or off the table. As it is now, until that policy has changed, the policy intent is there but it’s just not effective until it becomes effective and the date right now is September 1st . I just want to reiterate that I am

open to full review and we will make whatever changes are necessary upon that review, but I don’t want to predetermine the outcome of that review. Thank you.