Thank you. The issue really continues to keep coming back to what can the GNWT do to support this board so they can get meeting and make their own decisions, because they are the true people who should be making the decisions as to the future of the caribou, not the

GNWT and that’s why we’re getting such frustration from people out there. So what can the GNWT do to get them meeting? Thank you.

Thank you. The Wekeezhii process is one key piece, but when that work is done, the Tlicho Government and the territorial government will work with the Wekeezhii board. But we also have to work with the Akaitcho and the Yellowknives and the Northwest Territories Metis, because we need to have one strategy for dealing with the Bathurst herd because it overlaps into more than one jurisdiction. The board is doing the work that they know is necessary. They’re taking the steps to get themselves up and running, and our job, in the meantime, is to do the right thing and help the Bathurst herd. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Your final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not argue that the number one issue here is to protect to make sure that the livelihood of the caribou exists for people for many generations beyond, if not forever, but the fact is the board is the one that needs to be making the decision. Has the GNWT done anything to help support this board so they can meet in a timely way? Because this issue just didn’t fall in their lap in December or this month of January. This is an issue that’s been building for some time. So what has the GNWT done to support them? Thank you.

The GNWT has supported the Tlicho process, right from its inception to its conclusion, in signing off with implementation, and we continue to work and have been in contact with officials with the information. We’ve submitted our reports, work is being done, the board is setting itself up to do the work necessary to listen to all the interveners and make their determination and recommendations back to the GNWT and the Tlicho Government. So we are doing all things we think we can do from every aspect of this particular complex problem. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Health and Social Services and I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask some questions with regards to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program potential changes.

As I mentioned in my statement, there’s been an obvious lack of information from the Minister or from the department regarding this very

controversial issue, which we dealt with about a year ago. So at this point I’d like to ask the Minister when we can expect some information from her department in regard to the Proposals for Change and what sort of consultation is in the works, consultation that has to occur prior to any implementation. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the last 24 hours I did send a communication to the Standing Committee on Social Programs to update the Members on where we are with the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. As the Members are aware, we heard loud and clear, when it was last introduced, that we need to take this back and look at it further and we have been doing that. We’ve had a working group set up of non-government organizations, including the seniors’ groups, I can’t remember all of the names, but they are stakeholder groups that have been meeting to work out the details. They are in the final stage of providing us with the detailed information and we will be bringing that forward to the standing committee over the next two or three weeks and to the Cabinet as well. Once we finalize those programs we will be going out to the public so that the public is made well aware of what is involved. Thank you.

I thank the Minister for that response. I do acknowledge that we received a letter recently from the Minister. It provided some insight into what’s been going on, but it had very little detail. It describes the actions which she just told us about, but I was particularly struck by the statement in the letter which says this public working group was presented with detailed program information. I wondered why that detailed program information was not also available to Members. If the Minister could answer that question? Thank you.

That information will be made available to the Members. As we do, in all our dealings with the committee, this is a consensus government, we share information and we make decisions together. The program information the Member is referring to, our data is that we needed for the group to do the work. I think there should not be a misunderstanding about that. It’s about who in the North are eligible for supplementary health benefits, what are their needs, what are the costs, what are the numbers, what are people’s income levels, what are the groups and numbers of people that are in need of government services, how many people are getting third party insurance? All of that raw data that would help the public working group to make the best decisions and have input into the process, those are the kinds of information that we

are referring to by that phrase. At the appropriate time, I would be more than happy to share with the standing committee members in our discussion on what information was reviewed/analyzed and what suggestions are being made.

I just want to make sure that the Members know and that the public knows that this government had heard very clearly that we didn’t do this right the first time and were asked to go back and work on it. I realize the silence might be alarming, but I think people should be assured that we have been doing the work and we know that we don’t want to bring out premature work. We need to make sure that the work is done and that we will seek input and participation from the committee and the public. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Minister for the answer, but I think the Minister also knows that the Standing Committee on Social Programs has been intimately involved in this particular issue over the last year and remains involved and wants to be involved. I think it wouldn’t have been a disservice to the committee if... It was a disservice that we didn’t get the information, but I think the Minister should have given the information to committee who would have taken that information and studied it on their own.

I look forward to the response from the working group, but I would have rather had the information, the background and the data myself.

The Minister has referenced consultation, I would like to ask the Minister what kind of a timeline she’s referencing in terms of consultation when the public, other than the working group, are going to be involved in seeing either the data and/or the recommendations from the committee. Thank you.

Over the last two weeks or three weeks, we’ve received at least three letters from the Standing Committee on Social Programs to my department thanking us for the cooperation and collaboration that we are providing to the committee. So the Member knows anytime they would like information about anything we’re doing, we’re there. We are able to provide the info. The Member can have any data we are working with. We just wanted to have a reviewable, workable data done. I mean, that’s the work of the department and the department is doing that.

Also for the Members of the public and the House, I’d like to advise that working groups of the supplementary health benefits is the YWCA, NWT Council for Persons with Disabilities, Hay River Seniors, Centre for Northern Families, Yellowknife Seniors, NWT Seniors’ Society. So those are the groups that have been involved. So, Mr. Speaker, the Member knows that we will not be moving ahead without discussions with the Standing Committee on Social Programs and Members. We hope that we will have a package done by the

beginning to middle of next month. Upon review and approval, we will have the spring months to have an information session with the public. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I would like to advise the Minister that we would have gladly asked for the data if we had known that it was available. I take her statement to mean that it’s a commitment to provide it to committee. So I look forward to receiving that info.

In terms of the consultation, she said something about three months. I didn’t quite understand exactly what that is referencing. If I could get a bit more of a firm or definite statement as to which months she’s referencing when this consultation with the public will start. Thank you.

The expectation is that we will have a product for the committee and the Cabinet to review within the month of February. That will give us, if all goes well, March, April, May, June to do consultations. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the gong show the Member speaks of is only in some people’s eyes. I am very interested to see why he’s concerned about my being positive on this project would be a concern.

Mr. Speaker, this project was brought forward with a design in place with a caveat that further testing had to be done. That was done and approved. There needed to be some changes. The designer of the original bridge was no longer in place and a new team came into place and indicated that there could be some changes made that would result in savings and we proceeded on that basis. Things have gone well and we now have a design in place and we’ll be moving forward.

I’d like to point out to the Member, Mr. Speaker, that any project, any contracts we have in place is not set in stone and they can be opened up and many have been even though they are considered to be ironclad. In this case, we had a caveat that allowed us to do so. Thank you.

That begs the question why anybody would sign a concession agreement with a partner without a design. I am just wondering whose responsibility was that. Why was a concession agreement signed with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation without a design in place, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

Maybe the Member didn’t hear what I said. I did indicate that we did have an approved design in place that required further testing. So we did have a design at the time. Thank you.

I’d like to ask the Minister, and I think the question that everybody out there has is what will this bridge ultimately cost to have constructed, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

We feel that the bridge will be constructed with the price that we had indicated earlier and we are trying to stay on budget. Thank you.