Mr. Speaker, just working in this direction, I am not necessarily sure bricks and mortar needs to be our first stop on this future goal to bring in a university to the Northwest Territories working in a pan-territorial way with Nunavut and the Yukon. I think when you have excellent examples like Athabasca University, I think that shows that you can create courses and a system that works well for everyone. It is really about the designation and the quality of education that we can provide people to the next step. As the Minister is quite correct, we are aiding people in their pursuit through a nursing and Teacher Education Program through university designation, but the designation seal doesn’t come with the university of the Arctic because we are a college.

Mr. Speaker, the last point I just want to say is, with the gap created by the loss of the First Nations University, this could be the opportunity for us to seize that brass ring to bring that education level to the Northwest Territories, that type of education level to the three territories in a pan-university style. Would the Minister look at it from that perspective and tell me what he sees as roadblocks in taking advantage of this and does he see the opportunity I am presenting? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I did touch on that. That is our vision with the federal Minister for the territorial jurisdictions. We see this coming. Definitely that is an area of vision that we have in our target, is to establish an Athabasca University type here in the Northwest Territories and supporting the other two Nunavut and Yukon campuses as well. Mr. Speaker, those are the ongoing discussions that we are having.

I think we definitely will see a light because what we are discussing here, there is a university of the Arctic funding flowing through Saskatchewan. Of course, yes, the money has been scaled back by the federal government, but I don’t see any obstacles. I see challenges, but at the same time, there are opportunities for us to move forward with the federal government. That is why the federal

government met with us and discussed opportunities. We will be following through the federal Minister, probably in the beginning of the summer, and discussing further on the action plan on where we need to go, develop a business case scenario. Mr. Speaker, we are developing a business case scenario between the three territorial jurisdictions and present that to the federal Minister. We will update the Members as we move forward. Mahsi.

Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister started to ask my last question, which is simply and ultimately the obvious question, which is when can we see something? I think that is an important factor for the public trying to follow this issue, because there are a lot of people in the public who would like to see this go forward. I think the timing couldn’t be better, especially on the sad news that another university is no longer in existence. We could fill that gap.

Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Education have anything he can offer and share to Members, be its vision, be it timelines and certainly in the area of public engagement on this particular issue? Does the Minister have anything he can provide us to show this initiative is certainly moving forward and that demonstrates that the federal government is interested in this concept? I know I am very interested. I know other Members are very interested and it is very important. Thank you.

I would just like to recognize the clock. Time for questions has expired, but I will allow the Minister to answer the question.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I will be more than happy to present the current status of what has been happening to the standing committee. They can certainly share with the general public as well. We can certainly do that, too, and put it on our website. Just updating on where we have been, Mr. Speaker, this is all preliminary at this point. I am not sure how far we will be, but certainly what we have talked about is still in the preliminary stages. We need to develop a business case scenario between the three jurisdictional territorial governments. We will be meeting with the federal Minister as we move into the summer months. That is the plan as it is now. Mr. Speaker, yes, I will be more than happy to present to the standing committee. Mahsi.

Item 8, written questions. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to return to item 7, oral questions, on our orders of the day. Thank you.

---Unanimous consent granted

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues, for allowing this to continue. Mr. Speaker, I would like to weigh in on this driver’s licence plate issue quickly, especially because it is such an important topic and it has been raised today in various perspectives.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents are concerned about the $10 fee. To the Minister that may not be a big deal, but as I understand it, there are 18,000 passenger vehicles on the road today and that is just the passenger vehicles, mind you. Of course, people are now forced to pay the $10 fee. It shouldn’t be described as anything else because the option is either have your vehicle on the road or not have your vehicle on the road, so I think people made substantial investments. This can’t be really seen as anything but a cash grab.

I am just trying to understand. If I can compare playground investment in camp parks, we don’t raise camp fees. When we are forced to upgrade our health care cards recently to a modern one, we weren’t charged a fee there, and finally airport improvements, when we do those, we are not charged extra fees when we put an airport in. Why did the Minister feel that it was necessary to charge an additional fee of $10 regardless of how small it may appear to be? Why did the Minister feel that it is an important direction to start charging those types of fees when what truly is the responsibility of the government and we are already paying for it in our road licence fee that we do update every year? Thank you.

The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Member is always encouraging us to level down the jurisdictions and try to stay on par with what they do. The Auditor General has also indicated that our fees are too low, especially in the area of airport development and parking fees and things of that nature. We are also encouraged by our government to recover any new costs. The cost of $10 is what it cost to produce the new licence plate.

It’s probably by far lower than most jurisdictions. Other jurisdictions are charging quite a bit more, even for the personalized licence plates. Some jurisdictions are charging up to $50. Our fees are

intended to recoup what it costs to produce the plates and we needed to change the plates to meet national standards in safety areas and reasons of that nature. So that’s what we’re doing.

Thank you. New Brunswick updated their plates and gave people the option if you wanted a new style plate you could pay the fee and take the new plate.

Mr. Speaker, a couple of years ago the government wisely listened to the ideas that came from this side of the House about upgrading drivers’ licences and they didn’t pass on an additional fee when they modernized the territorial driver’s licence. Mr. Speaker, this can’t be viewed as any more than nickeling and diming the average northern resident when the cost of living continues to be an issue.

Finally, if they needed the money and felt that the $80 fee was not substantial enough to cover the normal costs of registering your vehicle, why wasn’t that publicly debated and explained why the whole fee is inappropriate and they’re just going to add on a $10 extra fee to cover the licence plates? So, Mr. Speaker, I think the real question is, is the fee the problem, the whole registration fee, and why isn’t that fairly publicly debated by our Finance Minister who would bring it forward in the next type of budget? Why wasn’t it addressed as a package as opposed to let’s nickel and dime people one at a time? Thank you.

The Member raises the fee that New Brunswick is charging. They’re charging $25. If you want us to stay on par, I guess we could consider that, but at this point we’re looking at recouping what it costs to produce the licence plate. That is our requirement that has been put in place by our government. The Auditor General has raised concern about our department not meeting and matching other jurisdictions. So we are required to do a number of things and that is to ensure that we recoup the costs of this new plate.

In any event, whether we kept the old plate and had a supplier reproduce them, which we could find we would have had to incorporate a new fee. So I think it’s a fair fee. Ten dollars is not a lot for a licence plate that could last up to 12, 13, 14 years and I think we’re getting value for money. Thank you.

Thank you. Very respectfully, but yesterday we heard the Health Minister talk about Ontario and Alberta and whatnot. Today we hear about the Transportation Minister leaning on what New Brunswick and B.C. do. It’s odd how we seem to want to govern by other provinces and what they do, because, I mean, if Quebec decided to drive over the cliff, would our government start lining up behind them?

Excuse me, Mr. Hawkins, could you please ask your supplementary question and keep it short?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue really comes down to this: just because they do it, why does it mean we have to do it? I believe this is a capital cost within our system that rightly belongs on the Department of Transportation’s normal capital budget. Why didn’t the Minister take it from that point of view? Thank you.

Thank you. If Quebec drives over the cliff I would encourage the Member not to follow them. Mr. Speaker, the Member raises examples from other jurisdictions then wants to bow out when I retaliate and show him that he is wrong in his answers. Mr. Speaker, the reality is we’re doing as well or better than other jurisdictions and we should recognize that.

Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last question about the licence plate issue is quite an obvious one, although I would not necessarily encourage significant and prolonged public input when it’s on an unnecessary cause, but in this particular case it’s quite evident that they only asked NWT Tourism and the Legion, outside of a few other professionals. Why didn’t the Minister of Transportation, in some form, even via newspaper ad, radio ad or information on their website, explain to people what their plan is and seek any type of public engagement or input on this particular issue? Does the Minister of Transportation not appreciate the input from the public? Thank you.

Thank you. We did do a consultation process with the public. We were not intending to change the shape of the plate. We were only trying to upgrade the plate first of all because the manufacturer was pulling out and was not going to be able to produce the identical plate anymore. It was an opportunity for us to update our plate because the plate did not meet national standards and didn’t for some time. It would be unfair, it would be very frustrating for the public to go embark on a consultation process where there was really not going to be a lot of changes, except for safety, visibility and size. So would we go out there and pretend that we’re going to change the shape of the plate and all these things that the Member is expecting the public to provide input when we were not going to do that? No, I think we had to meet national standards, we were one of the last jurisdictions, and we’ve done that. We have now a licence plate that is the envy of Canada. We’re hearing it from across the country that this is a plate that’s in high demand and they wish their jurisdictions would do that. I think we should

applaud ourselves for the great work that’s been done.

The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

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