Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We certainly listened to the Member’s statement with great interest as he did some comparables there regarding the CANOL Trail and how fast that was built.

Mr. Speaker, I have to point out we are all anxious to see this road move ahead. We have had some good discussions with the federal government and certainly don’t want to wait until there’s another war before we see investment, Mr. Speaker.

We have done a lot of work in the life of this government on the Mackenzie Valley Highway, probably more work than has been done for quite a few years. We were able to partner with the federal government on a number of fronts doing some of the research as required. We recognized some time ago that we need to build and develop a business case for this stretch of highway. As part of going forward with that whole concept, we contracted some people to come and do an economic analysis

of the road and it has come back very favourable. I would be pleased to share that information with Members if they haven’t seen it already. It would, of course, create a lot of jobs, it would open up the sense of isolation to the communities, and in a lot of the communities it would lower their cost of living. There are a number of things that are looked at in the economic analysis and if the Member hasn’t seen it yet, I’d certainly be pleased to present it to him. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in my research, it took the threat of invasion and the war to ask… Not to ask; I think the United States government said we’re going to come up and we’re going to build a highway west of Norman Wells and move some oil and this is what we’re going to do. When that threat was no longer there, they left everything just as is.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not too sure if this is something that is even possible in the Northwest Territories, in terms of putting some priorities to building a highway up the Mackenzie Valley. I want to ask the Minister, in terms of his economic analysis of the Mackenzie Valley Highway, what type of dollars is in the report. I look forward to him sharing it, but what type of dollars does the analysis come out with, should we build a Mackenzie Valley Highway, some dollars that could be realized? I want to ask the Minister if he could give me sort of an estimate.

Mr. Speaker, I have to apologize to the Member. I don’t have that information in front of me. I do recall that the report that was conducted and the research that was done in the communities came back indicating there would be huge benefit to the communities along the right-of-way. There would be huge benefit in terms of jobs in the area of road construction. There would be a lot of savings to the communities in the cost of living as they’d be able to travel on a year-round road. It would certainly increase tourism. That part of the country is very beautiful, as the Member knows. There are huge benefits, as this document has indicated. I can’t remember specific numbers at this point but I’d certainly be glad to share it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has some very talented staff working on this project here and I want to commend him for the hard work as with the Aboriginal groups that have signed on with the PDRs. I want to ask the Minister, in his discussions with the federal Minister, why isn’t there such a priority from the federal Minister to ask Mr. Harper, let’s get some money into the construction phase of the Mackenzie Valley Highway. We do appreciate the PDRs. Why doesn’t Mr. Harper say, okay, we’re going to put the dollars that need to be built for the Mackenzie Valley Highway, just as the recent announcement such as the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline?

Mr. Speaker, the concept of a highway down the Mackenzie Valley has been around for many, many years, even from way back as far as the Diefenbaker days. The idea has been brought forward from the Government of the Northwest Territories on many occasions. Almost at every Assembly there’s been strategies developed over the years and they have included the concept of a highway, and we’ve indicated that there is a desire to see this move forward. Documents such as Corridors for Canada were drafted and included highways and to really no avail. It’s our interpretation that maybe we needed to do more work to build a business case, which includes the economic analysis, project description reports that we’re moving forward on.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t want the Member to start thinking about going west when we should be going east to get further investment. I’ve seen and tracked the Member’s ventures on the CANOL Trail over the last three years. He’s been trying to walk that stretch of the highway. He’s shared some of the pictures and he seems to be riding a horse every time.

---Laughter

Mr. Speaker, there is a real need for the federal government to invest in this highway. We have taken every occasion that we had to bring the case forward. We have tried in different formats. We tried to bring it forward as a sovereignty issue. We brought it forward as a P3 concept. We submitted every project budget that came available from the federal government. Our last several discussions, the Minister has indicated that we just needed to wait and see if there is anything in the budget, so that is where we are at at this point. Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, just for the record, I think I rode on the horse for about five minutes. The rest of the 222 miles I walked on the CANOL Trail.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask again, within the life of this government I know this Cabinet is working hard with its different counterparts, can somehow the message get to the federal government in a short time with the Premier, with the Cabinet Ministers on different fronts and maybe let them know the importance of the construction of the Mackenzie Valley Highway to the people in the North? The reason why I am asking is I think that the rest of Canada should come up and discover the beautiful Northwest Territories.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make every effort to bring the message forward to the federal government that there is a real need for a Mackenzie Valley Highway. We will continue to take the opportunities, whether it is

myself as the Transportation Minister or the Premier or the Finance Minister or any other Minister that sits for this government to make the arguments. Mr. Speaker, it may warrant further trips to Ottawa. It may warrant involving other people. We will have to look at that. There are other considerations, of course, in terms of elections and things of that nature, but we are looking at all different opportunities that we can use to impress to the federal government that we need to get some investment on this highway. It may be for portions of it, it may be for a section of it, but I think this whole initiative is going to move forward. We certainly had that formal motion from this House and want to keep it a priority. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of ENR and having to do with the Wildlife Act. Hopefully, we will be moving this bill into the House, but it is a huge bill and there are big changes...

Mr. Bromley, the Wildlife Act is coming up for second reading. That will be the time for debating the Wildlife Act or asking questions about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not debating the act itself. It is about consultation, Mr. Speaker.

You can ask your question. I will decide then whether it is allowable or not. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To help consultation on the Wildlife Act, will the Minister be able to put out a table of concordance that shows where the changes have been made and the most recent draft to assist people in making their comments? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I am going to rule that question out of order. There will be the time to ask that when the bill is coming before the House in the second reading.

---Ruled Out of Order

The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about staff, they have different professions. We have security guards there that monitor the inmates on a constant basis. They are required to be at the centre. We have other staff that may come and go, such as secretaries or clerical or administrative. They go downtown and do their lunch and they may come back. They may pick up a smell of smoke to some degree. Mr. Speaker, those securities need to be at the corrections. That is a big difference where they are required to be at the centre. We don’t allow smoking at the centre, as well, on the premises. Mr. Speaker, this is a safety and also the health reason for our inmates as well and also the staff at the corrections. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, I will just correct the Minister; they are not security guards, they are corrections officers. Mr. Speaker, I think we need to be treating our corrections officers in the same way that we treat other government employees. I know that they are there. They are captive employees for the period of time they are at the centre. Why is it that we can’t come up with a solution? Maybe it is a little ways away from the building, but a designated smoking area outside for use for employees, the corrections guards specifically that can’t leave that building, they can’t have a cigarette if they so choose on the premises outside of the building. Why is that not the case? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, these corrections officers need to be at the centre. They are required to monitor and also look after those inmates in case there are any issues that may arise. There is a constant issue that may be conducted at the centre as well. They are required to be there. Other staff may come and go, as I indicated before, administrative staff, but at the same time, these corrections officers need to be at the centre. That is a big difference. They can’t leave the premises to go for, let’s say, a smoke outside the premises because they are on duty eight, 10, 12 hours as identified by their supervisors or

regular work hours. Mr. Speaker, we have to keep that in mind that those are the corrections officers that are required to be at the centre. That is the reason why there is a big difference between administrative staff and corrections officers. Mahsi.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister is making a good case for my argument. They can’t leave the facility. That is the problem. They can’t go on a coffee break downtown. They can’t go on a lunch hour downtown or to their home to have a cigarette. They are captive employees. They are at that building for eight and sometimes 16 hours in a row. I just want to ask the Minister why can’t we set up an area on the property away from the building where, if corrections officers have a short break, they can have a cigarette. It is a stressful occupation at the best of times, Mr. Speaker. Why can’t we accommodate those folks that wish to have a cigarette? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, again, it comes down to a health hazard to the inmates. The corrections officers, when they go for, let’s say they are allowed to go for a smoke, they come back and deal on a constant basis with the inmates one to one. They are always with the inmates. Second-hand smoke is even worse. That is what we have heard over and over through health discussions. Mr. Speaker, that is the very reason why we have stopped smoking at corrections premises. That is the very reason why we are not allowing those individuals that are on guard with doing their job and looking after those inmates. Mr. Speaker, it is about health issues as well. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final, short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The corrections officers aren’t the ones that are locked up. They are there working. They are doing their job. They are performing a function, looking after the inmates that are there. It’s the inmates that are locked up, not the corrections guards.

Again, I haven’t heard an answer from the Minister on whether or not the Department of Justice can try to address that issue that’s at the North Slave Correctional Centre in that... It’s close to 50 percent of the corrections officers in that facility that are smokers. They’d like to have an area where they can have a cigarette, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.