Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to resume my questions to the Premier because I didn't feel that I got an answer to the question that I asked, so I'm going to repeat the question. There is going to be an additional $33 million required for operations and maintenance of long-term beds when they're available. What money will pay for this operations and maintenance cost? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Premier. It's my understanding, but this math really needs to be set out, that the reduction of 6 per cent to 3 per cent is not offset by the $13.2 million over 10 years. Infrastructure funding is good, but the long-term care beds cost $139,000 each per year to operate. By the Health Minister's own estimate, that's $33.9 million annually required to provide care to people in long-term beds. I'm still not clear. Where's that money going to come from? Thank you.

Thank you, Premier. The problem is that healthcare costs are forecasted to rise significantly, and I gave some numbers in my Member's statement especially around the provision of long-term care to our aging population. That's on top of home care. What is the plan to ensure that healthcare funding is adequate to meet our needs? Because I don't see that this deal with $7.4 million in it will do it?

Thank you to the Premier. What was reported in the news is that Canada offered 3.5 and that the leadership walked away from that deal although they had wanted 5.2. You got 3. You wanted 5.2. There's a gap. Why did you settle for less?

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier gave some answers on the new healthcare funding deal which was signed with the federal government last month. He repeated, "The new healthcare deal provides what Northerners want and need." The healthcare accord has a 3 per cent cost escalator rather than the 5.2 per cent the Premiers asked for in December. I didn't hear a clear answer to the question yesterday, so I'm going to repeat it today: what is the point of walking away from those talks and then settling for less? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier told CBC's Power and Politics of the negotiations with Ottawa that "we got what we needed and wanted." If that's the case, Mr. Premier, tell us how this healthcare deal is going to accomplish those goals, because the math that we have now doesn't add up. I will have questions. Mahsi.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Health and Social Services budget is the largest in the GNWT, at $414 million for this fiscal year, and, incredibly, it's not enough to meet existing or future healthcare needs. The new healthcare funding deal announced last month isn't going to make a huge difference to the bottom line. Thanks to a decision by the Conservative government, beginning April 1st this year, the Canada health transfer was scheduled to drop to 3 per cent a year.

When the Premiers met in December, they wanted a 5.2 per cent increase, but, in a bilateral deal reached last month the Premier walked away from the coalition and settled for a 3 per cent annual increase for the next 10 years. That's half of what we get today, and it's important to note this is a 10-year deal. Ottawa is offering a continuation of the medical travel and healthcare money, as well as $7.4 million in targeted money for healthcare infrastructure and $6.1 million for mental health initiatives for youth. That still leaves a significant shortfall.

Almost a year ago, the Minister of Health and Social Services released the long-term care study. It revealed an additional 259 beds will be needed in the next 10 years. He estimated that it would cost $200 million to build or provide these beds, and an additional $33.5 million annually to provide services to those clients.

Mr. Speaker, a $7.4 million contribution by the feds over the next ten years is literally a drop in the ocean, and spending to meet these long-term care bed needs should be under way already. Where is the money going to come from? Not from Canada, under the terms of the current deal, so that means that GNWT will have to find the money from other sources. That means making cuts or increasing revenue. Anxious Northerners want to know.

Healthcare is a hot-button issue with voters, and rightly so, but information is hard to find. The GNWT hasn't even issued its own media release on the deal. Contrast this approach to the hoopla that accompanied the announced federal funding for the road to Whati. Is the Premier not proud of deciding to walk back his commitment to negotiate with his colleagues on a national health deal rather than participate in a bilateral agreement? Is he not proud of the money he's bringing to the Territories for healthcare?

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement. Mahsi.

---Unanimous consent granted

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I take it, then, that there is no cost-benefit analysis of this, but rather a feeling that this is a good thing. Another possible use for this money which would be a good thing is to increase the Mining Incentive Program. That actually puts money directly into the pockets of the miners. Is there any thought to doing a cost-benefit analysis, especially since there are more tradeshows coming up, of putting the money into the Mining Incentive Program rather than into a junket? Thank you.

As we all know, mining tradeshows are numerous. Not just the Roundup, but the Geoscience Forum, and coming soon, the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada. Has the Minister's department done a cost-benefit analysis of attending tradeshows, and if he has, can he share the results?