Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question on this page, as well, with regard to the forest management item and the fire suppression. Before I get there, I do want to make a comment about the impact the total amount of these supplementary estimates, the operations expenditures, are having on our budgeting, so to speak, the impact on our finances.

Prior to this supplementary estimate, this request for $29.8 million, we had a supplementary reserve. We set one up every year. We had about $23 million in our supplementary reserve. So you take the cost of this particular supplementary expenditure and it puts us in the hole some $26 million. You and I, Madam Chair, in our household budgeting wouldn't be able to put ourselves in the hole without getting ourselves into hot water and perhaps having to sell something off to pay for the deficit.

I appreciate that we have extraordinary circumstances, but either we need to increase our supplementary reserve in anticipation of extraordinary circumstances happening and the supplementary reserve is supposed to deal with the extraordinary circumstances that come up year to year. But we almost seem to be using the supplementary reserve for whatever it is we need it for and then when we come up against really extraordinary expenditures, such as fire suppression costs and/or low water surcharges for electricity, then we put ourselves deeply in the hole. It doesn't seem to really matter, and I know it has an impact on our financing because we have to borrow more money. It increases our costs on any number of things.

I would like to state that I think we are getting too free with being overdrawn in our supplementary reserve and I would caution Members and the Department of Finance to be really careful, more careful than they already are, about the impact all these expenditures have on our bottom line.

With regard to the special warrant and the $3.6 million that is being asked for fire suppression, thankfully we had a better year this year than we did last year, so we're not being asked to approve as much as we were asked to approve last year in a supp. However, I looked at the total cost of fire suppression this year and it comes out to some $57 million. Last year, I believe, it was quite a bit higher. It makes me wonder again, in terms of budgeting, we know we're liable to be stuck in a drought situation for another year or two, maybe three or four - hopefully not - but I again ask, why don't we budget the amount of money we are going to need more closely to the amount of money we actually end up spending?

When I first started, our fire suppression budget was a minimal amount. I think the amount in the budget was for an absolute perfect year and I think it's gradually been increased somewhat but I think we still under-budget what we require for fire suppression and I would like to ask why we don't put in a better number, a number that's closer to reality when we're budgeting for fire suppression. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 325-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2015-2016, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 325-17(5) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'd like to continue with Tabled Document 325-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2015-2016. If we complete that, Tabled Document 324-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-2016. If we are really efficient, we will move on to Bill 56, Bill 59, Bill 62, Bill 63, Bill 64 and Bill 69.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this motion, as you may have gathered from my statement earlier today. I want to thank both the mover and the seconder, Mr. Bromley and Mr. Nadli, for bringing the motion forward.

I spoke in my statement about inaction, and a fairly long period of inaction in regard to taking action on the issue of NWT residents who have disabilities and closing the gaps and providing services that close the gaps for NWT disabled residents.

I think it's important to note, as Mr. Bromley did, he gave you some statistics, but the impact of a disability in a family or in a community doesn't affect just the disabled person. It affects all those people around them who support them, who are required to support them in one way or another. Caregivers, family members, certainly schools are impacted. It's not just the disabled persons that we have to talk about here. We are not providing the services and the programs that we should to the disabled persons to the detriment of many other people as well.

The council's report, as Mr. Bromley has mentioned, highlights many gaps and many needs in the services that are required across the territory. I think it's an excellent document. I have to confess I haven't read the whole thing, but I've certainly read the summary and I've read part of the full document and it's a well done summary, it's a well done survey, and I don't think anyone can say that it didn't canvass the majority of the NWT, 32 out of 33 communities, and some 320-plus people who were canvassed and responded to the survey. I think it's a very excellent summary of what one could say is the state of the nation, the state of the NWT nation in regard to disabilities and where we sit.

My view at this point is that this summary document, this project document has provided the government with a way forward. It's done a great analysis of where we sit at the moment, and there are five recommendations at the end of the document, five major recommendations which suggest how we can go forward from here. I think this motion asks basically for the same thing. Maybe not specific to recommendations, but we're asking for the government to find out, do an analysis, find out why there's been no action on the Disabilities Action Plan since, basically, 2007, 2008. Why is it not a priority for this government? Why nothing is happening. Why we still have NWT residents who are struggling to live, to work, to get educated, all because they happen to have a disability.

The Minister, earlier, was answering some questions, and he spoke as the Minister of Health and Social Services, but he's also the Minister responsible for Disabilities, and I think we have to recognize as a government that if we have a Minister responsible for Disabilities, then we have to give them the tools to work with. I suggested that this situation now is somewhat like the homelessness situation was previously. We now have a homelessness coordinator who is pulling all departments together and presumably working on programs across all government departments. We need the same thing here with the Disabilities Action Plan.

We have Education, we have Health, we have Housing, to name three major ones. MACA, I'm sure, is involved in there to a certain extent. We need somebody who has the funding but also who has the authority to reach across all departments and to pull them together.

I have to ask these questions, and I think the answers are no, but is there coordination across our government in what we're doing for disabled persons? Is it adequately funded? Are we following the advice of our NGOs, the advice of the people that are working the front-lines that are dealing with persons with disabilities on a day-to-day basis? There are lots of departments involved. Someone has to pull them together and someone has to work with the council, and that's an ask in this particular motion.

Lastly, I think I mentioned, and I hope it was well heard, but in my statement I said we can send a message to the 18^th Assembly. If we speak strongly, if we speak loudly, if we support this motion we can tell the 18^th Assembly this is a priority, and it's a priority not just for the Members of this Assembly but for the territory as a whole. This is something that we need to work on. We've waited some seven or eight years to get some real action going forward. We should start now in 2015 and not put it off until 2016 or 2017. It can be done. As I've said before, let's do it.

Thanks, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister: I'm a little surprised that we haven't yet done an assessment. I would have thought that once we took over the ownership of a property, and apparently we now have responsibility for the Cantung Mine, that an assessment would be done so that we'd know what kind of liability we're looking at.

So, in terms of this assessment, if it has not been done, when will it be done, and if there is a variation in the amount of liability required by the assessment and the amount of liability we hold, will the Minister aggressively renegotiate the agreement that we have with North American Tungsten? Thank you.

Thanks to the Minister. I guess I would say, considering the situation that North American Tungsten is in, it's imperative that we check what kind of security we have and probably ensure that we have security that is going to assist us in reclamation if they go under.

To the Minister: I'd like to know, we hold $11.6 million in whatever form of security, but how much is the reclamation going to cost for this particular development, this particular mine? Can the Minister advise us what the estimate of the reclamation is and what kind of liability we would estimate we have for this particular property?

Thanks to the Minister. I'll take that commitment. My information is that out of the $11.6 million that about $5 million is in promissory notes. I think promissory notes as an accepted form of security for the liability and reclamation of a mine are not worth very much. Next to worthless is my understanding.

I'd like to ask the Minister, if some of this security is promissory notes, would he consider asking the company to change them to an irrevocable letter of credit, which does have great value, as opposed to a promissory note which has very little value?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the last conversation, I have to say kudos to the RCMP for the job they're doing. They're doing a great job lately.

My questions today are addressed to the Minister of Lands. I want to follow up on some questions that I asked to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources last week. The Minister of ENR, in answering questions to me about the Cantung Mine, indicated that there is about $11.6 million held in financial security for the Cantung Mine.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Lands what form that security is in. We have several different kinds of security which we can hold. I'd like to know how this $11.6 million is held.

The government mindset from the previous decade seems to still exist where the issue of services for disabled persons is concerned. The issue is still in that black hole. But it must be removed from that black hole. The decade of inaction has to be replaced with a commitment to action. We have 5,000 to 6,000 persons with disabilities in the NWT and about 50 percent of them are seniors. We have a half-finished action plan. We have residents who need better programs and services so they can lead a better life.

It's not too late to act. This Assembly can send a message to the 18^th Assembly. We can tell them, make a commitment to our disabled persons, make the provision of programs and services a priority, take steps to address their needs. We can do this, and I look forward to Members sending this message when we debate the motion later today.