Wendy Bisaro

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would like some clarification on the motion. If Mr. Ramsay’s understanding is that this is referencing laptops, that is not my understanding. It is talking only about the use of BlackBerries in standing and special committees. Laptops would only be…Oh, it does say laptops. I beg your pardon. I was thinking it was only for staff.

I do have a problem with laptops in committees, because I think committee work requires our minds even more, perhaps, than the House. There is not as much…I don’t think we have as much room for laptops and so on. At this point, I am...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is good to hear. I am really pleased to hear that both MACA and the Minister of Finance are looking to see if we can’t assist my residents on this project. I would just ask the Minister whether or not he would be willing to sit down with the City of Yellowknife and myself and the Minister of MACA to try and determine what could be done and how fast it could be done. Thank you.

Thank you to the Minister for that response. I understand that details are probably not known yet. The federal government is not known for their speed on providing detail. I guess I would like to know if the Minister knows from the general comments that were part of the federal budget whether or not if a project is shovel ready -- to use the federal term -- by the summer of 2009 whether or not that would speed up access to funds from this Infrastructure Stimulus Fund.

I think that is it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this motion as well. In regard to addressing the motion, it is very difficult to know where to start. Like the supplementary health benefits proposal, this particular board reform proposal is wrong in so many places that I really don’t know where I should start to speak against it, so I will just start and carry on.

I have said before, and I think I said earlier today, that some board reform is necessary. I believe that we have too many boards and that there ought to be some consolidation of boards and we ought to try and find some efficiencies...

I guess I will have to take that answer as no, there was no research or analysis done. I would like to ask the Minister why, in that case, when a model was proposed that the consultation, such as it is, that is currently being undertaken, why was there not a number of options presented? Why was one model or option presented as the way to go and people asked to comment on that one? Why were there not four, five or six different models proposed and people asked for comment on that? Thank you.

Like my colleagues on this side of the House and I think many members of the public, I am struggling to understand how this particular model that has been proposed was arrived at. My questions are addressed to the lead Minister for Refocusing Government committee, Minister Miltenberger. I would like to know how much research and analysis and what kind of research and analysis was undertaken prior to the determination that this model that we are currently looking would be used to affect the board reform that we are talking about. Thank you.

Thank you to my colleagues. Working bottom up, not top down, Mr. Speaker, will garner buy-in to a problem from all participants. At this point, Cabinet has not sold their bill of goods to anyone except themselves. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. Sorry for being so slow. I did want to just ask a question and I apologize if it was covered somewhere and I missed it, but there has been concern on the part of Members and I think local housing organizations, as well, about the number of clients that are in arrears. In some discussions we’ve had with Housing Corp, we’ve talked about a target of a 90 percent collection rate I think on mortgages, but I’m not sure. We also talked at one point, as a result of the Auditor General report, about how the corporation is monitoring these arrears and these collections of arrears in rent...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the answer, I think. I guess I really don’t understand why a decision was made to go with one model when there are opinions being sought from Regular Members, from members of the public, from board members, et cetera. I guess to ask the Minister again, what rationale did you use to determine that it was up to either Cabinet or the Refocusing Government committee to pick this one particular model and not allow other options out there for the public to comment on? Thank you.