Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I completely disagree with the assertion of the Minister’s. This is, quite frankly, smoke and mirrors. By laying this information out in a way that we can’t get public consultation, I have been prohibited strictly from seeking information by this government because the words confidential have been stamped on all the information we’ve constantly been receiving in private briefings. This Minister should enlighten this House how he gave us the fullness of all information in a confidential manner, in a manner we can’t seek public information and guidance from this, to...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to use the occasion of oral questions today to reaffirm my concerns I highlighted in my Member’s statement, which were the cost of the royalties associated with the gravel cost. The issue is quite simple as far as I’m concerned. I would like the Inuvialuit to agree to waive their royalty fee. Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t get to charge for the gravel. I think fair market rate is fair in whatever they decide to do, but it is the royalty fee to be very clear. That would also, in my view, demonstrate two things. The first one, it would show that they have skin...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I would like to follow up on another statement that I’ve made during the session and it’s regarding the proposed Inuvik-Tuk highway, this time with some specific concerns on gravel costs.

It is my understanding that the gravel used to build and maintain the highway is subject to royalties under the Inuvialuit Land Claim Agreement. The land claim agreement sets out maximum amounts for those royalties, it does not set minimums, so there is room for negotiation. Especially when Inuvialuit beneficiaries stand to gain so much themselves from a major infrastructure...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m trying to demonstrate the public’s right to know on this particular issue. The Minister is the one who has coined the dollar amount at $299 million for this project. He’s now saying, oh, don’t worry, the details will follow. The problem is the details follow after the project has been approved and the wheels are already moving.

Again I ask him, tell the House the cost of these particular royalties and demonstrate what is the Inuvialuit’s skin in the game on this particular project. Because as it stands today, they have zero investment in this game and all the game...

Mr. Speaker, I’m trying to phrase this in a manner that makes the most sense. I’d like to support this highway. I’d like to have reasons to support this highway. We have clear issues. Last week the Minister of Transportation said we had a $299 million estimate for this particular highway construction. So the royalty fee must be built into that estimate as the cost of the highway. We have a $299 million estimate to build a highway, so we must know what the royalty fee is and that’s what I’m asking the Minister to lay before the House. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wish to acknowledge Her Worship Tina Gargan. We’ve been friends since we were kids, and when we were kids she showed leadership qualities, and clearly she’s demonstrating the ones we could always see. I’d like to thank her for coming today. I believe we have two constituents from Yellowknife Centre, Lorraine Phaneuf and Annemieke Mulders. I’d like to welcome them both. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, last week I was asking him questions, or maybe it was the beginning of this week. After five weeks the weeks and days roll together. The other day I was asking the Minister to lay this type of detail down in a public document, one that everyone can see, but the way it’s looking at this point is nobody is going to know the details of the information until the deal is done. How is that fair for public accountability? That’s why I’m asking once again. It’s the Minister’s right to put this number out in the public. It’s not a confidentiality issue with committee; it’s the Minister’s...

Mr. Speaker, I guess the notwithstanding clause does not apply to us on this one. I can tell you first hand, when I worked in the correction centre as a corrections officer and certainly in many roles that I had worked there, a lot of inmates had mental health problems. What type of options, treatments and assessments are provided to inmates who are incarcerated? Furthermore, is there any follow-up provided to these particular inmates or are they simply just let go once they’re free? Thank you.

Thank you for noticing there, Mr. Speaker. My questions once again will be to the Minister of Justice. Earlier today my colleague Mr. Moses had asked, are treatment programs such as alcohol and drug treatment programs mandatory. I believe his answer was no. I am going to turn the question around and say, what would it take for the Department of Justice to make treatment programs such as alcohol and drug treatment mandatory.

I appreciate the answer from the Minister because I was going to ask about diversion techniques. Has the department studied the diversion techniques? As I understand it, diversion techniques are sometimes necessary for the potential person who has been arrested and charged with a crime, to actually go and appear before a court to get a direction rather than maybe a sentence. That’s the type of thing I’m saying, that in some cases it probably makes more sense. Has the Department of Justice considered and studied things like rehabilitation, based on proper direction and diversion techniques?