Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunday past I watched an historic vote in the House of Representatives in the United States where Obama’s presidency was finally able to muster up enough support to pass health benefits to those who did not have health benefits. They did not worry about the cost as the driving factor. They worried about the principles of rights to make sure people were covered.

The problem we’re dealing with here now is that the Department of Health and Social Services has not identified the actual cost to delivering those types of rights to the people we have defined as the working poor...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At the beginning of this process when this side of the House and the champions in our communities came forward to say that this was completely wrong, this approach, there was a promise of a clean slate, the removal of an income means test as the philosophy, and yet that did not come forward. The Minister continues to say that the saving grace of this Supplementary Health Benefits Plan is to take from Peter to pay Paul.

What is stopping the Minister from doing a thorough analysis when we constantly hear about how much data and work they’ve done today? The one thing that...

I’m glad we have a low-maintenance Minister over there on our health system. I think the Minister answered the question herself. She has basically said that we’ve identified 2,299 people. How do you know that the messing around of the system will cover those 2,299 people? Tinkering with the system has not guaranteed anything. That’s the whole point of where I’m going with this. With all of these studies, analyses and changes, somebody should be able to give us context of what a projected cost of this would be. There’s been zero analysis on that to date.

The point I’m making is we have a butcher...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising today to lend my voice to the many expressions of concern made here today by our Members about the Minister of Health’s proposal for changing supplementary health benefits. Thus far the Minister seems to have her decision already made up to rush the consultations through to stakeholders regarding how they feel. The process seems to change on the run. I wish the Minister could establish a realistic schedule and process that spells out to everyone in a way that we can understand, rather than what the Minister has already told us they’re going to do.

The process...

The Premier did not talk about how the public interest has a position in this. The public interest was not discussed in his answer about how the public interest gets represented. If we represent a one-third interest in a corporation outside of the territorial government, that’s way beyond arm’s length, then the public interest is lacking. What is stopping the Premier from evaluating fairly and strategically with all the proper information about the route that we’ve discussed in this House, which is either over the Simpson Islands or under the water? What is stopping this department of NWT...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. It’s with appreciation I recognize Paige Elkin here in our Assembly.

[Microphone turned off.]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Where are the power purchase agreements? That really is the question. Where are the diamond mines who are willing to sign on the dotted line and say they are willing to buy power at ‘X’ rate? Where is the proof that they are behind this project? That could settle a lot of uncertainty today.

Earlier in a response to Mr. Abernethy the Premier was touting the GDP growth because of this opportunity. To be honest, GDP growth in the Northwest Territories is all either theoretical or useless, because the piper being paid is Ottawa over the Northwest Territories. Yes, people are working, but those who are getting the money from the resources and those revenues go straight to Ottawa.

The Premier says this is all based on a business case. I’d like to hear the Premier explain to this House where the money will be coming from for this potential project as we all well know this is worth way...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleagues, through Members’ statements and questions, I will continue the issue of the Taltson expansion and the Deze partnership.

We have to be very clear, the GNWT represents the social interests of all residents of the Territories. To be crystal clear, the Deze interest is a group of partners that are represented strictly on economic interests, not public and social interests.

The challenge I see here is who represents the public interest in this partnership. That’s the question to the Premier right now, is how will the public be plugged into this partnership...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like my colleagues today, I would like to chime into the Deze Taltson expansion issue. Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly that any hydro expansion needs to be based on environmental and economic opportunities. I believe strongly, as well, that this shouldn’t continue to be a direct initiative pursued by our Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, the risk at this time is solely on the shoulders of the GNWT. As I understand it, the cash to date has only come from the GNWT pockets. This Legislature has found ways to waive the PUB review process and with our one-third partnership, I often...