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’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...

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...

Mr. Speaker, that’s a bold statement by saying forcing them will not work. Maybe the Minister of Justice can clarify for the House where that reference and where the strength of that statement comes from. He must have some information reference expert that says, when you are locked up for two years less a day, of course, and you have nothing to do, that forced alcohol treatment… I’m talking about court-ordered treatment, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Has the department studied diversion techniques in the sense of their success rates? What I’m talking about is how people may reoffend. In other words, if we’ve given people an opportunity to not go to jail, which in certain circumstances makes complete sense. In other cases, they need to go to jail because of the balance of what they’ve been charged and found guilty of. Has the department found any diversion techniques that make sense? Because if our present population, on average, is 88 percent, that tells me it’s significantly high, and I’m trying to understand how...

Because we’re not allowed to ask the Minister’s opinion if 88 percent is fair, reasonable, or just disgusting, what I will ask is: What work has the Department of Justice done to find out what the root cause of this is and, furthermore, what are they able to do to help bring what one may describe as a reasonable balance in the sense of representation? Because I would say that 88 percent of our population representing the jails being solely Aboriginal people is not reasonable.