Robert Hawkins

Just more so around the risk management side of it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious on how our debt management will change in the context of borrowing. So in other words, if we borrow money we have to pay more. So I'm just curious on how that strategy's been developed and laid out and would it be part of the business case proposal of the additional $1.3 billion request on top of the $1.8 billion debt limit? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe in the concept of Restoring Balance. In other words, I don't factually flike what they're -- the policy is, per se, but I do believe fiscal prudent management is important which is, in other words, why spending of money, an evaluation of what we're doing. Does it become irrelevant if the government was to receive the additional $1.3 billion extension to our borrowing limit, seeing how that exercise should be embedded in every element of government but those targets and principles aligned in that initial letter, does it become moot? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, again, I want to reaffirm it's about process and transparency I'm after. And just for definition, so people know what it means, a black budget appropriation is when a government's budget is allocated in a classified manner that's secret, Mr. Speaker.

So we don't know what's being approved. So I'm asking with respect to the dollar amounts, what type of public transparency and discussion can we have here in this House and before the public before these types of things are approved? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, when we think of the whole budget -- and I'm not getting into the details of the budget specifically that hasn't been tabled -- it's something in the range of $700 million. We're being asked to take a lot of it at good faith, in other words. That's a lot of millions, Mr. Speaker.

So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister says the process. Well, we are in charge of the process. She is in charge of the process. So in other words, the people that can change the process are us. Mr. Speaker, the question really is designed around how can MLAs be informed as to what's actually happening behind the...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, given that the NWT government has hired the Saskatchewan health care expert, and now I call him the health care czar, to reengineer the NWT health system and certainly given the fact that the Minister has shared with Members confidentially, of course, Mr. Speaker, the mandate of the health care czar, and the only person who can make it public is the Minister, would the Minister be willing to table that mandate letter of the public administrator before the House so Northerners can find out what's actually being directed here and if she can't table it, can...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Minister's answer of defending status quo process and paperwork because I'm not sure we are doing anything better. I can't -- I'd like to hear what the Minister says we've solved health care problems and assignments. Can the Minister answer that question in the context of why don't we go back to fee for service where doctors could see more patients a day and deliver the same type of results, about serving citizens, and that's exactly what we want. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to talk about the Denmark innovation towards public health care. Mr. Speaker, they do something really original. They put the patient before the system.

Mr. Speaker, did you know that in Denmark, the state assigns doctors to its people, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine that? People being served by the state in a manner that's helpful and useful? They actually put their people ahead of the system, Mr. Speaker. It's quite innovative to think about it.

You know, they do other interesting things. No matter what, if you have a young person, a child who is sick, they...

Seeing my time is ticking away, what I'd do is I'll point into two areas. The first is that it does seem risky that we're almost -- almost, I know not exactly so I'm not trying to give you that impression, but almost doubling our current debt with the addition. That does sound scary by any means. Risky, if not. The other thing is is the other aspect of concern that if we're not borrowing it based on principles of us becoming active partners in our business case, I'm surprised we're asking for so much. And the last piece I'll say, Mr. Chairman, is that while memory doesn't serve me very well on...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to reaffirm around the $1.3 billion further request, I'm wondering is there -- again, just for clarity, is there any project built into this number; so in other words, is the number $1.3 billion predicated on saying this is our contribution towards the Taltson Expansion; this number is being used for furthering the Mackenzie Valley Highway; this number is based on us continuing or building a foothold into the infrastructure that will start the Slave Geological Province Road up toward the Bathurst -- our side of the Bathurst direction? So curious on that. Thank you...