Louis Sebert

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the answer to that is that we have not yet necessarily determined all of the needs we may have in the future, so those numbers for the future could change. We are not contemplating, obviously, any major projects currently, at that time. Thank you.

Yes, I do.

I'm hoping, Mr. Speaker, that a tender can go out shortly. Again, I will provide information as I receive it.

Mr. Speaker, really there are two fences that we're talking about. There are the improvements that are needed as a result of the critical incident of August 2016, and a budget was approved for this work, but the bids came in a lot more than expected.

With respect to the perimeter fence, the tenders closed on August 29, 2017. I'm not sure whether the contract has been formally awarded yet, but I can find that information out and provide that to the Member opposite. Thank you

I think or I detect that behind this question is a concern that has been expressed with respect to some former governments, perhaps federal ones, that muzzled scientists. I can assure you that that will not happen with this government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The government did not consult with Indigenous organizations with respect to this policy. The policy creates the authority for the government to establish its own internal procedures to meet the requirements of the current legislative environment. Now, of course, ultimately when decisions are made we must and do follow and abide by our responsibility as under section 35 of the Constitution. Thank you.

I know that the government has approved contribution for land use capacity in the last several years: in 2017-2018, it was $375,000; in 2016-2017, $427,000; and in 2015-2016, $459,000. There is a commitment backed up with actual financial contribution to advance regional land claims.

Now, I do know also that the Department of Lands held its third annual Land Use Planning Forum in March 2017 to share information and perspective. We are committing both personnel and finances to this important subject.

I would hope not, and that exactly was the problem, is that -- hope springs eternal -- the problem was, frankly, that the bids came in at far, far higher than we had expected. As I said last year, good fences make good neighbours, but we have to keep costs in mind. We're hoping with respect to the critical incident response by improving the security in that area that a more modest yet appropriate security system can be set up so that the inmates can again use this area of the facility.

Yes, it is a result of the incident that took place last year. Clearly, enhanced security was required and, as I say, a budget was approved, but the bids came in at far higher than expected. We are now going to a revised approach that hopefully will lead to an enhanced security so that the inmates will be able to use that area again, and hopefully this can be accomplished at a reasonable cost.

This is, of course, an internal policy of the government, but I would like to point out again that it was reviewed thoroughly by committee, and they had certain suggestions. Now, I will say that of course, ultimately this government is guided by section 35 of the Constitution. I do not think we are contemplating another review of the policy. It was reviewed by Cabinet, reviewed by committee, and so the policy is now in place. Of course, if there can be improvements to it, we would always be open to hearing about those types of suggestions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.