Robert Hawkins

Mr. Speaker, maybe to help the Minister, the old Minister used to say in the fullness of time, which if you were paying attention, that could mean any time. So needless to say, please don't use that further proof of what's happening.

Mr. Speaker, establishment of new legislation for a polytech university is the cornerstone of where it's going, defines it, and everything then comes out of it. In other words, its budgets, its plans, its mandate, etcetera, etcetera. It needs legislation to be real.

Mr. Speaker, when -- sorry, on the website, it says it will be released for completion obviously --...

Well, it's funny because I get -- what's the right phrase -- I don't want to say targeted, but I get target -- I'll say it anyway. I get targeted for not giving my questions to the Minister or advancing this up, but yet she scooped my last question. So good on her for being on her toes, Mr. Speaker, instead of heels.

Mr. Speaker, that said, I just want to reaffirm, with the contract coming up, will she ensure that Members are involved in some type of early discussion and will she commit to this contract we are going to do health care card business differently and more improved? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's probably rare I get to make a statement like this. I'm sure we will all agree in this House that health care dollars are precious. It's very difficult to find agreement on anything some days, but I think we might be able to agree on that.

Mr. Speaker, the questions I'll be raising today are to the health care Minister, clearly, regarding the security of health care cards. And that's always been something of interest of mine because if I recall during one of my previous assemblies, we had more health care cards out there than citizens. What an interesting paradox it...

Mr. Speaker, the Minister said something probably where I was going next at the end of her last answer which was believing that it did not increase the return. Would the Minister, in a response to my previous question, be willing to table that analysis before the House; in other words, as a return to the oral questions or whatever function she wishes to desire, also with the analysis of is it actually playing out as initially planned? So in other words, have they reviewed and studied the initial decision? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, I do recognize that a budget revenue is much different -- they're a different creature than the borrowing limit or the debt wall. But the thing is I'm looking at it from a bigger picture of the financial wherewithal so I'm just -- why do we keep saying $6.1 million when we know that's the placeholder number but, you know, when we're so tight on the budget on every aspect of it, it just seems -- wouldn't it seem more prudent to budget it at 3.1 as an example, being more realistic? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think that something that keeps getting lost in this conversation is it doesn't need an election to make this change, just so you know. It's something that could happen on the fly, so hence, being prepared for whatever may come is really what I'm getting at.

So before I push off of this, I may return to this point of carbon tax, but my area of question next was going to be the heritage fund. And we can actually see the actuals for 2023-2024, just 3-point -- well, we'll call it $3.1 million. I'm just using round numbers for sake -- but it's prescribed as 6.1 in the...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to pick up on one question before I go to the area I would like to explore. But one of the questions I think in my mind -- maybe it wasn't 100 percent clear, and perhaps it's -- I'll frame it this way: Is the department exploring options for a replacement carbon tax? Have they come up with scenarios or any type of framework if things change? Because I can't imagine the government sitting in complete absence of this in their mind and completely sitting on their hands while this is a live issue? So this is not more hypothetical. This is the fact that are they...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, these strategies have yielded probably something, and I'll let the Minister explain what they have, but there's an enforcement perspective that doesn't seem to be there, including consequences. Mr. Speaker, how are we meeting these financial objectives without going over the wall, as they say, or hitting the financial wall? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate my colleagues as well for this extra second. What would it take to bring it down to a -- say, a two-week standard as opposed to a 30-day standard? Again, recognizing that some of this is a lot of money, is there a way to practically do that just because of how much money can be outstanding for some people given -- well, I don't have to go at length, Mr. Chairman. That's only my question is, what would it take for the department to do that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, again, perhaps it's a bad question in the sense of I'm not focusing in enough because what I'm finding is the income support workers -- at least we agree that they're not social workers. But, you know, it's not a system that encourages in a manner of making it part of the program to get them to seek counselling, get them to go to job fairs, get them to show productive choices. It's literally show up, drop your paperwork, and then you qualify. I'm saying let's turn that around by making it part of the income support or income assistance program that they must be...