Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to be voting against the motion. As far as I am concerned, if the communication plan didn’t work out in this particular case, I don’t want to put the whole plan at risk. We should write maybe a strongly worded letter, but the bottom line is if we put our industries at risk, take our aurora industry, they are barely surviving as it is and here they are trying to open up new markets. For over three and a half years, I have been saying let’s find new opportunities and try to expand it. Yet, here we are saying no when they are looking at a new opportunity and...

Wait until I make the statement. It’s a good news statement in the sense that there’s some satisfaction that the government is dealing with it and I think our employees are the ones that feel the integrity was not there for some time, but yet the response being the government has chosen to go back to the original program, the one that obviously works. So there is a satisfaction out there that it’s being dealt with. I think that also needs to be highlighted here.

Now there are other questions Members are raising and I don’t want to underscore the validity of those. They’re very important...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a number of documents to table today. Application for federal Crown land dated July 6, 1970; a letter to Mr. Bill Malloch, February 12, 2000; a letter to the lands department of MACA, May 15, 2003; a letter to Randy Look from the Department of MACA dated June 10, 2003; a letter from the Member for Great Slave to Vince Steen dated July 17, 2003; a letter to Mr. Andy Tereposkey dated October 23, 2006; an application for Commissioner’s land made out July 11, 2007; a letter to Andy Tereposkey dated July 11, 2007; a letter to the Morin family from MACA dated...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I have to admit that was a mirthless answer but yet I was intrigued because there sounded like something there. But, Mr. Speaker, the fact is this Minister could say today, yes, we will look into this and, yes, we will make something happen. That is all that we are asking for, because this family is about to lose everything. It is going to cost us a heck of a lot more if we mop up the mess later. So let’s do something today. Let’s be proactive and let’s not see this family destroyed. Yes. That is all the Minister has to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

--...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to continue along my line of questioning I had earlier today about my constituents who are being pulled down into poverty because our government doesn’t seem to want to help them.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the Minister of Education wishes to protect the bureaucratic approach when there is a special circumstance here that is required. So I am going to hopefully look towards the Minister of Health to maybe see some sensitivity in addressing this serious issue. Mr. Speaker, extra home care will help this family get on their feet. Would the Minister of Health and...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Minister would take time to look at this scenario and this specific case he would realize that this family is going to lose their home by these fair rules designed by the system. Mr. Speaker, because we do not exempt the mortgage that a family member is paying and this government doesn’t pay the mortgage and fact that a doctor tells them that they need full-time care at home, that leaves no one left to go to work to pay the mortgage, Mr. Speaker. So when the father helps, they get it all clawed back so they lose any net gain they would have gotten from income...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Social Services on the heels of my statement today, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister to agree to look into my constituent’s case to see if anything can be done to ensure this family receives the assistance they need without requiring them to move into a hospital for the rest of their life or requiring their partner to remain unemployed by making some discussions and headway on the income support policy we have. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to draw attention to the plight of a constituent who is falling through the cracks of our system. This woman is suffering from a debilitating illness and, in her doctor’s opinion, requires round-the-clock care. However, she is entitled to home care services for up to 10 hours a week. The only alternative beyond that is she has been offered to be hospitalized. In order for her to be able to stay at home, her partner had to quit work to provide the care she needs. As a result, the couple now relies on income support. This couple owns their own home...

Thank you. There is just one other area I wouldn’t mind highlighting while I have the floor here, which is there was some mention made earlier about some training and wanting to make sure our employees are up to speed on the return to the original program, and if the Minister has some highlights he can point out in this particular area I think that will just sort of end the areas of questioning I have at this time. I just want to make sure that our employees have the proper training to the new PeopleSoft if that’s the case or if we’re going back to the old version, the new old version...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to put on record I raised the PeopleSoft issue last week and it’s easy to sort of get all wound up and excited about a process and a problem, but when the Minister replied, it was Minister Dent at the time, that they were going back to the original platform sometimes referred to as vanilla, well I wish we would just clearly state for the record the original platform rather than mixing it up with all these odds and sod names.

I got some feedback from a constituent who actually is a government employee who was listening in and I want to say for the record…