Thank you, Madam Speaker. Even with all these issues surfacing, the company negotiators continued to promote the idea of developing the project to KIA representatives. My question is, why? Did Metall officials not know of these issues? Unlikely. Did they choose not to acknowledge them or even try to neutralize them? Or, did the company want to continue promoting the project in order to generate interest, which may have drawn in other potential investors, such as the government? We will never know the answer. However, what I do know is that there are many disappointed groups and individuals in my constituency and the NWT as a result of the sudden decision to indefinitely shelve this project.

Metall has continuously stressed their excellent progress in negotiating the IIBA with KIA throughout the development of the project. It would have been appropriate for Metall representatives to have recognized and addressed outright the possible deterrents to the development of a mining operation at Izok Lake in order to minimize creating any false expectations, which is exactly what they did.

Madam Speaker, the indefinite suspension of developing the Izok Lake property, although a disappointment to all of us, is certainly not a catastrophe. The ore reserves are still there and continue to be one of the richest in North America. At some point in time in the future, it will become economical to develop these reserves. I certainly hope that the manner in which Metall handled the negotiations with KIA, by not advising them of potential problem areas in developing the project, is not indicative of the manner in which other mining companies will treat other native claimant groups in the future. Mahsi Cho.