Madam Speaker, the facts may differ, depending on the sources you get them from. But one thing is clear. If the Member feels the emissions from Giant Mine are grossly unacceptable, then what is acceptable has to be established. Right now, we have draft guidelines that have been circulated to the industry and to the public since January. The responses we are getting to the draft guidelines -- that try to articulate what is acceptable for emissions of sulphur dioxide and other floating pollutants -- are going to help us get a public read on what is acceptable and not acceptable. Until then, it is difficult to make any kinds of suggestions about what is and what isn't acceptable, simply because there are large economic questions involved here. We need some basis upon which to have a discussion.
First of all, who can answer the question as to whether there's enough profit in an operation to warrant the operators and owners spending their money on changing their method of operation and, as a government, will we accept the liability for making the continued operation of a mine questionable in putting the livelihood and income of large numbers of families in Yellowknife on the line, without being able to answer the question, what we are prepared to do about it? Would we be prepared to jeopardize operations and, if so, would we accept responsibility for picking up the pieces thereafter?