Thank you, Mr. Antoine. About three people have made general comments but they also raised some general questions. I would like to ask the Minister if he wants to respond to all or any of the issues that have been raised?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I can just make a quick statement and try to clarify a number of the points that were raised. Mr. Ballantyne raised the question of orderly development and the involvement of environmentalists. I think we have made it pretty clear over the last two years, and certainly over the last eight months -- whether it was the Premier or the Finance Minister in his budget address or myself -- that this government's position is that we're open for business and we must proceed with responsible development.

I think that's as clear a statement as I can make. I think the advocates and opposition should understand that that is the position of this government and that we intend to aggressively pursue the orderly and responsible development of mines, whether it is in the Lac de Gras area or, for that matter, in my own riding.

A concern was raised about the accord -- which is getting lots of profile these days -- with respect to the difference of positions with aboriginal groups that Mr. Antoine raised, vis-a-vis of land claims versus nation to nation with some of the First Nations. We've tried, in the discussions we've held, both formally and informally, to develop language within the accord that would provide comfort to the aboriginal groups and to avoid infringing, if you want, on the positions that they've taken, in particular where there isn't a claim. I've met on a number of occasions with the groups individually and, of course, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Nicholls are meeting with the groups as a whole in round table discussions.

It is extremely difficult to reach an arrangement when you have the diversity of opinion that we have across the territories. It would be my desire as the Minister responsible for Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to make an arrangement with all the people in the Northwest Territories. However, I have said up front -- and most of you know that I'm reasonably direct in what my position is -- that if I'm unable to reach an accommodation with all groups, it's my opinion that if there is broad-based support for an accord amongst the majority of groups in the Northwest Territories that we would have to proceed with the negotiations. That is my public position and I've said it on a number of occasions. My preference, obviously, would be to try to reach an arrangement with all groups.

I want to stress again, particularly for Mr. Antoine in his area and, of course, for the Treaty 8 group, that really I think we have aggressively pursued language that is satisfactory to these groups in order to provide them with the comfort that we are not infringing upon any arrangements they are currently negotiating with the federal government. It is certainly not my intent to do that and I want to state that publicly today.

On the alternative energy resources that Mr. Antoine alluded to also, we are reasonably active on it, but I think it is fair to say it is not a priority, quite frankly, right now. A great deal of our energy has been put into this accord and the development that is being driven by the diamond exploration. However, we are now looking at, along with the Power Corporation, other alternative sources of energy both in the dams...Mr. Zoe, I am sure, will agree that we were very supportive of the Dogrib and their arrangement of trying to organize -- and are, I believe -- putting together a dam. We do work closely with the NWT Power Corporation on wind generation. And, of course, at the same time, we are trying to -- at a very pragmatic level -- suggest to people across the territories that we have to be more energy efficient in both our old buildings and certainly in any new developments that we do. So that would be my general response, Mr. Chairman, at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. This morning I mentioned the need for us to become more self-sufficient, and I know that other Members have pointed out some of the political difficulties of achieving all of this stuff. But it seems to me that we have not only the political problem; we have the general problem of how we approach development. And for some reason, we haven't been able to make this as clear as we could.

I also went to a meeting in the fall, to the very first international environment management meeting, sponsored by the world mining industry. The whole conference dealt with the whole issue of development and the image that the industry has throughout the world. I spent most of my time with people from Africa and South America and I learned an awful lot. But it seems to me that the key at the government level is the fact that you have to have your act together.

I know that the Standing Committee on Finance has said we should give some focus and we could do things better, we have always had too many players and too many voices; but what I learned is this: if the government has a policy on development that is done in the way that many of us have suggested, everybody, every single person, becomes pro-development. If you say that you are in favour of responsible development or sustainable development, everybody is onside. We all agree that this is good, that development is a good idea, and you don't end up polarizing people.

It doesn't matter whether you have one person at the table, two people or 10 people, as long as there is only one person who speaks according to the policy of one government. The government has a policy. It doesn't matter who in fact is the person that then sits down to represent that group, because you have a policy that you have all bought into and you have all agreed with. That was something that came through very clearly at the meetings I was at: it is very difficult for people in the industry to come to grips with stuff if they don't know where everybody is coming from.

So it is absolutely essential for this government to have a policy which is clear and it doesn't matter who sits at the table, that is the policy that he or she is talking about; the one of this government. Not this department's policy or that department's policy, but this government's policy. And you don't need two, three or four voices, you only need one. Because it is backed up then, by the whole system that supports you. So that is why it is important, it seems to me, that we find some way of speaking with one voice so that we are all pro-development, but in a way that everybody can accept.

That is the first thing that I wanted to say. And for some reason or another, that penny hasn't dropped for the last five years when we've been pushing to try to get some agreement on how we are going to handle the interface between the environment and the economy. How do we do it?

We tried one thing, apparently it didn't work, for whatever reason. And now we have another group in place which is a replacement for it, which is called the Slave province regional study group, or whatever. But it is important for us anyway, that as a government we have something, and if the round table wasn't a way of doing it, maybe the priorities people can come up with something and say this is where we stand. Do all the consultation that you need to do so that everybody feels that this is all right, it is a good policy to have, then that becomes our position that we take that into the system.

The other thing that I learned, Mr. Chairman, at the meeting I went to -- again, these are people from all over the world, about 70 countries -- is that the technical people, the people who are involved in the engineering side of things say we have all kinds of people -- and we did have a few environmental groups at this meeting who came out of interest. So the biggest problem we have is this: with the people who come in who represent the particular interest groups, they won't tell us what the problem is. They sit and they bellyache, they moan and they whine and so on, but they don't say this is the problem, because we are convinced that if you tell us what the problem is, we know on the basis of the technological advances that we have made in our industry, that we can solve that problem. But there seems to be a reluctance to say, well, you know, that it's the water, or it's the this, or it's the that. People just want to make a statement, very often a political one. But if it is always presented in a practical, down-to-earth way so it can be looked at, examined and understood, then the people in the industry are convinced that with knowledge and expertise we can solve those because they are solvable problems now.

And we have a huge new industry of environmental technology which Canada is becoming a world leader in. It is a huge export industry for us, where all of these people in South America and even in Africa, can turn to Canadians and say here is an environmental problem that we have; do you think you could handle this? And we say, we have done that, we know how to do that. So now, environmental management is becoming a huge sector of our economy simply because we have the know-how to help people to solve those problems, as long as you have the people who are prepared to sit down and identify the problem that has to be solved.

So that was the second thing that I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, about the way we should go in relationship to developing this sort of primary industry, if you like.

I know many of us have the hope that we will get beyond being what we were called at one time: the hewers of wood and the drawers of water. Canada has had that kind of reputation for over 100 years, where all we are good for is to hack out stuff, supply the wood, supply the energy and somebody else will have the thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs.

I know that other Members have looked at the potential of mining in the north as a way in which perhaps we could branch off into doing secondary things; and there may be some potential there. But it seems to me, that we have to be very careful in the way we pose our demands because there are some things that would not be economic to do. We have to be realistic about what it is that we could do in a secondary way to do the value-added things that we agree would be good for us to have so that our people can benefit from employment.

If we end up being too demanding and say well, look, you know, no-go, unless we can have...Our bottom line is this. You may find out that because it is a very volatile industry, people

say forget this one, it's cheaper to go ahead and develop this deposit somewhere else.

I think that we can play the game as well as anybody to get the maximum advantages that we should get if you are the owner of a resource. And I think we have to be very careful, before we push the buttons, about what our bottom line is and so on, about what we would like to see in the territories.

But I do agree with the comments that have been made, that we should try to maximize the benefits, but not in such a way that you end up driving industry away from this part of the world because it is all ready happening. Several Members have pointed out that already you find investment going elsewhere because the climate is better -- I am talking about the economic, political, social and every other kind of climate -- and you wouldn't want to do anything that will say, well, let's forget all about this, we would be just as happy if it's not developed and nobody develops it. Because we would be better off in finding another place to do our work, where the returns will be better, there will be less hassle and the investors will be happy and so on.

But I do applaud the Minister for the efforts he has made in this area and I would urge him during the months of the summer, when perhaps the pressures are not quite so great, that he will look very carefully at trying to bring some of this home for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to repeat again, just for the record, that I think we have spent an inordinate amount of time in the last six to seven months trying gather support for the orderly transfer of the accord to the territorial government. Not just myself, but the Premier, the Finance Minister, Mr. Kakfwi and others, are optimistic. Mr. Irwin has indicated to me that he is prepared to move reasonably quickly. I'm optimistic that we can reach a reasonable consensus across the territories. I want to say that for the record because I think it is important that we continue to say it.

Mr. Lewis said earlier in his speech, and raised earlier today, the concern about the need for a sustainable development policy. We, in fact, do have one that was put in place in March 1993. I was advised by the staff because I asked the question when I went up the stairs. I would go as far as to say to you that we concede that perhaps we haven't implemented it or articulated it as well as we should and I want to ensure the honourable Member that I intend to do that post-haste.

In this policy, it does say, "The Government of the Northwest Territories will promote exploration, development and the use of mineral aggregate and fossil fuel resources in ways that maintain lasting social and economic benefits while maintaining ecological processes and natural diversity." Now, maybe that's a motherhood statement, but it does clearly say, I would suggest to you, that this government is an advocate of orderly development. As I said two minutes ago, I am concerned and will concede that perhaps we haven't articulated this policy well as a government, and I want to assure the Member that will change post-haste.

With respect to the Member's question about value-added jobs, I agree entirely with him. We have to be extremely careful that the demands that we place on the industry are not unreasonable because there is a cost component. Diamonds are of an international nature and they are generally in, if I can be frank about it, Third World economies which does create a problem when you look at the costs of operation in the Northwest Territories. We're not a Third World economy where we pay someone 25 cents a day to polish diamonds, like they do in India. So, I think there are some fiscal realities out there that we have to approach.

However, I want to tell this House that we are aggressively putting papers together and working on strategic development policies. We are evaluating where we think there is some potential for value-added jobs in this industry, whether it be a sorting facility -- similar to what we saw in Gaborone and Botswana when my colleagues and I travelled there -- or a polishing facility, and the value that comes with it. I do want to say that I'm told this mine is now going to cost $800 million in terms of capital costs. If the business community in the Northwest Territories is as aggressive as we would like it to be, surely to goodness at least in the front end and the building of it, there will be significant benefits accrued to not only northern business but to businesses in southern Canada, in Alberta, BC and Ontario.

In the long term, I'm told that there is somewhere between $200 and $300 million worth of spending on an annual basis and I would hope that the business community, the jobs and the disposable income would have a strong northern reflection to it. We certainly intend to take steps to work with the industry, not to impede its ability to make profits, but to enhance it with the development of some involvement of northerners, whether it is in employment training, job or service opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, I'm as equally concerned as others that we do not continue to be wards of the state and that we find a way to become less dependent on the transfers which the Finance Minister has mentioned, if I may suggest, until he is blue in the face. I really believe we are all in sync with this thing. I think that, generally speaking, the aboriginal groups are equally in sync. There are some distinct differences which we have to try to accommodate and I'm optimistic that we can. Thank you.

Just a brief comment. Before I opened my mouth, Mr. Chairman, about the lack of policy -- and in fact, I did it twice today -- we did get confirmation from three departments of government last week that there is no such thing as a sustainable development policy which has been approved by our Executive Council. So, whatever may exist may be some guidelines.

What I find, Mr. Chairman, is that they are the mines, themselves, that propose guidelines. If you go to a mine, you see a whole list of what you can and cannot do. They decide. In other words, they've taken the bull by the horns and have said the people operating in this camp can do this and do that, but can't do that. They are doing the kinds of things that this government should have done in the first place. They have said, if there is going to be a mine, this is the way aircraft will behave, this is the way construction people will behave, this is the way archaeological sites will be looked after; a whole list of things.

In fact, all the letters that went from the various departments to the Department of Indian Affairs within the last few weeks about the mitigating circumstances surrounding the building of that little road contained all the issues they were concerned about. You shouldn't have to do that if you have a policy which outlines all these things. Because we don't have one, each department has to say, well for us, you have to make sure you do this; for us, you have to make sure you do that; and, for us, you have to make sure you do that. If you had a government policy, a real one, you wouldn't have to have different departments expressing all their concerns about the project.

That's what I mean about a policy. You've got to set it down. Don't let the mining people tell people that they can't hunt with this or they can't fish there. You should know and tell them what the rules are. Environmental matters are this government's responsibility. Thank you.

Yes. Mr. Lewis is absolutely correct. The policy we have is a general policy. It doesn't break down the detailed requirement of operations which he is requesting. We don't have that in position, he is absolutely correct. There's an urgency to get it put that way. We have a deputy ministers' committee, headed up by Mr. Nicholls and this deputy ministers' committee is to determine, if you want, the rules of the game and how we should behave. That's the current position we're in. I would concede that we're not in the position we should be in. I'm optimistic that we can at least get pen to paper and endeavour to try to get a more detailed approach to how industry behaves in the broadest of contexts, as Mr. Lewis has suggested, in the next six to eight months. But, he's absolutely correct; we don't have a detailed policy in place and we should.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I don't know much about the mining industry. It is only in recent years that the aboriginal people of this particular jurisdiction have been involved. In the past, we were only involved as people interested in training and job creation. Mr. Speaker, I would like to send a message to this particular government and to the Government of Canada that whatever the mining industry and government propose to do in the area of mining, that all should be sensitive to the lands that are used by native people in each and every region in this country. We have Nunavut; and in Nunavut, different Inuit regional groups. Likewise, we have different claimant groups who are either proposing to claim or have already claimed a piece of land in this area.

We talk about policies of this government and we have talked about the policies of our counterpart, the federal government. I think the policy of regional organizations is equally important. In fact, Mr. Chairman, I think it is more important because these groups depend upon the land for their survival. That strong message should be sent, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, at one point in time, aboriginal groups were part of mining companies, but only as people interested in training and people who wanted to get jobs. But now little groups from the eastern Arctic and from the western Arctic are saying that we want to be full participants and full partners in the mining industry.

Many times in the past, I have heard the mining industry and government saying that aboriginal groups are very nervous about development in their areas. Mr. Chairman, I think the message that has been forthcoming from aboriginal groups in both the eastern and western Arctic is you should respect our culture and respect our way of life. We are in the process of developing land use plans and in some cases, we have already developed land use plans. We are saying that these groups should respect our culture and way of life and know that we are not only participants in the area of training and jobs. It should be "p" for partners. We want to be full partners, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I attended one of the Kitikmeot Inuit Association meetings in Cambridge Bay some time ago. I think one of the items of discussion was people in that area wanted to be full partners. I'm sure I'm also speaking for the people of the western area, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, we know that mining is very important in this particular jurisdiction, especially in the area of Yellowknife. It is my understanding, Mr. Chairman, that Yellowknife was initially settled as a mining town. I think we have come a long way in the area of mining and we should be supportive of any initiative that comes out of the industry but, at the same time, be very sensitive to the environmental issues, especially where mining hasn't developed yet in the northern part of this jurisdiction. That's just a comment I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think maybe I should clear up some confusion; and perhaps I'm the instrument of the confusion. I think it should be stated publicly that clearly, there is interdepartmental cooperation between Renewable Resources and EM&PR now -- perhaps it wasn't there before, but there is now -- as it relates to stating our positions. Renewable Resources, as you know, does have the lead in providing the position of the government at these environmental review panel hearings. We are working very, very closely with them in developing our position to make sure it is consistent with the political direction given by the Cabinet. I should say that publicly.

In the long-term -- and I believe I have stated this in the House and others have stated it -- we are currently looking at the possibility of a sustainable development department as part of our cost-saving exercises and also as part of trying to reach a common position on issues of development. In an ideal world, I would like to think that at the end of the summer that we would be in a position to present to whoever is here in the new Assembly the possible amalgamation of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Economic Development and Renewable Resources. That is being worked on. I think it is fair to say that.

So, there is a unified approach between the two departments. The Standing Committee on Finance also alluded to this issue so I think it is important that I state this today so there is no confusion now as to what this government's position is. Any presentation made to an ERP panel would be done in sync and harmony with Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and it is my understanding that the Standing Committee on Finance has actually encouraged that and I believe has made some comments to that effect.

Regarding hydro development, I agree with the honourable Member that it is an area we have to take a hard look at. It will be a first, in terms of the size and the significance of it. I want to assure him that Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Department of Economic Development and Tourism, which I am responsible for, are watching and participating in this development in as an aggressive manner as possible because we understand that there is a potential for future hydro development once this first one takes place. Thank you.

Thank you. I would like to make further comments after listening to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. It has to do with the northern accord. I just want to get this clear. Mr. Todd, in discussing meetings with aboriginal groups and having all the aboriginal groups involved, stated that if he has broad-based support by a majority of the people then he may have to go ahead. He used the language, "if it is satisfactory to all the aboriginal groups at the table..." His statement indicates that negotiations for the northern accord will go by June. I'm concerned about my particular constituency, the Deh Cho area. Does that mean if the Deh Cho area is not on board by June, that you will go ahead anyway with the northern accord? I just wanted to get that clear.

There is a lot of concern on the part of some of the Members here, who are making it sound like it is going to be the end of the world if this northern accord doesn't happen and that all these mining companies will go elsewhere. It sounds like a scare tactic to me. I don't know anything about mining, but usually whenever statements are made like that, they are based on a study or briefing paper. I don't have those studies and I just take the sense from the words that are being spoken, that this is what is happening. It would be good to find that information out, if that is the case. If it is, we're in serious trouble here.

But the way I understood this northern accord, it is taking over the administration of oil and gas and mining resources in the north. My understanding is that we are taking over the administration of it which Ottawa presently has; it is a devolving of responsibility to the territorial government. What it really entails is included in it. But, the final analysis is that the amount of royalties that the government could levy on the oil and gas industries and mining companies is still controlled by the federal government. Here, there are smoke and mirrors and all kinds of hype that we are going to lose all of this mining, gas and oil activity if this northern accord doesn't get approved. But, the fact of the matter is, the real control will still be in Ottawa where they dictate the royalty regime for oil and gas. Maybe the Minister could explain this and clear it up.

During the Western Constitutional Conference, this was raised and the consensus was that the control that Ottawa has has to be changed so more benefits could accrue to people of the north if arrangements regarding oil, gas and minerals are changed. There was supposed to have been a study or analysis of that arrangement. I haven't, to date, seen such a briefing paper or analysis. That is where the control lies. It is not going to be in the northern accord. All I understand the northern accord is going to do is we will be administering oil, gas and mining, but the real control will still be in Ottawa. Thank you.

We appreciate those questions; they are very important ones, particularly for Mr. Antoine's riding and for the Treaty 8 people. The idea of trying to complete an arrangement with the aboriginal groups by June is what was agreed to by the groups, themselves. That's what I was told by the negotiators. At some point, you have to set some deadlines about when you can make or not make an arrangement.

So, I'm told by the negotiators that this is what they agreed to. I would have liked to have seen it a little earlier, but they've said they need another two months. Originally, it was April or May, I believe. I'm told now that the round table has agreed that they will try to reach an arrangement -- and let me stress, try to reach an arrangement -- by June. That's the reason I mentioned June, because that is what was decided by the groups at the table.

There were some deadlines set. The deadlines set are to determine whether we have an arrangement or not, that's all at that stage of the game. If there was a lack of broadly-based support, I said to the Treaty 8 people last week at a meeting, I'm not sure what position I would take, I would have to go back to Cabinet and also, at the same time, try to determine what my personal position was as a Minister. So I wouldn't want Mr. Antoine to think there was any implication there that we would just proceed arbitrarily. I don't know what position I would take if we can't reach an appropriate arrangement. So I have to say that. I said it last week and I have to say it again: we have to remain consistent.

With respect to an accord, I think it's important to point out, yes, we would take over the administration of lands and resources. We would also have the legislative authority which would then enable us and give us the authority to set royalties and taxation. So that's really the important component of this thing. We would, in fact, I'm told by the staff, have the authority to set royalties and taxation.

It does not give us the authority with respect to land use. That would still lie with DIAND and they would consult with the communities, et cetera, about development, to the best of their ability. Thank you.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say briefly, with regard to this department...First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I think all the Members know that I have been pursuing the Quebec hydro project that is being proposed, for quite some time. I have not forgotten this and I would like to pursue it some more.

It is very important that the environment is not destroyed and that we should do everything in our power to prevent a disaster in the environment. Whether it be in the west or whether it be in the east, I think the environment is very important and we have to protect it. Our ancestors lived off the wildlife that environment provides for, and I think that we have to protect the environment.

Looking at the future, I feel that the proposed hydro project in Quebec has to be watched properly to make sure that the people are involved in the environmental assessment review panel. I think that it's very important that we know how the people who are doing the project are going to proceed with their construction of the hydro project. Whenever there is something that could destroy our animals and our land, we have to have plans in the future to provide for the people. We all know that we have to produce those kinds of energy and that we have to be paid royalties. If not us, then our government.

Mr. Chairman, I feel this is very, very important for me, especially with regard to the Quebec hydro project that they're proposing. I will be pursuing this continuously, as long as I'm a Member of the Legislative Assembly. I just want to make sure that there isn't going to be negative impacts when Hydro Quebec is constructed, or anything for that matter. Whether there's going to be oil or gas exploration in the Northwest Territories, the environment has to be protected. Even though we know that this can generate revenue, we have to be very protective of the environment. I just wanted to make a comment in this regard, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Agreed.

---Agreed

Line By Line