Yes, I think when you are talking a total cost of $286 million. I guess what I am saying and I think I need to reinforce it is, that the time that the Peat Marwick, I could be wrong. I cannot remember the name of the company. It may have been Kellogg Thorne, or one of those big national firms. They really did not have the level of information that we now have. I think that is fair to say. I am relatively comfortable that the number we have put forward in our creation of the two territories' plan is one that can be substantiated and not hypothetical. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could we assume then also that whatever the transitional costs for the new Western Territory that it more than likely will still come in between that $286 and $500 million as was identified a few years ago?

I am not so sure that I can give my honourable colleague that kind of assurance. I guess what I am saying is depending on what consensus is reached on the action plan necessary to put the fundamentals of government in place by April 1, 1999. Once that is determined you can name costs that course of action. You know what I am saying? It could be in an ideal world. It could be, but I would be reluctant to give a definitive answer on something that is so fluid right now because we still have not got to the table. We have not seen the Interim Commissioner's transition plan. They know what ours is. The federal government, there is more than one player at the table. I think he is trying to reach a consensus on a course of action. Once that is reached. You cost it. You say to the federal government you have to pay it. I am fairly confident that can happen. I am fairly confident that at the end of the day, the federal government will pay for it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a different topic. On the question of RFPs, I think over the life of this Assembly, this particular topic has had much discussion. I think that it is fair to say that there is a lot of work in preparing an RFP. If I could refer specifically to the RFP for the privatization of the liquor warehouse. I believe there were eight proponents who put in proposals on that request. As I stated earlier, I think it is fair to say there are large amounts of money expended in doing that. What consultation is there to a party in responding to an RFP, trying to put a package together to an organization in this particular case, the government who really has said we do not know what we want? This is what we would like to do. We do not know how to get there. What consultation is there to the time and effort that parties put into preparing those proposals? Thank you.

Well, you know if you lose, there is none. If you win, you are happy. I guess that would be the one way to put it, but you know I could tell you this government and other governments do not have all the answers. Sometimes that is the reason for RFPs, because as Mr. Henry knows coming from the private sector, there is a great deal of expertise out there and you need to look for some creative solutions. It cannot always come from government.

I think for clarity purposes I want to advise my colleague the person in the tender process we do not open the books, we give the price only to the competitors. In other words, we publish the price. Company A bid this. Company B bid that, C, D, E, F, G. That is what we give under the tender process. The RFP process, as I said earlier, has been raised by a number of Members for a variety of reasons, I would imagine. It is a method that government uses to get some creativity sometimes when we do not have it. It comes under significant amount of scrutiny, usually by more than one department, in terms of the final decision, and then it goes up the pipe. So, it is announced. I think the Premier has indicated and Mr. Arlooktoo has indicated they are going to re-examine that. I cannot commit today to saying that we could show one competitor how the other competitor got an edge if it was beyond price. That is what I would say at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My final question on this area. If the proposals that were presented, I would think it is fair to say that there is probably always questions of clarity needed in them. One of the proponents on this liquor warehouse proposal complained to me that they never received any contact list, any government official for clarification of anything in their proposal. Is it reasonable to say that when a proponent presents a proposal that everything is that clear, that no explanation is needed? I think that if the proponent found it rather offensive that they had gone to a lot of expense and time to put this package together and the evaluation team, if you will, never even asked them anything about it or any clarification or anything. So, I think that what they were offended about is all the time and effort they put into it. They are number one, not going to get a look at how they stacked up against the other proponents. They do not get a call for any clarification. They do not get any input into it, and a decision is made. It is extremely secretive. So that is what breeds discontent. What I would like from the Minister is some comment as to when Mr. Arlooktoo was going to be looking at this? When that might happen? What input ordinary MLAs will get, into that particular proposal? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me say from the outset as a former entrepreneur myself, there is always a risk side. I am sure that my honourable colleague had been an entrepreneur extraordinaire as he is, would not dispute the fact that when you duke it out in the economic constituency that there is a risk side to it. There is no question there is a euphoria when you win, and there is a certain amount of disappointment when you lose. That is the first thing I have to say that. He is not suggesting to me that it does not take place. I think that does. I have said earlier, and I believe my honourable colleagues have said we are looking at this RFP issue. I know there is concern out there. As a matter of fact a number of my colleagues' constituents talked to me about this in the private sector.

I would commit as the Premier has to suggest to my colleague that we are looking at it, and I am not trying to avoid it, but we are looking at it. I do not know today exactly how it is all going unfold. But certainly, you have brought forward some legitimate concerns from out there that this government will try to address, as have Mr. Ootes, Mr. Picco and others during this House sitting. I would close by saying that RFPs are an essential element of getting some creativity, where the government simply has not got it. I think that it is a credit to the government that they are prepared to go out there and ask entrepreneurs like my colleague, Mr. Henry, and his colleagues in Yellowknife for that kind of creative solution to difficult problems. Thank you.

Good Chairman. Thank you. That is one less. Mr. Chairman, I would not want to put a time line to it at this time. Again, I am not trying to avoid it, but it crosses a number of departmental boundaries. Intimate discussions will have to take place. Analysis done of the political positions of a number of people. We will have to move forward and try to find an appropriate solution that protects the privacy of the tender process and at the same time tries to provide some transparency that my colleagues have been talking about. That is an extremely difficult issue to deal with, but we will do it and we will do it as quickly as we can. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would assume, Mr. Chairman, that these proposals are all evaluated by a criteria. What I would ask the Minister is, could at a minimum the proponents get the results of how they stood as far as the criteria that they were evaluated on? Where they stood on that criteria? Would he make that available to the unsuccessful component?

I am not in position politically to respond to that because this crosses other ministerial responsibilities and I will discuss it with my colleagues and in discussions try to determine an appropriate course of action. Thank you.