Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The commitment as my understanding was from our committee meetings and I think the concerns were expressed in the report that the committee did, was that consultation would take place, detailed consultation and appropriate consultation would take place with the stakeholders, the people who would be affected, in other words, the hunters, the trappers, so that there would not be a transgression of their hunting and fishing grounds and so forth.

Now that was three weeks ago. I know for a fact that no consultation at least that is what we were informed, that none had taken place yet. So I would like the Minister to explain to me how, over the last three weeks, detailed consultations with most of the stakeholders and the individuals who would be concerned with this, that might be affected by the building of such a facility, how that consultation has taken place in that short a period of time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Arlooktoo.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Third question, Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to have the Minister address another question that I have in a different area. I spoke earlier with other Ministers about the substantial cutbacks in capital funding of this government and that as a result it has contributed a great deal to our unemployment situation. The government is looking at the possibility of developing alternate sources of funding through joint venture projects and private enterprise with government combined. I wonder if the Minister would commit to providing to the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, a list of potential projects that the department would be considering, either that they would be responsible for themselves or on behalf of one of the other departments of potential joint venture projects that such a list be provided before Cabinet approval or FMB approval? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Arlooktoo.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Final question, Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think we all know and applaud the government for pursuing alternate potential of money to develop infrastructure in the north. I am concerned with the process by which that is brought about. I think what I want to seek is some reassurance from the Minister and perhaps an assurance that he will ensure that the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, in his case, is informed of any such potential joint venture projects that might be contemplated by his department or on behalf of his department and another department. The purpose of that is because the Department of Infrastructure is responsible for reviewing all business plans, and it only makes sense to me, Madam Chair, that this be brought about. After all, we are here to review the business plans and all the capital expenditures of this government. Therefore, I am sure that we can be a guiding process in this and a contributing factor to this whole success of something of this nature. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Mr. Arlooktoo.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. On the list next I have Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, along with everybody else it seems I was surprised to hear that the eastern Arctic fuel resupply project has resurfaced again. This time in the form of a Keewatin pipeline. Madam Chair, I am a member of that committee, or I was a member of committee if it still exists. I do have a memory as to what went on in those particular meetings. What stands out in my mind in regard to the finalization of the discussions on this eastern Arctic fuel resupply including the pipelines. It seems to me the meeting was held upstairs in Caucus room with all mayors or concerned parties from the Keewatin. The final result of that meeting was a motion that there would be no construction or funds spent towards the eastern Arctic fuel resupply. I distinctly recall Mr. Todd at that particular meeting saying that the project is dead. I recall him being quite upset that we did not understand what the word dead means. I understood it as dead. It referred to the discussions at that point and particularly involved discussions on the fuel storage facilities, including pipelines, the construction of pipelines from the shore to this new storage facilities. It involved also cargo storage areas. We were told there was no money for the project, therefore, it was dead. I recall Mr. John Hickes asking, why are we talking about this thing if there is no money for it? I recall that quite plainly, he was quite upset about it. We left that meeting with the understanding that this project was dead. There were no more discussions on it.

There was one aspect of the project that we could not avoid, and that was the hydrographic surveys because the federal government had committed x-number of dollars towards the project. Hydrographic surveys only. As a result, we had to meet those dollars in order to make use of the federal dollars. Therefore, that aspect of the project was assumed to go ahead. The hydrographic surveys would go ahead.

I was quite surprised to find out this summer that somebody called a meeting of this committee in Rankin Inlet to discuss the project further. But I did go to the meeting. There were no Ministers there. Mr. Todd was in the audience as one of the public members. The deputy minister explained this project as to what is going to be happening up to that time. It involved strictly hydrographic surveys. There was no discussions about pipelines to the beach at that point. I left the meeting with the understanding that the hydrographic survey project would go ahead, and they were proceeding as planned.

I was quite surprised, Madam Chair, to find out at our meeting of the Infrastructure Committee this fall, a month ago, two weeks ago, that DPW proposed to us that they are going ahead with the plan to construct pipelines in the four Keewatin communities, as part of the project of eastern Arctic resupply.

Madam Chair, there was very little discussion at the committee level because we were quite surprised that DPW was dealing with this thing now and no more Transportation. Transportation had it up to then. Why it moved from Transportation to DPW, I do not know. But I assumed that somewhere along the line DPW decided it was part of their responsibility.

Madam Chair, what this all boils down to, to me, is not a question of whether NTCL is going to lose a contract or not, that is not my concern. It is not a question of whether we are going to save $65 or $100 million for the Nunavut government. That is not my concern. I represent the west, and the west is going to be separated from the east in 18 months. The Minister has stated that this project would not be complete until the summer of 1999, after Nunavut. He has also said that this project is going to cost somebody $7 million, according to Hansard. I am beginning to wonder who that somebody is because I did ask in the House whether or not the Minister had the approval of the Interim Commissioner because I assumed that he would be responsible to take over the costs after 1999. His response was I do not have that information in front of me of what consultation has taken place with the Interim Commissioner, but this is certainly one of the issues. Then, certainly, we will be communicating with the Interim Commissioner. I plan to seek his support. In other words, the Interim Commissioner does not seem to be aware of this. That is what bothers me, Madam Chair.

I do not feel that this government should be putting themselves into a position where we will be constructing infrastructure in Nunavut that the Interim Commissioner will not take responsibility for after 1999. When I put the question to the Premier, the Premier said they were in the process of signing a protocol with the Interim Commissioner which would basically state that he agrees to be responsible for any payments that this government would subject him to after 1999. What is not clear to me is, does this mean any contract before he came Interim Commissioner, or after he became Interim Commissioner? Because I believe this is important because I believe there is Legislation in place that says he must approve anything that is put in place after he is appointed. That is what worries me, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I do not know how the Minister is going to respond to all this, but right now, maybe it is because of the hour, I am prepared to support a motion in the House to kill, once and for all, the eastern Arctic fuel resupply, including pipelines until after Nunavut. Let Nunavut worry about it. I am talking about a motion in the House. I am not talking about a motion here. I do not know what is required, Madam Chair, in order for the Minister to realize that there are certain things that require the support of the Assembly. What has been happening here tonight, Madam Chair, is evidence to me and to the rest of the Members I hope, of what has been going on with the Infrastructure Committee. When the department puts something to us like privatization of POL, it does not matter how hard we talk to them, how hard we try to make them understand that the ideas are not good. They are not supported. It is just not thought out right. We still end up talking about the thing month after month. I do not know what is required of the department in order to make them understand that some things we do not support. Even if it requires a motion in the House of no confidence for the Minister, I am prepared to do that too if he will not listen to what the other Members tell him. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Arlooktoo, would you like to respond?

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Arlooktoo.

Thank you, Mr. Arlooktoo. I cannot remember either. Any further questions, Mr. Steen. Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It almost sounds like the saga of Rocky. One, two, three, four and five. I have been listening interestingly as some of the questions have been asked and some of the responses from the Minister. He had mentioned the cost of fuel and that there would be a savings. I find it difficult in this day and age to see an actual government reducing prices when it is part of their revenue source. My question to the Minister would be on the capital planning process. Since, as the Minister has said, this is a new project as a Keewatin Resupply project, as the Minister said, was the one that died. That is I believe what he said. Seeing that this is a new project that is just up and coming and in questioning the Finance Minister Mr. Todd, earlier today, on the capital planning process, how does this project fit into that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Arlooktoo.