Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was originally my intent to try to go to FMB tomorrow and go to the standing committee and invite all Members on Thursday, on the assumption that we would finish on Friday. My understanding in talking to the Chairman of OMC, Mr. Ootes, is that there is some discussion about the possibility of moving and finishing on Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. However, I agree with my humble colleague who says we need to move on this because we will never make the sealift. It is certainly not my intention to delay the ability of the Ordinary Members to have total access and involvement and direction on this policy. We will just have to have some flexibility, but it certainly was my intention to meet with you on Thursday and maybe it is Friday or maybe it is the weekend and Monday. Certainly, it will occur and your involvement will be intimate and we will look forward to the recommendations and support that we are going to receive on the projects that come forward. Thank you.

Thank you. I have on the list here, Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we can all identify some of the benefits from this P3 initiative and I would like to start off by saying that I do not think that this P3 initiative is something that is brand new. I think the government has an obligation to ensure that the people that we are responsible for understanding completely what the initiative is about and remove any fears or concerns that they have by explaining as much as possible about it. This government leases space. It leases vehicles I think this whole question is about who provides the capital. I think if it can be reduced to that question whether the government does a project or whether private enterprise does a project, the main thing is who owns it and who is producing the capital for it. I think this is one avenue where the government can put some of that responsibility out to the private sector to produce capital for these projects. The government is still going to need these facilities, so whether they borrow the money for it themselves or whether private enterprise borrows the money and builds the structure, it is not the crux of the matter from my perspective. I think there are many examples being talked about P3 initiatives. We seem to, all the time, go away outside of the Northwest Territories to look at projects that have been handled on P3 initiatives, such as the bridge across the Northumberland Strait to Prince Edward Island.

Thank you. Mr. Minister, if you want to respond, that is your prerogative. Mr. Minister.

My honourable colleague is saying, do the developers have to put in equity and take some risk attached to a project, as the government will, in its lease arrangement or whatever P3 arrangements, the answer is yes. I suspect there will be a ten percent or 15 percent equity. Hypothetically, you have a million-dollar project, a company bids on it, and they have got to show where they are putting their money at risk, otherwise there is just no point in this. I think we have said clearly in any presentations we have made that the risk side of this thing has to be shared both by the private sector, whether it is on the development corporation or individual or a group of individuals, along with the government. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, but for greater clarity, I would like some assurances from the Minister that a private component will not be able to get to the table without having some of their own resources committed, that they can go to three or four other government agencies and use that as their equity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

I think I have indicated that we see the need for there to be a sharing of the risk and the risk means, in my eyes anyway, a former entrepreneur or groups of entrepreneurs or the development corporations have to take some risk by putting their own cash equity into the projects. I hope that is clear. If they see fit to go and seek long-term debt from either government-sponsored funds like the Aurora Fund, the BCC or the bank that is their business. Certainly we see

the element of risk critical to the success of this project. Thank you.

Thank you. I have on the list Mr. Henry and Mr. Krutko. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are getting to where I was hoping we could get to. Maybe I am not making myself clear enough. The Minister has talked about long-term debt, and I agree yes, I think that is a commitment. I am talking about the equity they put in, that it does not come from other government agencies. I think that is what I am trying to get at to alleviate the concerns from some of the constituents who have doubts about this to ensure that the equity, the seed money that makes it works. The long-term debt, I agree, can come from anywhere. I am talking about the equity they put in has to come from outside of the government. It has to come from the proponents. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Todd.

I hope that is what I was saying. I think that where people get their long term debt from is their business. They have to put equity in, and my experience has been when you put equity in, you write a cheque or you find the cash. I hope I am trying to answer the question properly. I am not trying to avoid it. Let me try a question on Mr. Henry. Is he saying he is concerned that government may put the equity in for a proponent? If that is the case, I do not see that at all. I think the equity has to be a risk equity because it has to be collective risk. Therefore, the equity has to be from the individual group or individual persons. That is the way I see it. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Henry, are you okay on that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I appreciate that the Minister did get the point of the question I was trying to make, and he did answer it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For now I will give way to other people who may wish to question. Thank you.

Thank you. Any time a Member yields to another Member, it is always appreciated. Thank you. I have Mr. Ootes.

Thank you. Mr. Ootes is suggesting we defer this item and move on to another item on the table. Do we agree that this item is not concluded but deferred?

Agreed.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I thank the Minister. The next one on the schedule, as it was agreed by all Members, is Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act. Mr. Todd.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very small amendment. This amendment makes a small change to the Income Tax Act to allow the Government of the NWT to delegate to Revenue Canada the authority to remit personal income taxes, in some situations, where the federal taxes are also remitted. This will reduce the administrative cost of making remission orders for this government in a small number of cases when they are issued. Only three income tax remission orders totalling $4,600 have been issued in the past six years. Remission orders are usually used to assist taxpayers when a very strict interpretation of the Income Tax Act would result in an unfair tax burden. That is it, Mr. Chairman. It is a very minor change which we discussed in the committee. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Todd. I believe the Member of the Infrastructure Committee is Mr. Henry, who will make the opening remarks. Mr. Henry.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Infrastructure reviewed Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act on February 4, 1998. The committee would like to thank the Minister of Finance and his officials for presenting the bill. The bill would amend the Income Tax Act to provide that when the Minister of National Revenue remits tax, interest and penalties to an individual taxpayer, he or she may also remit the Northwest Territories portion of the tax, interest and penalties. The committee noted that a mission might be granted for relief of extreme hardship and in cases where the individual received incorrect advice from the Department of National Revenue. Committee Members questioned the Minister about the amount of remission given each year. Members were advised that the remissions for the two previous years amounted to less than $5 thousand for both years. The committee noted that the corporations and groups of taxpayers such as northern residents applying for northern residents deduction, would still have to obtain the agreement of the GNWT for remission orders. As the Minister of Finance explained, the remissions for corporations and groups of taxpayers are more complex than for individuals and occur more rarely.

Mr. Chairman, following the committee's review, a motion was carried to report Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act to the Assembly as ready for the committee of the whole. Additional comments or questions of Members may be posed as we review the bill here in the committee of the whole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.