I am not aware of that, Mr. Chairman. I would have to check into it. All I know is that the Cabinet has approved this expenditure, negotiations have been ongoing for the last six to seven months, there is an expectation that we move forward to provide assistance to an industry that is a net contributor to the overall revenues and economic well-being of the territories. We are asking for support for that today. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. The honourable Minister, Mr. Todd.

This issue only got finalized recently. Discussions were underway with both mines. The FMB paper was only recently approved some time late summer.

Thank you. Resource Management and Economic Development, not previously authorized, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. Minister.

This issue has been under review since the price of gold collapsed and discussions have been underway since, if my memory serves me correct, April or May of this year. I do not recall off the top of my head, Mr. Chairman, what date the FMB did approve this expenditure, but I would be prepared to provide it to my honourable colleague.

Thank you. Resource Management and Economic Development not previously authorized, $1.5 million. Agreed?

Agreed.

Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

What we were trying to do here, Mr. Chairman, just to get the philosophy behind it was to try to tie the support, if you want, to a number of factors. One, we want to tie the support to jobs because jobs create revenues, creates consumer spending, creates taxation and creates confidence in the country at a time when it is desperately required.

Two, some of us saw and still do today, there may be some critics of this, which is understandable, critics of this investment and we wanted to tie it to the price of gold. In other words, once gold reaches a level that the mine can be profitable again, we wanted to get some of this money back and compensated. So the price of gold is a factor in this arrangement in that once the price of gold reaches somewhere around $400, and remains at that, Giant would be required to refund any GNWT assistance they may not have matched, at that time. There is a bit of a factor in there.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important I state today, the support we are providing in this particular industry at this time, which is a net contributor to the territorial economy is a critical one. It works out to somewhere around $5,000 a job. We currently agree and it is part of the policy of the NWT Development Corporation in the creation of jobs to go up to $10,000 a job. This company and the other one that was interested at the time is a net contributor. It pays corporate taxes, it pays personal income taxes in its' staff, et cetera. Now if I can just give you one statistic, and it is not one to frighten anybody, but it is one to illustrate the importance of this industry.

If the two mines were to hypothetically shut down tomorrow and we lost close to 1,000 people, that would mean $17 million less on an annual basis, in your transfer payments. $17 million. Never mind any other aspects or the consumption both these larger mines create, the confidence they give the economy overall, the reassurance it gives bankers to continue to have some confidence in this part of the country, the personal income tax, the corporate income tax. The indirect aspects of employment; Jackfish, I understand employs six to eight people directly related to the purchasing of power for Giant Mines. My understanding is they pay close to $400,000 in power costs. It has a huge implication for us. This decision to provide assist in which I am an advocate of, was not taken lightly.

From my perspective, it was taken in light of the overall fiscal condition of the country and the fact that we do get significant revenues for it. I do want an opportunity to get that in. I recognize my colleagues concerns when we hear what is going on in the smaller communities, but you have to remember, when I projected a balanced budget, I also projected what I think I am going to generate the revenues. This is one area where we get within the small revenues we do generate, a significant amount. It is not as if we are not getting, as I like to say in a number of times, a return on investment. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

Mr. Chairman, the combined impact of the Lupin closure, Con and Giant Mines both temporary or permanent shutdowns, cutbacks and employee lay offs, et cetera, has been a loss of 600 jobs directly in the northern economy. Not the Yellowknife economy, the northern economy and over $25 million in northern business expenditures. I want to assure my colleague from Tuktoyaktuk, as a Finance Minister from Rankin Inlet, who happens to live in Rankin or did, this decision was not made lightly. It is made in light of and I believe and others believe, my Cabinet colleagues believe, is the overall fiscal health of the territories.

Now, whether we would extend this to other operations should they be in trouble, in relationship to an operating mine, I would think the precedent has been established. If my colleague is asking is this precedent setting, in relationship to exploratory dollars in terms of a non-operational mine, I am not sure, I would have to consult with my colleagues. This assistance is provided to an operational mine in its exploration program with the reasonable expectation that the mine life will continue beyond the current life expectation of the mine, if you know what I mean.

It is done in light of the fiscal impact this mine would have on the territorial economy, should it close. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, it is not quite that simple and I appreciate my colleague's concern. Giant Mines had asked us somewhere around June of this year, for some assistance with their operation, as did the other mine and subsequently the other mine withdrew for whatever reasons. Discussions were underway over the last three or four months, headed up by the Department of RWED in trying to look at what kind of assistance this government could provide that was best suited to extend the life cycle of the mine.

I believe the committee's consensus was, or the technocrat's was, this was where our money, would be best spent. It would be tied to jobs. It would be tied to some recovery, should the price of gold go back up to a level that would then make the mine economical or provide the mine with the ability to pay back. That is the best way I can answer that question. I hope I have been able to do it for my colleague. Thank you.

The Minister for Resource Management and Economic Development, Mr. Krutko.