Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that as we reap the benefits of resource development, it is possible that we may not diversify and establish a diversified economy as quickly as we would like. We need to assure ourselves and the people that we serve that during lean times, during difficult times, there will be enough cushion or resources set aside to carry us through those times. The suggestion the Member makes is a very necessary one and one that we must look at. We certainly will do that as we initiate our work. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are also addressed to the Minister responsible for the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development and in regard to the need for a non-renewable resource policy. Specifically I will ask some questions relating to the environmental component of that policy.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that while there is not a broad framework, the government has a number of separate components where they are trying to address the very many initiatives that are underway with diamond mines, oil and gas, timber permits and such. Very clearly, we need to bring those under a broad umbrella framework. We need to protect the environment, so we do not have another Pine Point or another Giant Mine. We have to be ready for when we take over these responsibilities.

My question to the Minister is, in the meantime, with the very many significant major developments underway on the horizon, how does he intend to ensure that the environment is protected for all Northerners? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government has recently given an indication that the environment, increasingly, is starting to take on very high priority. There is a federal commitment, as a partner in protocol, to carry out an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is a very significant commitment. We also know that the Minister responsible for the Environment, Mr. Anderson, in the last year, has come to the North specifically to look at sites like Giant Mine with a very strong interest in looking at how the federal government might be able to do a proper assessment of the extent of the environmental issue that revolves around areas like Giant Mine, and perhaps other abandoned mine sites with a view of assessing them and working towards addressing these specific sites.

We know that, as a government, we continue to take a view that development of mines, oil and gas, any type of resource development projects must assure the people of the North and this government that the environment and wildlife will be protected to the maximum extent possible. The processes that are initiated when projects like this are developed, assure us, and we always participate to the fullest extent possible. We did that with BHP. We did that with Diavik and we will continue to do that on a project-by-project basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that we have been responding on a project-by-project basis. The supplementary to the Minister is are there plans to somehow come up with a broad approach so there is certainty that there is consistency, so that when you go from project to project, it is clear. Regulatory reform and a cumbersome regulations regime puts people off; it puts business off. The same with environmental protection. Can the Minister indicate whether there are any plans to lay out a standard policy that people can see, that people can have input into and that will be a driver for this government that they can be held accountable for? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is the intent of this government and I believe, aboriginal governments, once we engage in inter-governmental forum, to set as an agenda item the requirement that we set up policies that would govern how as governments, we will approach resource development, renewable and non-renewable in the future. We will do this in partnership and it will be initiated, I believe, through discussion and partnership with aboriginal governments.

It will be done and it will be done as soon as we begin to convene our meetings and agree on the agenda. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has spoken to the future. Could he also speak to the here and now and indicate what the plans are? Or are there any different plans by the central public government to deal with all the resource development that is currently on our plate that is in our face, that is happening all around us. The future is good, but we live here, today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no future for this government if we act unilaterally, and we try to act alone and presume to have jurisdiction where we have none. The future we have, and I thought that we agreed to, was that the future is working in partnership with aboriginal governments to make sure we have a common agenda and a common approach to that agenda. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, nobody disputes the need to work closely with the aboriginal governments and all the other stakeholders. Can the Minister confirm then, that until all this bright new future is realized, that it is the intention of the government to respond on a piece-meal, case by case basis to major economic development and resource development? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would not put it in those less than flattering terms. The Member should be more complimentary and look at the results that a co-operative, consultative approach has achieved, for instance, on the BHP project and so forth on the Diavik project. By working in partnership with aboriginal government, by working with industry, although it is on a case by case basis, the results are significant. We have achieved benefits. We have achieved results that speak well to the approach that we have taken. Just because there is no articulated, written-down, established policy, does not mean that we are incoherent and inconsistent and without an overall approach.

If anything, the results should indicate that we have a well-thought out approach, albeit with a lot of different instruments and partners in the approach that we take. Nonetheless, the results are significant. I think that this is why the federal government and aboriginal governments are prepared to partner with us on more projects and with agreements on controlling management of Northern resources as well as sharing of the benefits of non-renewable resources through the revenue sharing agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development. Mr. Speaker, Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development is responsible for environmental protection and for resource management and economic development. At times, there is no doubt there are some very interesting and constructive dynamics within the department as they are compelled to balance views and principles between these two mandates. No doubt there is also a continuous tug of war for resources of money and staff within the department depending on the issue of the day between those with a mandate to protect and those with a mandate to promote. My question, Mr. Speaker, how does the department balance these sometimes contradictory mandates? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would say on the head of a pin. This is my first attempt to be funny in two weeks.

---- Laughter

Mr. Speaker, whether we have three departments all dealing with separate and different mandates, in the end it needs to come together. We need to balance the environment with our need for economic development. We need to take wildlife, land, water, air issues and balance them with our need to support job creation through diamond mines, and oil and gas development. We had an extensive discussion about this for a number of years. We have consulted experts, people from different parts of the country. Can you take a department of environment, for instance, and a department of wildlife and put them in the same department as the Department for Economic Development responsible for non-renewable resources, and I believe the answer generally was, it can be done as long as it is managed properly.

The point of it is, in the end, it really needs to go and be brought to be the same table. What we have found is that it gave us an opportunity to develop a department and a staff that take an integrated approach to their work so that they are not just bound by thinking about mallards or just about wolverines, but also about diamonds, about water, about habitat and protected area strategy, about an economic development strategy so that all the staff in the department take an integrated approach to the mandates that the department is charged with. It has worked well.

The exercise was also taken because we needed to reduce staff and resources at the headquarters level of which we have heard a little bit about recently. Originally there were three departments: Economic Development and Tourism; Energy Mines and Petroleum Resources; and the Department of Renewable Resources. By taking the three departments and, as somebody said, smashing them into one, we saved $10 million. Ten million dollars was cut out of Yellowknife, primarily out of Yellowknife, and that was the reduction exercise we made. It was not pleasant. It was not pretty, but it was done. There is no interest, I can tell you categorically, there is no interest on the part of this government to take what is now one department, that appears to be running very well, and making two departments out of it. We do not have the money. It would cost, $1 million, $2 million, $10 million to set up another department, simply to address a question that was addressed a number of years ago already. Thank you.