Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that we are not expecting to see the next mine in operation for probably three years. So, Mr. Chairman, why do we continue to pay a high price consultant who sits in Belgium, $225,000? Are we going to keep that expense up for the next three years, while we do not have projects for them to review?

Mr. Handley.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the consultant we have in Belgium, like everything else, has to be subject to review to determine that we are getting our money's worth. Having said that, providing us advice on diamond polishing plants is one piece of his work. There are a number of other initiatives that are underway in the diamond projects section of the department.

One is including having a good monitoring system, so that we can be sure that our loan guarantees, for example, are protected to make sure that the stones they are working with are Northwest Territories stones and are not from somewhere else.

Second, another one is the certification program we are undertaking right now, to be able to come up with a program that certifies our stones, and it is going to be worthwhile in the market.

The third area is looking further down the road at other value-added, whether it is getting into the jewellery side more, or other ways of doing the value-added. Like everything else in the department, Mr. Chairman, I intend to have a look at the contract. I do not think we should assume that it is going to go on forever, as it is right now. Thank you.

Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would certainly encourage the Minister to review that program. We are talking about three quarters of a million dollars to a million dollars in outlay before we see the next allocation in diamonds available to Northern manufacturers. While I welcome the work being done on certification and I agree that we need to have somebody doing diligence, I would question whether or not the person that we are using has the chemical expertise to determine whether or not the stones are in fact from the Northwest Territories. It takes a pretty qualified person to take a look at the physical structure of a diamond and know or assess where it has come from. I believe his expertise was in the marketing of diamonds, rather than in other areas.

So I would encourage the Minister to make sure that we are, in fact, seeing our money's worth in that contract. Thank you.

Mr. Handley.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, the individual expertise is in the marketing and trading of diamonds. I think the main contribution he could make to us is related to his knowledge of the whole business of trading and diamonds. I do not think we could afford the equipment that would be able to tell whether our diamonds came from here or whether they were brought in from Russia.

I take the Member's advice seriously and we will look at that contract. Thank you.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask this question under grants and contributions but I see I can address it under the program delivery details of the Northwest Territories Development Corporation. In the main estimates document, it states that the 1999-2000 revised estimates, the Development Corporation is $4,100,000. The main estimates for this year are proposing $2,700,000.

I am aware that if this changes and things get moved around, that it would be done through supps and the revised estimates would show that result, but the 1999-2000 main estimates stick with $4,100,000 and the revised estimates are still at $4,100,000.

In the information supplied to the committee from the Minister, the Northwest Territories Development Corporation Corporate Plan 2000-2001, it states here on page 8 of that plan, the corporation was allocated a budget of $2,700,000 for the 1999-2000 fiscal year.

Can the Minister explain the differences in the figures reported? There is clearly a $1,400,000 difference in what is shown in the main estimates and the revised main estimates than the Corporation had contributed to it by the department. Can the Minister state why there is such a difference?

Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, the $4,100,000 continued to show up in 1999-2000 because of the late date when the decision was finally made as to what the contribution would be to the Development Corporation. The Development Corporation was only given $2,700,000, but it was too late to have the change made and an effort by the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development to have it restated was rejected.

So the $4.1 million is a result of the late date when the decision was finally made on how much the contribution was going to be made to the Western Development Corporation.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what was the date that the decision was made to only give the Corporation $2.7 million instead of the $4.1 million? I will save the next question for after his response, Thank you.

Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, the final decision was made in the winter of 1999. I do not recall the exact month, but it would likely have been in February or so. It was too late to be put into the main estimates.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are referring to having the dollars not available, the decision made in this past winter. I guess to me, the document was just printed up recently, and we have had a number of Sessions. If funding was going to be moved from one department to another, it would take a supp that is my understanding.

So, again, just for my clarification, the Corporation was informed that it would only get $2.7 million in the winter of 1999. That was well before Christmas, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, the decision to only give the Development Corporation $2.7 million instead of the $4.1 million that the previous president was insisting on was made after Christmas. I do not recall exactly when, but around February of 1999.

It was too late to be in the mains. Efforts by the Department of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development to have this figure restated to the $2.7 million were turned down by the Financial Management Board Secretariat. I am not sure of the exact accounting reason why they felt we cannot do that, but it was not restated. What you have here is still that old figure. Thank you.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It begs the question that if the corporation was first approved $4.1 million and it went from April all the way to February, we are almost done the year-end.

Why would they not have used that money within it? I mean, it was appropriated for their benefit. You are saying they were not notified until February of that year, which is the end of the fiscal year. So they would have $1.4 million still sitting in their reserves to be pulled away? Is that the understanding I have here, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, no, there is not $1.4 million sitting anywhere. The decision on what the contribution would be for the Development Corporation for the 1999-2000 year was made, as I recall roughly, in February. They were given $2.7 million. The balance, the $1.4 million was reallocated back into various sections of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development, and the biggest piece of it ended up being allocated as far as the expenditure of management process of cutting down on government spending. So it was not as if Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development was getting a windfall on it either.

So there is no $1.4 million sitting anywhere. The efforts to have this figure in 1999-2000 restated were, as I mentioned before, rejected by the Financial Management Board Secretariat. The department was told that it did not fit the criteria for restatement. So it has continued to appear as $4.1 million.