Mr. Chairman, yes, we can certainly do it well within the life of this government, and much earlier than that in my view. We will finish the climate change, or Greenhouse Gas Strategy, this fall. That one takes into consideration measures relating to the use of fossil fuels and other energy conservation ideas. That one is being done with a collaborative partnership approach of all stakeholders.

So I think that one alone will be a big piece of our comprehensive strategy. We could put together a framework over the next few months. As we develop an energy strategy, I think it is really essential that we do it in partnership with all the stakeholders. So I would say, again, estimating a year and a half to two years to complete a comprehensive strategy that we have buy-in from most of the stakeholders on. Thank you.

Next on the list, I have Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to pursue the same line of questioning initiated by my colleague, Mr. Braden, in regard to the Energy Strategy and the very pressing nature of this. I think oil is now up to $32 a barrel. I indicated Friday, that according to the Energy Alliance, we are spending, as a Territory, $270 million on energy, 18 percent of our gross domestic product. We also experienced, according to their estimates, about $130 million of that economic leakage south.

Mr. Chairman, I am interested in pursuing with the Minister ways that we can proceed on this, that are not going to overburden, as he indicates, an already overburdened bureaucracy. There are some key components I talked about previously that are already underway.

The Energy Alliance targeted energy efficiency, energy supply options, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Strategy and a policy and regulatory framework as the four key areas. We are already doing two.

Tied into that regulatory and policy framework, of course, is the whole, complex issue of subsidies. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider, since he sees the Arctic Energy Alliance as the natural vehicle for this, tasking them to come up with a discussion paper about how we can kick start this process. The one in the Yukon took two years from start to finish with the consultation and the public input and the amount of work that was done. We are already six months into our term and, like Mr. Braden, I am very concerned that we cannot afford not to do this.

Our budget is being impacted as we speak, just with the cost of utilities and energy cost going up as the price of oil rises. By winter, we are going to be in, I would think, some serious program problems trying to meet all these O and M costs.

Would the Minister consider, in order to get this process initiated, having his deputy meet with the other members of the Arctic Energy Alliance about coming up with a working paper to get us started?

I have already talked with the Chairman of the NTPC Board, and he as well shares the concern of the need for a broad energy strategy. I think there is a lot of interest. It is just a matter of getting the instruction and direction to start making things happen. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the advice is good and certainly we will talk with the Arctic Energy Alliance about doing it. If they cannot, then, as quickly as we are able to within the department, we will do it ourselves, or it may be necessary to even have it contracted out somehow. I agree with the Member that this is a crucial area and we need to get on with it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is in the area of the environmental protection on the issues that are coming to the forefront at Royal Oak. In regard to the possibility of a clean-up, we are talking some $250 million. We have a situation where we are finding traces of water contamination in our communities. We have had a national incident in Ontario, in regard to Walkerton.

I am just wondering if we, as a government, really have the resources or the ability to take on these large costs associated with clean-up. Also, the possibility of monitoring the environment so that we can safeguard the public, ensuring that they are secure with the different contaminants that are around us?

I am just wondering, can the Minister tell me if they do have an actual cost of what this government is going to have to face on the clean-up of Giant Mine? How much of that $200-and-odd-million, is our responsibility?

Mr. Chairman, none of the cost of the underground clean-up, which is the most expensive, that is what I refer to as $200 to $250 million, none of that is the Government of the Northwest Territories' responsibility.

On the surface, anything that is covered through the water license is federal responsibility. So the only thing that we would be responsible for would be whatever is not covered by the water license.

The clean-up on the surface is estimated at $16 million. I expect our share is going to be less than half of that, since the biggest cost is going to be the tailings ponds, which are covered through the water license.

Do we have the money to be able to do it? I think we will have to find the money to do it when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is about the environmental side when it comes to water contamination. In my riding, there have been traces of THMs in the drinking water of the community. There were alerts given by the Department of Health and Social Services. What role does the environmental protection group play with the environmental health people when you have situations like the THM problem in Fort McPherson?

Mr. Chairman, the responsibility for water issues rests with the federal government. When it comes to water quality, then our department, through environmental protection, monitors the water quality. It is not directly our responsibility. The provision of clean water to homes does fit within Health and Social Services' responsibilities. This is largely still a federal responsibility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under other expenses, $465,000, there is almost a $300,000 difference from the revised estimates of $165,000. Why is that difference there?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The difference here is related to the way we account for tangible capital assets. There were a number of smaller, under $50,000 capital projects that became O and M and have gone into this category. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can the Minister give us a list or an idea as to how many items he is talking about?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there are 16 different projects that were included in the capital program in the past. These are situations where we provide support to companies and institutions to take energy conservation measures. In the past, they were included in our capital. Now, because of the size of them, they are included in O and M. For example, there is a domestic hot water heating system in Yellowknife. There is restaurant equipment. There is a heating system for the Anglican Church and rectory in Inuvik. There are heat recovery units at Sir John Franklin. I could read the whole page, Mr. Chairman, or we can just provide the list of projects that have been provided.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Minister can provide that to the Members, it should suffice.