Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I won't be as long. I see this pipeline not like a train, but I get the image of more like a hurricane or tsunami taking over Florida. It is just going to come through the Northwest Territories, destroy our little towns and villages. So anybody in a trailer or whatnot better watch out, because these big oil companies are coming in.

Mr. Speaker, it's paramount, it's not just critical, it's paramount that we receive primary benefits, substantial benefits, from this. In the Northwest Territories, we truly are the stewards of this land. However, I really doubt we have a veto on this project. There is nothing for us to hold our hands on our six-shooters and say this project shouldn't happen. There is nothing. All the Prime Minister has to do is say well, national energy crisis, sorry, we are railroading this project through. Again, I use the train reference but it should be more like a hurricane or a tsunami that is going to come through and take this stuff. So it is really sad to think that our veto power really doesn't exist, because national policy will take precedence over us.

Some people would say well, $900 million sounds like a lot of money, but when you equate that over 30 years, that's $30 million a year. I mean, do I hear the federal government saying they are going to deal with our social realities when they come? Disposable income is going to certainly sky-rocket in this area for a number of years. The pipeline is going to take a couple of years to build and the social problems that come with that are going to be here too.

So $30 million a year over 30 years sounds like a lot of money, but when you now have to pay for treatment centres, that don't exist today, that will have to be built, those things are going to cost a lot of money. Those are realities. So we need royalties that respect the job that we are going to have to do in the future and that needs to be a realistic approach, because it's costing us money to get ready for this.

I am sorry to say, in my heart, I really believe unless something changes dramatically, and I appreciate the optimism of our Premier, I really do, but we need something concrete that tells me it's not going to cost us more money than we will be receiving. I don't know what to say. Do we need a crisis like what happened in Oka to get the world's attention, to get Canada's attention to say something needs to happen? But we need something that screams loud and clear out there to say well, wait a minute. A lot of folks will be saying there will be employment and business opportunities, and I agree on a very micro level there will be areas, for certain, and it certainly will be good for all. But what about the words of training?

The Northwest Territories should be setting up as of today to try to be the NAIT of the Northwest Territories. We need a training centre to teach those skills that will come with this, to make sure that we don't have 5,000 welders. We need to make sure that we have people balanced in all types of trades out there to be able to have a real future. We need to spread out trade development, we need to get more carpenters out there. Heck, we need every trade. I won't get into how much. But when we look at the diamond strategies and things right now, did this government learn any lessons from trying to deal with these multinational companies on the diamond level? I mean, right now I think we are being treated like a Third World country.

Are there lessons learned? I don't know. I really believe in the long run, after the pipeline gears up and leaves, that we are going to have maybe maximum 50 jobs. So the legacy won't be how many jobs are going to be here in the end, because I don't think that there are going to be even 50 jobs to run this pipeline. There is going to be one head office somewhere in the Northwest Territories. There are going to be probably three or four employees at that head office, there are probably going to be three or four employees at each little increment along the pipeline, maybe a couple in Fort Simpson, maybe a couple in Norman Wells, maybe a couple in Inuvik to make sure it keeps running. We are not going to be looking at a big legacy once this pipeline is up and running. So, I don't know, I don't want to see us sell out our protected areas, you know our watershed areas. I don't want to see us sell our souls on this deal. Because we say we want the pipeline. I just don't want the pipeline at any cost.

Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to close with a couple of small points. The first one is a fair agreement. It needs to be demonstrated and if we don't receive a fair agreement, and we don't start to get that sense now, we should start figuring out how to stop the pipeline until we do. Because we want the pipeline, I want the pipeline, but we want the benefits that come with it. As long as the federal government receives the benefits, I think northerners are spending all their money from the northern perspective. Right now, I'm nervous. I have to tell you, I am really nervous.

Mr. Speaker, the last point I'm going to say is that the fact that all northern governments, be it aboriginal governments, be it the territorial government, all northern governments will be there to pick up the pieces after the tsunami comes through and wipes us all out through their economic development. Because for anyone to think that we can stop a multinational company like those out there -- I won't name them, but we all know who they are -- they are going to come through. We are just little peanuts to them. They are going to come through and they are going to steam through, this oil pipeline is going to come through because they want it to. And you know what? They get face time with the Prime Minister, probably more than our Premier, and that is probably what we have to remember. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. That is all I have to say on this issue. Thank you.