Mr. Hawkins, I didn't hear a question there. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to pick up where I left off with my statement. That is to talk about the secondary diamond industry here in the Northwest Territories and the fact that, to date, on the Sirius deal, this government has lost $3 million. That is all I can talk about today with the government, is the fact that we have lost $3 million, but I just want to say that it is going to end up costing the government substantially more than that, Mr. Speaker.

As a preamble, what I understand is that we have a socioeconomic agreement with BHP. Whether the 10 percent allotment of rough diamonds is contained in that socioeconomic agreement, I don't think it is. What we do have, Mr. Speaker, is a written agreement from BHP to supply 10 percent of rough to northern manufacturers. We also have an understanding from Rio to supply rough to northern manufacturers. What I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Leviev Group, who went through the receiver, submitted a proposal to purchase the Sirius plant as a going concern and met all of the GNWT's due diligence work on whether or not they could be deemed a northern manufacturer and, as such, were deemed a northern manufacturer by the Government of the Northwest Territories, why did they subsequently fail in the negotiations with both producers to get a supply of rough diamonds, Mr. Speaker? The concern I have is whether these agreements we have with our producers actually hold any water, and what involvement did the government have in trying to see these negotiations through to completion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member is correct that at this point we have booked a loss for the Sirius operations of $3 million, and we entered into a process and had a court-appointed receiver put in place and followed through a process of trying to have the Sirius operation go as what we would call a going concern, meaning that it is a fully operational business, feeling that would be the best value we receive for that. We did enter in that process. The "receiver" entered into the process. It went out for bids to receive those. We looked at those proposals. We, as a government, made a decision to go with what we felt at the time was the best package that we received. We went about doing our work and felt that we were satisfied with our work. We are prepared to offer the Leviev Group a northern manufacturer status, conditional on them getting a supply of rough agreement with the mining operation. The reason that we are not pursuing this avenue any more is that they were not able to come to an agreement. I don't have any details of how far it went. Just knowing that our concern as a government was to make sure we tried to get a sale in as timely a manner as possible, it is unfortunate that we are not able to do that and had to go to the next option in working with our receiver once again on what options are available to us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for his response, but I would just like to know, when the negotiations for a sales agreement between the Leviev Group and the producers goes sideways, for a government that has sank millions and millions of dollars, time and effort into a secondary industry here in the Northwest Territories, cannot stand up and do something about it, I don't understand why we didn't step in five months ago, six months ago and demand of the producers that they come to an agreement with Leviev. We have lost millions of dollars. I would like to know what the Minister plans to do to mitigate those losses. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the first thing is for us is to see if there is a possibility of getting another deal through our receiver to take care of the Sirius operation, that facility, and see if we can keep it as a going concern. Secondly, as I stated publicly, as a government, we are going to have to review what options we have to try to strengthen our position with the dealings we have with the mining companies. In some cases, we may have better agreements in place. But for this specific one, unfortunately, from the FMBS side, our involvement through the receiver trying to encourage a deal and trying to find out where things are was very limited, as we entered into a very formal process through the courts. So that limits what we can do. I am aware that the Minister of RWED, through his shop, was also monitoring what was going on. It is something that we, as a government, are going to have to look at if we are going to truly encourage the secondary industry from not only a mining operation, but any development of non-renewable resources in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to again thank the Minister for his response. I would like to know if it's in the government's future to support this industry and if it is, why are they saying today maybe we will bring in some stronger measures to deal with the producers after we've lost millions of dollars? I would like to know why today it's a concern, when unfortunately in the '90s I know there was a former Finance Minister who stood up in the House in 1997 and said they would bring in a tax to choke a mule before BHP went into production. Maybe the government in the 1990s didn't go far enough, Mr. Speaker. We've already lost millions and millions of dollars and I would like to suggest that the Finance Minister and this government take a firm stance, so that we don't lose any more money and that we can support the secondary industry that we have spent a tremendous amount of money on in the Northwest Territories, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of RWED a question, Mr. Speaker. What is currently stopping this government from going back to the producers and saying we have this agreement with BHP for 10 percent and we have an understanding with Rio for 10 percent? I don't know if it's quite 10 percent, but to supply rough. We set up a diamond agency, secretariat, or whatever, and we get the 10 percent. Then we set up an exchange here in the Northwest Territories. What's stopping the government from doing something like that, from going back to the producers and supporting the secondary industry? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't believe there is anything stopping us from doing that. We can begin the discussions in that area. My understanding in looking at the matter is there were some initial discussions in that area for the Government of the Northwest Territories to receive 10 percent and then look at some sort of operation to go out from there. That wasn't acceptable at the time to the parties involved. For us now, we have to go back to the drawing board to look at what options are viable to us here in the Northwest Territories and what it would mean for us to support that. It is a difficult thing.

When we look at the situations of having to come forward already for a $3 million loss for that operation and the Member is correct, at some point when we close the deal we will have to look at the numbers at that point and come forward to this House with potential further losses. The important thing now is to sit down and evaluate where we are, where we intend to go and look at the implications of that direction and the avenues we choose. The operation has been going. We have had the agreements. We've heard concerns from both sides. It is now time to sit down and re-evaluate where the weaknesses and strengths are and decide from there where we are going to go. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Short supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I see it, this is our territory, it's our future and it's our economy. There are many good reasons why we should revisit this, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Finance Minister, does he believe the secondary diamond industry here in the Northwest Territories is indeed our industry or is it the producers' industry and we are going to continue to let them call the shots? Let's take the industry back, Mr. Speaker, and let's revisit that, as the Finance Minister had stated. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is what we are going to do now, go back and review our situation, how things have unfolded to this date and look

at what we need to do to strengthen our position. It is timely that we do a review of these agreements, but we have to do this in a comprehensive way to make sure the avenue we choose, the road we go down is something that will be supported by this Assembly. We do have to look at what's left for the future. We know the non-renewable resource industry, at some time an operation will close down because it has used all the material there. So as a government, we are going to have to look to not only this government, but our future generations, our children in the Northwest Territories and see what's going to be left for them. So we are going to have to take all of that and look at if what was entered into was a success or a failure. We do have three operations continuing in the Northwest Territories, but, yes, it has been an expensive way to go to try to encourage secondary industry in the North and we've had a lot of doubters out there. Let's just say it's not over yet and we have to re-evaluate where we are going to go with this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are for the Minister responsible for the NWT Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, as a government, we concern ourselves with the issue of affordable housing in our communities and this is particularly relevant when it comes to affordable housing for seniors. Mr. Speaker, over the course of the past several years, there has been affordable social housing units built in communities for seniors. Hay River had about a $1.8 million budget on the books for awhile and the government very kindly accommodated the Seniors' Society in allowing them to explore various options for how best to deliver seniors housing in Hay River. So this money did stay on the books. Finally it was decided that the government would let a contract and would proceed to construct units of appropriate size and model for seniors in Hay River. The construction began on a number of units. Suddenly, they were boarded up and they have been left in that way for some time now. For the benefit of people in Hay River who may be wondering what is happening there, I was wondering if the Minister, Mr. Krutko, could share with the House and with the public the status of those housing units under construction in Hay River. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I don't have an update on that matter, but I will sit down with the Member and give her a briefing on it, at the time I receive it. I do not have an update on the question that has been asked, so I will take that as notice.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Minister has taken that question as notice. Item 6, oral questions. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member's statement I spoke about the reinstatement of the rent scale increases and who it affects, Mr. Speaker. It affects the non-government workers in my riding who work hard and pay their bills on time and who are comfortable with the current rent scale because it hasn't been changed since 1995, Mr. Speaker. Now this 30 percent increase from the 60 percent level to the 90 percent level means at least a $300 increase to their current expenditures, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know from the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. Speaker, what is the implementation plan for these affected tenants of the Housing Corporation?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the question with regard to rent increases, this is a project that has been implemented for a number of years that was a phase-in approach. They were looking at implementing it in 1995. They were supposed to phase it in over a four-year period, so it doesn't have a big impact on the tenants who are in social housing. It was a system that was supposed to make it fairer and easier for those tenants to realize this is what the increase was. What happened was in 1997 the phase-in was put on hold and now we are bringing it back to conclude the last two years of the phase-in. We have phase one, phase two, and in two years we are looking at completing that. The idea was instead of giving a total 100 percent increase in year one was to spread that out over four years, so you will see a 30 percent increase in the first year, another 30 percent increase in the second year, then a 30 percent increase in the third year and a 10 percent increase for the last phase-in in the fourth year.

The whole idea was to have a system in place to allow tenants to be aware that social housing is there to assist social clients and also to make people aware that we do have other objectives out there. The Member states that people are going to be impacted. A large number of these tenants will not see any increase. Sixty-four percent of the tenants will not see an increase. The other 15 percent, which takes it up to 75 percent, will see a $100 increase. The idea is to have a fair system. This is social housing for social clients. We need to ensure those other people who will be in the higher brackets get into homeownership programs to ensure that they are able to maintain their units for programs to help people get into homeownership. If you are paying that high a rent, it's important that we look at that.

This is just the conclusion of a program, which stopped two years ago and we are now trying to implement the conclusion of the four-year phase-in. It's not 30 percent in one shot, it has been phased in over four years. We are only implementing the third year of a four-year phase. Thank you.