Mr. Speaker, when we look at why the $500 million socio-economic fund was negotiated the way it was, we have to go back to look at the reasons and the origin where it started. It started as a result of Imperial and its partners' efforts to negotiate access and benefit agreements along the valley. What they did last April is they shut down everything, saying that we cannot enter into access and benefit agreements with the communities along the valley until we get this issue about socio-economic impacts sorted out. It is not our responsibility as a company to build schools, set up treatment centres and so on. That's something that is really more in the realm of public government. That was their view. So all the way along, this negotiation was with those communities who would potentially be impacted by the pipeline. Mr. Speaker, that impact did not, and does not, give benefit. It didn't include the mayor and council in Inuvik; it didn't include the mayor and council in Yellowknife; it did not include communities outside of the pipeline route. Mr. Speaker, that's exactly the same situation we had when the access and benefits agreements and so on were negotiated on the diamond mines. It didn't include anything for communities outside of the area that was being impacted. It did not include Hay River; it didn't include Inuvik; in fact, it did not directly include Yellowknife. But it was strictly with those aboriginal groups who were along the route or in the area that's impacted, Mr. Speaker. So that's the origin; that's why it's set up the way it is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Joe Handley on Question 388-15(4): Socio-economic Funding For Larger Centres
In the Legislative Assembly on February 13th, 2006. See this statement in context.
Further Return To Question 388-15(4): Socio-economic Funding For Larger Centres
Question 388-15(4): Socio-economic Funding For Larger Centres
Item 6: Oral Questions
February 12th, 2006
Page 956
See context to find out what was said next.