Thank you, Mr. Handley. Short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally I have to admit that the Premier and I are starting to agree. We are reasonable people.

---Laughter

Then, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, why did we need to send a three-page letter to say that we will treat these people reasonably? It didn't need to say that we will not necessarily raise taxes. All it had to say was we will treat them fairly and not unlike any other district in Canada. We didn't have to give everything away. So why did that letter just simply not say that we will deal with you fairly and simply? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the Member doesn't read the letter or doesn't read very well or what, but it doesn't say that we're not going to raise taxes. Mr. Speaker, what it says is that we will maintain a post-devolution royalty regime that will not exceed the royalty burden in the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act. It says we will not increase property taxes disproportionately.

Mr. Hawkins, rising on a point of order, what is your point of order, Mr. Hawkins?

Point Of Order

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order, 23(h) which makes allegations against another MLA alleging I didn't read this letter and don't know what I'm talking about. I think that was wrong. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I'm going to allow a little bit of clarification, some debate on this point of order. To the point of order, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I said I don't know if the Member has read it or if he really understood what was in the letter, because he said that this letter says that we're not going to raise taxes and I'm just showing him that this letter doesn't say that. This letter says we're going to be fair. Mr. Speaker, I never said that he didn't read the letter. I don't know if he did, but I questioned whether he really understood it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. To the point of order. The honourable Member from Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Yet again, the Premier says the same thing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Chair did not hear anything that would, in my mind, constitute a point of order. So I'm going to rule that the Member does not have a point of order. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assume I can finish answering the question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm just pointing out to the Member that this letter says we're not going to have a royalty regime that is inconsistent with the Canadian Petroleum Resources Act, that we will not increase property taxes disproportionately. It says that we will not target the Mackenzie gas project

operators. Mr. Speaker, it says that we will work toward a corporate tax agreement by the end of June.

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Member's allegation that we've somehow committed to not raising property tax, that's completely untrue when I read the letter. It's very clear we're just saying we're not going to be unfair to the Mackenzie gas project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if we want to put a pipeline tax, this says now we're targeting them. So they're going to show up at our door knocking on it with a framed letter of comfort and say, but you said you weren't going to have something to target them. Mr. Speaker, they had nowhere else to go. We're the only pipeline in North America of this size. I mean, we're the only one. So by writing a letter to say that we're not going to unfairly target them, well, geez, if we put a pipeline tax or something similar to that nature, Mr. Speaker, then we're going to be seen as targeting them. They're going to come back. So how does the Minister defend that, or how does the Premier defend that position? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, for the Member's information, there are lots of other pipelines in North America. There are other potential pipelines in Alaska. We're not the only pipeline possible in North America. Mr. Speaker, our government doesn't target anybody. We don't target a pipeline; we don't target a mine; we don't target anything but our taxes, our general application, and we're saying to the company we're going to continue that. Now, Mr. Speaker, this letter is also very clear in saying that this letter does not in some way compromise the rights of future legislative assemblies, future governments to change that. Nothing in this letter constitutes legally binding commitment or obligation of the GNWT or any future governments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. The Chair feels compelled to remind Members of your rules around oral questions. We have used up 25 minutes and only gone through three questions so far. So I would like to caution Members to remember the rules around oral questions. Oral questions. The honourable Member from Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to my Member's statement today, I am also following with great interest the subject of the Novel housing initiative and this project. I am pleased to hear that the government would understand the interests of a company that has taken it upon themselves to go out and spend a fair amount of money investing in the design and the creation of something such as these conversion units that we've seen and wouldn't then turn around and take all the information that this company generated through their own efforts and then try to shop it around to other companies. Something would seem rather unethical about that approach to doing this. I do think that ATCO is a very reputable company. I think they started off in 1947 with the construction of one trailer. They're recognized internationally as being good at this, and they want to do business with northern participation. Mr. Speaker, I want to see the Novel thing succeed; I want to see the houses make it to the communities. In that regard, I would like to ask whichever Minister wants to answer this, I guess. First of all, there's 1,400 units. How many of those units does the Government of the Northwest Territories, through the Housing Corporation and their programs, think that they can absorb of the 1,400? Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. You need to direct your question to somebody; either the Premier or...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's on the Novel, so Mr. Krutko or...Mr. Krutko. Thank you. Mr. Krutko.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are earmarking half of them to be used to replace our public housing stock, and the other half we're hoping to put out to the private sector so we can accommodate housing for people who want to purchase these units out there.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay, then I would like to say that although I do applaud the government's initiative in this area, I am questioning and wondering whether the Government of the Northwest Territories is the best vehicle by which to deal with the 700 that might be absorbed by the private sector. It is, potentially, a business opportunity, and I have received calls from some leaders of some aboriginal community corporations who are saying that they would like an opportunity to potentially take up those 700 units, or a portion of them. Has the Minister given any consideration to inviting private companies to participate in the setting up, the distribution, the sale of those other 700 units? Thank you.