Thank you, Mr. Chair. I look forward to this policy framework as the Minister has indicated. There are certainly different levels of discussion we could have at that time. I am glad that the territorial government is putting together a process where these socio-economic agreements would have some strength in terms of ensuring that these agreements are strong so that the people could abide by them and have some benefits come to our Northwest Territories communities.

The other issue is one I heard on CBC this morning in regards to communities going to be impacted by the Mackenzie gas project in terms of the resources of natural gas. I know he has something here in terms of energy planning. Is there any type of recommendation that will be coming by his department in regards to some direction, guidance and leadership in terms of looking at the natural gas and oil? They said there was going to be some huge cost in terms of converting communities and homes into using natural gas. In the North, there was some talk about hydro development in my region. However, there are other communities that, if hydro doesn't fall through in our region, there is always the option of using natural gas. Is there any type of discussion paper coming forward from his department in terms of the use of natural gas, and any type of support he may be giving to communities in terms of supporting this option? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next I have Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, not particularly to the office but the general issue I was talking about in the general comments. I don't think we are overstating to say that this Legislature is very pro-pipeline development. We support the pipeline development. This Legislature passed a motion to say so. I am proud to be part of that team. I do believe, though, there have been lots of statements made about the fact that we want to maximize the benefits that come with this pipeline development. We want to mitigate the socio-economic impacts and, wherever possible, I am sure we want to minimize risks, also.

I don't know if this program area is the one that is in charge of looking at the overall economic picture of what the benefits might be and how we could best go about as the government to set ourselves up in place and set our people and industries in place to make sure that we do, what we need to do to maximize any benefits that come out of that. As I have mentioned already, we have before us a proposal that the government has put forward in the name of a housing project, and it is one that is definitely worth consideration, and we need to look at it and make sure that we do the analysis and make sure that it works. Anything that we could benefit out of this mega project is one that we should be looking into. So I'd like to know from the Minister what part of his department, or his staff, or what sort of work does this section or department do? What does the department do to look at the overall benefits and how do we determine that? What kind of work does it do? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things underway and maybe I'll just, by way of illustration, provide a little bit of background. I think Members know about and are very active in the Joint AOC/Cabinet Pipeline Committee and I want to thank the Members of that committee for their guidance and direction. But that committee oversees something called the Deputy Ministers Pipeline Steering Committee. That DM steering committee is resourced by the MVPO and their staff. But that steering committee does a lot of work on subcommittees with the various departments who are handling the various aspects of this project. So for instance, ENR, as Members know, is heading up our joint review process submissions. ECE is really the lead on some of the pipeline operators' training. Transportation is working on some infrastructure. Housing, for its part, is working on some legacy benefit work related to convertible camp housing, as the Member has pointed out. There is a joint communications strategy across government that is controlled by this deputy Pipeline Steering Committee and they advise the Joint AOC/Cabinet Committee on those issues. So the resourcing of this work is done largely by the MVPO and we do draw on departmental resources, not only ours but other departments in various ways. But I would say that we are involved in all of these aspects, whether it's hydro and the discussion of the analysis of the possibilities there or housing, having our people work with the housing people to understand what the possibilities are for legacy benefits, as the Member has pointed out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I guess it logically follows that if you ask a general question, you're going to get a general answer. So let me just get a specific question to a specific project. With regards to the new housing concept from ABCD Company, I'd like to know, we have put attached a specific dollar to that. It is a mega economic project. I mean, people who support it, support it because it's to bring not only a social housing benefit, but it's going to bring private housing because a lot of them will be sold to private markets. It's a massive investment by the government and private sector and the producer. There are lots of partnerships involved in there. It is like, I think, in my view, the single most economic investment project that we're going to see in a long time, other than the billions of dollars that the Imperial or whoever the producer company is will be investing to this economy. So I would like to know what specific role has this department played in looking at the economic impact of this project and looking at how to maximize the benefit from it. Has there been any economic cost and benefit analysis done on that? Has there been an analysis done on whether there will be any market interruption questions and how to maximize economic opportunities coming out of this? Has the Minister's department done any work to look at that? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I've indicated, we are playing this coordinating role and we are involved in these discussions and involved in the high-level principles that drive us. We know that we want legacy benefits from this project. We believe that convertible camp housing is one of the ways that we can see a legacy. But I guess on a day-to-day basis, we're not intimately involved in the details of any of the specific initiatives. So the housing project is not something that we're doing a business case test on in our own department. We're not talking about analysing the potential market disruption of those issues no more than we are analysing ECE's work on pipeline operators' training, liaising with industry to understand if this will meet their needs. That is left up to ECE, the same way the housing questions are left up to Housing and to Finance, who are also involved in that initiative. But we are and will continue to play this coordinating role. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that the more eyes and ears and calculators that go into any mega project like that the better. I mean, if the project has to stand on its own business case and the bankers and accountants and everybody should be looking into that because that's how you come up with, you know, a project this size and this magnitude and this implication should be going through a number of phases of scrutiny and I would encourage the Minister's department to look to that. If he doesn't want to get involved in the business of other departments, I would suggest that, at least with regard to the impact of eliminating BIP, which the Minister is considering at the moment, and I have asked questions to him in the House previously where it's been said that there'll be up to $200 million being invested in the North, presumably a lot of those monies will go to northern businesses and northern contractors, whether it be plumbing, electrical, or barging, I don't know, trucking materials, painting, or anything; carpeting, and setting up the lots wherever the private industries could get into. I'd like to know if the Minister could commit to looking at when he, as a part of his package in reviewing the BIP policy, would he commit in this House to look at the impact of elimination of BIP on potential business opportunities that will come out of this project? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. We can certainly do some analysis and work with the Housing Corporation to understand what their projections are of the needs to convert the housing as the details become more available. They've indicated that they're working with ECE on a training plan. It's important for us to understand and recognize how much ability there would be to be able to capture and make sure local labour is used. I think there are a number of issues and questions still to be answered that I know those departments are working on.

In terms of the business case analysis, that really is being overseen by the chair of FMB. There are resources there to ensure that the business case is sound. That is why the chair of FMB is involved. So there's an oversight mechanism there, the Financial Management Board is involved in the discussion of that project.

As the Member has indicated, it's very big and has huge potential, and I think that's why it's been brought up to that level where there is FMB involvement. So the entire FMB is involved in that discussion.

But in terms of BIP, as we do our analysis and have our consultation, we can certainly have some discussion around this project and others that may be coming down the pipe, so to speak. Of course, we have to make some assumptions. We have to assume that the work that would be necessary to convert camp housing would be tendered out or would be arrived at through a competitive process, i.e., no negotiated or sole-sourcing, because if it's negotiated or sole-sourcing, as Members know, then that really is irrelevant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Next I have Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see if we could get some more detail out on the floor here today about the department's plans going forward for our Diamond Strategy. One of the things that we learned recently was that we are no longer participating in the National Diamond Strategy, but that other priorities seem to have come into play there. Other priorities, the departure of some staff, and I think departmental or administrative efficiencies were listed in an explanation to the Governance and Economic Development committee as reasons why we were changing our game plan.

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, at least for starters here, could the Minister advise, from a financial point of view, just how much in dollar terms are we committing to our overall support for the diamond industry and for building and enhancing it, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Mr. Chairman, in this area we are proposing an '06-07 budget, as Members can see in front of them, a total of $739,000, and that compares to about $1 million in '05, just over $1 million in '05-06. But I would note that we think this will be further enhanced, the 739, with the addition of the certification funds of almost, we project, $200,000 going into marketing. So as Members know, and the Member indicated, there were a number of factors here, including efficiencies in the department, the decision that we had taken to focus more on local support and less on the National Diamond Strategy. I would point out that one of those positions was very heavily involved in our national efforts around the National Diamond Strategy and intergovernmental work related to that. Once we lost the need for that work, we felt we didn't need to re-staff that position. Of course, in addition to that, there were the two staff departures. So the answer is just over $700,000 as compared to just over a million prior, and those functions have been distributed in the various different areas of ITI. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Braden.

Mr. Chairman, by pulling out of the National Diamond Strategy, yes, okay, so we have saved ourselves some human resources here and obviously redirected it, but what are we leaving behind? What are we leaving on the table? What are we sacrificing by discontinuing, by stopping our involvement in this strategy, Mr. Chairman, which my recollection is we were instrumental in starting it up knowing that other jurisdictions in Canada were likely to have diamond mines? Indeed, Ontario is on stream now. Alberta may be the next one. So what have we left behind because we are no longer part of this national process, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.