Thank you, Madam Chair. I have asked three times. Would he do a risk analysis and liability analysis of this project? I think any bank that would invest this much money, or any financial institution that would invest as much money as this company is about to, I think should do a proper liability risk analysis of the project and know what areas are potential risk areas and what we are doing

to minimize those risks. I do appreciate that in the paper works that we have seen on this project there is information on that, but I think, as the project moves along, I consider that a very preliminary package of information. I think that the Minister has an obligation to do a more detailed risk analysis of this project. I am sure that is being done. I am sure CMHC is doing it. I am sure the federal government, somebody there, is doing it, too. I think we should be sharing that or getting information from them if we don't have the experts. So could I at least get the Minister to make a commitment to look at the possibilities of that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, in this area of the government, it would be irresponsible of us to proceed down this path without doing our risk assessment of the options that are available. As the Member stated, the initial package is preliminary and the discussions that have occurred. As we get further development and get a better fix on the numbers, we will continue to do that risk assessment and liability side of it. Ultimately, as a government, it is a big ticket item that we need buy-in from all parties and the federal government being a major player in that. Yes, we will be continuing to do a risk assessment on this process. Thank you.

Thank you. Next on the list I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just with respect to fiscal policy and I believe it was on 3-22 and get back to fiscal business here. I don't know how far the Minister has progressed along, or made any contact with the new Finance Minister. Just at the beginning of discussions about the fiscal responsibility policy, I know that we are kind of waiting for the equalization panel to make their decision. He can correct me if I am wrong, too. I think it is this spring. I don't know. Then again, it is kind of putting all their eggs into one basket, Madam Chair.

The committee kind of likes the plan that is laid out in the fiscal responsibility policy where we can repay our own. We do have the strength and the capability to repay our own debt, so removal of any debt limit. It is arbitrary, archaic, and colonial. I hope that the federal government can recognize that and give us this flexibility where we can start funding our own infrastructure needs. We can do all kinds of things, Madam Chair. It opens up a whole range of possibility for our self-determination, self-reliance and just ability to take care of all our communities and infrastructure that is in dire need of replacement, or firming up, or even new infrastructure, too, Madam Chair.

With that, maybe the Minister can tell me about how far along they have come, if they have made contact at all. I know there is a new government, but just having that initial contact there, that will go a long way. Perhaps the Minister can also tell me about some of their preliminary strategy and how he is going to approach this in the next little while, Madam Chair. With that, thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. The area of our borrowing limit is one of the areas that is critical to us. We have highlighted in correspondence with the new Finance Minister, although my discussions with him were brief, informed him that we were sending him a letter down to him. The areas in the letter cover our formula financing situation, royalty revenue sharing, resource revenue sharing, and the borrowing limit is another one of the critical areas. It is probably one of the more key ones if we look at a timeline of how events unfold, unless we get swift movement from the federal government to flow further funds north or come up with a revenue sharing agreement in the near future. One of the first pieces we need to get in place is a better formula financing piece and a borrowing limit attached to it. The Member is correct; if we can change that piece of it, it does give us more flexibility in how we look and deal with ourselves here in the Northwest Territories and to tie that to the fiscal responsibility policy that we've put in place. So the discussions we've had are very preliminary. I am hoping that we are going to have a Finance Minister's meeting here in the near future before the federal budget goes out. At that point, I will have a better idea of where we stand with the new federal government.

The Member is right about the expert panel report. Everything seems to have been put on hold. Things moved at a snail's pace from that point on. That report is supposed to be delivered to the federal government in the spring. We are hoping by May or June that we will start to see the results of that and begin in earnest discussions with the federal government about some of the recommendations that may flow out of that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought the Minister had said at one point last year, or before Christmas, that the expected transfer payment will be the same for 2006-08. Would that still be at $753 million? Would there be a major change or swing, maybe another one of those negative news items for our government? What's the best guess scenario for next fiscal year just because that equalization panel is taking so long, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We know for the upcoming budget year of 2006-2007, that amount will be fixed in legislation and escalated by 3.5 percent. So we know that one. For 2007-08 and beyond, ultimately it will come down to what the federal government will do with this expert panel report and what changes they might be willing to incorporate in the new deals that would come down. So to speculate beyond '07-08, timelines could very well mean, depending on what recommendations or the negotiations between provinces, territories and the federal government, we could look at another year extension, but it's hard to say at this point. It really will come down to how the federal government will deal with that report when it's delivered to them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Menicoche.

That will be fine for now, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Next I have Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. Just with the $491,000 for the increased capacity and the macroeconomic front of the GNWT, I am assuming we have already had some policy development in the GNWT with respect to any macroeconomic capacity. How much has the government spent so far in this area of Finance in developing a policy framework for the GNWT? What is the bill to date? Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have that information at hand. If we want to look back to 1999 at some of the work that's was commissioned and what was paid for that, along with the Department of RWED in '99 when we worked with the Canada West Foundation, as well as with the Canadian Energy Research Institute on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline impacts, I don't have that information available. We can pull it together and provide that to Members, or try to. It goes back to 1999.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. If the Minister could provide that information, that would be nice. I am just assuming if we are going back to 1999, we are probably in the millions of dollars by now with the macroeconomic policy framework, or the development of it anyway. If we have done impact statements or impact reviews of the Mackenzie gas projects, probably a lot of reviews with the diamond industry, just to clarify one thing, I hope I am on the right page with the Minister, the macroeconomic policy framework, is hopefully a framework that is going to give the GNWT a better picture of how the GNWT actually fits into the whole economic profile of the NWT. Is that correct?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. First and foremost, the work we have done in the past has been looking at project-specific areas and the impact it would have, the economic impact it would have in the NWT. We haven't officially set in place a macroeconomic mandate or policy that says this is what we are going to follow from this point on, decision-making items, taxation and so on. That's why we want to get this in place, so we can establish our own policy around this kind of work.

The overall issues that would happen, a piece of it would be the GNWT's capacity and its impact on the North, as well as the bigger projects that happen throughout the territory. So it would be a piece of it to measure the economic impacts we have that would affect prices in the NWT, as well as our tax policy positioning. So it would measure our impact, as well as from a government end. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Villeneuve.

Mahsi, Madam Chair. I am just trying to get the picture straight here. It looks like half a million dollars is quite a big sum of money for work that, I have to agree with one of my other colleagues, should have been done or something should have transpired out of some policy skeleton or a framework should have developed by now, you would think. I realize now the government is trying to get a better picture of how the government can benefit and contribute to the whole NWT when it's dealing with different mega projects that will be happening in the NWT at the same time and how we can work in unison with all these developments that are going on at the same time. I don't want to even think or try to fathom the idea that we haven't been doing that in the past for the last 25 years that the government has been in existence, or 45 years for that matter. Somebody must have sat down in Finance and said we should look at the big picture and figured out how our taxation regime with the mines affects the Mackenzie gas project, which affects exploration and back and forth. We should have had some work done by now that actually gives a general idea of how one area affects the other area, one department works with another department and how changes in one department can affect changes in different departments.

We must have something in writing by now or some kind of a skeleton to this whole macroeconomic development policy. Is there anything that we can look at to even get the slightest idea of where the government is at with this right now before we commit another half a million dollars to it? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Roland.