Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier missed the point. None of that stuff was spelled out in this letter. We talk about the effects of the pipeline when it shows up at our door, but this letter is in advance of the pipeline saying before you even get here, don't worry, we're not going to raise the taxes on you. So, Mr. Speaker, I think what we did is we traded our first class opportunity ticket for something less than coach. Why didn't the Premier tie this to some type of socio-economic agreement and make a stance on that point? He talked about jobs, potential of taxes, the $500 million,

the legacy, the benefits to northerners. Why didn't he have those things spelled out in his letter by saying if you want to do business here, we'll freeze the taxes, or we'll create a tax-friendly environment if you do this, this and this, such as build houses, guarantee that you will tie your development to northerners business? Why didn't he spell that out? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, there's a whole process, and if it takes a weekend, if Mr. Hawkins wants, I'll explain to him how all these pieces fit together. But there are many pieces, Mr. Speaker, that are beyond the authority of this government. We don't decide access and benefit agreements for the aboriginal communities and leaders. They decide that themselves. I can't reference that in my letter.

Mr. Speaker, it frustrates me when people purposely take a letter and read something that isn't there. I look at it and I say, okay, what we've said is we are going to maintain a post-devolution royalty regime for three anchor fields. That's in order to give the company some assurance before they spend $7.5 plus billion on a pipeline. Let's give them some assurance.

Mr. Speaker, we say we're not going to increase taxes for the pipeline assets disproportionately to property taxes to similar properties anywhere in Canada. We're going to be competitive. That's exactly what we said in Mr. Roland's budget speech. We're going to be competitive in Canada. Mr. Speaker, we said we are not going to directly have any tax affect that would directly target the Mackenzie gas project. That's exactly the way we treat every business in the Northwest Territories. We don't target businesses and put taxes on specific projects. We're just giving them assurances that we're good, responsible people to work with. Mr. Speaker, the other is that this doesn't include everything. We've said corporate taxes; we're going to work with you to negotiate and arrangement on corporate taxes, and we're going to do that by June 2006.

Mr. Speaker, those are all fair and reasonable positions taken by our government to say we are responsible. To top it all off, Mr. Speaker, we have said that this letter is a subject through the plenary legislative authority of the NWT Legislative Assembly, and that it does not...There's nothing in this letter -- and I'll read from it, this is tabled -- "...nothing in this letter constitutes a legally binding commitment or obligation of the GNWT or confers any right on your companies." This is a letter of comfort, Mr. Speaker. It's not a contract. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, the Premier and I see eye to eye on only one very small element: it's not fair. So why bother sending this letter, Mr. Speaker? I say why bother to waste our time to get people to write this letter? It's not fair. We should have said something along the lines of industry and big Imperial Oil whose donut budget is probably the size of $1 billion.

---Laughter

Mr. Speaker, who knows how much they make? They make a lot of money. Mr. Speaker, we were the only game in town. If they wanted assurance, all we had to do is say that, Mr. Speaker, we will create a competitive tax regime; fair. So, Mr. Speaker, obviously Cabinet is concerned on this subject. Why did we miss the opportunity? We missed the point of saying tie this to northern business, tie this to northern jobs and we will create a competitive tax regime that works for everyone. So why did we waste our time sending this letter? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It might be worthwhile to go up and down the valley and talk to people in the communities and see what they say. It's fine from this position.

Mr. Speaker, this letter is sent because it is a letter, a piece of information, a commitment that is necessary from our part, a statement of comfort for the industry, so they can get on with the public hearings. The public hearings are going on now. There is lots of opportunity for people to state their views to the National Energy Board or the joint review panel. This letter does not mean that the pipeline is built, or that the conditions set for the pipeline are all laid out. Mr. Speaker, this is a letter of comfort. This moves it one step further, and I am proud that our government was able to help move this project onto the public hearing stage. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. The honourable Minister responsible for sports and recreation, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this issue of passports was brought to the attention of the communities and the general public last spring. We had indications from the host society, from the International Committee and the United States government that there was a strong indication that it would be a requirement in order to go into Alaska to attend the Arctic Winter Games. We did put that message forward. We worked with Sport North. We did support their desire to have everybody put in their applications. The teams or people who were selected to attend the territorial trials, we wanted to have the comfort that they had their application submitted at that level. Everybody did have their applications brought forward. Now we are at a stage where there is some concern. There is a small number of people who have not received their passports yet and we are looking at what we can do for plan B. We are looking at using a general identification card or birth certificates that were required to apply for the passport.

We did not want to be in the situation, Mr. Speaker, where we had a large number of athletes travelling to Alaska and not be able to get across the border. We did not want to be in a position where we had to pay for people to come back. We wanted to have the comfort going forward that everybody had the identification and had the necessary documents, and that's why the passports were a requirement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the passports were a requirement of the committee that oversees the Arctic Winter Games, but they are not a requirement by any law, United States or Canada yet. I know if people were given the information that a birth certificate would suffice, $20 compared to $100, that's a big difference to a lot of residents in the smaller communities, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to ask the Minister if that option was known, or if the committee who established this policy had gotten official letters from the United States government and the International Committee of Arctic Winter Games that passports were a requirement, why didn't they print that letter in the paper and let people be confident that when they are applying for it, it's for a very specific reason and it's because of this letter? Why wasn't that brought forward instead of just throwing it out there? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this passport requirement is no different from the requirements that were in place when the games were held in Greenland. It's something that is required by the athletes and the mission staff when they are travelling to another country. In this case, there was notice given to us by the United States government, the International Committee of Arctic Winter Games and the host society that this may cause a problem. We brought that information forward. We would have requested that the athletes have passports regardless of this information, because it's something that we want to have the comfort that we are not going to have athletes turned back at the border, or mission staff, and have to pay for the cost of bringing them back to their home communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess if it's going to be a requirement in the future for the Arctic Winter Games, is there any appetite for this government to set up some kind of an assistance program, be it through the Income Support Program, that parents who want to send their kids to the regionals, or to the Arctic Winter Games, are eligible to receive the $85 or $100 cost that they just can't afford? Is there any appetite to set up a program to help low income/poverty or unemployed families? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. McLeod.

Mr. Speaker, there is a cost factor to take the regional trials. There is another cost that is incurred when you attend the territorial trials. There is another cost where you need to pay if you attend the Arctic Winter Games if you are selected, and there is a cost of applying for a passport. Altogether, all these costs associated for attending the Arctic Winter Games comes out to about $300 per athlete, that's providing you make it all the way to the Arctic Winter Games. Now the actual costs are a lot higher than that. We haven't looked at incorporating any kind of subsidy. In most cases, there are organizations in the communities that are paying for some of these fees. In some cases, the schools are covering the costs. So there are a lot of different ways that these athletes are supported. If the Member is asking if we are going to look at ways to subsidize the costs of passports, at this point we haven't considered that and we are not planning to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Pokiak.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my Member's statement, in September 2004, Public Works and Services tendered out a project to

upgrade the water plant in Sachs Harbour. Over the 2004-2006 season, there were a number of flaws encountered with the water treatment plant, but the major problem they encountered, Mr. Speaker, is the water intake line. The department should have at least addressed the problem over the summer of 2005. Now here we are in 2006 and they are still having the same problem that they encountered way back in 2004-2005 with the water line continuing to freeze in Sachs Harbour. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Services. Since the start of the upgrade for the water plant in 2004 in Sachs Harbour, can the Minister say how much money was actually spent by the department to date for the project and subsequent problems that were encountered in 2006 and 2004? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Pokiak. The honourable Minister responsible for Public Works and Services, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I don't have the actual dollar amount to the cost of the project from when the new water treatment plant was put in place to the subsequent amount of freeze-ups. The Member is correct; there have been significant problems. There is approximately 500 feet of this line buried from the plant itself to the water intake site. Some of the concerns were the heat trace that kept the line warm and whether it had enough power to keep it operational. They've gone in a number of times to try to do that. We've had just another recent problem with that and staff are once again going in there to do this.

Beyond this, Mr. Speaker, Public Works staff, along with the designer and hamlet staff, are looking at what other issues we might be able to look at, and we are also working with the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to come up with an actual replacement of that section of line. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Pokiak.