Mr. Speaker, we are going to bring the two parties together to try to work to some resolution. It is difficult for me to get into the nuances here and the intricacies of the disagreement, but I have, from the mine at least, the assertion that what was being asked for at the meeting in Antwerp was the ability to take some of the rough they weren't able to cut and polish here, what they deemed uneconomic, and move it offshore to a lower-cost cutting centre. That has always, from a policy perspective, been a problem for our government because today, what is uneconomic, tomorrow may be twice that amount that is deemed uneconomic. We would have to have some objective way to assess that. It gives us problems. We see it as the thin edge of the wedge and could potentially lead to the downfall of the local industry here. So we work very hard to get an allocation of rough for the local industry here. We want to make sure it's there. We don't have the interest of seeing that rough move offshore. Mr. Speaker, obviously, it's very complicated. I will sit with the two parties and try to work through the issue, but that gives you some sense of what we're grappling with. Thank you.
Brendan Bell on Question 493-15(4): GNWT Position For Supporting Diamond Industry
In the Legislative Assembly on March 1st, 2006. See this statement in context.
Further Return To Question 493-15(4): GNWT Position For Supporting Diamond Industry
Question 493-15(4): GNWT Position For Supporting Diamond Industry
Item 6: Oral Questions
February 28th, 2006
Page 1468
See context to find out what was said next.