Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I think it's generally accepted that the new Conservative government is very business friendly. If not for the public government, in the interest of economic development it's just not fair for the diamond mines to have to contemplate building on the roads to extend the ice road because of the weather conditions and such. They can't rely on it and it's not fair to ask the industry to build roads to do their economic development project and is this something that we're going to expect the oil and gas company to do? Certainly we're going to need roads to carry around Novel housing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why is road building to these resource projects, hydro project, oil and gas, something that's been in the books for so long. Why do we not have an agreement on federal government coming into play to build the road, especially when it's their responsibility to build new roads? Why do we not have an agreement on that? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess I can't give a definitive answer as to why we don't have an agreement. We've approached the federal government on a number of avenues raising this issue and what seems the cleanest and neatest, as we look to what the solutions are, is that it's not new money. It's taking the money taken out of the North and putting it, reinvesting it back here in the Northwest Territories. One of the issues we've always had come to us is the fact that the Northwest Territories is such a small population and that's why I provided information on the per capita amounts, whether it's how much the federal government transfers here and how much they take out in dollars with taxes, and on top of that you add the royalties. It's a matter of reinvesting the money from the Northwest Territories and having it spent rightly where it belongs, and that's where the resources are taken from. So we've approached that. We will continue to work with the federal government. In fact, we were hoping that this budget coming up with the federal government will in fact identify how they will deal with provinces and territories on non-renewable resources. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm still not clear. I guess this is a different way of looking at it, because the Prime Minister was here and the first thing he did was to be present for the opening of the first diamond mine in Nunavut. This government is very pro-pipeline development, and it is a federal government job to build new highways. I'm assuming that where the pipeline project is going to happen is going to require new roads. So it's not fair for the diamond industry to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to get their stuff over there. I'd like to know why it is and will the Minister of Transportation or whoever put this project, road project, as part of the project in negotiations for the pipeline development? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the fact is, with our resources, as the Government of the Northwest Territories our goal is to connect communities first with what limited resources we do have. That will be the issue. We looked all across jurisdictions, whether it's Canada and other countries. Large resource development tends to build their own infrastructure to where they need to go. So that's something that is always going to be part of the equation. In fact, we've partnered, for example, with oil and gas companies on extending winter roads or building them to a higher quality when they are going into the areas they are working. So we work in partnership with them and we continually use that as one of the avenues. But ultimately for new highways in the Northwest Territories, as I have laid out, and airports, it takes the federal government to come to the table. We've approached them on the specific issue of how we think we can achieve that and start building a Mackenzie Highway. But ultimately, it takes the federal government to come to the table and I think we have some workable solutions. It's not a matter of taking new money out of the pot, it's a matter of redirecting the money that comes out of the Northwest Territories and resource revenues. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, I would expect that any new roads being built will go through our communities, not just new roads connecting from the mines to the gas development project. If the federal government will come forward with building new highways to these projects, it would allow us to connect our communities. It's still not clear to me if it is the federal government's responsibility to build new roads. If we need to build new roads to connect these resource development projects, why has this not been advanced forward to make it part of the social economic impact benefits agreement or any kind of new investment, if not for the people or the government, the industry?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as a government, when we talk with large corporations looking to develop their specific areas, approached them on possible avenues where we can partner up together and it's been no different. When the talk of the Mackenzie gas pipeline came up, there was talk of roads. The proponents to projects are concerned about the environmental footprint and what will be considered in that review, whereas they see public highways as being

government responsibility. So our discussions have to go back to the federal government, which we have and we think we have a workable solution. It's a matter of sitting down with the partner that holds the purse in this case. So we are continuing that avenue of working it and we will continue to work down that path. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions this afternoon are for Mr. Roland, Minister of Finance. They relate to some of the ongoing saga, or one of the ongoing sagas of our Legislature, and that is our pursuit of a new territorial financing formula with Ottawa.

Mr. Speaker, last October, when we last met here in a fiscal update, the Minister advised the Assembly that the current interim TFF, as it's known, arrangement with Canada is scheduled to end on March 31st of this year. So the question I wanted to ask, Mr. Speaker, was are we going to see a new and better deal concluded with Canada on a go-forward basis for April 1st of this year?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in discussions with Minister Flaherty, the federal Finance Minister, on this specific issue along with provinces and other territories, the commitment is that this budget coming up will include issues dealing with formula financing specifically for our territory. We expect that as we've discussed around the Expert Panel report that's now termed the O'Brien Report, much of that will be included. Ultimately it's in the details of what is actually presented in the budget. So we are hoping that the fix will actually be put in place through this next federal budget and, in fact, it will mean a more stable revenue source as well as a better fiscal relationship with Ottawa. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay, the next federal budget, we are lead to believe that it may be delivered somewhere in the third week of March. We are all breathlessly anticipating that. Are we going to have a say in this, Mr. Speaker, or is this going to be decreed by Ottawa that this shall be the new territorial financing agreement? What kind of latitude do we have in accepting and concluding this deal, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, all the provinces and territories, along with ourselves, have had discussions with the federal Finance department, as well as Minister Flaherty, around what equalization for provinces mean and what formula financing would mean for our territory. We have used both the Expert Panel report the federal government initiated, that being the O'Brien report, as well as the Council of Federation Panel on Fiscal Imbalance, their work. We've used both of those reports in our discussions and put them on the table. I think it's beginning to show. In fact, the term of the O'Brien report being the basis of some of our discussion is a good thing because we welcome many of the changes that have been suggested in that report. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course, some of the ongoing sagas here has been our efforts to reach a resource revenues sharing deal and a devolution deal with Ottawa. Now all of these involve significant changes and exchanges, flows of money, large sums of money over time. I was wondering about the linkages that there would be with these revenue deals and with the financing formula. With the linkages that understandably have to be there, will we be able to see a formula financing deal that makes sense for us if we don't know how a resource revenue sharing deal is going to work, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue of equalization and territorial formula financing at the federal/provincial/territorial table has discussed how resource revenues would be treated in that sense. It's been a hotly debated subject. Some jurisdictions are in agreement with the reports. The O'Brien report discussed a potential 50 percent inclusion/50 percent exclusion. For us in the territory, if we were to get an exclusion from that or an inclusion, as we see it being established in provinces under equalization, that would have to mirror closely to what the territorial government would start seeing. So for us, we think the possibilities are, as the Finance Minister puts his budget forward, could be a solution in that budget that could affect us in the Territories and hopefully in a positive way. Thank you.