Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the letter having gone to YK 1 only last week, it's my intention to leave some time to find out where the situation moves from here. I am quite prepared to meet with parties and have discussions, but I am not going to negotiate here in the House. Thank you.

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

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions today are to the Premier about the socio-economic impact fund that the federal government had promised to corridor communities along the Mackenzie gas project. In a letter that was addressed to our Premier from the Yellowknives Dene First Nation about the Akaitcho territory, which I will be tabling in the House later. Mr. Speaker, I know the territorial government did offer the non-corridor communities, I think two years ago, about $30,000 per community to do some socio-economic impact assessments in these communities. Even though I didn't really feel that the $30,000 was really near enough to do any kind of socio-economic work in any communities, especially to do a comprehensive report which is required for the Mackenzie gas project, I want to ask if this government was aware while the socio-economic funding negotiations were going on, why this government didn't advocate for all the regions to be covered under this impact fund accordingly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think every day we are advocating on behalf of all communities and that's what resource revenue sharing talks are all about, is getting a share that can be divided in a fair way amongst all our communities and people so that everybody benefits. That's what resource revenue sharing is, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not talking about the resource revenue sharing negotiations; I am talking about the $500 million that the federal government has offered to corridor communities. None of that money is available to non-corridor communities. That includes Tlicho and Akaitcho. If we are not going to get any of that money, I know we are well aware that the $500 million is contingent upon pipeline approval, but if the pipeline does go through, what kind of contingency funding do the non-corridor communities have to access to mitigate socio-economic impacts that they are going to feel just as hard as any other community in the NWT? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have done a lot of work on the impacts. We did give money, as the Member mentioned, to communities to look at the impacts. Mr. Speaker, every community, every band council, is free to go and negotiate their own agreement if they want to. They don't have to work it through us, Mr. Speaker. Our focus has been getting a fair share of resource revenues. I think it's time for us to look at a share of the benefits rather than looking at compensation for something that will only take us so far. We are never going to become wealthy looking at compensation. We have to look at our fair share of the benefits from development. I hope all the leaders across the Territories will work with us on that one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Villeneuve.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the GNWT was at the table to talk about this $500 million to corridor communities to mitigate socio-economic impacts of the pipeline which they were successful in negotiating and this provides a nice cushion of comfort for these corridor communities, I don't dispute the fact that they are going to need it when the pipeline goes through. What do the non-corridor communities have that either this government can present to the federal government...I am sure we all negotiated as one unit to get this $500 million, but unfortunately Akaitcho and Tlicho were excluded. What do they have? If these corridor communities have $500 million, what do we have?

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. Those other communities, particularly the ones in this area here have IBAs. They have impact benefit agreements from the diamond mines. I didn't hear up and down the valley complaining that they weren't getting benefit agreements from the pipelines. They cheered for those who got those impact benefit agreements. We are happy with it and would hope they would be able to achieve the same thing when resource development came to their area. Mr. Speaker, everybody has the right to negotiate those kinds of agreements in resource development in their area. On top of that, we are negotiating resource revenue sharing and that's money to be spread out equitably for everybody. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure where the Premier is going with this, but I just want to make it clear when we are talking about a $600 to $800 million project in one region as opposed to a $10 billion project here in the NWT, I think the impacts...There is a big difference in how the impact is going to be. The diamond mines don't impact the whole NWT in their development, construction and operation, but the Mackenzie gas project is going through five regions and 1,200 kilometres, Mr. Speaker. We aren't talking about just a diamond mine here. The ripple effect of the Mackenzie gas project is going to be felt right through to Nunavut, I am sure. We don't have any contingency funding for the small communities which people are going to be moving to, living and working and maybe have a social impact there. What do those communities have and what can this government offer to those communities to mitigate those effects? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The ripple effect of the pipeline happening or not happening is going to affect I would guess all of Canada where they have this extra source of gas. Everybody across Canada, in one way or other, benefits a little bit. But, Mr. Speaker, those along the valley are going to be the most impacted. It's going to impact their social system, it's going to impact their wages, it's going to impact the number of issues they have to deal with, it will impact their schools, training their people. It has a direct impact. It will impact other people as well, but, Mr. Speaker, we can argue for compensation for everybody throughout the Territories and that will, in my view, only get us so far. We will get a little bit of compensation and it will be something that ends up being almost token for some people. The big win for us is on resource revenue sharing, Mr. Speaker. We need to keep a fair share of that in the North. Most of the resource revenues right now come from the diamond mines. It doesn't come from the proposed pipeline, it comes from

the diamond mines. We need a bit of that to spread out for everybody. The IBAs that were negotiated with the people in the impacted area, it's their money to deal with their socio-economic impact as well as employment and contracting opportunities. That is the way it should be. Mr. Speaker, it is resource revenue sharing that is going to result in everybody benefiting from this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Oral questions. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question I have is for the Premier of the Northwest Territories and has to do with resource revenue sharing. In 2004-2005, Government of Canada northern mineral and oil and gas figures they gave on return of investments just for Norman Wells Esso Limited, the Norman Wells projects, the profits were $144 million. Mr. Speaker, these types of dollars have been coming out of the North for so many years it's not funny. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the Premier in terms of this issue here, it's a big ticket issue with resource revenue negotiations. As northern people, we have heard people talk about what we should be doing. I have asked the Premier in terms of the life of this government, what concrete plans can he muster up in terms of telling the government this is our position, enough is enough and this is what we are going to do in terms of getting resource revenue sharing benefits for the people in the North. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Honourable Premier, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, how the revenues from Norman Wells have been treated is a longstanding issue. The federal government takes the position that they have an equity share in the Norman Wells project, the pipeline and so on, therefore it's their revenue and it shouldn't be considered as part of the package of resource revenues. Our view has been that it is. What they have is an equity position in lieu of taxes. Therefore, it's the same as taxes. We have gone and gotten legal opinions on it that tell us that we are right. The federal government has gone and gotten opinions that say they're right. We are currently negotiating. The Norman Wells revenue is one of the six items that are being negotiated weekly as I speak. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I heard some of our Members talk about moratorium in this issue here. It's a huge word in terms of how the impact is going to be in the Northwest Territories. So we need to have some very careful discussions. I guess my point then, Mr. Speaker, is asking would the Premier, in terms of a strong action plan that would go so far as Danny Williams demonstrated in terms of taking the flags down or Mrs. Groenewegen talked about taking a bus across the country to, in terms of even my suggestion of having a hand games tournament with the federal government over the resource revenue sharing. I guess I'm looking for the Premier's leadership and his time within this government that we can do in terms of getting the attention of the federal government that this is a life and death issue here. We're talking about our people here. We're talking about our land, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Handley.