Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d just like to

continue on this, if it’s all right. The joint review panel report is due out in January or February of ’09. My understanding of process is that that report goes to the NEB and a new process starts up, whereby the NEB decides, probably through public consultation, what recommendations will be implemented and so on, and that process will take some time. Is that a correct impression?

Minister of ITI.

The NEB has held hearings

and is in suspension mode until they receive the joint review panel report, at which time they will hold further hearings.

I’ll take that as a yes. Obviously,

there will be some lead time before any of these things really get up and running.

When does the socio-economic agreement come into force? I realize when you hoped it to — all the parties hoped it would be in force with early approval, but obviously, the schedule has changed quite a bit there. Is there an implementation date with the socio-economic agreement that’s hitched to the approval date for the project?

The socio-economic

agreement was signed last year by the last government. Our experience is that unless you have a board that’s up and running in advance of the pipeline, you’re never going to get caught up. There are some significant issues and preparation that you need to do if you want to maximize the benefits from a major project like the Mackenzie Gas Project — things like training plans, trying to organize and help to provide for maximizing the benefits from business. So that’s the primary consideration. Also there are some substantial subagreements that have to be negotiated in advance of the pipeline project.

I don’t think that really answers the

question. I certainly don’t disagree with anything the Minister has said there, but I was asking if the establishment and implementation of the socio-economic agreement is formally tied to the approval of the project. I suspect a prudent way to go, typically, would be to have the project approved and so on before putting too many resources into something. Given that this approval is a fairly general term that really means another process that will likely take months, and possibly several months, the initial hurdle might be a good place to start thinking about the implementation of some of these next steps.

So yes, if the Minister could answer that question: is the formal start-up of the socio-economic agreement tied to the approval of the project, any stage of approval, be it the JRP or the NEB, which would be some months, possibly many months, later?

The agreement has certain

milestones that take effect at certain instances. A board can be established now that is co-funded with the proponents. Payments are ready to start.

I guess I can go back to some of the experiences of other pipelines — the Norman Wells pipeline, for example. By waiting until the project was approved, the project never got off the ground. There was $12 million in training that was never spent and returned to the federal government. That’s the downside of waiting until the last minute to start planning and preparing for a major project, probably the largest in North America that’s going to be happening. To leave the details to the last minute I don’t think will benefit anybody.

Thanks for those remarks. Again, I

have to agree with the Minister: waiting until the last minute is not a prudent way to go. I’m trying to figure out when the last minute is. Perhaps the Minister and I have different impressions about when that might be.

I have to slide in a small remark. I’m not too sure that we’re going to recognize much when this particular SEA is in place.

I guess the member is entitled

to his opinion, but we think that the socio-economic agreement provides for training funds on an annual basis. Also, with the sorts of agreements that would be negotiated and the fact that it’s cofounded with the proponents, we think there would be some benefit to going forward with the board.

That’s all. Thank you.

At this time I suggest we

take a short break.

The Committee of the Whole took a short

recess.

I’d like to call the

Committee of the Whole back to order. We’re on page 10-19, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary, $6.018 million.

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $6.018 million approved.

Moving on to page 10-21,

Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Activity Summary, Grants and Contributions, Contributions, $991,000.

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Grants and Contributions, Contributions: $991,000 approved.

Total Grants and

Contributions, $991,000.

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Grants and Contributions, Total Grants and Contributions: $991,000, approved.

Moving on to page 10-22,

Minerals and Petroleum Resources, information item, Active Positions. Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you. I just wanted to make a

point that I noticed that someone else had a concern with headquarters going up by two positions. You go further down, and Beaufort-Delta loses one position. I think it was an oil and gas specialist or something along those lines.

I just wanted to note that I have serious concern with that. It seems to be a pattern that you’re following too much. I think we just passed a motion before, talking about decentralization, and a few pages later we’re in a position where we see a couple of positions being added to headquarters and one being taken away from the Beaufort-Delta — the centre of the oil and gas industry, I might add. So I just wanted to make that note, Mr. Chair.

We’re on page 10-22.

Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair. I

seek

unanimous consent to go back to 10-21.

Unanimous consent granted.

Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted

to note that the Prospectors’ Assistance Program

has dropped considerably. I

understand there

wasn’t full uptake, but there is sort of a core uptake of that program and ongoing strong interest from a select but hardy few. I think that if we were to look at it, we’d find that there’s actually pretty good economic return from this small core of entrepreneurs.

So I just wanted to mention that I appreciate not completely eliminating this, and I hope that these dollars are not planned for complete elimination, because I suspect this is a very important program. It has played an important role in the past, and continues to, for this small cadre of prospectors. Thank you.

Minister of ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d

like to reassure the Member that it’s not our intention to completely eliminate it. We will review it as to uptake and take it into account for the next business planning cycle as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We’re on page 10-22,

Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Active Positions, information item. Any questions?

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Active Positions, information item, approved.

Mr. Hawkins.