This department is mandated to work with all carriers and that is what we’re doing with WestJet. We’re ensuring that the transition is effective and efficient as possible, without placing undue burden on other space that is required by other air carriers.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been advised that both airlines have been asked to give up their counter space. If they have leased space, then why is the department making them do this? That’s not right. Both these airlines are good corporate citizens.

If we had another option for more space we would probably not be requesting the other companies to give up space. For the most part this is counter space that is not being fully utilized or only used on interim or certain flights. We don’t think it’s going to be an impact. We’re getting some reluctance from companies that don’t feel this company should be coming in. We don’t have a choice in the matter. It’s a system that’s not regulated in Canada and we have to find some way to accommodate them.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our government, what we know we’ve heard through third parties. We’ve had discussions with Minister Prentice and he’s indicated that his preference is that they let the deal arrangements be worked out and then we can go public with information.

Considering the pipeline is being built down the Mackenzie Valley and not anywhere near the Rideau Canal in Ottawa, I think it’s important that our government be at the table when these type of discussions are going on, that we know exactly what the federal government is putting on the table, and it gets back to my other point I was trying to make in my Member’s statement. The Government of the Northwest Territories throughout this process, even though we’ve invested at close to $50 million over the time that I’ve been here, we don’t have an equity stake in this project. If the federal government is going to come to the table, the pipeline is going to be built in our backyard. Where is our government when it comes to an equity position in this pipeline?

Certainly I share the Member’s enthusiasm for our government to get involved and take equity pieces on development, because that makes us a real player. But too often we don’t have a shared vision that everybody will buy into. Secondly, we don’t have devolution and resource revenue sharing.

The federal government has the responsibility for oil and gas development. The federal government collects all the royalties. If we were like Newfoundland, we could legislate a percentage share of the pipeline. We could back in and collect royalties so that we could get a piece of the action. But we’re not Newfoundland. We don’t have devolution. We are focusing our investments on the people of the Northwest Territories so that they get training so that we can get ready for the pipeline.

The bottom line remains that these are our resources. They’re located in the Northwest Territories. Once this pipeline is built the residents in the Northwest Territories are going to have to live with that piece of infrastructure in our Territory for decades to come. It would seem to me that our government has an obligation, on behalf of everybody here in the Northwest Territories, to get a seat at that table. If the federal government is throwing around all this cash, aren’t we going to get anything out of the fact that that pipeline is going to be located in the Mackenzie Valley in the Northwest Territories? What price is our government going to put on that piece of infrastructure being constructed in our Territory for the future of our residents?

We have provided qualified support to the pipeline and we have always said

that we support it subject to regulatory approval. I’m not sure where the Member is getting the figure of $50 million from, but certainly our government has been investing approximately a couple million or $1.5 million to prepare for the pipeline. We see the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline as a basin opening project for the Northwest Territories. Once oil and gas companies can see that they explore and discover oil and gas and they can export it to get immediate returns, you’ll see a dramatic increase in exploration.

Alberta, for example, drills about 27,000 wells a year. This year in the Northwest Territories we’re drilling two wells. And it stops at the border. The only reason it stops at the border is there’s no transmission facility for oil and gas to be exported out of the Northwest Territories.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Minister on the support for the pipeline. I agree with the Minister on the economics of it and the fact that it will open up other opportunities for oil and gas development in our Territory. However, this opportunity is only going to come around once in our lifetime. It’s not every day that you talk about building a $16 billion pipeline down the heart of your Territory. I think we’re missing the boat if we’re not in the room with the federal government, if we are not demanding of the federal government that they give us an equity position in this pipeline, because at the end of the day it is going to be in our backyard. My final question to the Minister: What will it take for this government to get us an equity position in the Mackenzie Gas Project?

I’ve had the opportunity to discuss the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline with Minister Prentice on a number of occasions, and the federal government does have the responsibility for dealing with the fiscal arrangements to allow the pipeline to go ahead. Certainly he’s assured us that we will be involved and we expect to be involved. The only thing that’s holding us up from getting an equity piece of the pipeline is money. If we get money and recognizing that the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline is a $16.2 billion project, APG, for example, will be getting a 10 percent share of the pipeline. So for us to say...Let’s say we get a 1 percent share of the pipeline. That’s $1.6 billion. So not only do we have to pay on the expenditures side, then we would collect on the revenue side, and that’s where it’s good to have an equity piece. But the main issue is the availability of money.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about a parenting after separation course. It’s a program offered in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I know this is not a flashy issue for most and it doesn’t create a lot of controversy, and it will probably get zero attention through the media process because there’s no kicking and screaming. But the fact remains about this issue is I hope it doesn’t lose the chance that we have for promoting a positive relationship when parents go through a divorce to help children.

I brought the issue to the attention of the Minister of Justice and he forwarded me on to his staff members to bring the idea to them. They had heard about it. I had an excellent meeting with his staff and I think it was very productive about this. I’d like to hear from the Minister of Justice about this issue, to see if they’ve done any work on a possible program called Parenting After Separation to help parents communicate, learn a little bit about themselves, and learn a lot about their behaviour and the impact it has on children. What work has been done through the Department of Justice?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Certainly our programs within the Justice department, the Family Law Program, all have goals of reducing the separation and divorce impact on children. Specifically to the program the Member has alluded to, he did raise those questions in the House during the previous session and we did follow up as a department. I’m glad to stand up today and highlight that we’re going to be offering a pilot program to deal with this particular issue. That will be slated for this fiscal year. It will be kick started. We are looking forward to that as well, and will continue to look at options on a long-term basis. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister could elaborate what the pilot program will mean. Are they going to promote the program publicly? The reason this program works, Mr. Speaker, is one of the key elements...I guess I will say it this way. It is court ordered. That is through legislation. The judiciary doesn’t have a choice whether they do it or not. They say, if you are going through a divorce with children, you have to take this program that teaches you how to communicate. I am just curious about how the pilot project will work, recognizing these special elements that are key to the success of this program. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, certainly this program will be on an interim basis as a pilot project. We are looking at options on a going-forward basis to make this program mandatory. In order to do that, Mr. Speaker, we need to identify the additional resources that will be required to deliver on a long-term basis. It will be once that happens, then information will certainly be available via Woodside or through our department on to the regions. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if the program is developed far enough along yet for this pilot project, but I am wondering if the Minister knows at this time if the project is going to be mandatory or not or is it just being set up as a voluntary basis that it will be suggested by the court. Has that step gone to that process yet to deciding whether it is mandatory or voluntary? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the program is not up and running yet, but it will be. It is all preliminary right now. It will be part of the option of looking at it on a mandatory basis on a moving-forward basis, but not just a pilot project to deal with issues at hand. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.