Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The kinds of things we’re talking about are that northern regulators would conduct the review of applications for authorizations and complete any requirements for hearings or consultations once the proponents conduct additional route alignment studies and detailed engineering. Technical expertise on the regulatory mitigation approaches to addressing air quality, waste management, hazardous materials management, spills planning, and environmental planning issues associated with oil and gas and pipeline construction activities will be required to handle the workload associated with the Mackenzie Gas Project process. Over the past two years ENR has developed the necessary expertise in the existing pipeline environmental officer position and I believe we have to do additional work with regard to the conversion of community gasification. So we would have to develop that and respond within a year once the federal government approves the pipeline project.

In regard to the overall pipeline, I think we’re talking about a couple of thousand applications for land use that is going to be required for land use permits. Are we going to have to bring in any special type of regulations into the Legislature to meet some of our obligations with regard to the recommendations that came out of the National Energy Board report? I would like to know if we have budgeted for the type of work that has to take place going forward in regard to our

obligations to develop regulations or establish regulations that we may not have on the books right now that we’re going to have to bring forward.

As we outlined in our presentation or briefing the other day, the Government of the Northwest Territories is a signatory to the regulatory agreement and we’re participating in the coordination of the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline regulatory process. The Mackenzie Gas Pipeline is expected to require 6,911 permits or licences, most of which will be reviewed by the Government of the Northwest Territories. The regulators and boards have made a commitment to a maximum 11-month review process for permits. It hasn’t been contemplated that we would have to change any regulations or develop any new legislation to deal with the pipeline. That’s where it is at this point.

Just on that, since we’re looking at bringing in or changing regulations, under the land claim agreements with regard to the Gwich’in under Section 21 and Section 20 for the Sahtu with regard to the subsurface resources section, it does say that you have to consult if you’re bringing forward any regulations or changing policies or procedures or regulations. I would like to know if the Aboriginal groups will be involved and consulted in that work that has to be done.

We have been fulfilling all of the consultation requirements. As we go forward if there are additional consultation requirements, we will be conducting those as well.

Maybe the Minister and his staff could take a look at Section 21 of the Gwich’in agreement which talks about subsurface resources because it’s clearly spelled out and it says you shall, so that way it’s an obligation not like the devolution process we were going through.

If it says you shall, then we will. Six years ago or even earlier when the regulatory process started, I know that directions were given out to everybody to be very clear and be mindful of the consultation requirements that everybody had to follow and to be mindful of what was in the land claims that have been negotiated to date. We will go back and double check to make sure that all of those consultation requirements have been followed.

With regard to the regulatory legislation that’s being pushed by the federal government is the whole area of surface rights legislation. I think that’s something that we, at some point, will be responsible for. Where are we with the surface rights legislation? Are we included in the drafting of the federal regulations? I know there’s a big push to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act but there’s also a need to establish the surface rights legislation as it’s developed in the land claim agreements. I’d just

like to know with regard to the regulatory reviews and processes that have taken place, are we involved in that and when are we intending to see that come forward?

As the Member knows, the land claims agreements reference surface rights board and when discussions on access and benefits agreements were being discussed, everybody rushed to look at the land claims agreements to see what tools were there to deal with it. Obviously we don’t have a surface rights board, we don’t have surface rights legislation. The land claims only envision arbitration if there are differences of opinion. The federal government, if they were to develop surface rights legislation, it would probably take them a couple of years at least. My understanding is that the federal negotiator that was appointed, Mr. John Pollard, part of his mandate was to look at the surface rights board possibilities or potential as part of his report, just from my understanding. Other than that, we haven’t been involved with any of the surface rights development and if we were it would be ENR that would be involved because they are responsible for the regulatory process of the federal government and our dealings with the federal government and our government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Abernethy.

Mr. Chairman, some of this might sound similar to a conversation I had with DOT earlier today. Ongoing improvements to our North Slave transportation system are critical to supporting the mine sector and the Slave Geological Province and economic development projects across the Northwest Territories and western Nunavut. What is ITI doing with industry and DOT and Aboriginal groups to improve winter road access to Tlicho communities in the Slave Geological Province? I know it is ultimately a DOT responsibility, but given the economic opportunities of these road realignments with Aboriginal organizations, I am wondering what role, if any, ITI is providing or playing.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, whenever we meet with the mining industry or specific proponents of individual mining projects, most of the projects require two things to become feasible. It is usually some sort of road or cheaper power. Every opportunity we have, we try to facilitate. With regards to the Tlicho, we haven’t met with NICO. They expressed their concern with regards to a road, any road. The department had set aside money for a road, some sort of an all-weather road or at least improving the existing winter road. They were waiting for some response from the Tlicho government. I think they are still waiting on that. We

have committed we would facilitate a meeting or I would meet with the Minister of Transportation to discuss that road. We are still working on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear that there is some work going on with DOT. I think you both play an important role in this particular area. I am glad to see that is going. We have a lot of Aboriginal organizations right now that are really seizing the opportunities through the Tlicho and the Akaitcho to provide essential services and other services to the diamond mining industry here in the Northwest Territories. I know that there is some interest in becoming more engaged and more active in road construction, which means there has to be an opportunity for them to build some capacity that they may not have at this point. I know Deton’Cho is talking about building some capacity so that they can become more involved in time in road construction in the North Slave as well as throughout the Northwest Territories. I understand they are getting equipment and they are doing all sorts of things. What role, if any, does ITI have in helping them build some capacity and get some opportunities? Is ITI working with them on helping them tailor their bids to suit the needs of DOT so that they fully understand? Is there any business counselling going on, any opportunity for them to build some capacity so that they can start getting these road contracts so that they will be a road builder in the future? That is including seasonal and all-season roads, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, through the tools that we have which are primarily the Business Development Investment Corporation and the Department of ITI and we are still waiting to see whether the Opportunities Fund will be a tool that we can use. We work very closely with the development corporations to develop capacity. We don’t give them counselling on specific projects or specific bids, but where they come to us for capital or for loans and we counsel them on whether we think it is a viable or feasible investment. We continue to work with them on an ongoing basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered what work is being done in terms of the Pollard report, if the Minister knows if that is going to be returned to us and are we done with that or do we have an opportunity to contribute to his review of the environmental process still. Thanks.

Minister McLeod.

Mr. Chairman, it has been a while since we met with Mr. Pollard. I believe it was early in the summer of 2010. Indirectly we understand that he is still working on his report and

that as soon as he completes it, he will be communicating it to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I expect that at some point after that we may or may not see the report, depending on whether that is something the federal government feels they can utilize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, did we comment to try and get clarification that we are not a provincial government? We are a consensus government, a territorial government, and all MLAs need to be able to contribute to decisions made on these projects. Was that clarified to Mr. Pollard? My understanding is that this was probably a one-off sort of process this time hopefully and that other projects will not necessarily follow the review panel process. We need to be clear. I am wondering if the Minister managed to get that input to Mr. Pollard.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we communicated that to him, but Mr. Pollard, being an outstanding former Member of this Assembly, I am sure he understood how the consensus government works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, he has indeed. I managed to bend his ear a bit myself. I appreciate that he was well qualified to do this job. How many personnel do we have in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Office? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, we have six members right now. I believe that is our plan to keep it at that for the next while because of the fact that the NEB report indicated that proponents are to give an update in 2013. Our expectation is we will probably keep it at that for a year or so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.