Thank you, Madam Chair. Again the question is still not answered. What does this impact have on the total cost evaluation or whole asset cost of the purchase of the 802 bomber program? Again, originally told and brought to the House as a project that was going to be a $30 million project. Has that price, or will that price increase over the life of this contract? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the astute knowledge of the Finance Minister in reply, but the one question that was not answered is we know there’s another installment of this project in the next capital budget. We know we’re faced here with a discretionary amount due to a fluctuating dollar. We know that the original project was somewhere in that $30 million range. My question was, and still stands, what do we antici

pate for next year’s appropriation and how

does this affect the overall evaluation of the total project in terms of the cost? Thank you.

I give some credit where credit is due. This is a bit of an exception to the rule, but notwithstanding, I’m sure this is not the first time our government has had to purchase expensive items in US funds and I’m assuming we will continue to do so for years to come.

My role here as a legislator is to protect the public purse, and in doing so it’s incumbent upon myself to make sure the department is working towards the betterment of processes, the betterment of procedures so that we have a high degree of certainty when we do a desktop analysis as to what these projects will cost in the future. As I said, every year it seems to be something different with respect to these 802 Fire Bosses. This year now it’s about the evaluation of the Canadian currency vis-à-vis the American currency, so I’m a bit disenfranchised that through it all we’re still looking into it, we may see we s

till don’t have a project or a directive or a

policy that clearly says these are the things to do when we’re buying items, these are the issues of

hedging or whatever the case, whatever you’ve heard from the previous Member here that clearly give Members on this side

of the House when we’re

buying something for millions of dollars in this case here.

My next question is that, if memory serves, this project was a little over $30 million, I believe, a three-

year period. We know that there’s another

installment coming forward in infrastructure possibly for next year, so what does that mean for the next year now? If the dollar stays the same, are we going to be facing the same type of question next year for those who are going to be here for the future 18th Assembly?

If Members remember, last year we were accelerating the program to take advantage of, I believe, the dollar, I think, if memory serves me right, and now we’re this year looking at a cost varied to the currency value.

I guess my question is: What did we learn from this project and what changes are going to be made to mitigate purchases of this magnitude, especially in US dollars in the future? Has the department managed to come up with a different set of policies or directives on how to deal with purchases in US dollars?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like

to welcome the department here today, bringing forward another supplementary estimates before the House.

Kind of dovetailing on what we’ve heard earlier from Mr. Bouchard regarding the additional costs here for the 802 bombers that we’re purchasing, I tried to pay particular attention to some of the description used earlier as to how come we kind of know this was coming. We know this was a multi-year purchase and that these airplanes are bought in US dollars. That’s a given. That’s how the industry works. But I want to zone in on one of the things that was said today that the deputy minister indicated, “We’re looking for a facility or institution for more certainty.” Can I get an explanation of what that really meant?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The recent draft Protected Areas Strategy has been deemed by some as a clear indication of this government: we are closed for business. If indeed some truth, Mr. Speaker, what is the Premier prepared to do within our limited time in the 17th Assembly to correct this characterization of his government? Thank you.

The Premier is also quoted in the Mineral Development Strategy: “The new strategy represents a commitment. The NWT is serious

about addressing our investment challenges and unlocking the mineral potential of the t

erritory.”

Can the Premier share with the House, how does this draft Protected Areas Strategy not conflict with our ability to unlock dismal mineral exploration numbers? Thank you.

The Pre

mier is quoted, “We need

a solid framework on which to build this potential. The

Mineral Development Strategy is that

framework.”

So, to the Premier: How is limiting up to 40 percent of land going to support an increase in mineral exploration? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Without question, the recent announcement of the draft Protected Areas Strategy caught the resource industry by surprise with clear word from the resource industry that the Northwest Territories was no longer safe to do business with. My questions today are for the Premier.

Can the Premier indicate how does this recent unchecked announcement from the Premier’s Cabinet as a goal to conserve 40 percent of the NWT’s land mass support his vision of a strong and prosperous territory? Thank you.