Debates of February 15, 2005 (day 36)

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. On the TSC then, I want to stay broad on this issue because I realize that the Minister and the witnesses may not have detailed information on this. I support the consolidation of the services that the TSC offers. I think it’s the kind of area that needs that critical level of expertise and the computer systems and software programs and things that we use on a daily basis in the government are supposed to be there to help us do our jobs better. At the same time, I’m aware that over the years the government and all the Members sitting here have been hesitant or maybe reluctant to invest as much as possible on the software programs or even capital equipment. I don’t know if that’s the case, I don’t know if we have invested what’s required. I guess I would like to get some assurance from the Minister and information from him as to whether we are investing in computer technology that we need to at least stay up to date on what’s required to provide services and to carry out programs that we are responsible for. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We, I guess, can say that we’re probably not on the top end when you look at the industry itself and the changes in programming that are happening. Although, we’ve made the switch to PeopleSoft and that version, it’s quite a large program and it is quite able to handle the government information we need. We have, as well, highlighted in my opening comments work that we are beginning to do with our financial information system. That’s the next big piece of work that we’ll have to do and invest in as a government to ensure that we can continue to meet the requirements that are placed on us. So in areas we are lacking when it comes to our software and our hardware, but we are picking up and have made some changes and will continue to do so to ensure that we can deliver what’s required of us. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I think this is an important area in that we do live in a computer age and we need to have adequate technology and computer systems to do our work. I have just been noticing that I’m not sure if the government is keeping up to date with the upgrading of programs and such. I can tell you that I have, I think, a more smooth, better and faster-running system in my home and I don’t think I have a state-of-the-art system there either. It’s just got me worrying that the government has for too many years now not been investing money that’s necessary to keep with the program. I’m not even sure if the computer network program that we have in the government now can keep up with just a middle-of-the-road line of products, not just the most advanced kind.

I don’t want to see a situation where, a year or two or three years down the road, we find ourselves having to spend a lot of money to upgrade the system if we are neglecting to do it now or we have neglected to do it for the last three or four years. So I still didn’t get a specific answer from the Minister. Does the Minister know whether we have spent adequate money or made the investments necessary to keep up the system and whether or not there’s a mandate given to the TS Centre? Now that they have been consolidated, they can look at the government-wide technology and information system to see what needs there are. Not so that everybody has the fanciest system in the world, but just so that we don’t find ourselves in a situation that we may try to save a few bucks and end up having a lot higher costs inadvertently. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with what the Member stated around the area of our technology and the enhancements and changes that have come as a result of that. At one time, when computers first came out, there was much discussion about how they would make our lives much easier. We haven’t found that to be the case. There are continuing changes and programs and platforms that we must adapt to and make necessary changes. As a government, we’re working and trying to stay updated on those things. For example, government-wide, we spend approximately $5 million a year in the area of programs and equipment. One of the other areas that we’ve worked on to try to help with getting data back and forth from communities, regions to headquarters, is through the DCN, or the digital communications network, and we’re just going through the revision of the contract and hope to have that finalized soon. One of the other programs we have around computers is desktop hardware is evergreen, and every four years new systems are brought into place.

So there’s some of what we’re doing and, as we go through this next phase with the TSC and systems communications, hopefully we’ll be able to coordinate our work better and find some efficiencies. As well, maybe we can improve on what we’re able to do and provide a service for those people within the government and improve how we communicate with the communities and regions. We accept that some of our problems recently have been around the hardware end, and that area falls within the responsibility of Public Works and Services where TSC happens to be merging. We will have some information available for Members when we go through that department. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments, Mr. Braden.

Bill Braden

Great Slave

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll keep my comments to one area and it relates to the transition that we’re undertaking for our government-wide human resources to consolidate this function within FMBS. I think there are quite a number of similarities to the service centre concept that Ms. Lee was talking about with technology that I think has had a reasonably good role. Like Ms. Lee, I must share some complications with my own computer skills, but the service that I’ve been getting from the TSC has been really good.

What I wanted to look at here was the creation of this consolidation. It is a fairly significant move. It is one that is, over time, going to affect each government department. A number of staff are going to be involved in this, but I’m looking forward, Madam Chair, to government-wide service and implementation of our human resource policies.

As an MLA, on occasion I do hear about situations that constituents find themselves in. Very often what it relates to, Madam Chair, is inconsistencies from one department to another or perhaps one area of policy interpretation to another. My understanding is that it goes back to moves that were made several years ago by this government to disseminate HR functions. So our policies were then distributed to various departments and deputy ministers and ministries and boards, but over the course of time, Madam Chair, as policies are interpreted differently by different people in different situations, we have really encountered sort of more and more inconsistency and frustration on the part of some employees and some potential employees.

So with that, I wanted to indicate that I’m anticipating or expecting that we will see improvement in our overall HR practices here and, like I said, I’d ask the Minister if he could give committee a status report and an outline in general terms, Madam Chair, of the next steps involved in human resources consolidation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with the Member; it is a significant move that we are undertaking as a government to go back to somewhat of a way of doing business that was done prior, where we have human resource service centres. It is very different though from what was known previously as the Department of Personnel. The human resource service centres are a way of pooling our staff and bringing them together so that, one, we can be more coordinated in how we deliver the program, ensuring that all departments are following and have the same understanding of the rules that we work with. I believe that will also help individuals when they come into the government and are looking for employment or transfers within the government.

A significant amount of work has been done to date and there still remains to be a fair bit done, but I think we’ve been moving along in a very good way and a healthy fashion. Of course, when you do make some changes as significant as this, it does cause some concern and anxiety out in the system. We do have a lot of people who are involved in the delivery of human resources throughout departments and boards and agencies. We’ve been working with them and our regions to ensure that this is as smooth as possible.

The first stages, as we worked through, were to develop a vision of what the human resource service centres would be doing and getting that message out, the goals that would flow out of that vision, and then the functions and activities of that service centre, how that work would be done and what should be pulled into the service centres and what would remain with departments and boards and how they would do that. Once we had that, then develop the processes that would be required in the working arrangements between boards and the service centres, as well as from the regional service centre to headquarters, develop the standards that are going to be in place from that. Then start cataloguing and developing what we're going to need in the area of resources for the work that’s going to be required of the new service centres that are created. That’s both on the financial side as well as the human resource side.

Then what we’re into right now is in the area of organization and design, how it’s going to start fitting together, identifying the job description of the staff that will be working within service centres and ensuring that job descriptions are updated and meet the operational requirements of that. As we’re getting into that, we begin looking at staffing and how that would fit into it with the new organizational design, as well as the job descriptions that have changed. So we’re right into that area now of the job description/staffing side of it and see how the people we have involved right now will fit into the new service centre organization and how their job descriptions may be changed, matching individuals into jobs that are there. From there, there will be some changes to some of the job description side that people used to be involved with within departments and making sure that we can fit them in where necessary. We’ll work with them in that area to ensure that they do have the qualifications to fit in. We’re into that stage. We’re into a pretty heavy schedule, but I believe again through this work that’s been happening it’s been quite a successful transition at this point and I continue to work with that. Again, as I’ve committed, we’ll continue to work with committee and keep committee updated as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Bill Braden

Great Slave

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Roland has reflected for this committee, Madam Chair, what we have heard in previous briefings. This is a major initiative and it is one that I look forward to a successful roll-out and a good implementation. It really will affect the calibre and the satisfaction and performance of our workforce. I place a really high significance and value on the work that’s being undertaken.

Now, I wanted to see if the Minister could give us some idea if we’re going to see more or less a status quo, roughly the same number of people continuing to be involved, or will there be some downsizing or attrition? As well, will there be much in the way of dislocation? Will we be able to preserve or reserve or perhaps enhance the role of people based in the regions and communities outside of headquarters? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe this exercise we’re doing is about making sure that we’re doing the job right. That’s the first stage we were involved in, in a sense, is getting the mechanics right. Making sure that the organization, the design job descriptions are fitting and able to work well. Then as we go through that and develop that, the second phase of that would be the policy end, how things need to work together and get that end together. That’s definitely where we’re going to be needing the input of Members, to ensure that we’re on the right footing as we go forward.

I believe that as we go through this, it is critical we get this right and ensure that the right authority is in the right place to make the decisions necessary to get on things, to make sure that we’re operating efficiently. So there will be some changes in the way things work right now. A fair bit of the decision-making process in the existing system still comes to headquarters.

What we’re looking to do with this, once we’re up and functional and have our policies in place, is that decision making can happen at the regions. The department will still have the final decision to make. The process will work where we’ve done the right job and somebody plugs in looking for employment, go through that phase and ensure that the mechanics of it works right and that all departments are using the same criteria as we go forward.

Ultimately it’s going to remain with managers to manage in the regions. As well as the service centres, we’re looking at enhancing their ability to get the job done. So there will be some changes. We have to be realistic here; there will be some dislocation about things that happen. There may be some growth in areas. This initially is not a cost-cutting exercise. It’s one to make sure we get the job done right, set up the mechanics, get it done right and then at that point we can look at ourselves to see if we’ve accomplished what we’ve set out to do. If there are going to be any changes in growth, that will happen in the regions, not in headquarters. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Next on the list I have Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I know the Minister has heard me in the House question the Sirius Diamonds loan guarantee at length last week and again this week. I’m not done with that issue either, Madam Chair, and I will be bringing that issue back before the House again before too long.

I had some questions on this and the first one I’d like to ask is, when the supplementary appropriation came before the House last year it was for $231,000, if I remember correctly. I’m wondering where FMBS got the other $2.7 million to cover off the $3 million loss that they had originally made known to this Assembly. Where did that other $2.7 million come from, Madam Chair? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the funding that we required to cover the rest of the loss that was identified was found from other program areas within FMBS where we had lapses. We would have turned that money back over to the consolidated revenue fund, but, realizing this loss was there, we then applied that money to the loss instead of turning it back over to the general revenue fund. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just found that to be a really interesting way of reporting that loss, that $231,000 as opposed to $3 million, so that it wasn’t really portrayed the way that I believe it probably should have been portrayed. I’d hate to think that any other program or service suffered as a result of your department having to try to find this money from within. The next question I have, Mr. Chairman, is the recommendation that’s before us in terms of the date. I’m wondering how optimistic the Minister is that a purchaser will be found for the Sirius plant so we can mitigate the losses that we’re incurring on a daily basis there. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, first of all, for the record, let's state that the accounting that took place of the loss as required by the Financial Administration Act was done so according to the Financial Administration Act, and through that supplementary document showed the loss as we have to account for it. So it was public, it was transparent. Just a portion of that was paid from within an appropriation amount we had within FMBS.

The other area; what we’re going to conclude here is the waivers to ensure that the receiver can go out now and make contact with other interested parties with the Sirius plant operations, and we’re hoping that we’ll be done very shortly as the initial contact again trying to find out if there are interested parties. We’re aware they are there, it’s just a matter of seeing what they can bring to the table. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find that comment, Mr. Roland, very interesting, as well. Last week when we had the Minister...Well, I’m not quite sure if I can mention that. From what I understand, Mr. Chairman, the waivers were to be in place last week and if the Minister’s here before us today saying these waivers aren’t in place, another week has gone by, thousands more dollars have been lost and I’d like to ask the Minister where the waivers are and when we are going to get on with this. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member is right; as we initially met, I referenced the fact that we were waiting on waivers to be signed. As has it, with lawyers involved from a number of different parties, that hasn’t gone as smoothly as we would have liked it to. But they will be executed today. Once those are executed, then the receiver can once again go out there and seek other interested parties or return contacts that other interested parties have made. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering, in terms of other losses that continue to pile up, how might the Minister suggest we find the money to account for these losses that are piling up on an ongoing basis. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the first thing we need to do is to calculate the total losses of the situation we’re in right now. Again, a fair bit depends on what the receiver can come together with in the sense of another deal. Once we have those numbers and things proceed, we will be able to calculate the total amount that we will have to come forward to this House and seek approval for. That would come through a supplementary appropriation, as we have not booked that within our budget at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little bit of the concern that I had with the first recommendation that appears in our committee’s report was the date of April 1, 2005. It was a date that was put out there I guess to try to put the brakes on the losses that were happening at the Sirius plant, to give some assurance to the Regular Members here that this issue would be dealt with once and for all by April 1st. But I want to try and get a comment from the Minister on what’s going to unfold here. I know there were numerous proponents lining up when the initial call for proposals went out for the Sirius plant and I’m just wondering what his optimism is like for finding a new purchaser for the Sirius plant. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess it’s one thing we can say in the North and the rest of Canada is that the diamond industry is small in our jurisdiction and the word and rumours spread fast about what’s happening. We’re aware there’s significant interest with the operations. As well, the way it’s been working through a court appointed receiver, the receiver will have to make those contacts, look at what the results of those contacts can bring and then advise us of what the potentials are. If there’s a deal to be had, they would recommend a movement on that and whatever deal is worked on would have to be sanctioned by the courts. Again, because we have a court appointed receiver, that process is quite formal. I’m quite confident that we will have a final decision as to if, in fact, we are moving and entered into a serious set of negotiations once again by April. I think we should have some information before then, but again, because this is a court appointed receiver and the process is quite formal, we know that we could, for example if things moved along front end quite quickly, decide if, in fact, one of the proponents coming forward was satisfactory. We would once again go through the process of doing our due diligence and deciding if the company is satisfactory, would meet our criteria for a northern manufacturer, then that process would again kick up to the mines to have them set up their agreement for a supply of rough. If that can come together, then it would go back to the courts and through the court process. There’s a 30-day appeal period. Once that period ends then the deal can be officially signed off.

I’m fairly confident that before April 1st we will have direction that we will go in, whether it’s a proposal that’s good enough to move forward on or, as a government, we re-evaluate where we’re standing with the ongoing concern of the facility. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Last time up, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a real burning question that I have with regard to this whole Sirius plant arrangement. The inability to get a deal done between the producers and the Leviev Group. The real burning thing that I have, Mr. Chairman, is why the government wouldn’t find somebody much like a middle man or somebody to bridge the gap between the producers and the potential purchaser to get a deal done when the government, I believe, Mr. Chairman -- and I mentioned this in the House the other day -- knew full well that the producers weren’t negotiating with the Leviev Group. Why couldn’t we find somebody to step in to speak to the producers, to speak to the Leviev Group, to make sure that a group could get done, Mr. Chairman? That didn’t happen and I would like to know why. Hopefully I will get to the bottom of it during the life of this session, but why doesn’t that happen? I know you can throw around the receiver and two businesses not wanting to get together and the mumbo jumbo but, at the end of the day, Mr. Chairman, this is our industry. It’s our future and if we didn’t have somebody trying to do that, I think we would drop the ball completely and miss a huge boat that was sailing in here. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Member has raised this issue on a number of occasions now and probably won’t be satisfied with the responses he gets today that I have tried to supply information about where we are and the process used. There are a few key things that have impacted where we can go as a Financial Management Board and our involvement. One is the original agreements that were put in place and who would be parties to those discussions. The process, as laid out, is the government was involved on the front end to see if a producer or a company could be looked at satisfactorily and grant them a northern manufacturer status. Once that’s done the process then allows for that company to then begin negotiations with the diamond mining companies. There were no provisions for us to become involved with that; number one, on the original side of the agreements that were put in place; two, and further complicating where things were is because we ended up moving to a court for a court appointed receiver, that process has to be respected, as well, and the involvement of the government and the departments. We are aware, as the Minister of Resources, Wildlife and Economic Development stated, through his shop and keeping track of where things were flowing, from our shop of FMB working with the receiver, trying to see where things were going and trying to encourage a speedy resolution to things that were happening. But ultimately it comes down to the fact that we did not have the ability to enter the room to say let’s sit down and make this happen.

Of course, since this has happened, there have been suggestions made about sitting down with the mining companies initially and discussing who would be satisfactory to them. There are things that have come out after the fact. But as I had committed to from a government perspective, we are going to have to review where we are with the processes and see where we can strengthen our positions, so that we don’t end up in this situation in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I had comments I would like to make about the consolidation of the human resources section. Before I do that, I would like to make some comments and observations about this debate going on about the loan guarantees and the receivership for the secondary diamond industry.

First of all, I do believe that this is an important industry. I do believe that the diamond industry in general is one that we have to appreciate for all that it has done for our economy. I do support the previous government and the current government for having worked hard to encourage and foster the secondary diamond industry.

Having said that though, I don’t believe the government has the power to, as Minister Bell said earlier, force two businesses to marry. We can’t force individuals to marry. From what I understand, this potential buyer that did not turn out to be the buyer is a big player in the diamond industry. I think from my understanding, there are many more issues here than just whether or not the northern diamond producer was willing to give enough rough cuts. There are lots of issues involved that they had to work out on their own. I agree that the government has a role to play and goodness knows that the government has expended a lot of investments in terms of loan guarantees and socioeconomic benefit agreements, and lots of influence and pressure was put upon the diamond industry by all successive governments since the beginning of the diamond industry to get as good a deal for the North as possible.

I think we come to a point where we really have to look at where we are and how much we are willing to do for this industry and how many millions we are going to pour into this. Keep in mind there are secondary diamond cutting and polishing plants that are doing okay. Tiffany is doing well. They are getting their rough cuts. I guess they have a closer relationship with Diavik and that’s working to their benefit. Arslanian and all of them have had some downturns, but I just don’t know if we can get to the bottom of what exactly happened in this room.

What I am more interested in is I would like the government to come to us and have a heart-to-heart talk about where we are going with this secondary diamond industry in terms of this company. As the Minister already indicated, this has already gone into receivership. The diamond industry worldwide is small. There might be huge companies looking for bargains out there, so we might not even get a deal that will benefit us. I don’t want to be pessimistic, but that’s how the free market works. We live in a capital society and the market has to dictate at some point and the government has limits as to what it can do.

I am just wondering if the government did not go about it backwards. Why was it that the government announced publicly that the Sirius diamond plant would be sold to this one player, however big or reputable he was, without having gotten the deal written down, and was the producer not consulted in advance to say we have this buyer, are you able to do business with them? Was it not possible for the government to entertain all four proposals at once? I understand there was more than this player who were interested in buying this plant. So why was it that the government came to the gate and said we found a buyer and we will all be happy?

I would think diamond producers in the North are rooted here, they have made investments here and they should have some say on who they do business with and whether or not they can have a business relationship that will work for them, work for the new buyer and work for the government in terms of what the government is interested. If that wasn’t done and you have no plan of doing it, how can you have success in upcoming negotiations? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, coming from the side that I do on the financial side, if there wasn’t support for the secondary industry from this government, the first and quickest way of cutting our losses would have been to liquidate the operations when this first came up. But as the government has chosen to continue to support the secondary industry, we’ve entered this and requested the courts to step in and have the receiver begin doing their work. The receiver entered into a process of basically going out to tender, putting out a package and having those that were interested submit their proposals. Based on the proposals that came forward, there was a review done of all of the parties, and it was recommended in discussions with the receiver that the best deal that was there was the one we went forward with.

As for discussions with the mines and going to them and asking if, in fact, they would be supportive of who we brought forward, there's nothing right now stopping the mines from developing the secondary industry in the Northwest Territories, or proceeding. We've seen somewhat of a partnership already with a couple of the organizations that are in business.

So we, as the GNWT, began this process in allowing guarantees to be put in place to help establish the industry, and there has been much discussion back and forth about support or non-support from the suppliers, being the mining companies.

Again, I go back to the fact that right now there is nothing to stop the mining operations from establishing their own cutting and polishing arms of their operations here in the Northwest Territories. In fact, if they wanted to do that, we would invite them to get directly involved. As this first came out, we were told that, in fact, there was no interest in that. So that's why we proceeded with, from a GNWT perspective, trying to develop the secondary industry.

Things obviously have changed from the first mining operation that came into reality here in the Northwest Territories, from not wanting to be involved in a secondary industry in the North to now companies becoming involved, to a certain degree, with arrangements with cutting and polishing plants here in the Northwest Territories. But again, is there a better way to do it? Well, maybe there was. As the first socioeconomic agreement was put in place, I think we've learned from that exercise and worked at strengthening the position we have as a government, and we'll continue to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Ms. Lee.

Thank you. I don't think I was saying that in terms of getting the producers to take a more active role in this whole state of affairs. I didn't include in that the option of the producers setting up their own cutting and polishing facility. What I'm saying is given where we are, we have a company that we have poured millions into in receivership. The buyer we thought was the one, has backed out. We know that the secondary diamond industry around the world is not that big. The ministry even admitted that the news had spread. So I don't know if the world diamond industry sees this is as a good bargain for them to pick up at a low price, or if they look at it as damaged goods that they don't want to touch with a 10-foot pole; I don't know.

I'm not saying that the diamond producer here should be asked to step in. What I'm saying is, from what I can tell, the first approach of finding a buyer did not work out. If there was supposed to be a marriage between the new buyer and the producer, somebody forgot to tell the producer that they're getting married to somebody. We can't force them to marry. I'm just saying if you're going to have better success a second time, they should be told. Is there any plan on the part of the government to bring this producer in?

A socioeconomic agreement is what we have. I understand the BHP one being the first one, and we've had many after that, and probably the first one was not as tight as we would have liked to have had. We have learned from that, and the second and third socioeconomic agreements are much tighter.

My understanding is, I haven't read the fine words, but there's a lot of room for interpretation. So what I'm saying is this government is not going to get a deal unless you get everybody working together on this. You have to get the producer and whoever the new buyer is, whoever is a bargain hunter or whoever really wants to get into the industry. So I would like to get assurance from the Minister about what we're going to do differently so we can have some comfort that we're not just going to be asked to keep going down the same path that's given us nothing but grief. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the Member that, as she laid it out, the first socioeconomic agreement can be interpreted a number of ways. It's not very tight. We've learned from that. From a GNWT perspective, we have tightened it up to better reflect where we want to go and see things as the secondary industry develops. But at the same time, we, as a government, have to look at the big picture. The resources that are coming out of the ground are resources that belong to the people of the Northwest Territories, if we're going to believe in land rights and that position. It goes back to a much broader picture about devolution and who makes decisions to pass on things and make a project develop in the Northwest Territories and who benefits from those.

With the tools we had available as a government when diamond mines were being discussed and what potential benefits could accrue to the Northwest Territories and the people of the Northwest Territories, this was one of the ways that was seen as being a more cooperative approach. If the cooperative approach isn't working, then we, as a government, have a duty to see what, in fact, we can do to ensure some benefits stay in the North, and that may be re-looking at the whole side of it and saying maybe we need to look at a different method and go down that road.

Initially I think we're trying to take the cooperative approach. At the end of the day, what we saw was a deal that we thought would be very positive for the Northwest Territories and solidify the opportunities in the North in the sense of the secondary industry. We're aware that it won't be bargain hunters coming out. Interested parties have already started making contact to see what can be done. We have been waiting and the receiver has been waiting for the execution of the waiver, and that, again, as I said earlier, is going to happen today. So the process will once again kick into full gear as we begin looking for a potential buyer for the plant.

A couple of other things will come into play. One, is there are some people out there with history in the Northwest Territories and history with the mining operations. Ultimately, yes, it will go back. With the agreement the way it is set up, it will go back to the mining operations signing an agreement with a potential new buyer on the supply of rough. We're hopeful that this will go through, but again we have to look at what's going to come forward from the receiver, and maybe we will get to the point where we say this is not a benefit to the Northwest Territories to continue with this process, and work with the receiver and look at the other side of the scale and liquidate all the assets out there.

But as the GNWT, we have been supportive of the secondary industry; we continue to be and are hopeful that a deal will come through. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves back in this position. Believe me, as Finance Minister working to ensure that our money is spent wisely, it has been a difficult process, but it's one that at times is necessary to try to see the long-term benefit for the Northwest Territories and its people. Hopefully we will be able to see some of that as we go forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. General comments. Ms. Lee.