I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I wish they were relevant to my question.

I guess I would ask him again, national health spending on pharmaceuticals increased about $7 billion between 2005 and 2010. Under the CETA proposed provisions, costs would increase a further 22 percent. Our Ministers have told us these are significant proportions of our costs. We can’t be silent on this.

Will the Premier vigorously communicate to the federal government the negative consequences of such an agreement to our interests and ask that the drug provisions not be allowed, or has he done that already?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, the ever-increasing degree and frequency of impact of federal actions on our territorial interests, and the lack of consultation and respect for our needs requires equally frequent response. Federal trade negotiations which damage our ability to protect our economy are another example of federal disregard for hearing and addressing our concerns.

A specific example is the recently revealed Canada-China Trade Agreement. It provides China with the right to claim damages against any level of government in Canada for decisions and laws that result in a...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. I understand that, and that’s undoubtedly a contributing factor to these underestimates and part of the point that I was raising. I understand that we’re stepping out here, so we need to bring that into consideration as we make our estimates and so on.

I know from my participation here that we have a record of requests for dollars. Obviously, nickel and diming would not be the right term here because these are very significant amounts of money, but they are cumulative, that have eventually proved to be insufficient for the task at hand. In other words, we were told they would achieve this and they haven’t, and we’ve added and so on. I am very concerned about this project in general, as the House is well aware that this is completely in line with expectations that this cost will escalate and that we are, really, underestimating the...

Thanks to the Minister for those comments. That’s really all the questions I had.

Just on that, obviously, it’s sometimes worth paying a little more for a ground-breaking project towards reducing overall costs for subsequent projects so it might be worth a bit of an investment, or at least a full-cost accounting approach when we do that analysis. That’s all the questions I had.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe this is the project in Deline, if I am correct. I know there are some very good energy efficiency upgrades focused with this proposed expenditure. I’m wondering what the future might hold in terms of switching to biomass. Obviously, the long-term operational costs, really, are to be had in the biggest way through replacing fossil fuel costs with renewable energy costs. I know the department, the government is well aware of this and doing these sorts of conversions in a number of areas throughout the NWT. Have we done such a thing in Deline yet, and what’s the...

Thanks again to the Minister. Perhaps that information is on some website that people could have a look at. There is also the question of financing this work. My understanding is that how this project is paid for is that redirection of the funds that GNWT has contributed to meet its obligations for remediation of the Giant Mine site. I wonder if the Minister could outline how those funds are being assigned. I know it’s a bit controversial. Some people think the money that we contributed to Giant Mine should go more directly into remediation, but I’d say at least a good portion of this project...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Transportation on highways. I’ve noted that people driving to the Yellowknife Airport can now see the work on realignment of Highway No. 4 around the Giant Mine site is underway. I understand that the work will include not only the creation of a safer and better road that avoids the Giant Mine site, but some improvement to the highway onward to the Yellowknife River Bridge might be included.

On behalf of the public and my constituents, can the Minister provide us with some information on the extent and schedule for the work?

Some people, obviously, would call this agreement with China selling out the farm. Obviously, from our recent visit to China that the Premier mentioned, there is no lack of interest. I don’t see the need to sell the farm in order to generate business with China.

In terms of the European Trade Agreement, other provisions would also limit territorial and provincial jurisdictions’ abilities to legislate local purchasing preference, exactly what our BIP, for example, was created to achieve. These were enabled under the NAFTA provisions to protect these provisions.

Has the Premier written, or will...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The legal consequences of the China-Canada Trade Agreement will be irreversible by any Canadian court or others for 31 years after the treaty is given effect. To sue a Chinese company requires only a minority share in a Canadian asset, and they’ll be able to challenge Canadian federal, territorial, provincial, et cetera, decisions outside of the Canadian legal system and Canadian courts. Our ability to ensure local benefits under socio-economic agreements or set out environmental conditions that diminish profits is questionable.

My question is for the Minister of...