Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
On the news this morning there was more speculation about the Alaska pipeline and the Mackenzie gas pipeline taking a major sidelining to the proposals and thoughts that are out there now on serving North American markets through liquefied natural gas. It seems an alternative. When it looked like there was a possibility for the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, we criticized this government heavily on the front of being prepared because we said when the diamonds were coming to the Northwest Territories, we didn’t get out ahead of it. We weren’t prepared.
So now, when the natural gas is coming, we encouraged our government to get involved right from the outset. Get people in positions; let’s be prepared. The government, in response to those requests, did so. Now we have people working in almost all departments, working on pipeline readiness.
In fact, I’d like to know how we are going to address all that build-up of expertise, planning and personnel should the pipeline not proceed at this time. The Mackenzie Gas Project offices have already been closed. What is the signal to the government by this other information coming forward on alternatives to our pipeline?
The government has been working very hard to be prepared for the pipeline. We realize there is significant lead time to make sure that we have people trained up and businesses ready to take advantage of the opportunities that will come with a pipeline.
I should point out that the offices in Inuvik, Norman Wells and Fort Simpson have not been closed; they have been downsized. Imperial Oil has indicated that they are doing so to wait the writing of the Joint Review Panel report, and they remain committed to the project. The Liquid Natural Gas reports that you are referring to…. This was something that the proponents had pointed out several years ago. We were always aware that LNG was a real alternative to a pipeline and that the technology was developing to the point where there are several locations in Canada where LNG terminals had started to be constructed. So this is something that we are aware of, and we want to ensure that we can advance the pipeline as quickly as the regulatory system allows.
Mr. Speaker, the eventuality of a Mackenzie Valley pipeline is something that has been debated extensively all through this process. Will it go, or will it not go? When will it go? This has been a question that has been out there.
Given the ramping up of positions and people in preparation for the pipeline on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories, do you have a contingency plan in place? Do you have an exit plan? Do you have something else these folks can do? Do you have other priorities they can turn their attention to if the pipeline is postponed and deferred?
In the work that we are doing, with most of the positions for the government that would be affected, those skills are still transferrable. I would think that with the economy the way it is, there would probably be little difficulty in finding alternative employment for those affected employees. I think it would be more difficult for businesses that have ramped up in anticipation of the pipeline. Our expectation is still that the pipeline will go ahead, and we’re continuing to work on that basis.
I have been a big proponent of the government being prepared for the pipeline and making sure that Northerners are prepared, that industry is prepared, that as a government we are prepared. What kind of timelines are we looking at? You said you were waiting for the completion of the report of the regulatory bodies. What kind of a time frame are we looking at now to have that kind of information in hand?
Although we wanted this kind of preparation in place, at the same time, if there is a significant delay or postponement of the pipeline, we have financial pressures on us right now. We don’t want to be wasting money pursuing something that isn’t going to be forthcoming in the time frame we expected.
Mr. Speaker, the timelines that have been laid out indicate that the JRP report would be completed within four months after the hearings were completed. If you adhere to that, then you’re looking at early spring of 2008. If there’s any delay, it would push it back into the summertime, and as we all know, even for writing reports that would probably mean that it wouldn’t be available until the fall. That would be problematic, because it would probably push back the go–no go decision which the company would have to make probably within a year after the report has been concluded.
I’d like to know when was the most recent communication the Minister has had with the APG and the producers group and the proponents of the pipeline. When was the most recent communication that he had with them that causes him to still feel optimistic, and what is that vehicle for ongoing communication with our government and the business components of the pipeline?
We’ve been in communication with a number of people, most recently with Mr. David Hudson, the ministerial envoy for Minister Prentice, who is the lead on the Mackenzie Valley pipeline for the federal government. We’ve also had discussions with Randy Broiles of Imperial Oil and the APG members, so we continue to remain optimistic.
