Debates of May 11, 2007 (day 5)

Mr. Speaker, my questions this morning are for Mr. Bell, the Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, and it concerns the suggestion floated a few days ago by Tristone Capital that the Mackenzie Valley pipeline won’t cut it on commercial terms unless the federal government jumps in with a suggested $2 billion worth of support. Mr. Speaker, my first question is does the GNWT agree with the suggestion that the federal government must put taxpayers' money into the Mackenzie gas project to make it viable? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bell.

Return To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the new costing came out and although we were expecting an increase in the price of this project, we were surprised by the magnitude of the increase: $16 billion. I think the suspected or the whisper number on the street had been, sort of, in the 10 to 12 range. So this is much higher than we had anticipated. We’ve been lobbying for some time; we do believe that there is a logical role for governments in assisting this project. We’ve never been advocating that there be subsidies paid to the producers; we don’t think that makes sense or is the role of government, but we do believe that there are some areas governments can help. The Tristone report points those out. Whether it’s infrastructure investments that could bring down the price of this project, we know it would be cheaper to construct in the South because of our infrastructure disadvantage. So marine infrastructure, road infrastructure, airports; there are some things that can be done. Assistance to the APG is another area that we would like to see happen in the form of loan guarantees, Mr. Speaker, potentially some shipping commitment help. So there are a number of areas we see a logical role for governments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Mr. Speaker, considering the significance of this project to the Northwest Territories, is the Minister, is the government going to be more specific and be more aggressive about the kind of support we would like to see the federal government taking? Of course, there are lots of different options, all of them that make sense in certain areas, but which are the ones that make most sense for us for the long-term future of the Northwest Territories? Is the government going to be taking that case to the federal government and promote our interests in this project, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Mr. Speaker, there are discussions, if not currently underway, they’re imminent between our officials, federal officials and the pipeline proponents to talk about the areas that government could support and assist this project, and I’ve just indicated some of the options that we favour. We need to see more detail from the producers in terms of their costing. \what does that $16 billion comprise? What types of infrastructure would help make this project price come down? We want to make sure that we’re advocating for areas that will have the most impact on the price of this project. So there are discussions underway at the officials' level and once those take place, that will come back up to our Cabinet for further discussion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Mr. Speaker, I guess I’m a bit disappointed to hear that the GNWT has not got a more firm or more aggressive position on this at this point. The DIAND Minister, Jim Prentice, clearly has the mandate to make this happen. In light of the, as I indicated in my statement, absence so far of any substantive legacy project from the already massive development that is underway in the NWT, will the Minister seriously consider the advantages that legacy projects such as hydro, roads and communication projects will have and press that case for federal government investment, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we like this project is because of the legacy it can create and, first and foremost, 50 or 100 year industry for people up and down the valley in terms of oil and gas exploration. There are logical infrastructure contributions we think can be made by the federal government. We’ve been advocating that for some time. Now what we do need to see from Imperial and the producers is some detailed breakdown on that costing. There's no sense for us advocating for roads that will have little or no impact on the project. We need to see this detail. They have indicated that it would be filed before the end of May. I think that is happening now as we speak, or very shortly. That’s when we can get down to the brass tacks in terms of discussions with the federal government and Imperial. There have been some high level discussions around support for the project, but without that detailed information it is very difficult for us to talk about what kinds of infrastructure will contribute the most. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Mr. Speaker, you know, again, I want to appeal to the Minister and ask for his commitment to focus not on what’s good for the pipeline project, Exxon Mobil and the other investors; what is good for the Northwest Territories? Will this government finally and aggressively focus on what we need, not what works to the advantage of the pipeline proponents, Mr. Speaker?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Bell.

Further Return To Question 57-15(6): Mackenzie Gas Pipeline Legacy Infrastructure Projects

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would argue that what is good for this pipeline project and sees this pipeline project go ahead, eventually will be good for the Northwest Territories. It makes little sense for us to sit down with these three parties and argue for infrastructure contributions that have no bearing on whether or not this pipeline goes ahead. There’s a place for that and those are in discussions between our government and the federal government. There are a number of logical areas and we do that continually. However, if we’re talking about what can make this pipeline a reality, we need to understand from the project proponents where the project needs the most help, and that’s the approach that we’ve undertaken. We have, for some time, the Premier, Minister of Finance, myself, have been advocating for and lobbying for support to the APG. Those loan guarantees can bring down the cost of borrowing for the APG. They’re going to need some help. Obviously as the price of this project goes up, it’s going to mean they have to come to the table with more money. We’ve been working and focussing our efforts there primarily, but obviously we’re encouraged with the indication from Imperial that infrastructure contributions in the North would be an area that would really help them. We think that has the federal government’s attention and we will start to focus there as we see more detail. Thank you.