Mr. Lewis.

Mr. Chairman, not as a point of order but as a point of information for Members, there were many things that the previous standing committee on finance approved that I was personally not in favour of, but it was always our policy to show a united front whenever we went to this House. I am publicly on record as being against our participation in Seville, even though that committee was supposed to be in support of it. I use that as one example, but there were lots of others.

Does anyone want to respond to that? If not, Mr. Zoe.

Designing Producer Support Programs To Support Viable Domestic Economy

If there is no response to that, Mr. Todd.

Proposed Amalgamation Of NWT Power Corporation

I do not want to leave the proposed amalgamation of the NWT Power Corporation. I have no argument with the fact that you have to find a way to utilize POL tanks or NWT Power Corporation tanks, et cetera. But I do not think that is the reason for putting them together. We could do that now; a government policy could be developed. The superintendent at the local level along with the government representative could find some method to utilize the existing tanks. I have a problem with that. But that is not my argument.

My argument, or my concern, is similar to Mr. Lewis'. We are putting a terrible amount of power -- if you will excuse the pun -- and a terrible amount of influence under the one umbrella. I am not sure, for example, what would the Public Utilities Board's role would be if POL was under the NWT Power Corporation. What is its role in this thing? I am not convinced the NWT Power Corporation is being run efficiently. Some are; but I am not.

I find it interesting that there is no -- I cannot find it, anyway --but with respect to this NWT Power Corporation, there is no privatization component to it in the report. Let us sell it; let us run it more efficiently. I am told that it can be done by some people. I do not know. I do not see any reference to it in this report. All I see a reference to is making it bigger.

So the issue of utilization of tankage, bulk buying of fuel -- they are administrative problems that could be solved. The real issue is, what is it going to cost us and who controls it? So I am wondering if somebody could advise me on -- hypothetically, if this took place, how would we see it being controlled with respect to its charge-back to the client? I wonder if the Government Leader could give me some indication, if we were to fast-track the privatization of the Power Corporation, how would POL have been affected there? I am a little unclear on that. So I wonder about the protective mechanism to ensure that the charges are appropriate, and the PUB is currently performing that function, I understand, for the NWT Power Corporation. I believe Mr. Pollard said himself that if we sold the Power Corporation we could solve our deficit problem.

So I wonder what the Government Leader's position would be on should, -- and again hypothetically -- we privatize the Power Corporation, where would POL fit in on this privatization thrust? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, at this point in time I cannot answer that question. I think that is one of the questions that has to be addressed as we look at these two tasks and whether it is appropriate to move in that direction. So I am sorry, but right now I am not qualified to answer those questions.

Mr. Todd.

These two very important questions; that is, what is the controlling instrument of the NWT Power Corporation/POL, and are they currently being looked at in the development of this amalgamation plan? Are they being looked at in terms of what the role of the PUB would be, and how we would view POL, should it come about and we sell the Power Corporation, as hopefully we will get support for? Has that been looked at in the current discussions that have taken place with these two departments?

Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, if those questions have not been addressed in this task, I will make sure that they do get addressed.

Thank you. Any further general comments on page 18? Mr. Pudlat.

Northern Regions Fear Amalgamation Of Petroleum, Oil Lubricants And NWT Power Corporation

(Translation) I, too, would like to speak on page 18. We are representatives of the NWT as legislators. We represent the northern regions, and because of that fact I tend to keep saying that the smaller communities within this report, Strength at Two Levels, have a fear, particularly dealing with POL and the amalgamation of the NWTPC. I am wondering, at the very start perhaps it would proceed very well should there be an amalgamation, but we have to look further into the future to see if it might not proceed as well as it might be intended.

My question, then, is to the Government Leader. You indicated that a review process is being undertaken, and I wonder when you will be able to pass on this information. As a last comment, while this information is being researched, I would like to be provided with the details.

Thank you. Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is what all the process is about right now. In terms of supplying energy or power to communities, what we do is that the Power Corporation charges a rate to home-owners or to their clients and it is subsidized at the Yellowknife rate. That is what exists today, and I think that one of the concerns is that we maintain that, but at this point in time, certainly in terms of rate structures, how the Power Corporation charges those rates, that presently, I believe, will soon be under review by the Public Utilities Board, so that will be in the spring. The commitment by the Power Corporation when we took out the work; that is, the different stages that we had to move through in terms of the task of looking at what is presently in POL and how that will be handled, that information will be available to all MLAs and also to the working group and to the standing committees, as it comes forward. Certainly the questions of concern will be addressed in those reviews. So yes, I will provide the information as soon as it comes forward, and we can have additional information sessions if the information is more than reading material.

Member for Thebacha.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did want to make a couple of comments in respect to the areas of program and program delivery. There is a suggestion in the report that the use of co-payment and means-testing possible in the delivery of social assistance programs be introduced and increased; and in respect to that, I guess what I would like to ask is, in what areas does the government feel that the author of this book recommended that they introduce or increase the use of co-payments and means-testing, particularly when it comes to social programs?

Thank you. Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot answer that question because I do not recall exactly which areas they had suggested to look at. I cannot answer the question at this time.

Thank you. Member for

Thebacha.

Co-Payments And Means-Testing

Mr. Chairman, I guess the reason I asked is because I am concerned about this recommendation. I think we will probably be one of the only jurisdictions in Canada that would look at implementing some type of thing like this, and I am concerned, when trying to address social programs in a universal manner, that you start also addressing them in a means-testing approach that at times takes away from the intent of the purpose of the social program, so I would like to suggest, and I would like to point out, that they certainly look at this with caution and that we do not start setting precedents to delivering social programs on a means-testing basis.

The other comment that I did want to make, Mr. Chairman, is in respect to the employment development and income support co-ordination. It states that consideration be given to establishing a department of education and employment with a mandate for delivering all of the programs related to employment development and income support, including social assistance. I have to state that I certainly do not agree with that at all. I find that you may be using a lot of your social assistance funding for development of employment programs, and that was not the intent of social assistance to begin with. The intent of social assistance, in my mind, was the fact that the federal government basically stated that people in need can be provided with social assistance to cover some of their basic needs that they need to live and cope with society. If you start looking at tinkering with social assistance and placing it into employment development, and looking at income support, you are doing away with the initial intention of social assistance, and I think you will be asking for a horrendous increase in costs. I think that is totally unfair to a recipient who basically needs social assistance to cover the basics, with no intention of employment development in their career path. There are many people who could be illiterate or that fall into this category, so I do want to stress that I do not agree with the idea of social assistance being placed in with the Department of Education, because social assistance was not meant to be in the Department of Education. It is meant to be in the Department of Social Services, to provide for a fundamental need to residents, and I strongly recommend against that. Those are basically my comments that I do have in respect to page 18, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Government Leader.

Mr. Chairman, I believe those are comments from the Member that have to be weighed in our deliberations in what we do in the implementation.