Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The issue of reviewing the budget and the programs and where issues are heading I think is crucial. In our system, we have assigned Members of the Assembly to committees because it helps Members to specialize and to become more aware. For instance, on social programs. Members of the Social Programs Committee have become more aware of social issues and have spent more time examining what alternatives and options might be. Other Members have sought membership on the Governance and Economic Development Committee, perhaps because their interests lie in a different area, with a focus on economic development or a focus on monetary issues.

It seems to me a little backwards to have this under the wings of a department that does not therefore come automatically for examination before the Social Programs Committee.

I have to say that I have not been persuaded by the Minister on his argument that it best resides in the Executive. I think we have to look for some way to make sure that in fact, there is some relationship set up with the Members who are on the Social Programs Committee, rather than just on GED. I think otherwise, you are missing some potentially valuable input. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman, the supp of course goes through AOC, but in the longer term, then the Executive is through GED. I still think it is appropriately placed there given the number of agencies that are involved in this exercise. I think we are certainly open to working with the committees and with the Members to try to ensure that the Social Programs Committee has an opportunity to review this initiative as it moves along. I agree with the Member on that.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see that as part of the funding allocated under the $250,000, $90,000 has been allocated for aboriginal governments and NGO representatives. Is the NWT Association of Municipalities considered an NGO and will it qualify for some of that $90,000?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot say with certainty, but I expect that they would be.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Did you have more to add, Mr. Handley?

No, only to say that I can find that out. I expect they are eligible for some funding support but I cannot say that with certainty.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will the Minister agree to make sure that information is provided to the House before it comes time for us to conclude this item today?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Handley.

Yes, we will find out.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have the same concern about the placement of the Energy Secretariat here, not in terms of developing a strategy, because I do think that perhaps in developing a strategy, this might be appropriate for it.

However, I notice that we have here $45,000 allocated of the $600,000 for demonstration projects. I am bit concerned that the policy shop is now undertaking activities. That concerns me somewhat. I am not convinced that activities like that should be undertaken in the Executive. It may be appropriate to have a policy development area there but how do we justify demonstration projects? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Handley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, in following up on the comments from Members when we reviewed this with AOC, we are looking at how to structure our energy initiatives in a broader context. We are dealing with that.

In terms of the demonstration projects on energy technology, I believe that this was, as the budget was broken up, an amount of money that was set aside with the intention of being able to either assess some new technology or in fact, in some cases, to even do some demonstration on it to ensure that it is working before we move too far along in a policy that takes us in a particular direction.

I do not know specifically what the demonstration might be, whether it is on solar panels or wind technology or whatever it may be, but this is identified as an amount of money to enable us to do that before making policy statements in specific directions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my concern remains. I am pleased to hear though the Minister commit to examining the placement of all the energy issues and seeing whether or not there might be a better place for them by combining them within government. I look forward to hearing further discussion about that. In the meantime, as part of the $600,000 we have identified, $100,000 for consultation and $80,000 for consensus building, can he define for us what the difference is between the two? Where does consultation stop and consensus building begin? Is there a clear understanding of what the difference is between those two items?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, in terms of the consultation, the consultation as I understand it, as it was explained to me, is to engage stakeholders in a broad consultation on the energy initiative as it is. That was broken out at three levels. There was the Premier, Executive Council, MLAs at the first level. The second level being departments and crown corporations. The third level being the public. So money identified there was to build the agreement on the overall exercise.

When we came to consensus building, consensus building was built around specific focus groups that would deal with very specific topics or areas within the broad energy exercise. These would deal with very specific tasks that they would be reviewing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. We will go to Mr. Bell.

Thank you. I have several questions, Mr. Chairman, on this page. The first $250,000, I am wondering about the community consultations, the meeting expenses and the print services. I am wondering if the Minister can give us some sort of breakdown as to whether or not these were competitive bid situations or sole-sources and whether or not they were northern or southern contractors that were used in those situations, the $75,000, $50,000 and $35,000.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Handley.