Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the rate structure is an issue that is by itself, not able to address the needs of communities. The Public Utilities Board, for the Member's information, had ruled some years ago, and had explicitly rejected a single-rate zone because, as they said at that time, it would result in a massive cross-subsidization of diesel ratepayers by hydro ratepayers. That is, the ratepayers in places like Fort Smith and Hay River and Resolution would have to pay more -- not because it costs more there, but because they would be asked to subsidize the high cost of providing diesel power in other communities. The Public Utilities Board at that time had ruled that was not the business for them to deal with. It was called social engineering and that the issue of subsidies had been dealt with by government.

So the idea had been rejected some years ago. In any case, the hearings are still going to continue and people are going to be heard. I think, more importantly, the energy strategy that this government had undertaken to have delivered to Cabinet for consideration by this Assembly is expected to be prepared and presented in draft form in the next week or so, and that once we have this draft energy strategy, the Cabinet and every Member of the Legislature, along with the public, would have then a broad paper, in which to look at specific issues under which rate zones, subsidies, additional incentives to offset high cost for commercial and industrial users in remote communities would come into play. Conservation, environmental impact...a whole range of issues, under which the specific issues or rate zones could properly be considered.

So the issue was not whether we were attempting to take away public consultation and involvement, but rather to make sure that the context was set so that people, once they started talking and forming opinions, had available to them good factual information and a broad range of considerations under which to formulate their positions, then to present them in a public forum. That was the intent. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it sounds good, but apparently, it does not answer the question. The question is why did this government interfere with a public process that was well on its way? We had people intervening in a public process and who gives justification for this government to...(inaudible)...a public process through a public hearing by the Public Utilities Board?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in early August, Cabinet directed that the Power Corporation should cease consulting on a range of issues, including the single-rate zone. This was not properly communicated, apparently, to the Power Corporation. They went ahead and filed their papers for a single-rate zone in early September. When we had a Cabinet meeting here two weeks ago, we revisited that decision. The decision was maintained and direction was given. They refused to comply, and so their appointments were revoked and a new interim board was put in place. The interim board is expected to withdraw that application and resubmit a new application so that the public process can continue. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I hope this is not the precedent of this government, that we muzzle every public hearing process if this government does not like what the outcome may be. The whole idea of having a public consultation process through a public hearing is to determine what the public thinks and what their opinions are on the different rate structures that are in place. It is not up to us as government. It is the Public Utilities Board.

Again, I would like to ask the Premier, was there a directive passed in Cabinet where a vote took place that clearly spells out how that decision was made a couple of months ago?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A couple of points. One, I think the Member should be aware that Cabinet did not reject any particular proposal. What we said very clearly in August was that further consultation and work on the single-rate zone should be deferred until after a draft energy strategy was completed and presented. So Cabinet itself does not speak in favour or against any particular proposal at this time. I think that is very important to point out, because in all of the discussions to date, I note that nobody has ever bothered to ask me what my position is on this person. It is just an important point to make, that Cabinet did not reject the idea of a single-rate zone. It said very clearly that it should stop consultation on it until an energy strategy is completed. That is an important point to make.

The advice, the direction that we gave, we thought it was clear in August. Our staff thought it was clear. Just to be doubly sure, we revisited the decision and made it explicitly clear. The direction was given. The staff looked at the August decision and legal people looked at it and said the direction was clear. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier up front, was he lobbied in any way by Cabinet Ministers or Members on this side of the House to cancel the public hearing process altogether?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the question was, was I lobbied by anybody to shut down the public process, and the answer is no.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I stated in my Member's statement my concerns about the proposed changes to the BIP policy. I would like to ask the Minister responsible if he could confirm that the process was open from the time that we were informed of the changes to the Business Incentive Policy, that it was open until September 30th, the date that he gave us, and not the answer that was given to one business from the Business Incentive Policy office? Have there been changes made to the Business Incentive Policy from the time that we were presented the proposed changes to the input that was received September 30th? Did the department make any further changes? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, could the Minister inform this House of the socio-economic benefits, or lack of benefits, that this policy has created over the past number of years that warrant the changes being proposed to this Business Incentive Policy?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am going to leave that question as I put it, because I think that what I was trying to get at is what I mentioned in my Member's statement, that the government has had a hard time quantifying what this policy has done as far as benefits and what the costs were. That is what I was getting at. I hope that the Minister can supply some information to me on that.

One of the business sectors, Mr. Speaker, that seem to have been left out of this, especially the new proposal, this policy, is the manufacturing industry. I will give you one example, Mr. Speaker. For a $70,000 contract, the adjustment in the old policy would have been $10,500. Under the new policy, the adjustment would only be $3,750. This basically represents the freight subsidy that would be extra for a southern company to bid on a contract of that size, not taking into consideration the extra cost of labour and utilities. How does this benefit the manufacturing industry in the Northwest Territories? What is it telling our manufacturing industry in the Northwest Territories under these new proposed changes? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.