Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there is a process underway now and we hope that all the parties will try to engage and come up with a solution that is equally unacceptable or equally acceptable to everyone. The Cabinet is in support of concluding agreements and respecting the rights of all parties. The Akaitcho is a group that we support and respect and wish to see the rights of their people upheld and not eroded.

The Minister, Jim Antoine, is going to see what he can do to see that there is some resolution to this. The ball is in the federal court. The Minister, Mr. Nault, has the capacity to set up a process to invite or perhaps even force both parties to come together to resolve this.

As a government, we will be meeting as a Cabinet to be making a final decision about any final agreement before anyone signs a final agreement. That is the way it is going to happen. It is going to be stressful. We do not have the answers and we are hoping for some solutions to come. The solutions are possible and the parties have to engage. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I was at the Tlicho initialling and I was asked to be a witness to the federal negotiator's initialling. I declined, that was not understood when the initialling was done. I was called up and, rather than set an unpleasant scene, I proceeded to be a witness to that.

Having said that, the Tlicho Agreement will see this government as a party and it is my expectation that the Deh Cho and the Akaitcho people will find acceptable solutions to the outstanding issues with the Tlicho people and that all parties will support the signing of the final agreement with the Tlicho people. It will be difficult but I expect that people will make best efforts and issues, as they have in every other instance in the past, be resolved to everybody's satisfaction. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, Mr. Handley. It relates to an aspect of the single-rate zone application and the board of directors, as many of my colleagues have been referring to.

My question, Mr. Speaker, for starters, can the Minister tell the House when communication began between his office and the corporation in the development of the single-rate zone application?

Mr. Speaker, communication began probably about the day I took over responsibility for the Power Corporation, as we were going through the review of the Robertson report. I do not have a specific date but it was certainly sometime in the fall of 2001.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So at least under Mr. Handley's watch, about a year of exchange on this idea, to the matter of the August directive, which really was sort of the pivotal decision that was made, and as has been noted in a number of media accounts, there really was a major communication breakdown from the point of which this directive was issued or decided at the Cabinet table and then finally acted on just yesterday. We are looking at a period of about two months, Mr. Speaker.

My question is, why did the Minister allow the situation to go unchecked for so long when it was so clear, at least I think from the Minister's side, that the corporation was acting against Cabinet's wish? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet direction that was provided to the Power Corporation, first of all, dealt with strategic direction. That was very clear. That was direction to the Power Corporation. There was also other direction following that meeting that was directed towards me as the Minister responsible and it certainly made reference to slowing down on the consultation with regard to the Robertson report. That was made available to the Power Corporation. In fact, the Power Corporation had a hand in even drafting the documents for that particular meeting. They were fully aware of it. They would have gotten the notice probably a week after the meeting in early August, so they were fully aware of what the government's position was. There is no doubt at all about that.

In terms of specific direction to the Power Corporation, the first time there was a formal directive to the Power Corporation on this issue was October 11th. As I think some people found out as they went through the Power Corporation Act, it is only by Executive Council directive that we can provide direction. I do not have that authority to provide it as Minister responsible for the Power Corporation. That is not within my authority. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we are sure getting some mixed signals here. If the Power Corporation itself was involved in determining this position and drafting the directive, why is it then that we had to bring the lawyers in? I understand that the Premier's office found it necessary to consult the services of a lawyer in this matter and if I read today's newspaper correctly, the Power Corporation itself brought two lawyers in to help interpret a directive that the Minister says it actually helped to write.

What steps were taken, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister to clarify and confirm with the corporation what the government's intentions were?

Mr. Speaker, in my mind, there was not any lack of clarification in the document or interpretation on it or whatever. I am not sure one group of lawyers or another group of lawyers could really be definitive on what was intended in the document either.

I think the important thing, Mr. Speaker, in this whole issue is that we have a process through the Power Corporation, through the Public Utilities Board, for making decisions on these kinds of matters. We have to recognize that. We have to honour that and we have to allow those processes to follow.

I am of the view that I will not interfere unnecessarily in any board that we appoint in their mandate. We will provide them a strategic direction. We will let them know what our position is. However, if they have an authority, then we have an obligation to either let them carry out their job or, if we do not want to do that, then we should change their mandate. If they will not do it, we have to take the action we had to take yesterday of revoking their appointments.

I am still very concerned that we may have this protocol but in this case it failed miserably. The dismissal of five or six people from a board that has been in place -- and I think operated very well for 14 years now -- demonstrates that this government has some real weaknesses in its communication.

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of frustrated here. How is it that such a weak and poorly worded and ambiguous directive got through the system?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it was weak and badly worded and so on. I certainly would not characterize it as that. I think there has been clearly a difference in communications here. The Power Corporation, in my view, had it. They knew what it meant. They have gone to whatever extent necessary to clarify it. It is unfortunate. I think they were a group of people who are well-respected in the community, I think they made a good contribution to the Power Corporation and it is unfortunate that it ended up as it did with me being forced to revoke their appointments. I am saddened by that. Thank you.