Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet met in early August and it was felt that there was a clear political understanding, an understanding of the Ministers about what that decision was, which was to direct that the Power Corporation defer any further consultation on a range of things, including a single-rate zone. For whatever reason, this was not understood by the Power Corporation and conveyed to them. It was important to get that clear.

We had a meeting two weeks ago. Cabinet reviewed that and we had that clarified and confirmed and simply asked the board to withdraw their application at this time, so that the energy strategy could be completed and the Members of the Legislature could have a debate about the draft Energy Strategy, the public could have a look at it and within that context discuss what is the best way for the Power Corporation to operate, what are the goals and objectives that we have in the strategies that we set out, and then deal with specific issues of single-rate zones. That was the direction we gave in August and it was a decision we thought was clear.

It was brought up again. It was revisited and we asked our board to comply. They chose not to comply so that was the action we took. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What is the Premier doing to make sure that communications around Cabinet decisions are clear and direct from now on? It is hardly any wonder that the corporation did not know what to expect, or the board did not know what to expect when on August 6th the Cabinet apparently made a decision, August 13th the Minister was in front of AOC and he came out in support of the one-rate zone application to AOC. He was then heard on the radio subsequent to the application being filed saying that he supported it.

How could the board ever get the impression that this was a clear decision of Cabinet? Has the Premier dealt with that issue so that we know that we are going to hear publicly now what Cabinet positions are from Cabinet Ministers?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Cabinet Ministers were not asked what their preferences were in regard to the issue of rate zones. The Cabinet was asked to make a decision about what type of a process and sequence in which things should happen because we had a draft strategy that all of us had been waiting to discuss and review. We felt that it was the right decision to do, to ask the Power Corporation to defer any further consultation specifically on the single-rate zone until the Energy Strategy had been completed.

All Ministers agreed with that, that consultation should be deferred. It was confirmed again in the recent Cabinet meeting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, has the Premier discussed with his Cabinet then how in the future we are going to make sure we do not get into this situation where there is not a clear understanding of what the position of Cabinet is?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that all of us are aware that there was a communication problem with the August Cabinet decision and for whatever reason, the Power Corporation did not understand the intent and direction given by Cabinet. I am sure the staff will review that and ensure that this is addressed so that it does not happen again. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that as notice. I do not have the document with me to confirm exactly what area. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of RWED and it is about the BIP provision process, a process that the Minister has characterized as very open, Mr. Speaker. The presentation from RWED to our committee, when we were talking about BIP adjustment thresholds, the case was made that this would allow cost containment, Mr. Speaker. Cost containment was the rationale. Go to RWED's web site, why are thresholds being introduced? During our consultations, the business community expressed the need for a dollar cap on the application of BIP adjustments -- nothing about cost containment.

Mr. Speaker, why are we not being forthright and honest with the people of the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So behind closed doors, we are being told that it is about cost containment. In public, we make no mention of cost containment. I have a theory, Mr. Speaker. I think it is because if you tell people it is about cost containment, they would ask you what the BIP is costing us, and the truth is that we have no idea, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister endeavour to figure out what the BIP is costing this government?

Mr. Speaker, I am not even going to wade into this dispute about what are contract administration issues and what are BIP administration issues. This is one of the biggest shell games I have ever seen, Mr. Speaker. I am glad the Minister raised the issue of labour rebates. We have had store-fronting problems with BIP. That is no surprise to anybody. We figured, I guess, with this revision that we are going to change all that because we are going to now allow it. What we are going to do is we are going to apply BIP to companies purporting to have a percentage of northern content or northern labour in their proposals and we are going to take their word for it, Mr. Speaker. How does this make any sense? Why are we proposing that we will go back after the fact and audit these things when we know that we do not have the capability to do that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.