Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Bell.

I think the Member makes a very good point. I think one thing is certain, and that is that this pipeline initiative not only has the attention of the federal government, but has the attention of the whole country, and certainly, as well, the United States. So I think it's the perfect vehicle to raise the profile of some of our smaller, more remote communities, and make sure that the country and the federal government understands the challenges and the hurdles.

Just as an aside, when we talk about programs like the one that the Arctic Energy Alliance was able to use for energy audits, the federal funding that was to flow was based around a model that would have independent contractors going around doing these energy audits, and there was so much mileage allowance per audit. They figured if you had to travel between communities they would provide for so much mileage for you to drive, not recognizing, of course, that we have to fly to most of our more remote communities in order to even be able to do these energy audits. So you can see the kinds of things that we're up against. The business model that's used to develop a lot of these federal programs simply doesn't fit our needs, and that's why we have to continue to make the federal government aware of our unique challenges. Clearly it's much easier to get around Prince Edward Island than it is the Northwest Territories, and you can do it much more cheaply. So those unique challenges have to be factored into the funding models or we won't be even at step one. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Before I go on to Mr. Ramsay again, maybe I'll get Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there may be some efficiencies to be gained that would analyze the function of the Arctic Energy Alliance and the energy management program within RWED. If the Minister can comment on that, because I think it will be important for next year in the business planning stage to say okay, we as a government, that's how I think my role is now, is how do we gain efficiencies and that's one thing

we're going to have to look at seriously. There are two administration costs here by two programs running differently and there may be a cost savings here and we should look at it seriously. I will just get the Minister to comment on that.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Bell.

I think as a wily old veteran from that side of the House from the past government I sense a bit of a theme here and it's not lost on me. We need to sit down and have a discussion about the mandate here of all of our energy program delivery mechanisms. I think this area is not alone. I think as just a good standard operating procedure, we need to be continually doing this and assessing all of our program delivery. Really we don't have the luxury of duplication anymore. If there is duplication here and we're able to identify it, then the next step is for us to, as a committee, decide on what the most appropriate mechanism for delivering these programs would be and cut down on duplication, not just here but in other areas, as well. But certainly here is a good place to start. We've had discussion about this, and I commit to coming before committee to have this discussion.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Menicoche. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Bell.

Thank you. There were a number of challenges with the way the funding for this program would flow. When the initial projections and estimates and budgets were drawn up, it was assumed that we would pass the Waste Recovery and Reduction Act earlier in the life of the 14th Assembly. It ended up not being able to be passed in the spring. We had to wait until fall to get this through the Assembly, which ended up delaying us because it would take we estimated a year to create the regulations and make sure we had the program in place. So some of the money that was to be spent in 2003-04 ends up being spent in 2004-05. Specifically I can give some detail of that $65,000. There was an administrator's salary and benefits, there were some public education materials, there was depot process centre staff training, and the creation of the advisory committee and I'm just underway now with that. So those expenditures are in fact going to happen in 2003-04 here, but this was not the manner that the cash was originally to be rolled out for this program, but obviously the adjustments had to be made. I can reassure the Member that the overall price tag of $1.143 million over the two years is in fact still the same, it's just a matter of the cash flow timing.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some more questions on that, but I think I'll reserve those questions until the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further general comments? Environmental protection services, operations expense, total operations expense, $2.931 million.

Going to 11-17, environmental protection services, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $500,000.

I'm sorry; $560,000.

Going down to 11-19, resource management and economic development, operation expense, total operation expense, $36.558 million.

Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to keep up with my questions here on other expenses. Can I get a breakdown on other expenses, please?

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Bell.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, just bear with me a second here and I'll provide that information. The $9.021 million is comprised of $1.356 million for travel and transportation; $966,000, materials and supplies; $793,000, purchased services; $118,000 in utilities; $4.613 million, contract services; $588,000, fees and payments; $217,000, other expenses; $269,000, tangible assets; $101,000, computer hardware. Again, that's $9.021 million.