Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we're anticipating that the Territorial Power Support Program will, once fully calculated, we'll be looking at $8.7, almost $8.8, million. For the 2005-06 year end, the actuals were $7.5 million. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Gosh, that's a pretty big increase there in percentage. Oh, help me out here. What's that? About 15 percent? This has been something of concern to committee, Madam Chair, is the rate of increase in the cost of this program. I think we're probably at, what, the half-way point, or maybe a little less than half of this is collected from the dividend that we get through the Power Corporation. However, the balance, Madam Chair -- and I suppose we should anticipate that it's going to be in excess of $4 million -- comes from general revenue; comes from other programs or takes the option away for us to spend money somewhere else. So while we cannot, I don't think we can deny this, Madam Chair, I'm not going to be voting against it, and again, I'm going to be flagging the alarming rate of increase, the affordability and the sustainability of this program as long as we continue to allow it to go under its current criteria. I think that's it. I really don't have a question, Madam Chair, unless the Minister would care to comment and potentially address the previous motion of the House from October 2004, when we asked the government to assess the Power Subsidy Program and look at options for keeping in mind its affordability to the government as well as the need for assisting with an essential service. This was a motion of a committee from 2004, Madam Chair, that I believe has not yet been addressed by the government in relation to the soaring costs of the Power Subsidy Program. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the work was done on that motion looking at the costs and some of the cost drivers of it, but it wasn't finalized as to options of making any changes. There wasn't a decision to proceed beyond that point. The big drivers that we see from the 2005-06 numbers to the 2006-07 numbers are the fuel rate riders that were in place. For example, $700,000 of that is directly related to fuel rate riders that came into effect on February 1, 2006, I believe. That was up almost four cents over and above the previous one. Three hundred ninety thousand dollars is another rate rider that fell in the communities of Inuvik and Norman Wells, and then $121,000 was another fuel rate rider that affected other diesel fuel communities. So those are some of the impacts. We expect actually with the work that is ongoing now on rate riders or the actual general rate application, there is a potential for an increase further to that because, as the Territorial Power Support Program is in place, we pay the full cost up to the first 700 kilowatt hours matching the Yellowknife rate. As these rate riders come into place in those communities, that is taken up within that cost. The people only feel the impacts of those rate riders once they go above the 700 kilowatt hours. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Do you have anything further, Mr. Braden? Financial Management Board Secretariat, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $38.281 million. Government accounting, $487,000. Total Financial Management Board Secretariat, not previously authorized, $38.768 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $41,224 million.

Thank you. Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $741,000. Community operations, not previously authorized, negative $5.032 million. Lands administration, not previously authorized, $342,000. Regional operations, not previously authorized, $610,000. Total department, not previously authorized, negative $3.339 million.

Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Reflecting my concern from earlier comments about budgeting and forecasting, there are a couple of projects on this page that I think call attention to some of this or this concern is related to it. In the first line, Madam Chair, this is under MACA, and we are providing contributions to five community governments under MACA's extraordinary funding policy. Madam Chair, one of these is $100,000 to Tuktoyaktuk to I think it has something to do with the relocation and upgrade of the water intake system. We also see that further down that same page, Madam Chair, under a different program is another $110,000 for the identical project. So we have something here for $210,000 but taking from two different pots. That is sort of one question there. Perhaps it is a little on the administrative side, but I think I would like to seek some clarification there, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will try to handle this one. If I can't get all the detail, maybe the Minister would be prepared to answer some of it, but the first portion that it falls under, the amount is a contribution to the community directly as part of their costs for that work. The second portion of the regional operations, the Tuktoyaktuk pump house relocation, is an infrastructure contribution that does go to the community but it still is under a different program. That is why you see it that way. One was to help actually refill their water lake, as they call it, because of problems they had with the existing operation. The second piece is to actually do some work to rectify that going forward.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Is it a case of one or the other pot of money might have been overspent or tacked up and we had to get a little creative with where to find the other money, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, no, the first part was the actual difficulty with the water lake level being lower than anticipated and having problems, then trying to get it up to the levels before freeze-up occurred. The second piece is now infrastructure where we have to do the repairs so that we don't find ourselves in the same situation next year. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I accept the explanation for the costs related to restoring water levels. Perhaps more about to the actual pump house relocation or whatever upgrades were performed, why is it booked here, Madam Chair, as an operations expense and not a capital asset increment, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It is one more of a technical nature of transfers. Because this asset will belong to the community when the project is done, it is transferred in this manner. Whereas, if we were to own the asset, it would show up under our capital acquisition plan. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate those explanations. Another project that is defined here, Madam Chair, is the additional funding related to the costs associated with repairing the floor of the new Whati community hall. Three hundred seventy-five thousand dollars is requested for this repair, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this is a new building or at least one that has been under construction and was started within the last couple of years. Why is the department coming back to the Assembly for repair costs for a brand new building? The logical question to ask first is who made the mistake? Obviously a mistake was made. As I say, this is a new building. Why aren't they being held accountable for the cost of this repair or this error of this $375,000 repair bill, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Roland.