Mr.

Speaker, the Public

Utilities Board is an arm’s-length board from the Government of the Northwest Territories. As the Minister Responsible for the PUB, I can appoint board members to the board, but I don’t sign off on any decisions the board makes.

That’s where I would like to go next. These are decisions affecting people that we represent, so I think we should have a say in the decisions that are made.

I’d like to ask the Minister what we would have to do to have decisions that are made by the Public Utilities Board endorsed by the Legislative Assembly, because it does affect all the people that we represent. I believe we need to have a say in the decisions that are made from now on.

I think it’s important for the public to understand the role the Public Utilities Board plays. The board reviews all applications for rate increases by a regulated power body. If the Public Utilities Board were not there, there would be no opportunity for review and for input by the public, and by affected sectors, to examine rates that have been put forward by utilities and corporations. Over the years the Public Utilities Board decisions have probably resulted in savings to the average consumer of a significant amount.

If there were savings to the average consumer, then I wouldn’t be asking these questions. There is a frustration out there that too many of these applications are rubber-stamped by

the Public Utilities Board. I understand the need to operate at an arm’s length, like I said.

The Public Utilities Board seeks public input into the applications. Are they required to hold public hearings so the public can put their input into these decisions? I am sure they would hear the exact opposite of everything else that is out there. They’ll give them their feedback into the proposed rates and how it is going to affect them. So is there a requirement to hold a public hearing, and if there is, is there a cost to it?

The Public Utilities Board, once it has received an application for rate increases, holds a public hearing and also provides for intervener funding. The hearings play a large part in the rulings by the Public Utilities Board.

My experience is that the Public Utilities Board doesn’t take the applications and rubber-stamp the approval; it takes its responsibilities very seriously. In its most recent applications, the Public Utilities Board has in fact ruled to reduce the amount that had been applied for. So I think the Public Utilities Board is a part of the regulatory function of the Northwest Territories.

I should also point out that with the approval and acceptance of the 2007 N.W.T. energy plan, we do have an electricity rate review that is undertaken that is provided for through the energy plan. One of the key principles that we are working towards with the energy plan is affordable power for all residents. This review will look at the regulation of energy, the provision of subsidy and the way in which rates are determined.

Final supplementary, Mr.

Robert

McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Minister for that.

The significant savings that he may be speaking about here…. There was a $2 million shortfall that the NWTPC asked for three and a half months to recover. The Public Utilities Board said, “We’ll give you 12 months.” They are still going to recover the shortfall, so really, in my opinion, it isn’t a significant savings to the general public.

I would like to ask the Minister again. This is something that is affecting people that we represent, so I think we as an Assembly should have some say into some of these decisions. So I’d like to ask the Minister again: is it possible for this Assembly to have approval over the final decisions that are made or recommended by the Public Utilities Board?

Part of the review that is being undertaken…. My expectation is that we would come up with options which would entertain exactly

what the Member is putting forward. And that would be one of the options that we would look at.

Mr. Speaker, this is concerned with all the media regarding the cutbacks. Local community government seldom errs, but they have been asking me to ask: is this going to affect the new deal with these cutbacks?

Mr. Speaker, as we’re aware, there’s been a lot of work done by the department and Department of Community Affairs in building that program and giving more authority and increasing budgets to communities. We haven’t made a decision as to the full impact of decisions we’ll accept as areas of reduction or areas of reinvestment. So at this time it’s difficult to say what impact would be felt in any department at this point. Departments have started their work, started evaluating, have been submitting that back. That review is ongoing at this point.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister, just to let you know…. I mean, for the riding of Nunakput, we say tough love, but we have it tough enough. Really consider that in your deliberations with your caucus, and remember, not everybody lives in Yellowknife. We live on the Beaufort Sea. And the people…. This is a shortfall to my people, and it’s going to affect everybody.

I didn’t hear a question there. It’s a statement.

Mr. Speaker, I think some of my constituents in the last little while, over the Christmas season…. The issue of the Northern residency tax deduction has come up a couple of times now.

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, when you’re in the opposition party and when you’re proposing a new idea or a new initiative to the party that’s in government, we know that they respond to you like you’re a little mosquito, even if it is a good idea. They sort of say, “Good idea, but shoo!” You know, Mr. Speaker.

So instead of taking up this issue with our MP, who’s actually in the fourth party — or, I should say, our third opposition party — would the Premier consider taking this issue up with the other Northern Premiers, Premier Fentie and Premier Okalik? The fact is we’re going to get a much stronger, clearer voice from a non-partisan perspective brought forward to Ottawa. I wonder if it

would be received much more efficiently and effectively if it were done in that type of proposal.

Mr. Speaker, in fact, that work has been done. In my role as Finance Minister I’ve contacted Northern Premiers and then went beyond to other Finance Ministers across the country. At the meeting we had before Christmas with the Minister of Finance for Canada, Minister Flaherty, I put that on the table as well as followed up with a letter to him, and I’m waiting for a response.

Mr. Speaker, it’s pleasant news to finally hear it live, here in the flesh, for the first time. I’d encourage the Premier to make sure he articulates these groundbreaking movements on subjects like this to all Members.

Mr. Speaker, is he also seeking other support from maybe our Senators and other MPs like this? The fact is the Premiers are the big issue. What type of information and support is he really getting from them? Is it one of those “Good idea, but we’ll just sign on so it looks good on the letterhead”? Or is he getting real support, whereas then they’ll break some real ground on this issue?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is…. To focus, we need to put our energy where we’re going to get the results and then working with other Finance Ministers — territorial, provincial — and bringing it to the table of the federal Finance Minister, seeking his input and, hopefully, his support. We’re waiting for his response at that point. It’s my understanding they’re looking at their budget process now.

Well, I’m just going to leave it at that, but I want to highlight the fact that it’s being brought up by a lone opposition member again, in a party that’s not recognized as the Official Opposition, so it’s going to be treated as a far-down priority.

The fact is that we all know there’s a looming potential election coming up, and even if the Conservatives return, it’s a good time to start putting a full-court press on this issue. Maybe we can get some serious commitments in advance of a potential election. It’s good to continue citing or screening this issue toward southern candidates so they realize the difficulty. How many times have we heard about the power rates, the cost of food and whatnot being raised in this House? Would the Premier be willing to crank up the pressure on this issue so it’s on the national agenda?

As I stated earlier, I already approached my Territorial colleagues, and I approached the provincial Finance Ministers. We addressed it at the Finance Ministers’ meeting before Christmas, and I followed up with a letter, so we’re waiting for their response. I’ve been to the

federal Finance department to see if they would be looking at it.

As well, for the record, as is pointed out by the Member, we’ve had our MP in Ottawa make mention of this, address it in Parliament. Unfortunately, the result from that process was not a positive one, and I’m not sure if that will have an impact on our approach.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask some more questions of the Premier in regard to the Deh Cho Bridge process and project. It gets back to what I believe is a fundamental foundation for the reason for the project going forward during the life of the last government.

On a continual basis the Members of the last Assembly were told that benefits would accrue to the community of Fort Providence via the $5 million equity stake that the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation would have in the project. It was a guaranteed rate of return, Mr. Speaker. That money was going to do some good things in Fort Providence, so the last government told us. That situation has changed, and I’m wondering if the Premier could elaborate a little bit today on what the current disposition of that equity arrangement is with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation.

The concession agreement talks about a maximum $5 million equity portion. The Deh Cho Bridge Corporation has informed us that they do have their equity in place. It’s not up to the $5 million mark. That has an effect on the rate of return, of course.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier would be able to tell the Members of the House and the public here in the Northwest Territories: who are the partners in the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation today? Mahsi.

I’m aware, because of our discussions around the concession agreement, that they do have their equity in place — again, not to the $5 million. I believe they’re right around the $4

million mark. They have a partner that’s

partnered up with them, along with themselves and another corporation within, I believe, Fort Providence. I would have to work with them to ensure I can sit down and provide the information to Members. I’m not sure if I can make it public at this point.

Mr.

Speaker, it’s a substantial

amount of government public dollars going into a project, and we can’t find out who the partners are. That’s par for the course with the project and with the process, and I think that’s something, again, that’s flawed.

I’m wondering if the Premier could commit to making some type of announcement on who the partners are in that project. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: perhaps the government should take a look, if there’s a guaranteed rate of return there…. And I don’t want to come out and say who that partner is, either. But maybe the Government of the Northwest Territories should put in that equity if they’re going to get a guaranteed rate of return, rather than see it go somewhere else.

I'm sure the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, once they get a record of what is stated here, will maybe have that discussion. They have put in place, right now, their equity piece. They forwarded it. That doesn't mean that can't change or shares can’t be bought out in the future, or a number of factors fall in place. The fact is the lower their equity, the lower the guaranteed rate of return. In a sense, that helps us as a government, but it doesn't help them out. I will look to putting the information together and providing Members with the information we can get to them.