Moving on to page 10-14,

Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Grants and Contributions. Agreed?

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Grants and Contributions, approved.

Page 10-16, information

item, Corporate Management, Active Positions. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This page

shows a reduction of five positions. The information that the committee was given during the review of the budget indicates that these five positions are ADM, strategic initiatives; executive secretary, manager, Informatics; and a corporate services clerk.

When I look at the proposed reductions for ’09–10, those positions seem to show up there; at least, one of them does. I’m again back to the confusion of whether or not the reductions are including amounts from position reductions in ’09–10 or if it’s only just ’08–09.

The Minister of ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m not

sure where the reference to ’09–10 is on this page, but those positions the Member raised were with regard to 2008–2009.

I don’t see the item on

this page. Ms. Bisaro.

No. That’s good. Thank you.

Corporate Management,

Active Positions, information item. Agreed?

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Active Positions, information item (page 10-16), approved.

Moving on to page 10-17,

information item, Corporate Management, Active Positions. Agreed?

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Corporate Management, Active Positions, information item (page 10-17), approved.

Page 10-19, Activity

Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $6.018 million. Agreed?

Department of Industry, Tourism and

Investment, Activity Summary, Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Operations Expenditure Summary: $6.018 million, approved.

Moving on to page 10-21,

Minerals and Petroleum Resources, Grants and Contributions. Ms. Bisaro.

I’m sorry. Can we go back to 10-19, or

have we left there already?

Is the committee agreed

to go back to 10-19?

Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you. Since we’re dealing with

10-19 and 10-20, there are a number of reductions that have been suggested — sorry. Strategic initiatives. This is being added in. There’s the Mackenzie Gas Project. The information the committee received suggests that there’s a pipeline regulatory specialist and that there are also legal services for NEB participation and oil and gas socio-economic agreement contributions.

My questions. All of this is related to the Mackenzie Gas Project and particularly to the NEB hearings joint review panel report and sort of the whole provision of reporting and information and so on for the Mackenzie Gas Project. With the joint review panel report not being expected until January or February of ’09, to me there’s basically no activity in this particular area. I’d like to get some explanation from the department, from the Minister, as to why we should be extending some $350,000 on the Mackenzie Gas Project when it doesn’t seem to me there’s anything we need to spend the money on.

The Minister of ITI.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The

Member is correct as to the joint review panel; we expect their report in January 2009. I guess I should point out that the pipeline hearings were very long and complex. It took at least two years to

hold all the hearings. Our expectation is that the report will be fairly technical and complex in nature.

The process would be that the report would be transferred to the National Energy Board to review, so there’s a requirement for outside legal advice for the National Energy Board participation. As the Member knows, the National Energy Board is a federal regulatory tribunal before whom legal representation is required.

This particular area of law is very specialized. For that reason, it’s not as if we can just pick up expertise here and there. It’s something we think we’ve spent a lot of time developing since applications were filed in October 2004. We would have no capacity to do preparatory work for the NEB and other matters that come before us. For example, there is an application for facilities required to connect the Mackenzie Valley pipeline to the TransCanada pipeline corporation’s main hub. For example, the Vardie and Dickins Lake connections are before the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board and require monitoring by the GNWT.

I guess that’s the main area. The specific responsibilities of the pipeline regulatory specialist are to provide technical, legal and policy advice and assistance to the government. It’s also responsible to assist external legal counsel in representing the Government of the Northwest Territories. Specific responsibilities are to review and develop policies related to the development of the Mackenzie Gas Project so that our government can effectively engage in these hearings.

So it’s expertise that we’ve spent a lot of time developing, and it’s important for us to keep in-house. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the information. I’m not

suggesting that we shouldn’t be prepared. I understand the regulatory specialist position is sunsetted, and it’s probably a good idea to keep the person in that position, because they do have special expertise.

But I have a couple of questions with regard to paying for expert legal counsel when there doesn’t seem to be anything happening. I don’t know when the NEB is next scheduled for hearings. But if we’re not receiving the joint review panel report until January or February of next year, we’re pretty much to the end of the ’08–09 fiscal year.

Why are we scheduling funding for legal counsel for a 12-month period when we may only use them for, at the most, perhaps three or four months? If I could have an answer, please.

In order for the government to

most effectively advance its interests, it would be

important for us to maintain continuity in terms of the legal representation and also to continue to engage the external legal counsel that has represented our government at NEB proceedings since the applications were filed in October 2004.

In the interim, and pending receipt of the joint review panel report and recommendations, there are ongoing preparation requirements to ensure that the Government of the Northwest Territories is ready to respond when the joint review panel report is issued.

In addition, as I mentioned earlier, there are interim matters to which parties are required to respond from time to time. I guess the best example is that we need expertise so we can stay on top of the Alaska pipeline progress as well.

I guess I question whether or not we

need outside expert legal counsel. I don’t begrudge us using expert legal advice. But do we need to have this person or people — however many they are — on standby, on retainer, whatever it is? I gather the amount of money is $180,000. It seems to me that the work that’s required is not a full year’s work.

The other concern that I have is there’s $100,000 earmarked for the socio-economic advisory board. Again, I wonder what that board is going to be doing in the absence of the joint review panel report.

Thank you for the explanation. It

doesn’t really satisfy me, I’m afraid.

Two questions. The first is whether or not we couldn’t fund the board for half the year to do the preparations that are required. The second one is…. I’ve lost the second one. Perhaps you could answer that question first.

Under the socio-economic

agreement that we negotiated, an advisory board will be established which will receive annual reports

on actions taken to optimize beneficial opportunities and suggest changes to addressing issues. For that alone we think it’s important to get set up and get started ahead of the board. We have consulted, and the Gwich’in and Inuvialuit have formally agreed to participate on the advisory board. Discussions are still ongoing with the Sahtu and Deh Cho First Nation. Our next steps would include applying for the establishment of the certification of the advisory board under the NWT Societies Act. It was our expectation that the board would be formally established by the middle of 2008–09. That was the expectation of all the parties to the socio-economic agreement.