Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Item 8, written questions. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to go back to item 7.

---Unanimous consent granted

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and his commitment that he’s going to look at a possible equity share in the pipeline. Well, I, for one, do not support that initiative. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance...If you’re going to look into anything, you should look at the hundreds and tens of millions of dollars we’ve put into the diamond industry and really got nothing back. I’d like to ask the Minister, before you decide to look at the pipeline, maybe you should focus on the diamond industry where this government has put tens of millions of dollars in it, spent money on secondary industries, basically bailing out diamond plants and also basically developing training programs through our colleges and whatnot by way of diamond cutting and polishing training course. So I’d like to ask the Minister, would you seriously consider looking at the diamond industry before you consider looking at the pipeline? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister of Finance, Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re not committing to look at taking an equity position in anything. I’ve committed to bring forward a paper that would lay out some of the considerations if we were going to look at that, some of the challenges, the lack of funds, what kind of…(inaudible)…building you would have and those type of very basic, fundamental issues before we would even think of being able to try to move forward on any project. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should watch what we ask for here, because I think if you’re going to open up one box, you’re going to be opening up a whole bunch of boxes from hydro development to diamond industry to oil and gas to you name it. You start opening up these boxes, you better be willing to look at everything that’s under the sun. I’d like to ask the Minister, if you’re going to consider this policy, you better make it a policy that basically affects the whole Northwest Territories in all sectors by way of the hydro sector, the oil and gas sector, the minerals sector, the diamonds sector and the tourism sector. Are you willing to consider all those options?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. I must remind the Member to address your comments through the Chair. Mr. Miltenberger.

Mr. Speaker, I’ve committed to get a document done, a basic discussion paper that I’ve committed to share with the Members. Clearly, if we look at this area we have to be prepared, as the Member indicated, to consider everything. We’re going to have very limited capacity to take an equity position in anything, I would suggest. However, we will do a paper, lay out what may be entailed and what our capabilities are. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to any equity share that you liken to business, there are usually gives and takes. I’d like to ask the Minister, would you also consider that you’d look at an equity share, that you’d forgive the tax by way of corporate taxes and any tax revenue that may come from these developments, and in lieu of those revenues would you consider what the financial implications of those decisions are?

The Member is getting far, far ahead of anything that may even be considered to happen here. There was a general request about why doesn’t the government take an equity position and will you come forward with a paper that outlines what’s possible in terms of even considering it or being capable to afford it. We’re going to look at that. We’re nowhere near any time of consideration at the level of detail that the Member is suggesting. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the Minister wanting to look at the equity share and this stuff, would he also consider looking at the possibility of a resource tax, which is probably a better mix than looking at an equity share in regard to these types of developments?

As a government we’ve already made a decision that we were going to stand back from the $30 million in revenue that we were going to generate through possible tax increases. So at this point, given the economic circumstances, we don’t see any type of new tax regime as having much appropriateness at this particular time. Once again, we’ll bring forward a very basic paper on the potential of equity positions by governments, does it make sense, is it affordable, and if it is, would we even want to consider it given all our other pressures. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While asking questions to the Premier earlier, what seemed to keep getting slipped in the whole process was the fact that there’s no mandate or terms of reference for this electrical review that’s going on. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to hear from the Premier why there isn’t a mandate but we’re sending them out starting in Inuvik in the next couple days to hear from the people. Why is it just treated as a public discussion without a mandate? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Member is referring to the review that is undertaken by the lead Minister of the Energy Coordinating Committee, so I will refer that question to Minister Bob McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Bob McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have worked very closely with the standing committees and we have come forward with a number of papers. We have come forward with a discussion paper that will be taken to the communities. We have also developed a communications plan and approach. They have laid out the questions and the areas of interest that they will be consulting on and we expect a report in June. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that’s all well and good, but why do we not have a terms of reference and a mandate for this and something on paper that demonstrates how it plugs into the bigger picture for solutions for rates and costs going forward? Why is

there no mandate? Why is there no terms of reference? Thank you.

We have a discussion paper that has been circulated and it asks all the questions that have been developed in conjunction with the standing committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I spoke to some people in the community and they’re quite concerned that there’s no mandate or terms of reference on how this is proceeding. It’s designed pretty much as an open, like a blank page approach for community consultation. Mr. Speaker, I would think that it would be more useful if we had a terms of reference and a mandate that demonstrated how they plug into the other two components, which is, of course, the value for money audit and the proposal that’s being reviewed through ATCO and the GNWT partners. Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not agree that a terms of reference and a mandate would not be useful in this particular case? Thank you.

I don’t agree with the Member. We worked with the standing committees. We agreed on a discussion paper. We agreed on the types of questions to be asked. There was ample opportunity for input at the front end and it’s not very helpful to come back at the back end when we’re going out to consultation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.