Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m not sure how it would fit in conjunction with the PUB, but I was reading, I guess in the province of New Brunswick they were suggesting from the appropriate Minister that they do a regular annual review through the PUB on New Brunswick power utility. What they want to do is...I get the sense that they want to keep current so that way if prices certainly go down, that they are certainly reflected of the actuals. It would be certain that if there is no application for increases, you know, in the context if everything keeps dropping. But yet, on the other hand, there’s nothing that guarantees the rates will drop down next year because there’s no review to trigger that scenario. One person may say, well, if you do a review every year that gives justification to increase, but at least the argument on the other side is when prices adjust or calm down to some degree that they’re more reflective of the actual times. I suspect with the way the oil has dropped to a third of what it was last year and that was...It was at its peak, as we all remember quite distinctly, when the application was made to the PUB to increase the rates. Is there any type of philosophy to consider that type of approach that they go through, re-justify their cost every year? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Premier.

Mr. Chairman, the process of the review rate structures and regulations and the subsidy program will take into account and respond back with a report back to this Assembly through the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee. There are things like that that are being contemplated is the legislation that would be needed if we were to change the process where we would have more flexibility in doing that. Right now, for example, there’s a general rate application that is done once every three years but there are rate riders put into place and once they’ve achieved the revenue that they were supposed to achieve, those rate riders drop off. There is a process in place. This review will undertake looking at what we will have to do if we want to make those changes and then it will be up to this Assembly if changes were to be requested and made. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, it’s funny, because I think we were talking this morning about how each Minister has their own little key saying or phrase

and when they want to answer a question they answer it a certain way. Although we’re not here to pick on every other Minister, I know that Minister Roland, when he reaches the end of his question, instead of saying yes, we’ll look into it or I’ll take that under consideration, he says “ah, but if the Assembly wants to do that,” and it’s almost like pushing it back on us. Although he smiles now, he hasn’t fooled anyone to think that that’s his way of dealing with many issues that whether it’s good or not, it’s if the Assembly chooses that’s the way to go, then we’ll consider it at that time.

Mr. Chairman, I’m asking, would the Minister consider that approach, not the Assembly, to take that under consideration and certainly under advisement to inform those people doing this work right now to take a look at that approach? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, in the spirit on consensus, working together, the fact that legislative changes requires this Assembly to make that decision. Right now the legislation is fairly straightforward and to the point where the flexibility isn’t there. If we were to decide that we wanted that, we would have to come forward with legislative changes. We’re open to all sorts of opportunities or situations or positions to be taken coming forward and is committed, once that report comes back through the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee, working with Members we would jointly decide on what initiatives we want to undertake. That’s why I say if the Assembly wants to do it, we are one group and if there was support to move that initiative forward, we would undertake that action. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you knowing that I was going to respond to that without having to wait for a signal from me. Mr. Chairman, I have to challenge the Minister on the appreciative step of context saying the spirit of consensus will, you know, in the sense the Assembly get the final word. I guess I’m looking for the sense and the direction from the Minister to include that in part of the work that’s going on. That issue could be laid quite simply before the reviews, the multi-tasks that are going on to consider what future power looks like. Well, this should be some of the element that should be given by direction through the Minister as a consideration. It doesn’t need House approval or the will of the House to force it through and no one wants...I don’t think this issue needs to be forced.

When the Minister ends his comments, you know, we’re open...I mean, I don’t want to hear we’re open. I want to hear the Minister’s taking charge of the issue. I would certainly hope that the Minister would be agreeable today to say that was something that he’d be putting forward in this

review process for them to consider rather than waiting until it’s after the fact and it’s done and then it’s almost like it’s too late.

Mr. Chairman, just to be direct, would the Minister advise the review folks to consider this issue while they do their overall review as an element of making sure that power rates are reflective and responsible for the times? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. From being Captain Consensus to a dictator to reaching out with extended arms to work together, then a Member telling me go get it done. In the spirit of consensus, we are going to work together. That option is there as we go through this review and we believe it’s open to that possibility and we are ready to take that if, in fact, that’s what the Members would like to see happen. Thank you.

That was the other catch phrase this Minister likes to use, “if that’s an option that’s there.” There are about three more. He hasn’t quite used them all up today. The issue is, would the Minister forward this as a consideration to these review panels? Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, the group on the Ministerial Energy Coordinating Committee had sent out that discussion paper and initially had, I believe, their first meeting yesterday and are starting their work. It is open to all avenues when we talk about rates regulation structure, the subsidy, so it is there. We expect that when that report comes back we’ll be able to do a full review and decide at that point what changes we’d like to make. As we’re listening here, concerns about that and looking at that flexibility, that’s definitely going to be one of those issues we’ll have on the table. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. We’re on page 2-25, activity summary, Public Utilities Board, operations expenditure summary, $423,000. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to hear that they’ve just started their work and, therefore, it’s not too late. I just want to make sure that that’s the issue. I just clearly want to make sure that that’s going to be one of the...And I’m not asking for semantics or fancy footwork on rhetoric here. I just want to make sure that that is a question laid before the discussion. If the Minister commits today that that will be one of the questions on the table when the review presents its findings and comparisons...Should it be included in the mix of the review? I just want to make it clear that it’s part of the question that’s being analyzed to the bigger picture. That’s all I’m asking. You don’t need to be Captain Consensus to include that. I think it’s a simple wish. I’m asking, would they make this a

simple consideration of their review? No one’s telling them they have to do this. It’s only I want to make sure that they have the full understanding of options before them and I think this is possibly a simple option that could be useful. It might not be the right option, and I would accept that. If analysis said it wasn’t the right option, I’d accept that. I just want to make sure that it doesn’t get lost in the mix, because there’s so much information coming forward and I just want it to be officially laid out as that. Would the Minister agree today and I’d be happy to agree the page is concluded.

Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think we’ve been talking the same language, maybe just different words. That is one of the options that is on the table. We’re trying to create flexibility looking at it. So maybe a little clearer: Yes! Thank you.

Activity summary, Public Utilities Board, operations expenditure summary, $423,000.

Moving on. Information item, Public Utilities Board, activity positions.

Moving on to page 2-28, Cabinet support. Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a couple questions here. The Premier, in his opening remarks, referenced improving communications planning and delivery and I’m very glad to hear that. I think it’s one of the things that probably Members have mentioned quite a few times in the last year. I wondered if there was any kind of details that you could provide to indicate to us how you are going to effect this improved communications planning and delivery. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Premier Roland.

Mr. Chairman, there are quite a number of areas. Some of them will be considered to be fairly straightforward, I guess, and minor changes, but some will reach a little more into the day-to-day operations of government overall. For example, each department has a communications section and when they do announcements, press releases, messaging for Ministers at different meetings, conferences, speaking notes, print material, they tend to do the work from a departmental perspective. At one point in the history of the Government of the Northwest Territories there used to be a media...I guess the proper term slips my mind right now, but there was

a section with the Executive that actually coordinated media across departments. That was, I believe, the last time that was in place was the 12th Assembly. We’re looking at something like that to bring a better coordination between all departments. We’re going to make it mandatory that all departments’ communications meet with the office here, whether on a weekly basis, to go over materials, the messaging being sent, to ensure that our messaging is consistent. That’s one level. As well as our communication with committees and other governments outside is going to be consistent in that.

There are a number of activities there. There is going to be some...Well, there were some initial minor changes within our operation and that change is still ongoing. With the approval of this budget it will give us a bit more on the revenue side so we can continue on with that change. I can ask Mr. Ramsden to give a little more detail on the functional process that we will be undergoing. Thank you.

Mr. Ramsden

Ms. Bisaro.