Page 5-21, Finance, activity summary, budget, treasury and debt management, operations expenditure summary, $9.815 million.

Page 5-22, Finance, activity summary, budget, treasury and debt management, grants and contributions, contributions, $34,000.

Page 5-23, Finance, activity summary, information item, budget, treasury and debt management, active positions.

Page 5-25, Finance, activity summary, office of the comptroller general, operations expenditure summary, $21.748 million.

Page 5-26, Finance, activity summary, office of the comptroller general, grants and contributions, contributions, $14.085 million. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On this one I just notice that the last, or this fiscal year our costs jumped by 40 percent in the Power Subsidy Program. I see no planned changes for this year. I’m just wondering what the future’s looking

like here and I know we’re doing reviews and stuff. Is this not a gradual thing? This is whenever there’s a general rate review that we adjust this?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This increase is tied to the $3 million that was slated to be added, the $3 million a year for three years, to the commercial subsidy program. How it would be finally put to use will depend on the outcome of the electrical rate review, or the government’s response and what’s finally agreed to as the Legislature going forward to a restructured rate system. So the money is here reflecting that increase that came out of the $60 million.

So we haven’t even confirmed that for this year, is my understanding. Perhaps the Minister could confirm if it is being spent this year on a subsidy for commercial users.

No, the existing commercial Power Support Program is not very well subscribed to, given its structure and complexity. It’s considered too onerous. We haven’t added that money to be used, nor have we changed that program. So the money is reflected here just because it was initially targeted for some support to the commercial subsidy.

I’m just wondering if these dollars are not being spent as we thought they would be last year, it sounds clear that we’re not planning on spending them that way next year. I’m wondering if this is something that should be deleted from the budget. If I can get some perspectives on that.

This money is part of the $60 million that was put towards looking at alternative energy; some of the structural reforms. I would suggest that we’ve committed to coming forward with a plan in May. I think government’s response that the money should be reflected in the budget as it was initially intended and then when we look at May and see what comes out of that discussion collectively of where we go and how those funds could best be put to use.

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks there and his reference to these as alternative energy dollars. Can the Minister commit that the $3 million will remain as dollars that will be put towards alternative energy, as he calls it? I would say renewable energy. Energy efficiency.

Initially this money was targeted $3 million a year over three years to go into some type of commercial subsidy. It’s reflected here because that’s how it was initially intended. Part of the work that’s being done as a result of our focus on energy and shifting how we do business and trying to come up with the best and fairest system is the work on the electrical rate review. In May we’ll know, once we have the

debate and discussion about what that final response will look like, what’s going to happen with the commercial subsidy and if it’s going to exist. If it doesn’t, that decision, I believe, will be captured in the final product that results from what’s being brought forward in May. At that time we collectively will determine its best use.

The $60 million has been touted about dozens of times in the last week or 10 days. Now I’m being led to understand that the $3 million -- and I don’t know if that’s this year only or on into the future or what -- is being used to subsidize power. That’s an artificial reduction in the cost of electricity. I’m all for reducing costs of power to our users, but I’d sooner see it spent in real ways, one of which is off-the-shelf alternative energy. I’m getting very nervous about... I agree if we sort of end up there collectively, but I want to stop hearing about $60 million for alternative energy if it’s being spent in a way that can be used for diesel power generation, for example, ongoing, status quo sorts of things. So I’m looking for that sort of commitment from the Minister and some correction in the terminology that the Cabinet has been throwing around here if indeed such a correction is or will be required.

When this fund was initially contemplated and initiated and presented, it was presented to do a number of things. It was presented to minimize our reliance on fossil fuels, it was intended to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, it was intended to help especially the smaller, high-cost communities to decrease their cost of living through reducing the power. This $3 million a year for three years was initially contemplated as an interim measure as we sorted out the way forward in terms of whatever system changes could be made, the time it would take to set up the structure to implement things like biomass, wind energy, mini-hydro, all of which have a planning cycle that does extend over a number of years. This fund had a number of multiple goals that it was trying to address. That’s still the case. It’s reflected here. One of the big pieces coming forward in May is going to be the response to the electrical rate review, which will I think speak specifically to this particular money that the Member’s been discussing.

My point remains. I would suggest that the Minister of Finance find those $3 million elsewhere or start revising the terminology that we’re using and the promises that were made about $60 million going toward alternative energy development.

I remember very well making the case for the funds and the intent to do the things that I just talked about in terms of greenhouse gases, getting off fossil fuels, and to look at things we could do to help mitigate in

the short term the cost of living in the small communities where one of the most prohibitive costs, especially when it comes with the food basket, is the price of electricity in the community stores. That’s always been on the table. We’re not trying to gild the lily. We’re not trying to misrepresent the intent. I appreciate the Member’s concern and it will be measured and tempered in our discussion, but I would suggest that this fund be left until May where we can make a collective decision once we look at the whole package as it pertains to the electrical rate review.

I also recall speaking to this subject in this House during budget reviews and pointing out that if we’re going to spend this money subsidizing commercial power use, then it should be spent to support initiatives such as the Sachs Harbour Cooperative which put up solar panels to reduce their power costs. Then it would actually be alternative energy dollars spent appropriately and meet the interest of supporting commercial users.