Just two last questions, recognizing the clock is ticking away. The first is: what progress on mutually agreeable ideas has come forward that can be moved on. The second issue, which is on a different subject but speaks to the principle of our government, is with Privy Council and an Order-in-Council that says our Premier is actually defined as a Government Leader. Has the Premier ever thought about taking on the initiative to ask them to make that adjustment to reflect the modern definition of who is in charge of our government? Now, I say this more on a symbolic term, it doesn’t change the letterhead that perhaps comes out of the Minister’s office, but yet it is more of a symbolic issue of recognition by Canada. So in other words, if they feel they are dealing with a Premier, although the courtesies may extend by the current Prime Minister, you are still defined technically by that Privy Council order which says you are a Government Leader, not a Premier.

Great strides have been made by previous leaders, such as Nellie Cournoyea, to shift that momentum in that direction, so I ask it from a purely symbolic point of view. What does that Premier think of that regard, about attitude towards these types of initiatives and, furthermore, as I said in my first question, what issues have come forward that have been mutually agreeable that we are able to act upon? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the second question first, being the title of the position of Premier versus Government Leader. It is a symbolic one, the most recent letter I received from the Prime Minister recognized the position as Premier and we say that is a significant move, just on that piece alone. Further to that, if we were to request a change, that would still require the NWT Act to be opened up and we think there is, as we go forward and talk about self-governments, talk about the changing relationship and the changing nature of the Northwest Territories, there will be a time when a number of amendments could be made going forward and that would be the more appropriate time to do it. On initiatives that have been jointly undertaken by regional leaders and ourselves as the Government of the Northwest Territories, two examples I gave out earlier are the Water Strategy and the Land Use Framework, that we have worked together on and continue to do that going forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is more like general comments as opposed to what we are on, but I am curious to know, I guess, just to have the Minister indicate, or the Premier, whether or not the federal government is amenable to splitting devolution discussions from resource revenue sharing.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be speculating, at this point, what I would say in this area of devolution and revenue sharing. Since it was an approach of this government with the aboriginal leadership in the past to combine those, that is the table that I think we would undertake the work to see if we should pursue one area, if it is devolution first for consideration, and I believe that is where we will be heading towards, at least a discussion on when we get together, let’s look at a way forward, how we re-engage the federal government on this file. On that basis to see if we would in fact continue with the same pattern, that is devolution and resource revenue sharing, or look at going with the authority portion first and that would be devolution. Thank you.

I am not really clear whether or not we can split it from the response, but I assume that we can. Can one of these pieces, whether it be resource revenue sharing or devolution, be negotiated to completion without the other one being negotiated to a completion? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that can be done, if that is the will of the leaders in the Northwest Territories to pursue one part of this agreement. Again, it was by

design of our government, the past Government of the Northwest Territories and the regional leadership to come up with this combined approach, but I believe it can be separated if that is the will of the leadership in the Territory. Thank you.

This is along the same line and more as to maybe the next steps of questions from Mr. Hawkins. I am curious to know if the Minister is going to present to committee reworked numbers than what was there previously from other governments on the devolution and resource revenue pieces. I was wondering if the government or the Premier would look at what type of impacts, positive impacts that could be accrued at the regional and small community levels as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The work that we could present would be work that has been done leading up to the proposal of devolution and resource revenue sharing. We haven’t done revised numbers since then, but that is the starting point for us and we could see if we want to go down that avenue. I would like to confirm that before we put what limited resources we have into updating numbers, is to make sure that we agree, as northern leaders, that, in fact, this path should be gone down and there would be support to bring one of these or both of these to a conclusion in our time. Thank you.

Thank you, Premier Roland. Committee, we are on general comments, Department of Executive. Hearing no general comments, does committee agree that we have concluded general comments?

Thank you, committee. Does committee agree to go to detail?

Thank you, committee. We will defer the operations expenditure summary, program summary on page 2-7. We will start on page 2-8, information item, Executive, infrastructure investment summary. Questions? Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just trying to understand where this Contracts Over $5,000 Report for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2009... I am just wondering, there is an item in here Yellowknife liquor warehouse for $7 million in the contract registry here. How come that doesn’t show up in the actuals anywhere in this year’s main estimates in the 2008-2009 actuals? It should have that amount in there and I am just wondering why it doesn’t. I couldn’t find it anyway. Maybe there is an explanation for it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Premier Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Liquor Commission doesn’t fall under the Executive, that falls under the Finance department and if it was to be accounted for it would be accounted for in that area, but probably under the Liquor Commission Revolving Fund is a possibility of that but not under Executive. Thank you.

I want to thank the Minister for that. That’s probably the case so I’ll have some more questions as we go here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Committee, we’re on page 2-8, I believe. Information item and infrastructure investment summary. Questions?

Page 2-9, information item, revenue summary.

Page 2-10, information item, Executive, active position summary.