Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The fundamental approach was that the current... Before we implemented the changes, there was a commercial power support subsidy that was not being used that the commercial businesses were paying the fully burdened cost with no subsidy in the communities, hence some of the power rates in stores and such of $10,000, $15,000, $20,000, $30,000 a month. What we’ve done now by setting rates for the thermal communities is we’ve lowered the cost per kilowatt and the benefit now to power commercial businesses is significant and fairly applied and they don’t have to ask for it. It’s just built into the rate structure is the way I understand it.

Ms. Melhorn.

Mr. Bromley.

I appreciate that. Can we expect this amount to go up the following fiscal year? Are we projecting it to go up based on what we know now? Are there programmed increases expected the following fiscal year related to the changes we made in 2011-2012?

Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this point we’re budgeting with the numbers that we do have recognizing, for example, that the price of fuel is now back over, depending where you look -- either the Brent Crude or the West Texas -- it’s either $100 or over $110 a barrel. We anticipate that there’s going to be upward pressure in costs in everything we do, including the provision of diesel generated power.

I don’t have any more questions here. As the Minister has pointed out, I see this as a misallocation of dollars. We know that costs are going up rapidly. We need to be putting these dollars into ways of actually reducing costs for our people rather than hiding costs so that the taxpayers take on what the ratepayers have in the past. I’d much sooner see us reduce the real costs of power so that the ratepayers are paying lower costs and everything’s aboveboard. That’s just a comment. I think we all know that these costs are going to soar as our fossil fuels increase. I know that the government’s working on that. I think what we can understand here is that we’re not working fully in cognizance of that by engaging in these incredibly consuming activities to hide subsidies and increase subsidies when we should be putting that into actually reducing real costs. Just a comment.

Mr. Miltenberger, if you want to respond to the comment, have at it.

Mr. Chairman, we have to do both, which is what we’re doing. We have to make the long-term commitment to change how we generate, distribute and deliver energy, electricity, heat. We have to minimize our reliance on fossil fuels. In the meantime, after 16 years, as you will well recollect the discussion in this House of coming up with a fair rate structure for Northerners that doesn’t in many cases cripple small businesses. It’s something that is an interim measure as we take these longer-term steps to restructure and rebuild our infrastructure in terms of the generation and delivery of electricity and energy.

Once again the Minister builds my case for me. We have done very little for at least 12 of the last 16 years. I think in the last four years we’ve started to move on these things. That’s

a disappointment, I suppose, in government, that the public justifiably has. I appreciate the remarks from the Minister.

I appreciate the Member’s comments.

Okay. If we can go back to the summary. Page 5-26, Finance, activity summary, office of the comptroller general, grants and contributions, contributions, $14.085 million.

If we can go back to page 5-32, Finance, information item, Liquor Revolving Fund.

Moving on to page 5-33, information item, Liquor Revolving Fund, active positions.

Agreed. Page 5-34, information item, work performed on behalf of others.

Now we can turn back on the department summary on page 5-7. Department summary, operations expenditure summary, $100.784 million.

Agreed. Does committee agree that we’ve concluded the Department of Finance?