Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of my colleague. I appreciate him bringing this forward and I will speak to this later in the House. Specifically to the point of privilege, this is a one-time benefit, this expenditure of dollars, when what is needed is lasting benefits.

Unfortunately, what we’re dealing with here is a repeat. This was done last year, less than a year ago, and we raised the same issues then. Yet, here it is again. This is robbing the voice of duly elected people who were put in place to speak on behalf of our representatives in major decisions such as this.

Again, there are principles that we have in consensus government that demand that when there is a significant decision to be made, Cabinet or the government will involve all Members of the House. My concerns are, first of all, that it fails the principles of consensus government requiring input into any significant decisions, as I just said. Our fiscal status is indeed tentative, or weakly stable you could say, and sensitive to such large, unplanned expenditure. Therefore, this is a significant expenditure, and under our principles, we should have been consulted.

Secondly, it is inefficient and a poor use of scarce resources. A one-time expenditure benefit with essentially zero lasting benefits such as might come from more useful investments which could be discussed if Members of the House were provided with the opportunity to contribute to that discussion. Finally, it’s a repeat concern, Mr. Speaker. It’s time to do something about this. The Minister said he was required to work in the best interests of people of the Northwest Territories. What does the Minister think our mandate is? Indeed, it is to work in the best interest of the Northwest Territories. We were prevented from having that opportunity by not being involved in that decision-making.

The Minister said it prevents a 24 percent increase in rates. Well, it might have prevented a 23 percent or 22 percent or a 21 percent with those other 1, 2 or 3 percent or 10 or 15 percent put into actions that would have lasting benefits. Without, again, the opportunity to contribute to the discussions, I think the Minister has failed that test.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, the MLAs have put Cabinet on notice less than a year ago that such behaviour without committee input wasn’t acceptable and that we needed to invest such dollars in a way that return much more than a momentary benefit, gone in a puff of global warming smoke.

I think there are many opportunities, solar, which the Minister is well aware and supportive of, where consumers’ capital could have been put to work.

I will leave it at that and say we have the opportunity to provide 25 years of lasting benefits with guaranteed equipment these days. Instead, we’ve provided that much benefit because our voices were restricted from participating in such a debate. Mahsi.