Daryl Dolynny

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. We will go to closing comments to the mover of the motion, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Ms. Allison. General comments. Mr. Blake.

Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Tabled Document 107-17(4), NWT Capital Estimates 2014-2015, and would like to report progress. I move that the report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess what we’re trying to do here is think of ways or incentives so that we can entice those people to start making the investment, because it is very expensive and we do appreciate the money that we do give. But has the GNWT talked about any other type of financial incentives to go alongside what is currently available federally, as potentially consumer-friendly loans, remissible grants, tax credits, or even rewards programs for those who want to take advantage of the self-power opportunities? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Aumond.

Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Does committee agree?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, it sounds like we’re going to have to do another ATIPP request, and thank God I’ve been collecting bottles all summer because this seems to be the pattern of activity here for Regular Members.

I guess we’ve heard from the Minister that he’s going to go back and talk to a defunct board that no longer exists, to ask permission to table something that is in the ownership of the department.

Again, will the Minister commit to tabling this for everybody to see what was the action plan of the Nats’ejee K’eh and how unsafe, really, was it?

Thank you, committee. I’d like to thank the witnesses. If I could get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses. The next area, committee, we’re going to be looking at is Human Resources, so if you can turn your attention to section 2-2 in your capital estimates binder. With that, we will go to the Minister for opening comments.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that there was a business plan that was produced. We know because committee on this side of the House has received this plan. It’s a very detailed plan, a very good plan, as far as I’m concerned.

The question that we’re hearing is that we’ve got parts of the plan, yet we were given a full plan, so it doesn’t quite make sense.

My question, with respect to this plan, if there was this plan given as a result, as I indicated that we did receive on this side of the House, why was the funding still cut? What was wrong with this plan?