Thank you for that reminder, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Krutko, I believe this is on revenue rather than expenditures. I wonder if your question might be appropriate when we get to expenditures. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources, as I presume, the lead Minister on the Joint Review Panel. At least six of the Joint Review Panel recommendations to the NEB would require the proponents to demonstrate GNWT approval for various plans like incineration of wastes, wildlife plans and so on, plans strategies or assessments. The February 11th response to the NEB consult to modify process, in that the GNWT notes that it may be more appropriate to require the proponents to consult dot, dot, dot, instead of obtaining their...

Thank you for that information. I am just wondering what division is that in. It must have been in an earlier one, an administrative division of some kind.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I remind Members to direct the question through the chair. Mr. Krutko, anything further?

I appreciate the Minister’s remarks. The Minister did list quite a number of important steps that are going to be required. I know there are more that he’s aware of. That is an issue. I think the potential for big gains here in community energy systems is huge, but it’s going to take quite a bit of education and support to enjoy the realization of those opportunities. Obviously a cross-departmental approach again with ITI and other departments. I’m glad the Minister is thinking about that I look forward to perhaps a briefing on the Biomass Strategy and next steps there.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Minister Miltenberger.

Page 11-9, information item, Transportation, revenue summary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I actually stand guilty as charged.

---Laughter

That was a grievous error and, in fact, it reflects the main principal of my argument which was with consultation. These sorts of errors can be avoided but, better than that, we can put forward much better information.

I had today a set of questions I intended to ask. In that, I was going to make the comment that, in fact, I had read that wrong. The letter did say rejected but, upon closer examination, it said the proponents had rejected that recommendation. I have some other difficulty with what we did...