Kevin O'Reilly

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do appreciate the commitment from the Minister to do that, and I am hoping it can be done in a timely fashion; probably, I do not know, sometime before June would be great. Do you think he can do that? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just to be clear, was that funding actually reallocated or was it deleted from the budget? I understood from last year that these were deletions that were being made in light of the Cabinet's fiscal strategy. Can we get some clarification on that, please? Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Good news. I thank the Minister for that. I have no further questions, thanks.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can see I am not going to get anywhere with this because the Premier does not want to answer the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is all I have.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I’m not sure the Minister actually heard what I said. I never said that that was the only revenues we actually keep, from mining or oil and gas. I think what I’m trying to do here is show that the resource royalty rates that we’ve inherited from the federal government are quite ancient and maybe it’s time that we actually look at those royalty rates. Alberta’s done it a couple of times. Are we actually going to get around to looking at that in terms of our financial future?

The reason why I say that is, when I’ve raised this issue, we actually raised three times as much...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. As we go through the pages here, I’ll have some comments on the revenues that we get as a government. Particularly with regard to tobacco tax license -- or, sorry, liquor revenues -- and how that compares to mining, oil, and gas royalty resource revenues that we’re able to keep now under the devolution agreement.

I have some suggestions about different forms of taxes that I’ll make to try to make sure that we capture more of the benefits of that. I’ll also be asking the Minister about any progress we’re making on indexing the Northern Resident Tax Deduction. I guess I’ll have...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is great that the Premier is looking to the committee for direction, but Cabinet itself has already changed the way the PUB operates by issuing this binding policy direction without bothering to consult the standing committee. Will the Premier commit to consulting with the standing committee before issuing further direction to the PUB? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is very helpful. Even the 2016-17 revised estimates, there is a two and then some very round zeros after that. I am not sure if that actually reflects the work that is done or is it just an estimate. Does it actually get reconciled in some way or does that happen through the public accounts? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'll try one more time. So in forming this corporate services unit that's now going to serve what used to be four departments, now two, all of those people who used to be in their individual departments, were there any positions cut in forming this shared corporate services unit? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am not sure that was actually an answer, but I will try maybe a different way. There was very prescriptive direction in terms of how the Public Utilities Board is to deal with electricity rates that really limit the board's ability to exercise its jurisdiction. I am just curious to know if we are going to continue to do that Public Utilities Board, why bother having a board? Just get rid of it, and you can decide internally how to set the rates through ownership of NTPC or whatever. Why bother having a Public Utilities Board if we are going to continue to issue that...