Bob Bromley

Mr. Speaker, thanks for the Minister’s response. The Minister has already met with the working group on defining the issues. Would the Minister meet next, before the working group, to get the contribution of those without Aboriginal and treaty rights on defining what the issues are to be addressed in the regs? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a couple of quick follow-up questions. Again, I wasn’t clear on some of the responses I got earlier from the Minister of Environment. He mentioned that he had met with the working group and was intending to meet with them again, that he met with them last month and is intending to meet next month.

Does that working group include the stakeholders group? Thank you.

Again, the Minister referring to the working group doesn’t tell me exactly what groups are being contacted there. Perhaps he could provide that information. I just note that in developing the Wildlife Act we recognized that our desire to carefully manage wildlife through accurate reporting of how many animals were harvested was perceived as a barrier to hunting by Aboriginal people, especially elders. We left that issue unresolved, but, if anything, the need for accurate harvest estimates has become even more extreme, as the Minister has stated himself.

What is the Minister’s approach to this...

Thanks to the Minister. I’m glad to hear we’re off to a start here. A large part of the reason it took so many years to revise the Wildlife Act was that people did not feel they were included in the early rounds of discussions.

Can the Minister outline the approach we will be taking to ensure that everyone will be included in the development of the new regulations – and so far the people I’m talking to are not getting a warm and fuzzy feeling there – and how committee will be included in this work? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s a great honour to recognize Anthony J. Whitford, a resident of Weledeh and a person of some renown in this House and I believe still holding, in fact, an honourary assignment as Table Officer of this House. Welcome, Tony.

Thank you. I hope the Premier becomes more familiar with our agreement soon because in less than six weeks here we will be accepting operating mines that have been developed under modern environmental legislation and it’s those that I’m talking about. In fact, the federal government has only managed to hold less than 50 percent of the financial securities, so these are major liabilities that can erode any of the good work that this Premier is doing.

So, again, the list of potential liabilities include the oil pipeline from Norman Wells to the NWT border. What is the amount of security deposit...

Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Premier on aspects of our Devolution Agreement from my statement earlier today. I would like to note Schedule 7, Part E of the Devolution Agreement includes a list of potentially contaminated sites that will be transferred to the GNWT as of April 1st is my understanding.

Can the Premier confirm that we, the GNWT, will be receiving financial securities to cover all the liabilities accessed by our land and water boards when this transfer takes place on April 1st or what the schedule is? Mahsi.

That’s all I have, Mr. Chair. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With devolution implementation in less than six weeks, GNWT assumes responsibility for mines, oil and gas installations set up under “modern environmental review processes.” Already an enormous responsibility, if we are unprepared, this could become an enormous liability.

Under today’s system, each project, mine or whatever is required to post financial securities as part of the review process. This is meant to provide money that protects the public and the environment from closure and clean-up costs even if the operator goes bankrupt. Until April 1st, this financial...