Bob Bromley

I guess we have a new protocol here. The Minister is asking me questions. I’m happy to take some time to answer those questions, as long as the Speaker will allow me. The first thing I would do is I would immediately get rid of the policy that says that we will allow our emissions to increase 100 percent by 2020 from some much earlier level when we were much lower when we know, and the Minister agrees, that the science says we need a 25 to 40 percent reduction in emissions by that time. It’s behaviour such as this government…

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are directed to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources. I want to follow up on my earlier Member’s statement, a key priority of the 17th Assembly’s support of environmentally sustainable development, and obviously the public is on track here. Given our current policies, we’re not achieving that and we’re not able to achieve that. There’s no potential to achieve that. What is the Minister prepared to do in terms of improved policies and law to counter the threat to our people and environment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the last session while debating how best to act on climate change, discussion was sidetracked as a focus on rules obscured the meat of the debate. Nevertheless, recognition of the need for real action shone through. Public responses sent to Ministers, colleagues and myself showed overwhelming public support for GNWT leadership on a more responsible position to fight climate change.

Here are some sample quotes: “We’re in denial about what every major academy of science is telling us.” “The imbalance has wreaked havoc on the environment.” “Our behaviour is folly of...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to return to item 15, notices of motion, on the orders of the day. Mahsi.

---Unanimous consent granted

Thanks to the Minister for that commitment. One has to question the care that was taken in the planning of these exercises to ensure protection of public safety and infrastructure. Has this government contacted the commanders of these exercises and requested assurance and a detailed explanation of measures being taken to prevent further harm to people and vital infrastructure or will we do that contact soon?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Repetition, they say, is good, so you will hear some repetition to my remarks. I did keep my remarks brief in general comments on purpose, so I will lay out some of my concerns.

I think there have been a lot of good points made and the fundamental one doesn’t seem to be getting through, and that is, of course, the process and the unrealistic timing that’s available at this very late stage of the game, six weeks today before the end of the fiscal year to mount this piece of work during what I suspect is the warmest winter on record and will present all kinds of challenges...

Thank you. Pretty much in line with the comments we’ve heard to date, Madam Chair, or to this moment. So I’ll just say that certainly the big item here, the Inuvik-Tuk highway proposed expenditure of $2.5 million, the big thing for me here is process. Although I have other fundamental concerns, which I’ll get into in the detail, this is clearly fundamental work that needs to be done, and we must have known about it for some time now and to be brought forward at the last minute and expect it to take priority when we have, in our current fiscal situation, so many priorities that are already...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my colleague’s questions and the reference to whistle-blower legislation. Certainly last term we did repeatedly bring up the need to give our civil servants a chance to highlight their opportunities for saving funds and so on, but consistently we have heard complaints about where to take complaints from our employees. So we either need whistle-blower legislation or an ombudsman. Could I ask the Minister of Human Resources where is he at, where is the department at, will we see this coming forward in the near future, whistle-blower legislation or...

I appreciate the Premier’s comments there. I’d say obviously, then, the government does not agree with this and they have a moral responsibility to fight this proposal and retain the local and regional control.

The model of consultation being used here is the typical federal approach of preordaining the outcome. Mr. Pollard says again he will “lead the consultation process on reconfiguring the current four board structure into one board,” then carry the one board model forward into remaining claims negotiations.

We have two environmental audits and the McCrank Report telling us the solutions...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to address my questions to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources today. Following up on my Member’s statement earlier, I would like to begin by asking: What is this government’s position on the federal proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards established under the MVRMA into one board? Mahsi.