Bob Bromley

That concludes my comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I’m not as excitable, perhaps, as my colleague Ms. Bisaro, I still do have my standards and I’d like to start by asking the Minister, who withdrew his remarks specifically for Ms. Bisaro alone, in relation to his statement that if I was, if this was Yellowknife I’d be supportive in putting a motion of non-support, which I have not expressed. My expression has been non-support of this $2.5 million for this year specifically, for this project. I’d happily look for a good way to spend those dollars, in my mind. If he’d care to broaden his withdrawal of the...

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.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The federal government’s proposal to collapse the regional land and water boards into one big board is disturbing, unnecessary and possibly unconstitutional.

The regional boards were created under claims processes to provide for regional and local control over the pace and scale of development. Federal negotiator Mr. Pollard says the proposed changes are needed to “meet Canada’s long-term interest of having a single land and water board structure.” Makes a nice sound bite, but a single board does nothing to meet the real problem: failure of implementation.

No less than...

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly support this motion and I think, at the same time, I would like to see us direct Cabinet to look into some productive ways to spend these dollars, if we do indeed have these dollars.

I didn’t get a chance to or didn’t remember to ask whether these were theoretical dollars, debt dollars we were spending or not. Dollars we don’t have. I think that’s one of the important aspects of it.

The other thing is I think we need, before we go down this road, an appreciation of the cost-benefit analysis side of the equation. I’d like to get a briefing on that. The old...

In the interest of debate, I prefer not to go to rules, so I’m happy to move on.

I’d like to perhaps just sum up my input with the following: First of all, we do seem to be so rushed to get this baby birthed that we are guaranteeing a premature baby with all the challenges associated. I think we need to go forward but we need to go forward with good and thorough planning reassured by a reasonable time schedule. Unlike the Minister of Transportation, I do not see that as a waste of time. His reference to taking a reasonable amount of time, that’s not a waste of time, in my mind. Let’s complete...