Daryl Dolynny

I would agree; the numbers in question are not huge. We’re talking about $180,000, but it’s the principle behind it. The fact that even when the act, hopefully, that will pass in the House and the regulations to follow soon after, they will probably – and again, I don’t have the numbers in front of me – be at least 50 to 70 health professionals that are affected by that legislation to which it will have a fee anywhere from $200 to $500. Again, it would happen, I would assume, during this calendar year. I’ll refrain from beating that one down a little bit more and I’ll definitely ask those...

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and the Department of Health here today. In preparation for today I had to look back almost 364 days ago as to what I said on this department back then, and back then the Minister was in power in his position for 232 days. So, it was more of a reflection of a short period in office and I tried to recant and re-evaluate some of the overarching issues of the day and apply them to now, which is around 597 days later in office, as to where we’ve gone with this department. In that respect, I’ll try to make comparisons within that year and how...

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, February 19, 2015, I will move the following motion: Now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that the Government of the Northwest Territories investigate the best way to implement a lobbyist registry that is publicly accessible via the Internet;

And further, that the government provide a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days.

Recognizing the entire area of the East Arm being unique and special to all people of the NWT, does the Minister see merit in creating a co-management board of representation of all various interests that would manage all aspects of use from industrial development to exploration, commercial, recreational leases, harvesting access and traditional use?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 1969 there have been ongoing sensitive issues of land management of the East Arm of the Great Slave Lake. The question is not what is better – a national park or protected area strategy – the question is, with new devolution authority, do we have the right management and northern tools in place to give all users equal rights and privileges in its consideration? My question today will be for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources.

In trying to come up with a made-in-the-North approach, can the Minister inform the House, what role has this administration...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister’s response. I’m still a little bit concerned with all of these initiatives we have. Although the French language one is dealt with in this activity, as you heard, we have a lot of initiatives that are on the go and we’ll talk about them more in the programs. But because we’re talking about directorate, I’m feeling that the department here is going to be a little shy on delivering at a high level, from what they expect to, without the monies being brought forward.

With that said, the only other question I have on this activity is under the systems...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 1969, our federal partners have tried to resolve the land management of the East Arm area of the Great Slave Lake with little success. In the wake of acquiring devolution powers as of April 1, 2014, I’m surprised our government has been silent on its progress.

Understanding the sensitivity to some on this topic, my wish is to only start a spirited dialogue of reasoning and the guiding principles of equal rights, equity and fairness for all who share this land. Are there alternatives to the existing stalemate of a national park program that could be looked at for a...

That’s fair. I needed to ask that question because it does stand out a little bit more bluntly than some of the other numbers that we have in this budget. With that, no further questions.

We do get the money. That’s a clearly broad response to a question which I believe needs some due consideration. If we’ve just heard correctly, if we’re five months behind in billing on a rolling average of money, again, I’m not going to do all the math here, but I know if it is around $7 million and if that rolling average is five months, I would venture to say that the amount of interest that we’re being held accountable with the taxpayers having to leverage, would be around $350,000. It becomes a significant amount of money over the course of the year if the taxpayer of the NWT is required...