Kevin O'Reilly

I think there may be a motion coming forward on this. The last point I want to make is that this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud sends out all of the wrong signals to the public, and I think it will deter people from coming to this officer for trying to resolve their issues with our government. I just don't think it serves the public interest. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I am interested in hearing more about this compromise, but the way this has been written, you know, this bill is coming forward a year later than it should have under the mandate commitment. I think there are people out there expecting that they are going to be able to access the services that may be provided under this act.

Having this kind of restriction on the mandate of the Ombud is not helpful at all in terms of resolution of complaints that may come forward from our constituents. I have expressed this concern to the Minister. We are not even sure what the word...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to understand from the Minister what the intent of 17(3) is. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Merci, Monsieur le President. As I said earlier, I have tried to choose my words very carefully. I take the issue of removal of a Cabinet Minister very seriously.

While I personally like the Minister and often agree with him, this motion is about leadership and priorities. I have no doubt that this Minister works very, very hard in managing one of the largest and most important departments. The Minister has led some very important initiatives, and I give him full credit for the accomplishments that he will no doubt raise. I also find the Minister to be very receptive and responsive to the...

Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like to thank the Minister for that, his emphasis on consultative processes, but when important information is not made available, it's withheld, it doesn't help those processes.

The report contains a lot of very helpful comparisons and lessons learned about benefit retention and other jurisdictions. This work may have played, should have played, a major role in the development of the Mineral Resources Act. In fact, it was within the scope of the discussion paper that was released. Given my difficulties in prying this report from his department, can the...

I would like to thank the Minister for that, but it is very clear this report was only made public after I filed an access to information request, and he publicly promised to provide it.

The government publicly launched consultations on the Mineral Resources Act on August 2, 2017, four months after this report was received. The news release announcing the consultations quotes the Minister saying, "It is our duty to maximize the benefits of responsible resource development."

With this stated objective and the requests of public stakeholders and Regular MLAs for this type of information, why was...

Merci, Monsieur le President. Yesterday I tabled a 2017 report contracted by the Industry, Tourism and Investment Department called "Policies for Generating Socioeconomic Benefits from Natural Resource Extraction Projects." This report shows how jurisdictions around the world make sure their citizens get a fair share of benefits from non-renewable resources extraction.

Unfortunately, this report received by the ITI 18 months ago was only recently posted deep on the department's website because I forced this government to make it public through an access to information request. Committee was not...

I guess one last thing. I would like to see the commitment that if there were an interest in pursuing additional exclusions, can the Minister commit that he would consult with interested stakeholders, including the City of Yellowknife and Regular MLAs before expanding that exclusion list by regulation? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do have a couple of questions I want to ask on clause 7 about the regulation-making authority. I want to know whether it's the intention of the Minister to bring forward any regulations with regard to expanding the exclusions as set out under the Act. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Okay, that sounds like that there were some sort of, at least preliminary calculations done. Does the department have any kind of analysis that, even a rough estimate, of what the cost to GNWT would be without this exclusion? Thanks, Mr. Chair.