Kevin O'Reilly

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to call on our law clerk to help me understand the effect of this clause. If an individual came forward to the Ombud, and the beginning of their journey, their concern about administrative issues, administrative conduct, started before January 1, 2016, would the Ombud have jurisdiction to look at that complaint? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't want to drag this out. I think there is a real difference of approach and opinion here about this matter.

This is not just coming from me as a Member. We heard this from members of the public. We heard it from the godmother to this bill, Ms. Bisaro. This is not good drafting. I don't think it is consistent with what I had hoped for coming out of this bill. It is not what the public has said to the standing committee, and I think that this should not be supported. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I thought the whole purpose here of this bill was to try to avoid going to court and that this officer would help investigate, or perhaps resolve, what complainants perceive to be unfair administrative conduct. This is not a legal process. I'm trying to understand the rationale for setting, or basically restricting, the mandate of the Ombud to only be able to look at conduct that comes in after the commencement of this act. This really would have a very severe consequence in terms of limiting the ability of our residents to access the Ombud. Can the Minister provide some...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, will support this. I think it helps clarify the mandate of the Ombud. I also wanted to say that this issue was brought to the attention of the committee by more than one presenter. I attended the public hearing that was held here in Yellowknife, and I did review the submissions, so this is responding to the public comments that were received by the committee, as well. For the average person reading this, I think this will help clarify the understanding that they can take away from this bill. I urge everyone to separate this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the Minister for that, but he didn't tell me why the report was withheld as part of the public consultations for the development of the act.

One of the major findings of the report is that there "may be potential for a comprehensive NWT strategy for resource-led development" and that "a consultative process could get a consistent approach to tackling the hard questions that might otherwise divide the NWT's various constituents." Does the Minister intend to act on this recommendation, and how will this be included in the development of the Mineral Resources Act?

Merci, Monsieur le President. My questions are for the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. I outlined my efforts to pry the contracted publicly funded report, Policies for Generating Socioeconomic Benefits From Natural Resource Extraction Projects, from his department. First, I was refused the report. Then, because I wanted to make it public, I insisted upon an ATIPP request, and the report was posted deep on the ITI website without public notice.

Can the Minister explain how a government purportedly committed to openness and transparency would only make such a report publicly...

Merci, Monsieur le President. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 24, An Act to Amend the Elections and Plebiscites Act, be read for a third time. Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Is there any intention then on the part of Cabinet to broaden the exclusions that are set out in the Act using regulations? Is there any intention to do that at this time? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I guess committee heard other information from, and I believe my colleague from Kam Lake, the chair of the committee, talked about how one hotel chain put together information based on industry-wide standards. It had indicated that there would be about a little more than $1.1 million with the existing exclusions. By my rough calculations, GNWT excluding itself, that would immediately reduce the revenue stream by about 25 percent. That's okay.

You know, my position, I think, is that there should be no exclusions. That's familiar treatment, that everybody pays the airport...

Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. Why did the department include GNWT, then, in the exclusions here? Did they actually calculate how much this tourism accommodation tax would cost the government? Let's start with: why did the government exempt themselves from this tax in the bill that has come forward? Thanks, Mr. Chair.