Bob Bromley

Mr. Chair, I don’t have any questions on this page, but I am going to say that I appreciate the reorganization. It seems to have been done here. Frankly, I can’t think of what it was like before, but I have to say that these sections in this division seem quite logical for me and a good response to the Auditor General’s general report and the folks of many of these comments. It certainly is in line with that which I do understand, so I appreciate that being done here. Thank you.

What would be the income before you would reach the maximum there?

Mr. Speaker, we are not like Manitoba or Saskatchewan. We have a duty to consult with our Aboriginal partners on every project proposed in the NWT. I would say, in fact, we have a duty to consult with all members of NWT society. An NWT energy board would make that process of consultation clear and transparent.

Why has this government chosen to switch from a public board model to a model that has no possibility for public participation in the decision-making process? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to follow up. I did find the document I was referencing. It wasn’t the Minister’s words, it was the program review office had looked at the payroll tax compliance and in a couple of reports they made reference to that. The first one, October 30, 2012, they said: “Growth in taxes” meaning payroll taxes here, “has not kept pace with growth in non-resident income. Suggestions: we may not be achieving desired results, may not be operating optimally, may require increased resources.” Perhaps that’s partly the compliance officer that Mr. Kalgutkar referred to.

I...

Thank you. I think that’s the reason why we went to a payroll tax is because we can’t just tax people that live somewhere else and fly in and out. That’s why we went to the payroll tax and that’s why we have this cost of living tax credit as you’ve just explained.

Why couldn’t we simply increase the tax and increase the cost of living tax credit to protect residents?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to see devolution to start being implemented here and especially happy because my colleagues and I are able to ask questions and attempt to hold our government accountable for these decisions.

Following up on my earlier questions to ITI on taking over as the oil and gas regulator, I’d like to ask the Premier why is ITI the regulator when we know ITI interprets this role to be one of promoting and subsidizing industry. This is clearly a conflict of interest. Surely, the promoters should not be the regulators. Mahsi.

No, it isn’t, Mr. Chair, but I’ll see if I can dig it out. It wasn’t said today; I’m referring to before today. But within the last year, I think, the intent was to put the program review office to looking at compliance issues on the collection of the payroll tax, but I’ll try and dig that out.

Many Members have recommended that this be raised. Why was it not raised in this budget?

Thanks to the Minister. I’d like to respond to that. Tar sands ponds that leak six million litres of contaminated tailings per day into the Athabasca River, steamed crude oil bubbling up through northern Alberta wetlands in multiple sites, coal mine tailings ponds collapsing. That is the record of the Alberta Energy Regulator in just the last six months.

Do we really grow responsible capacity, as the Minister says, by bringing so-called experts with such a poor record and pro-industry bias into our regulatory system? Why did we not simply continue with the National Energy Board? Mahsi.

Thank you. This is obviously related to the internal auditing and so on as well. I’m just wondering if we know what those issues are that have caused the Minister to suggest that this should be reviewed by the program review office.