Bob Bromley

This is the fox owning the henhouse. Acceptance of such recommendations as the fuel of post-devolution policy is deeply chilling. Where’s the balance?

If the Minister’s intent was to get the industry to dream in colour and tell them what they want, that’s fine, but please, go now to a respected public interest policy group and get that perspective added in before developing a final strategy.

I will have questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is one of the really important, they are all important, but this one was key in terms of delivering a good quality service to our public that the Auditor General spoke to. I really very much appreciate all the work of this committee on all of these recommendations coming forward, a really good piece of work here.

The thing I hear most frequently from clients and from non-government organizations that often support and assist them in gaining access to government services is the lack of dignity. It is very unusual to find anybody who chooses to be in these...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to my colleagues for bringing this motion forward. I guess I find myself aligning with Ms. Bisaro’s comments, so I won’t repeat them all, but I don’t necessarily agree with the formula, but I strongly support taking the question to the public, and I very much appreciate that. That’s the main thrust of this motion. These are public dollars. In my view, I think, in the short term, all of the dollars should go into the Heritage Act Fund while we have a mature discussion and really examine where we see the needs and where the public would like to see these dollars...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I acknowledge there were a few recommendations in this report where it was clearly industry professionals trying to meet sustainability requirements. A treasure chest wish list, though, of subsidies, public funding of staff to assume industry’s responsibility for regulatory engagement, this industry panel really demonstrates how the public can’t do enough to maximize industry profits at public cost, yet our people believe that development should first deliver benefits to them. So my brief question, Mr. Speaker, is: How does the Minister propose to bring the public...

I don’t recall saying anything about not opening a new mine, Mr. Speaker. I think that should be clear on the record. I hope the Minister will really listen and try to address my questions.

Consider what happens when you invite public comment when reviewing mining industry performance. The chair of the Minister’s Economic Opportunities Panel, Joe Handley, was on radio this week talking about the feedback he heard in public meetings across the territory. He heard that “socio-economic agreements are almost cancelled agreements.” Then, “we’re going to have to enter into more binding contracts...

I believe I still have some constituents from Weledeh in the House. Barb Hood, executive director of the NWT Seniors. I would also like to welcome the other seniors and other residents here. Aggie Brockman is here. Also Cominco, Greg Loftus, welcome, Greg. I would like to specially recognize my working partner for the last four years, my CA, Craig Yeo. Also, many of the seniors here that have been mentioned. Squeak is here. Welcome, Squeak. Also Marg Green, Della Green, Yvonne Quick. Esther Braden was here earlier. I don`t know whether she is still here. Lorraine Phaneuf, Annemieke Mulders. I...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Pathways to Mineral Development is an excellent portrayal of industry perspectives. Compiled in partnership with the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines and paneled with industry professionals without even an offer of public meetings, it is an imbalanced agenda of corporate priorities that in whole sections is completely devoid of public interest and environmental sustainability perspectives.

Here are a few high points, or really low points: There’s the basic premise that corporations are to be wooed with a blend of government-funded subsidies, debased regulatory...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate all my colleagues’ comments here and my colleagues who have brought this forward. I will be supporting this motion as well.

I frequently hear from constituents that we should be making this connection between dollars coming in from certain sources and issues that are related to that. That seems to be very problematic for government. I realize that. But here I think we are getting a common voice that reflects what we hear out on the street. So I’d really appreciate it if we can get this done. I will be supporting it. Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also speak in support of this motion. The motion really does speak for itself. It’s laid out quite well here, and I thank my colleagues for bringing this forward.

Legislation is overdue. Obviously, 25 years old this year, and only one and half pages, very few amendments. The definitions are clearly out of date and there is no protection from liability. We know that our residents are accepting organs and it’s extending their lives, cutting our health costs right here in the Northwest Territories.

There is no reason why we shouldn’t be participating, and I know that our...

I’m hoping to contribute to the Minister’s work through these comments here today, and questions. I agree, we have a thriving industry and it’s great. Although we have had some bad performances in the past, we want more. As I pointed out, some of the basic premises of the recommendations are disturbing or even chilling as potential public policy, considering the bland statement casually put that we might allow projects that would result in requirements for perpetual care, perpetual environmental care. Maybe the panel should have taken a tour of the $903 million Giant Mine Remediation Project...