Bob Bromley

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources in follow-up on my Member’s statement on the 21st of February and some questions then.

I believe it was two weeks ago today that I described the stalled effort to create an independent oversight body to watchdog the Giant Mine Remediation Project. I pointed out there were six drafts of an oversight discussion paper and eight drafts of an environmental agreement. The work is dead in the water and the working group hasn’t met since August.

On February 21st the Minister committed to direct his department...

I will await the Minister getting in gear. Since the close of the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review public hearings, the board has taken the uncommon step of opening up the public record again with the request to the developers – that’s us – for further information on the plan to dump toxic waters into Back Bay. Apparently the board is determined that the project proposal contains insufficient information to make wise decisions on this dilution of pollution solution.

Can the Minister update us on our activities to provide this solution and whether we will push to have this project...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, have serious concerns about the wisdom of building the Inuvik-Tuk highway. The project doesn’t make economic sense. The only thorough analysis we’ve had was prepared in 2010 for a project costing $230 million. Twenty-eight months and $12 million later, it’s $311 million. That 2010 analysis revealed little if any net economic benefit, notably with reductions in oil and gas economic activity of thousands of person years of employment and significant reductions to GDP due to efficiencies.

Today with ice-free shipping seasons and marine transport, pipelines are off...

Just in respect to land use plans which are part of the implementation process after settlement, where are we at? I know we got pretty close with the Sahtu. Has that been finalized? If we could just get a little update on the various regions on where we’re at with the land use plans. Thank you.

Okay, so this is obviously a substantial fund. How current are we in terms of knowing what our environmental liabilities are? I imagine we’re moving steadily towards a routine sort of assessment and so on. Are we fairly current on those or are we still catching up with today’s world in that respect?

I know there are certainly lots of issues on the custody aspect of children across the Northwest Territories. There is very clear, new thinking that the emphasis needs to be in place to keep children associated with their families somehow.

In terms of a good result here, is this office helping children stay integrated in a healthy and safe way with their families, recognizing the issues that are being faced here? I think that’s the overall intent of our Child and Family Services Act review and so forth, in which Justice plays a big role.

So these are subsidies in addition to the territorial power subsidy?

I think that’s it. I’m sure most of all the unsettled land claims people would like to see these things settled so we can get on with other priorities, but this is a priority and I appreciate the work the department’s doing here, and I hope we can make progress on these files. That’s all I had.

Mr. Chairman, if you look at the third paragraph, the second last line. The Environmental Liability Fund.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m just interested in the progress report on the offices of the children’s lawyer and how this is working out. I believe it’s a new position. Maybe the Minister could refresh my memory on when we implemented this and how that program is working out. Thank you.