Bob Bromley

The Section 65(5) requires an inquiry for a bigger spill or event, but the requirement for public disclosure, the report is not as strong as it should be, as I think we have heard about earlier. In fact, I think typically in federal regulatory processes that I have participated in, there’s a clear, well-laid-out process and predictable process for distributing information and reports. Can we assume that that sort of thing will be developed in the regulations so that the uncertainty I think Ms. Bisaro was referencing could be resolved? Thank you.

That was excellent. Thank you very much. Section 8, obviously, is a bit troubling in that anyone who is authorized to do something under GNWT legislation appears to be immune to any action under the Environmental Rights Act. This is not surprising given that we’ve had a recent inquiry and it was turned down under federal legislation with reference to federal legislation, but it seems pretty slippery. The intent of the Environmental Rights Act was for any citizens, to citizens in the Northwest Territories that have concerns, environmental concerns about a pollutant or a contaminant could bring...

Thank you. That’s a good example. It helps me see the purpose of this committee right away.

Section 61(4) seems to provide GNWT with an immunity, once again, for any damages or liability associated with regulations they may make even if they are bad regulations or cause problems. We’ve heard about this earlier today. Again, this seems typical for our federal government, but does this sort of subscription to a lack of degree of accountability apply to this government? Is that something that we might see considered in the review if there are no options now? Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And yet we’ve heard that they’ve fully consulted with all of our Aboriginal partners. So, for this government not to have consulted with committee on this I regard as a major shirking of the responsibility of this government and I’m very upset about that. These are not mirror legislation. So, obviously, the Premier claims we have a consensus government here and clearly we do not. He has even said in their statement, all parties to the agreement. Clearly, we’re not regarded as a party to this agreement and neither is the public. So I just want to very clearly stress how...

I’ll go with Mr. Fulford’s word and interpretation there. However, unfortunately, Section 64 allows the regulator to accept any form of security. Obviously, I think with the Deh Cho Bridge and so on, we should be wiser and smarter now and know that that’s not good enough to protect the public. The security, obviously, needs to be totally liquid and guaranteed by the bank for insurance. I’m hoping that that will be dealt with in regulations. I’m open to any comments on that, or assurances there.

Section 19 does not require the regulator to hold public hearings on any matter. There should be a...

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on this and the subsequent bills here today, has the GNWT consulted with the Aboriginal governments regarding the contents of these bills?

I just want to express my appreciation of the Premier again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s all I had.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe Ms. Bisaro does have more, but I’ll ask a few here, if I may. The first comment, Section 9 allows contracting to assist with the administration of the act, but obviously there should be some requirement for disclosure of that information. I’m wondering if there is any provision for that in regulations. Obviously, many of these will have to go for discussion after April 1st, but is that provided for in regulations, that there will be some transparency here? Thank you.

Thanks to the Premier for that. I think the fundamental change, as I said, was from a publicly accountable institution to behind closed doors. We are looking for transparency whenever we can find it here and particularly given that committee’s being kept absolutely in the dark. So I would appreciate that information.

I guess related to that is a concern that decisions being made will be made by politicians instead of by objective, independent board members who are identified for that purpose. Again, it goes against certainly what the Premier’s been saying, that we are bringing decisions closer...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would go a long ways, I think. I don’t expect I’ll be getting an invitation myself. Why would I, as an elected representative of my people? But I wonder if the Premier would attend and make that request and develop it as one of the rules of the council referred to in the clause made mention of here.