Kevin O'Reilly

In favour.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that. And I guess what I'm asking is that those two papers actually be added to the current engagement page, not buried somewhere else on the departmental website. But, you know, the engagement web page the way it has been set up is really biased in terms of extractivism. There's nothing on maximizing revenues to government, ensuring future generations benefit, or a consideration of environmental or socioeconomic trade offs. The next steps and guidelines are also vague, at best.

So can the Minister explain what the actual next steps...

Merci, Monsieur le President. I want to thank the Minister for that. Of course, the only engagement that's happening is a web page where you can submit comments to an email address but, you know, the other fundamental flaw with the current review of mining royalties is the conflicting roles of her department in promoting and regulating mining at the same time.

Can the Minister explain why this review of mining royalties is being led by her department rather than an independent panel as was the case for the procurement review? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

In favour.

Merci, Monsieur le President. By the time this House reconvenes in May, the opportunity for public comments on the review of NWT mining royalties will have closed without much public debate or media coverage. Why is this important?

There has never been a comprehensive and independent review of mining royalties and the present process is fundamentally flawed, with literally billions of dollars of potential government revenues at stake.

I submitted eight pages of comments on a previous version of a research paper. It took two attempts to even get an acknowledgement and there has never been a...

In favour.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I don't really want to say too much but, you know, I accept that systemic racism exists, and I think we all have a duty to discuss it and acknowledge its existence and address it. And I honestly believe that my colleagues on the other side feel the same way. So it's how we do that, Mr. Speaker, that that's going to make the difference. And that's, I think, the kind of legacy that we all collectively want to leave.

But somehow this debate and discussion after a long day of some criticism about the budget, budgetmaking process, somehow discussion has been...

In favour.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think you said $35 million. I think it should have been $335,239,000. Thanks.

Merci, Monsieur le President. Committee wishes to consider Tabled Document 56119(2): Main Estimates, and Bill 39, Bill 41, and Committee Report 2619(2). Mahsi, Mr. Chair.