Kevin O'Reilly

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to start with page 78, the $200,000 that is shown under waste reduction. I believe that is for the agricultural strategy, but can someone confirm what that funding is for? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Well, I may be the only one in the room who thinks that there may be some value to this, but I'm going to leave this alone. It's a very particular sort of arrangement. I'm not suggesting that there's anything untoward about any of this. I've worked with some of those staff in the past. They work hard. They do their jobs, but it does put them perhaps in an awkward situation when they're GNWT employees and they have to report to the board, especially if our government comes forward looking for a water licence at some point before the Water Board. I think that's going to put them in an even more...

Sure, yes, there is shown in the business plan a $50,000 reduction to the water regulatory budget, and I think it shows up on page 86, as well. Can someone tell me what that reduction is all about? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did the homework for the Minister over the lunch hour. Out of the 27 commitments when you look at the mandate tracker on the executive website, only one has been completed; one out of 27 items. This is a department that cannot get the job done. They are behind in legislation, important wildlife planning, climate change initiatives. I am sorry to say this, but the department is way behind on everything, and it is because of the cuts that continue to be made to this department.

Last year, and again this year, there are cuts of $371,000 to the corporate management function...

I think I understand some of that. I'm not sure I necessarily agree with it all, but is there an MOU or some formal agreement between GNWT and the Water Board over reporting of the staff and who is responsible for what? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's commitment, but so far, the solutions haven't worked with the fiscal strategy of Cabinet to reduce this department because it hasn't been able to accomplish everything that it wanted.

I want to ask, though: when was the last time that there was a good review done of a fire suppression in particular? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the Minister for that explanation. I suggest that he put it in the final version. It is a good start, but it doesn't really explain this patchwork approach, and I think we need to have a consistent one.

I also mentioned in my statement that the NWT Power Corporation is not even mentioned in the draft strategy. I had expected to see something for the corporation along the lines of the corporation doing itself out of a job by building energy self-reliance. Instead, we have a straitjacket approach to community-owned renewable generation that gives utilities a veto. Can the...

Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that's what I was worried about. Look, the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program is established under federal legislation, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. It's part 6. It's the audit function and state of the environment function for the MVRMA. If there is money to be taken out to support legislative initiatives, where is the legislation to actually set up the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program to a greater extent than what is already in Part 6 of the MVRMA?

If we're using this as a pot to shuffle off money for other departmental activities, in my view...

Thanks, Mr. Chair. The employees, are they employees of the Water Board or of ENR? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, that's what I was most worried about. These reductions are not necessarily going to be confined to forest management. They might be made elsewhere within the department. Is that what I heard? Thanks, Mr. Chair.