Thank you, Mr. Chair. A letter that was provided to Members is similar in nature to Tabled Document 497-18(3), but is timestamped 12:20 p.m., and there are some differences between this letter and Tabled Document 497-18(3). Can the Minister account for these differences? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is consistent with other motions that the committee has brought forward, including amendments to bills that I will not reflect on further. This is an important piece of business moving forward into the next Assembly. We have this peculiar artefact in the Petroleum Resources Act that my colleague spoke of where there is a public gazetting process. The federal policy on this is to allow for public comment during gazetting, and in the case of the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, outright consultation with Indigenous governments if any regulations are to be...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier today the honourable Minister tabled a letter from Mario Renault's chief of staff to the honourable Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This is Tabled Document, I believe, 497-18(3). This letter concerns the implementation date of this plan, and also a potential implementation date for the federal backstop. Could the Minister confirm whether or not a copy of Tabled Document 497-18(3) was provided to Members prior to its tabling in the House? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, we have an implementation date today at the 11th hour. That was not known until now. I believe firmly that we can negotiate a later implementation date, give Northerners four months of tax relief, and ensure that the next government is the one that decides this, and not this government that is sitting on a last-minute plan that hasn't had adequate public consideration, that hasn't had adequate cooperative development through our legislative processes inherent to this building. I encourage Members to consider carefully how they proceed on this, as this will be a...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister responsible for GNWT procurement policies has made a standing offer to hear complaints on the floor of the House concerning government procurement, and today I rise once again to bring forward the concerns of my constituents.

The Business Incentive Program statement of policy is to "provide an incentive to NWT-based businesses in a manner that recognizes the higher cost of operating in the NWT." I have a constituent now who asks why certain companies have been grandfathered into the Business Incentive Program registry without having to meet the same...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 22 of Bill 42 be deleted and the following substituted:

22. This Act comes into force January 1, 2020.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the implementation date is a crucial factor of this, which is why I'm raising these concerns. I also have concerns with the clarity provided in Tabled Document 497-18(3). It seems that the differences between these letters, Tabled Document 497-18(3) does more to support the government's position than the original piece of correspondence sent out, and the Minister did confirm that he directed his staff to bring forward amendments to that correspondence. I think it's highly leading that that exchange took place and that that is the letter that was, in fact, tabled...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the differences between the two seem to be that Tabled Document 497-18(3) indicates that the federal backstop will be in place on September 1st, whereas the letter from 12:20 p.m. does not include a firm date. The other substantive difference is that Tabled Document 497-18(3) includes a line, "our preference remains for NWT to put in place systems so it has full control over the revenue," and this does not appear in the original letter. Can the Minister confirm whether or not he directed his staff to amend the letter sent at 12:20 to include these additional pieces of...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Looking at this priority, I guess is the best way to put it because it's consistent with, as you said, Mr. Chair, at the top, déjà vu, the first approach committee took was to copy the MVRMA and say let's do full engagement, one step less than consultation, with Indigenous governments by providing them notice. That was not palatable to government, so we said, okay, let's look at a different approach. We went to the PRA, which was not amended. This section is identical to that section. We said, okay, if it's in the PRA, maybe this will be more agreeable to government. Now...

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to take the opportunity to say how delighted I am to see the legislation that came forward, the final form of this legislation. Earlier, when we were consulting with the government on how best to bring about changes to our land acts, there was a lot of back and forth between the standing committee and the government, and one of the strong desires of committee was to get a move on with amalgamating the acts into a single piece of legislation. This is something that has eluded the Yukon, for example, for more than 10 years, and committee felt very strongly it...