Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is obviously a fundamental clause. It provides some guidance on how the fund will be managed. I just want to note that the public spoke very clearly and fairly consistently on this aspect and thought that there should be arm’s length administration of the fund and that it should not be under the trusteeship of the Financial Management Board. An arm’s length agency could indeed report to the Legislative Assembly and could be subject to verification by an independent auditor. This would allow for and promote public involvement in the administration and guiding vision of the fund. Members of the independent agency could be drawn from the public at large and represent a cross-section of cultures, genders, economic and social interests, and geographic regions. Consideration could be given to having two political representatives on the board, though not as chair. For example, one from Cabinet and one from regular priorities and planning. I guess I would like to hear what the Minister thinks of this consideration. It didn’t make it into this version of the bill. Is this something we could consider in the future? Does the Minister have particular reasons why he’s insisting in here that the Financial Management Board would be the trustee of the Heritage Fund?
Bob Bromley on Committee Motion 27-16(6): 17th Legislative Assembly Process Convention Referral Of Limited Category Of Regulations To Standing Committee, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on August 23rd, 2011. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 27-16(6): 17th Legislative Assembly Process Convention Referral Of Limited Category Of Regulations To Standing Committee, Carried
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
August 22nd, 2011
See context to find out what was said next.