Thank you, Mr. Chair. It would be in an appropriate manner. Thank you.

I didn’t quite hear the answer, but if it was “in the appropriate manner” what does that mean?

In this Chamber we hear many times that if we advertise for jobs and some people don’t have computers, they have to do it in print. On that basis, I’m saying it would be done in an appropriate manner. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the Premier for the explanation, but it doesn’t give me any warm and fuzzy feeling that the public is going to get the report. I understand the intent of this clause is that the public will get the full report, but it can be interpreted a number of different ways, so is it going to be covered in regulations or is it simply going to be left to the Minister of the day who will decide, yeah, no, today I’m going to do one page and maybe next week I’ll do 300? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Druyan.

Thank you, Mr. Druyan. Ms. Bisaro, your time is up. General comments.

Is committee ready to go to detail? Oh, Mr. Bromley. Sorry. Go ahead, Mr. Bromley.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford.

Thank you. I suppose most stuff is, but we’re looking for transparency here, so again, I hope we work towards that.

Section 10(4) allows for deposits for liability related to loss damage, et cetera. Again, in reference to Mr. Fulford’s earlier comment, deposits are not mandatory. This is, again, unfortunate. I would just

like to give the Premier an opportunity to say I’m wrong here and, in fact, somewhere in the act it is made mandatory. Thank you.

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 requirement, obviously, especially on the closure and reclamation of any larger facility like a pipeline, production field and so on. Again, maybe I can get a comment on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford. Sorry, Mr. Druyan.

Thank you, Mr. Druyan. Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Chair, thanks for that response. I think it was Section 19 we were talking about. He said 17, but I’m sure he meant 19. In fact, the point I’m raising is that that’s not good enough. They should be required to hold public hearings on any matter. Again, I’m not surprised at mirroring federal legislation but I’m trying to raise a point that we can talk about later, but that’s my view on that.

Section 27 allows the Minister to set up an oil and gas committee under his or her direction. Five-

members-only criteria for appointment seems to be two members have to know something about oil and gas. The other three I think are government members. Appointees can’t have an interest of more than 5 percent in any oil and gas property. Wouldn’t that be something? The committee seems to hear appeals, may hold hearings.

Again, maybe I can just ask that. It wasn’t clear in their jurisdiction, which is in later clauses. If I can just get some examples of what sorts of appeals and other inquiries are being contemplated here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford.

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.

I certainly wouldn’t disagree with that intent. There seems to be some other interpretation of this. Maybe I can just ask. Is there any granting of immunity to the GNWT here for regulations good or bad? Maybe a response to both of those. Thank you.