Thanks to Mr. Fulford. So, I understand that there’s no requirement, but that doesn’t tell me the rationale for why we did not continue to keep the NEB as a regulator. One of the concerns that we had from somebody who provided input to us, as committee, was that their concern is that the Minister of ITI should not be the regulator for petroleum resources and felt that if that was the direction that we were going to go that there ought to be some public discussion prior to us making that decision. So that decision has already been made, but again, I guess I would like to ask what the rationale was for this change from the NEB to the Minister of ITI as the regulator. Thank you.

Thanks to Mr. Fulford. So, I guess it just points out one of the reasons why we need to have public consultation on these acts once they have been approved, and after April 1st . It’s another

reason why the government and committee, hopefully, will get together and will provide some opportunity for fairly comprehensive consultation on these acts.

I wanted to ask about royalties. The payment of royalties comes under Section 47, I think, and beyond that as well. Am I correct in understanding that royalties can be exempted basically by the Minister without consultation with other Members and/or the general public? Is that correct? Thank you.

Thanks. I don’t need the exact section, so Mr. Fulford can stop searching. I guess my concern is that we could have decisions being made by an individual, I would hope not, but we could have decisions being made by an individual to exempt or waive or change royalties. So, my question further to this is whether or not there will be anything in regulation which will determine under what circumstances the Minister can exempt or change royalty payments. Thank you.

Thanks. Something else to add to the list for us to consider after April 1st when we

consult. I wanted to also ask, it struck me and this came from the information that we got from our staff, but it talks about disclosure of information, and I’m sorry I don’t have the reference in the bill, but as I understand it if, there was a conflict in terms of disclosure of information between the section in the act, between the Petroleum Resources Act and the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that the Petroleum Resources Act will take precedence. That struck me as being a little strange. I would have thought that the ATIPP Act would take precedence over pretty much anything else that we do. So, could I get an explanation of why the Petroleum Resources Act relative to disclosure of information would take precedence over ATIPP? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aitken.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Ms. Bisaro.

Thanks, Madam Chair. Okay, understood. I wanted to ask a question with regards to the Environmental Studies Research Fund and the Minister mentioned that in his opening remarks as well. I understand the purpose; I understand who is going to be appointed to this group, but I don’t understand where the money is coming from. Could I find out how this is going to be funded with dollars? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It would come from the industry itself. Those are companies that are operating in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the Premier. That’s good to hear. Where is that going to be laid out? Is it laid out already in regulations, or is it again something that has yet to be determined? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Aitken.

Thank you, Mr. Aitken. Ms. Bisaro, your 10 minutes for general comments have passed. Is there anybody else with general comments? Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to follow up on some of these similar questions for Bill 11, Petroleum Resources Act. I know a number of the public are alarmed at the regulations being proposed and put in force by this act, particularly because it is a fundamental change in public policy that demands public discussion certainly, and one would think in a consensus government that it would at least have demanded committee discussion. The questions were asked at the beginning of this six-week sitting. Commitments were made about briefing committee and that still has not been done. Again, so-called consensus government here seems to be failing us in a critical area such as this. I think it’s been pointed out the conflict of interest between the regulator who is also the promoter and subsidizer in this industry. So there are some fundamental concerns there.

Similar to that is concern with the lack of capacity and experience. I know the department’s going out, the regulator is going out for some contract help on that, but in the matter of transparency and to bring some certainty to this very uncertain equation, would the Minister be prepared to provide us with a copy of the contract that goes out for the closed contract services so that the public can be aware exactly what we are having contracted out and who is doing it? I’m not worried about the price on those things. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Premier McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Normally in these kinds of contractual situations we

would have to check with the contractor. I don’t expect there would be any problem in doing so, but we’ll just have to check to see if there are any privacy requirements or contractual arrangements that we have to check on. We’re prepared to make it available subject to checking on a number of things. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the Premier for that. I think the fundamental change, as I said, was from a publicly accountable institution to behind closed doors. We are looking for transparency whenever we can find it here and particularly given that committee’s being kept absolutely in the dark. So I would appreciate that information.

I guess related to that is a concern that decisions being made will be made by politicians instead of by objective, independent board members who are identified for that purpose. Again, it goes against certainly what the Premier’s been saying, that we are bringing decisions closer to the people and transparency and so on. This is in secret and behind closed doors, so that’s certainly a concern.

The question of royalty and fees for oil and gas are set in regulation and should be reviewed, obviously, to ensure an adequate return to the public once again. I am also concerned about the ability of the Minister to exempt a party from payment of royalties. I think government has a bad record on these sorts of things, especially when, again, decisions are made behind closed doors and in secret. I will look forward to the fleshing out of that and exactly where the authorities are, the limits on that, the role for the public in oversight of that.

The review, I would say, of royalties should include consideration of the bid system where the current approach is based on work. Bid criteria rather than cash bid or other criteria would better serve our communities and the environment. I know the Premier’s made a commitment for review soon, so that can be addressed at that time.

Mention has been made of the Environmental Studies Management Board. Again, the concern in this case is the only eligible people who sit on the board are government employees and individuals, non-native, by the oil and gas interests owners. This hardly seems fair or objective and it’s hard to understand how such a restriction serves the public interest. This part of the bill deserves a serious review to ensure, again, greater accountability and representativeness. I appreciate the information on Section 72 where rates will be set, I believe, in relation to this as well by…(inaudible)… That’s for the royalty fees rates, so I will be following up with that one.

Finally, again, as has been stated for several bills, we need a clear requirement for mandatory financial security to cover all aspects of oil and gas operations in the NWT. This is especially true in terms of accidents, malfunctions, spills and so on. I

don’t believe this bill provides that, but I guess I would ask that question at this time. Is there provision for clear requirement of mandatory financial security to cover those things? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Fulford.