Thank you. So I think I might have figured out what the Member was looking for.

So the Department of Justice has a budget and the activities within the Department of Justice have a budget. And there is -- there was a budget for OROGO last year, and that budget was reduced this year. That difference of the reduction stayed within the Department of Justice. And so I'm not sure if that's what the Member was looking for, but that's where the money went, and it was used to fund other items in the Department of Justice. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. Member for Frame Lake.

Okay, thanks. And so moving forward in this set of main estimates, there's a reduction that was made, and now that I have the Minister's opening remarks in front of me I see basically that there was some forced growth in the departmental budget. There's some initiatives. There's something called other adjustments. There was reductions in travel and sunsets.

So out of those, the five bulleted items here on the Minister's opening remarks, where does this reduction to the OROGO budget actually fit in in these bulleted categories? Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister of Justice.

Thank you. So the main estimates say these are the highlights, and I guess it wasn't determined that this was a highlight of the budget. But I've stated, I don't know how many times now, that there was a reduction to the budget of OROGO, and I apologize for not stating that in the -- in my opening remarks. But I've stated it numerous times now. Thank you.

Thank you. Member for Frame Lake.

Thanks. Let's stop dancing around here. Look, clearly, there's a reduction made in this activity area which is supposed to be arm's length from Department of Justice, probably even arm's length from our government to some extent. And I just can't figure out where the money that was cut here actually goes, whether it just stays within the department and is treated as sort of money within the department and is picked up somewhere else and used. I don't think that that's a fair representation of what should be an independent regulator. That's not what I think is a fair presentation of the finances of this government. And if this is an independent regulator and cuts are made to it, the money just doesn't all of a sudden disappear and show up somewhere else within the Department of Justice. That's wrong. If cuts are made, they should go back to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. And if Justice needs money for other functions or other activities, they should go to the FMB and apply for that money and get it. The kind of presentation that we're getting here doesn't explain this very well. But I think what it does show is that this government does not respect an independent regulator in the presentation of the budget for the -- what should be an independent regulator. And that's all I'm going to say about this.

I've raised this before, and I will raise it again, that when reductions appear in a budget, they should be actually labelled as reductions, and I just don't think that the kind of presentation we've got in the main estimates does that. And I encourage the Minister of Finance to look at this and make sure that it's a fair presentation the public can understand, that we as Regular MLAs understand, and that an independent regulator is treated as an independent regulator, not an arm within a particular department. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member -- or Minister of Justice.

Thank you. So every previous year when the OROGO budget would lapse, that money was then used by the Department of Justice to fund other things. This year, the budget was cut, and what the Member said should happen is exactly what happened. So his complaints really should be focused on the previous years when what he doesn't want to happen was happening. This year, what he wanted to happen is exactly what happened. So I think -- I don't think we're ever going to see eye to eye on this. I think I'm really confused as to what the issue is, because we seem to be saying that the same thing is happening but perhaps it's philosophical differences about accounting. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While I may disagree with my colleague about the interest in oil and gas in the region, I share his concerns with the cutting of the funding to this department -- or to this regulator.

While I don't want to sit here and split hairs on where the money went, where my concern lies is that with the cutting of two positions, one at least having been technical, I'm concerned that the review did not necessarily incorporate the opinion of technical people. And one of the reasons that I ran was because I felt there was an absence of scientific knowledge in decision-making in this government. And so when I look at this that it's being told to me the reason for this cut is that money continues to lapse yearly, that's an accounting reason to remove this money; that is not a scientific-based reason to take this money away. And if we are going to have a - well, which my colleague from Nunakput who's not here today would very much have a conversation about his interest in oil and gas going forward, I find this to be actually quite appalling that we've reduced a regulator and taking that money and using it elsewhere in the government.

I also look and note that there's a cut to contract service by about half the funding. So that would probably be safety and technical training for the employee that was then removed from his position. So therefore -- their position.

So, therefore, I really have concern here that when it comes time for these projects that we are talking about happening that have very crucial to the Beaufort Delta, that we're going to be having a regulator with no technical experience sitting there any further. Plus, you're overloading the technical person that's still left there, or the few technical people.

I'm not sure that I have much of a question in that for the Minister, just some more colleagues. I guess my question is how much -- who input on this review? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Justice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps Mr. Bancroft can speak to some of the technical aspects of the review. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Bancroft.

Thank you. Member for Great Slave.

So we often hear that there's no crystal ball in this Chamber. So, you know, to talk to government people about where they think things are going and deciding to cut, again, a regulator, I have concern with that.

The executive director is not a technical person who has not been in that role for very long is my understanding. Where are the technical people within the department of this -- or this regulator? Were they consulted about whether they felt their jobs were necessary? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Justice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I can't -- I don't have anything to add to what Mr. Bancroft said. Thank you.

Member for Great Slave.

Thank you, I'll rephrase. Are one of the stakeholders that the government consulted within the government, were they the employees within OROGO? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister of Justice.

Thank you, Madam Chair. From what I understand, the executive director was the one who was consulted. Thank you.

Thank you. Member for Great Slave.