The results of the recorded vote: 16 in favour, one opposed, one abstention. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 34 has had its third reading. Third reading of bills. Mr. Clerk, orders of the day.

Masi. All those abstaining, please stand.

Masi. All those opposed, please stand.

Question has been called. All those in favour, please stand.

Masi. To the motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to get into all the particulars of what the Members like and don't like about this bill. We've had those discussions over the last few weeks in great depth. I took the unprecedented move; I went in front of committee, myself and my staff, for six hours to discuss this thing to try to work things out and bring clarity to the Members.

As the previous speaker just said, we had the unprecedented amount of time that we spent in front of the clause-by-clause review with the public and what we spent here last night in this House. I have always said from day one, and I will repeat it again today, and I've said it to industry, I've said it to Indigenous governments, and I've said it to you guys: not everybody is going to be happy with this bill. This is very complex, probably the most important bill since devolution in 2014, and I think, even with our differences, with all Members across the floor, 11 of you, we are at a place where we've brought this thing forward and we're going to do a vote on third motion here today, and I believe this act is in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.

Certainly, I can stand here and say maybe I'm not happy with certain sections, myself, and I will say that, but this is a big piece of legislation for the people of the Northwest Territories, and this is very important to us. This is the biggest part of our economy. This bill is based around investor confidence; it's based around Indigenous participation; and it's based on public input and the benefits that they are going to generate from this thing.

Yes, we've had some big differences, but as I've said, we've put those aside and we have worked very, very hard on this. I'm not complaining about being here until 11 or 12 o'clock at night. That doesn't bother me. That's what we're here to do; we're here to work. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it. It doesn't bother me that we spent this much time on it. That's what we need to do. This is a very important piece of legislation.

Even for the Members who aren't happy with it and who aren't going to support it, your input was input and made some significant changes. People do not talk about it; not one person over there has talked about 40 amendments that you guys made to this bill to make it better. Forty. That's a significant contribution to this bill, not the 32.

The other thing that I don't like about the conversation in the closing arguments today is comparing it to the Corrections Act. That is not even the same thing. That's not even close. This is a devolution bill on lands and resources that involves Indigenous governments in a serious way. So I can stand here and say Cabinet is very supportive of this bill, and a number of people on that side, and I think we're doing the right things for the residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate everybody sharing their comments today. It just goes to show the importance of this bill. I want to not reiterate everybody's concerns, but I do want to say that, with well over 100 motions, I had the opportunity, as the chair, to observe the growth of this process and of this bill, from the time in which it was originally proposed, and I can tell you that, when we saw that originally, there was a lot of deep and dire concern from committee at that time.

There has been a willingness from the Minister and the department to come together with the committee on a few occasions to recognize that there was some serious and important work that needed to be done to get this bill to a place that it needed to be.

I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the many stakeholders that took part in getting this bill where it is today. Most important are our Indigenous governments and organizations and, of course, industry. I think their ability to be patient with us and to understand and have an understanding is very admirable and committee, I think, really, genuinely appreciates that.

I want to acknowledge my committee's frustration; they have shared that over the last number of days. As the chair, I have the opportunity to see the peaks and valleys of this bill as we have moved forward, but I want to also commend the committee for the tremendous effort that they have put into getting this bill to where it is and exposing those challenges that we've had, and digging down, and going into the depths of this, and never relenting, and continuing to pound forward. I mean, I think, clearly, at points in time we were ready to just throw our arms up in the air and kind of give up, but the proof is, when you sit here until 11:30 at night in a clause-by-clause, and again until after midnight the other day in Committee of the Whole, there is genuine effort that has been put into this bill.

I, Mr. Speaker, think that that's too much at risk to not support now. I think the work that we've done, that everybody has done, is to be commended, and it would be too risky to let all of that go to a future Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, I will for sure be in support of the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of this motion. Ever since we inherited devolution, I feel very comfortable in saying that we have something. As a result of that, we have the abilities in the agreement to govern our destiny and manage our affairs and exploit our affairs in a manner that we see is responsible.

As mentioned numerous times in our road trips for this piece of legislation, we live in a very diverse area with a number of jurisdictions, including reserves, settled claims, unsettled claim areas. Making choices and making decisions is the hardest part of leadership, but making them shows leadership. Our people have placed us in this Assembly to do just that.

This new piece of legislation goes back to the recommendation from the Neil McCrank report on upgrading legislation and regulations. I am very confident that the government has the resources and the necessary staff to direct them in that manner.

I really want to show to the people that we are here, and to industry, that we have heard everyone during the road reports during the development, during the "what we heard" report that was tabled by the government a year ago, and that we are doing our best to engage, listen, and design a piece of legislation that would create, as we mentioned numerous times, certainty and confidence in industry's interest to have a presence here in our territory and the large amount of benefits that they bring.

I feel comfortable that we have drafted a piece of legislation. In some views, it may not be the best, and that could be said for every piece of legislation that we have dealt with, but in the spirit of balance and comfort and certainty, I am satisfied with what we have drafted, and we will leave it up to the staff of the government to draft regulations to accommodate the legislation and basically try to bring commerce and stability to our area. Mahsi.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the other Members have referenced last night. It was about six hours that we discussed this. At the clause-by-clause, there were another four and a half hours, and the committee itself spent days and days and days focusing on this act and how we could make it better. Even now, after all of that, as I stand here, I am still torn about whether or not I fully support this legislation, and there are a number of reasons for that.

There are a number of reasons to support the legislation. It is not, maybe, the world-class legislation that we were promised, but it does some very progressive things, like legislating benefit agreements. I have said this before; I think that what we do with this in the future will be used as a model elsewhere in Canada and, perhaps, around the world.

The problem with that is that the bill wasn't ready to be brought forward, and the benefits agreement section is a perfect example of that. It was not done, but, for whatever reason, it was brought forward. One of the Members mentioned free entry and the fact that, early on, there was no buy-in for free entry and the fact that the working group was able to get to the point where all of the Indigenous governments could agree on a system for entry shows how progressive this bill is.

I am concerned about the vagueness of certain points, that so much of this was left to regulations. There are big policy issues that should be discussed by the legislators and not left to regulations, which are usually reserved for things that are more technical. I am disappointed that there were major amendments proposed by the government on the floor of the House that bypassed the committee process, which is where the public is supposed to have their say into the legislation.

However, with all of that said, I do have faith in the people within the department who have been working on this. We have seen a lot of departmental officials come before us as a committee over the last four years, and I have always said that the mineral resources people are some of the best that we have in the government.

I feel like, if I support this bill, I would be rewarding bad behaviour on the part of Cabinet by bringing forward something when clearly it wasn't ready and clearly the proper processes weren't followed in terms of bringing forward amendments -- appropriate to democracy, not procedurally incorrect, but appropriate in the spirit of consensus government.

Mr. Speaker, even as I sit down here, I am not quite sure what I should do. Is this better legislation? Absolutely. Will it get to where it needs to be? I believe so, but, like I said, we have processes in place. Before I became an MLA, I saw lots of pieces of bad legislation, and I said, "I don't want to be part of that." Yet, here we are where there is legislation that is not fully formed and is not ready for prime time, and we are sitting here ready to approve it.

That is really why I am torn, Mr. Speaker. I guess we will all see, including me, how I vote on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Hay River North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting the motion despite having some concerns. I'm not on the committee that oversaw at least the discussion on the overhaul of this piece of legislation, and I understand from my previous work that the big concern of Indigenous peoples was the idea of a free entry system where, if it exists on their traditional lands, industry could basically go in, explore, find a deposit, and basically own it. Whether it was your outdoor toilet behind your house, it could happen, and you don't have a say in that. That was the biggest common concern that I think was and still continues to be an issue, but there is a common effort being pulled together by Indigenous people to try to make some changes on that whole fundamental issue.

If there are any concerns, they are in regard to settlement areas as defined, which I sought clarity on yesterday with the legal counsel for the committee. It makes reference to settlement areas. It doesn't really specifically reference and stipulate areas that don't have settled land claims. They are basically not recognized. The Dehcho, for that matter, and the Akaitcho are not referenced in this draft, and for that matter, the Metis. Of course, that is a very serious concern. We try not to leave anyone behind in terms of major government initiatives, but in this piece of legislation, it creates "haves" and "have nots," which is not right.

The other interesting track about this is that it heralds section 35 rights, Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the interesting thing is that it upholds the territorial legislation. It enables the legislation. It's a fine balance. It's a house of cards. It's a framework of creating a climate for mineral resource development, and the major players, the mining industry, governments, the public at large, and Indigenous governments, had a hand. That's a presumption that everybody played a hand in developing this piece of legislation.

With that in mind and those points that I outlined, I continue to try to advance forward, and I will be supporting this. Mahsi.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Deh Cho.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to discuss some process issues with this bill. As you may know, we received the report on this act, this world-class, most-significant bill since the Devolution Act, yesterday, still warm from the photocopier, about two inches thick, and we who were not on the committee had no time or opportunity to go through it fully engaged, obviously, in what's happening here.

For people like me who are not part of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, I was at a real disadvantage to appreciate the complexity of the motions that were being proposed and the ways in which they would change the bill. I also was unable to attend the clause-by-clause because my committee was having a clause-by-clause the same evening.

The net result of this isn't anyone's fault. I'm simply saying that the whole timing issue prevented informed consideration on my part of the bill, and really represents a significant downside of the legislative burden that has been a part of the last six months of this Assembly, the fact that the bills were all backed up and there were no choices about when the reports came in and when they had to be discussed. I mean, the very same thing happened with the Corrections Act.

I really regret that this is the way it is. It leaves me feeling that I haven't done a complete job as a legislator, through no fault really of my own, and no fault of anyone else, but for the fact that this is the way the schedule worked out. For this reason, I don't feel I can either support or oppose the bill, and I will be abstaining. Thank you.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I have always said in this House that I support mining as long as it contributes towards sustainability and provides benefits to Northerners. Our job, despite some heckles, is to ensure that our government sets clear rules around sustainability and benefits. The Mineral Resources Act is not about promoting mining. It's about setting up a system for mineral rights management. A lot was promised, not all of it delivered.

The bill is really about trying to balance a complex set of rights and interests. The bill was developed by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. The department has a job to promote mining, and I've always given the department and the staff lots of credit because they do a great job in promoting mining. The problem is, in the post-devolution role, they also now have a job of trying to manage the mineral rights, and that complex set of interests sometimes competing. I don't think it's good to have both of those mandates within one department. I think it creates conflict.

Mr. Speaker, we did make some progress in improving the bill as a standing committee, and I want to give the department credit for the work that was done to create a public component to the registry. There's going to be an annual report. Unfortunately, we're only going to get total royalties. The role and composition of the mineral rights board has been clarified. There are benefit agreements and some legislative requirements around those. There's a lot of contention around this bill, and my colleague from Kam Lake discussed some of that. I've been here for four years, and I've watched the Legislative Assembly for many years before that, but to have a four-and-a-half-hour clause-by-clause review, six hours in Committee of the Whole, that speaks for itself. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we dealt with a bill, Corrections Act, in about 40 minutes. That is an example of how consensus government can and should work.

I just don't understand what happened exactly with the Mineral Resources Act, other than the Minister did not seem to be able or willing to work with committee on the issues that we heard and raised. These weren't items that the committee itself dreamt up. This is what we heard. It seemed to me like we were raising issues, and if they didn't fit within the confines of the policy work that they had already done, it was just not going to get addressed.

Much of the work that committee did was trying to seek some clarity in the sea of uncertainty. We did get a lot of intentions out of the Minister on the record. That's great, but there's this overall broad enabling authority with some great intentions, but we just don't know how that's actually going to play, and that's not how the bill actually reads.

To my mind, there are still three main areas that require further work. We really failed to recognize legitimate interests of community governments in this bill. They have a legitimate interest in protecting their lands, water, and infrastructure, and we should really be doing our best to try to avoid land use conflicts in the future. That's not what this bill does. We had opportunities to do that, and I really regret that we weren't able to reach an understanding of how we could do that. We tried to insert a notification process, provisions, and ability to request restricted areas. These things actually exist in some other jurisdiction now, Mr. Speaker, as best practice in Ontario and in Quebec. That's not what we do in the Northwest Territories. It's not what we will do in the Northwest Territories.

Another area that still, I think, needs some work is benefits. I've been on the public record that I always support the concept of Indigenous governments getting benefits for mining, even if it requires legislation. I'm very much in support of that, and it is a reflection of best practices that what this bill does is attempt to codify some of that. There's a solid process in the bill for that, dispute resolution and so on, and I support that. I want to give the Minister some credit because some of the concerns I had around some vague and unclear language, even in the Indigenous government benefits section, have been cleared up as a result of some of the amendments that were made last night. Unfortunately, that kind of precision and clarity is not in the bill when it comes to public benefits. We heard some great intentions out of the Minister last night, but there are no clear triggers or expectations of what those benefits are going to look like and how far back they can reach in the mining cycle. Is it actually going to include prospecting? I don't think that's what our public deserves. There's an expectation that we're going to do our job to communicate clearly what our expectations are. Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't do that.

The last item, Mr. Chair, that I wish to speak to is zones. I've said, and I've been on the record, that I think this is just clearly bad public policy. I can't see any record of any requests for zones such as they have been drafted in the bill. I think this is a mixing of objectives of trying to promote mining and encourage investment. At the same time, is trying to balance a whole variety of competing interests. I still believe that this has a potential to create a race to the bottom, where different regions are incentivized to lower and create more favourable standards to try to attract investment in our regions. As I said, I don't think this is sound public policy.

This was very much a rushed review despite the amount of time that we spent on it, Mr. Speaker, in committee and in this House. I think we can and should have done a much better job collectively, and that's what our citizens, I think, really deserved. I don't think this is best practices. I know it's not best practices. This is not world-class, and we saw that from how other jurisdictions have dealt with some of these issues.

Our job as standing committee and as legislators today is to try to resolve these issues and concerns that were brought forward during the bill, create certainty, and balance the competing interests. Unfortunately, this was not accomplished, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting Bill 34. Thank you.

Masi. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start in addressing this bill by confirming my support for this, for Bill 34, and I will confine the majority of my commentary to the process that brought this bill to third reading today.

The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment lived up to his promises: this bill has made no one happy. Instead, we have a bill that has created confusion, uncertainty, and shown a huge contrast in how legislation has been developed and reviewed in this Assembly by different committees.

Mr. Speaker, the standing committee's clause-by-clause review lasted four-and-a-half hours. Yesterday, the Committee of the Whole review lasted nearly six hours, late into the early-morning hours. This unprecedented amount of time this Legislative Assembly spent in review of this bill was in no way deliberate. Rather, it was the sincere effort of the honourable Members on this side of the House to get clear answers from the government on parts of the bill that were drafted to be "intentionally vague." I cannot agree with the suggestion that this bill is "world-class." The vast majority of important content is left entirely to regulations. Such broad authority and lack of real detail fails to provide the certainty that industry, the public, and Indigenous governments have asked for over the years.

At this point, I can say that much of the policy intent of these vagaries has been teased out through questioning of the Minister and his officials. Thorough review of Hansard should give clarity to those who seek it, but I cannot fathom why it took a combined 10 hours of public hearings to get to this place. The standing committee made best efforts to collaborate with the Minister, including a six-hour working meeting between the Minister, committee members, and staff on both sides. Government intransigence has no place in the spirit and intent of this institution, and I strongly encourage for this not to happen again, especially on such a crucial piece of legislation, vital to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude again by reiterating my support for this bill, now that I am confident clarity has been achieved over the most contentious sections of the bill. It is high time the NWT modernized its mining legislation and, while far from perfect, it is good enough for now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. The Member has requested a recorded vote. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the first time, and, Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Thank you. Do you want me to say it again? Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the third time, Mr. Speaker, and I request a recorded vote. Thank you.

Masi. To the principle of the bill. Question has been called. All those in favour. All those opposed. The motion is carried.

---Carried

Bill 34 has had its second reading. It is now referred to a committee. Second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Minister's Statement 131-18(3), Sessional Statement; Tabled Document 322-18(3), Main Estimates, 2019-2020, with the Member for Hay River North in the chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, want to take an opportunity to speak to the bill. I just want to start by thanking the Minister and his department and all those who have provided input to date with regard to getting the bill where it is so far.

I do want to remind folks that, in the early days when the LP came to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, in fact, we did have concerns. We shared them with the Minister. We had to do that a couple of times. I commend the efforts of our committee and the efforts of the Minister for taking a number of the ideas and recommendations that we shared and incorporating a number of them into the bill as we see it presented today.

We had others who had the opportunity to speak to the bill, or not speak to the bill but to get consulted with regard to the forthcoming legislation, the Chamber of Mines has shared their position as has some, if not all, Indigenous governments. Their input has been very valuable.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to devolution legislation, we need a starting point. We have to start somewhere. We need to respect that not always will every piece of legislation that we are taking on for the first time be perfect out of the gate. There is considerable work that will take time as we move forward that will evolve this legislation through amendments, et cetera, as we learn how the act itself will apply to industry. We have to be lenient in that regard and allow some wiggle room so that we can start to shape it as the future unfolds.

Mr. Speaker, we are at the end of this Assembly. We are in the last handful of months. We have put a lot of tremendous effort into the work so far on this bill. It wouldn't be very becoming of us as a government who has this in our mandate to not get this bill presented and get it over to the hands of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, because we have a lot of work to do, taking it out on the road for further consultation before we pass this bill. We have a lot of regulations, even policy, that will stem from passing this bill. It is going to be significant. It is going to take years, as well, to develop. Delays in passing the bill would be detrimental to that process.

Mr. Speaker, just lastly, I want to remind folks that I had the opportunity to join Cabinet colleagues and Indigenous governments down in Vancouver at the annual roundup. That is a place where we learn a lot from investors. We learn a lot from junior exploration companies, mining companies, but also from Indigenous governments about the importance of responsible and fair development and the opportunity to be able to share the great resources that we have with the world. It is taking this responsibility, this next step of responsibility, that is incumbent upon us to do what we have to do so that those who have the interest in what we have to offer the world can get on with doing their business.

The last thing is: I know that we have, in the past, shared some concerns with the government with regard to royalties and why the royalties aspects were not included in this. Mr. Speaker, we have more work to do as it relates to the discussion around royalties and how that might even tie in with our territorial financing formula and future negotiations around that. I would suggest that it might have been a little bit premature to try to tuck royalties in here. Royalties deserves its own time and attention, and we will get to that.

Mr. Speaker, that is really all that I have to add today. As I have mentioned, the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment is certainly looking forward to getting this put on our agenda and taking it out for further public consultation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. To the principle of the bill. Member for Yellowknife North.

Merci, Monsieur le President. Members may speak to the object, expediency, principles, and merits of a bill at second reading, and I will certainly take that opportunity with the proposed Mineral Resources Act. We have had it for less than 24 hours, to review the 65-page bill.

I will speak to the process that got us here and how that could and should have been better. I will also provide some comments on the approach of the bill and concerns with what is there and what is missing. There are some good things in the bill, as well, Mr. Speaker.

The Process

This bill will replace the Mining Regulations under the NWT Lands Act. The Mining Regulations mirrored the federal government law under the old Canada Mining Regulations. Those regulations were built on the centuries-old concept of free entry, where mining was viewed as the highest and best use of the land.

With devolution effective April 1, 2014, our government has had the opportunity to develop our own legislation on mineral rights disposition. The public part of that process began in August 2017 with the release of a discussion paper, "Unlocking our Potential Together." Community drop-in sessions were held August to November 2017. The Minister, his department, and public communications promised world-class, leading-edge, and made-in-the-North legislation that would increase competitiveness. The scope of the consultation included just about everything, including a review of royalties, closure and reclamation, socio-economic benefits, Ministerial authority, accountability, and more.

Limited public information was made available, despite claims of extensive cross-jurisdictional research and analysis, including best practices. A mineral sector review and benchmarking study was released on October 11, 2017, after repeated requests for more information. On October 18, 2017, the Minister had this to say in the House about a jurisdictional scan of best practices: "We can share with all the people in the NWT."

A so-called "what we heard" report was released on February 12, 2018. I described it as a classic example of regulatory capture, when a government agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial concerns or interests of the industry or sector that it is charged with regulating. Public input was boiled down into almost unintelligible bullets, where comments were taken out of context, categorized improperly, or not even included. Next steps were not clearly identified, there were no timelines set out, and no clear policy direction emerged. None of the written submissions made to ITI are available on its website. This stands out in stark contrast to the department's own review of the targeted changes to petroleum legislation, where such submissions are posted, and a thoughtful "what we heard" report was developed. I would add that information was provided freely to the standing committee as part of the petroleum legislation review process.

Calls for more information on topics under consideration in the Mineral Resources Act continued from the public and Regular MLAs. I had to resort to Access to Information requests to finally force the Minister to make more information available, including a review of socio-economic agreements, which I tabled in the House on October 28, 2019. I tabled five more documents obtained under an additional Access to Information request made to ITI requesting deliverables under a publicly available contract listing for assistance in the development of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I tabled those documents yesterday in this House.

I continue to encourage the Minister to make this sort of information available to the public to help with the review of the bill and subsequent regulations. It is quite remarkable that a Regular MLA has to resort to Access to Information requests to get a Minister to share information in a consensus government system, information paid for with public funds. This certainly does not reflect well on how this legislation was developed or the state of a consensus government purportedly committed to transparency and accountability.

To be fair, around the end of last year, the Minister began to provide confidential briefings and more information to the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment on the bill. This improved communications is much appreciated. The bill development was clearly being shaped by a mysterious technical working group made up of Indigenous government representatives that was involved in some sort of co-drafting process. This is, as it should be and is indeed, a legal requirement of the devolution agreement, its implementing legislation, constitutionally entrenched land rights agreements, and a requirement of section 35 Aboriginal rights to consultation and accommodation. We are still trying to figure out how to mesh this new way of developing legislation with the public government approach of the Executive holding the pen and the Legislature conducting a review.

Clearly a lessons-learned review is required for the development process on post-devolution legislation as the processes across department and even within departments has varied wildly with different outcomes and satisfaction levels. The process for developing the Mineral Resources Act could and should have been a lot better.

I want to move on to the principles and merit of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Principles and Merit of the Bill

This bill is about mineral rights management. It is not about promoting mining. The purpose lays out a number of matters necessary for responsible and balanced mineral exploration and development, including maximizing benefits, building positive relationships, respect for Indigenous and treaty rights, improving geological knowledge and sustainability. One of the most fundamental questions is: who should administer and implement the bill? I have already raised the issue of regulatory capture, in that ITI developed the bill but is also largely responsible for the promotion of mining. The department certainly does a very good job at promoting mining.

In my view, it is an inherent conflict of interest for a department to promote something and attempt to impartially regulate it at the same time. This is not good governance. This issue was also raised during the development of the bill and received very little serious consideration. The implementation of this bill should be transferred and delegated to the Department of Lands, which already has systems and expertise in place for surface lands management. This would remove the apprehension of bias.

There are definitely some improvements in the bill to current mineral rights management, including some potential modifications to the free entry system through notice requirements. It offers possible improvements to benefit retention with agreements as a condition of production, potential reductions to environmental disturbance from exploration through map staking, and better capture of geological information. I suspect that the mining industry would agree with me on many of these matters. The biggest issue I see is the overwhelming amount of ministerial discretion within the bill to implement all of these principles and new approaches. A process of regulation development is needed to fully implement the bill, and this will drag on for years. Information on implementation on the ITI website references the experience in Ontario of taking about 10 years to develop its legislation and regulations. I think we are in the same boat. The Minister and his department have raised unrealistic expectations since the beginning of this process back in 2017 and even earlier. Today, we have a hollow shell with so much discretion and work required for regulations that I fail to see how certainty and clear policy direction is created. I think a step-wise or phased approach to targeted changes over time would have been a much more effective strategy in building certainty and clarity in policy direction and public confidence. This seems to be the approach that is being taken with the amendments to our petroleum legislation.

I would like to discuss some of the major shortcomings of the bill as I see it. The dispute resolution processes are muddled with a Mining Rights Panel and another possible body. It is not clear how they will relate to the NWT Surface Rights Board and arbitration processes under the land rights agreements already in place. The Mining Rights Panel does not reflect a co-management approach where Indigenous governments can appoint or nominate individuals to sit on it. Virtually absolute ministerial discretion on appointments creates the potential for an "old boys club" or patronage approach to this key body under the bill.

There is no role anywhere in the bill for community governments, despite this matter being raised during the public consultations and by myself directly with the Minister and his staff. Community governments deserve to be notified of claim staking and work plans on mineral leases within their boundaries. Community governments should also have the right to request temporarily restricted areas to prevent mineral exploration within their boundaries to protect their infrastructure, such as potable water sources and gravel sources. This could also help avoid the sort of land use conflicts that have taken place in Inuvik regarding its major gravel source. This is a disappointing omission.

There is provision for the creation of zones with more favourable requirements or lower standards to promote mining. These zones could be created by the Minister or on request from Indigenous governments. This approach is very problematic. If the purpose of these zones was to facilitate access to high mineral potential areas or to better capture revenues, zones might make some sense. However, when the purpose is to lower fees or requirements to promote mining, this is a dangerous mixing of objectives, promotion of mining, and regulation of mining rights. In my view, these so-called zones will create a race to the bottom that pits regions against each other to lower requirements in the hope of attracting exploration. I cannot support this approach of mixing objectives.

I do support the tying of benefit agreements to commercial production. This is simply best practice and good corporate behaviour. The problem is that the bill creates almost no guidance in this area, leaving all the details to regulations. However, the Minister and Cabinet do have discretion to waive whatever requirements and thresholds there may be for benefit agreements. This will not create certainty or clarity and should be dropped.

I mentioned that there is some modification of free entry through notice requirements of claim staking and intended work on mineral leases. This is good, but all the details and thresholds are left to regulations. I am not convinced that these potentially very weak notice requirements fully recognize or comply with the concept of free, prior, and informed consent, or satisfy the constitutional duty to consult with and accommodate Indigenous peoples. These concepts are enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights that this government has adopted and should be more clearly reflected in the bill.

I am very disappointed at the approach to confidentiality of information under this bill, especially when it comes to the disclosure of revenues and royalties paid to our government. This is definitely not consistent with best practices, the international efforts on disclosure as shown by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiatives, and a Cabinet that espouses open government. The bill appears to preclude or prevent the public reporting of aggregated royalty payments by commodity type to our government. I find it very troubling that our government insists on the disclosure of the identities of students and their loan remission amounts in the public accounts that vary from about $39 to about $15,000, but the public cannot know how much a mining company pays in royalties to our government. The disclosure of revenue information is at the basis of responsible government. I am also concerned that the confidentiality requirements in the bill will hinder the building of our geoscience knowledge base that should help industry better target its efforts and reduce the environmental footprint of exploration.

What is required and not in the bill? Clearly, the Minister and his department have done a lot more research and analysis that has not been publicly released. As much of this work as possible should be made available now to ensure transparency and to assist with an informed review of the bill. Such information would also assist with the mountain of work required on regulations to fully implement the bill.

I have spoken at great length about the promise of devolution, how we were to devolve and evolve and build responsible resource management through a public and independent review of the royalty regime. The federal government never did it, but Alberta has done it at least twice for its petroleum sector. If we have any hope of demonstrating that we are capable of managing our resources in the hope of securing further authority, we must show leadership and work in the public interest by conducting an open review of the mining royalty regime.

So much of the real detail on key issues, such as work and reporting requirements, threshold and content of benefit agreements, notification, confidentiality, and more, is to be set out in regulations. My hope was that the bill would create the floor or minimum requirements, but this is clearly not the case. We may be able to move the bill in that direction or to ensure that discretion is exercised in the public interest. There needs to be a strong and clear commitment to develop regulations in a transparent, collaborative, and inclusive manner. I sincerely hope that the lessons learned from the development of the bill, such as the need for greater transparency, inclusiveness, and greater collaboration, are applied to the regulation-making process.

I wish to commend the department for the public information materials that have been prepared, as this should assist the standing committee with its public review of the bill. Mr. Speaker, we are making history with this bill and we have a responsibility to get it right for this and future generations. There are some good initiatives that may come out of this, but a lot of work is required to be done. I look forward to being an active participant in this process as it moves forward. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. The motion is in order. To the principal of the bill. Member for Frame Lake.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the second time. This bill sets out a framework for mineral prospecting, exploration, development, and production in the Northwest Territories. It governs the issuance of interests in minerals and related instruments. Also, it ensures the collection of geoscience information and provides tools for facilitating the progress of exploration and mining.

This bill requires engagement with Indigenous governments and organizations as part of certain processes, including in establishing restricted areas where issuance of mineral interests is prohibited and in establishing zones where exploration is encouraged.

The bill enables the establishment of requirements relating to benefits for the people in the Northwest Territories. It also requires benefit agreements for Indigenous governments and organizations for production projects that have attained a prescribed threshold size.

This bill addresses royalty valuation and collection based on the output of a mine. This bill also enables inspectors to enforce compliance with the requirements of the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?

---Carried

Bill 34 has had its first reading.

First reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters: Minister's Statement 131-18(3), Sessional Statement; and Tabled Document 322-18(3), Main Estimates, 2019-2020, with the Member for Hay River North in the chair.

Masi. There is a motion. The motion is in order.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.