Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can advise that, while no reclamation or remediations have started at the site, the GNWT did complete a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment and remedial action plan. This work was done in preparation for meetings with the federal government to determine respective liabilities with respect to this site, and I can advise that GNWT officials, I think from Lands and ENR, met with Indigenous and Northern Affairs representatives to discuss the outcomes of the Phase III assessments and remedial action plans that were completed on that site and some other sites in 2017. The GNWT is specifically reviewing the Ptarmigan file to determine how best to negotiate the associated liabilities and costs.

We have done some risk mitigation with respect to the site, including placement of signage to restrict access, erecting a fence surrounding the main structures, placement of a gate, and placement of boulders and ditching completed at another access point, so that work has been done, but no reclamation or remediation activity has actually taken place yet.

Thanks to the Minister for that information. Can he tell us, then: have there been any cost estimates prepared for the reclamation/remediation work at Ptarmigan Mine? How much is it going to cost the taxpayers to remediate this site?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can advise that we are still in negotiations with respect to that matter, the situation as to who will be responsible for the liabilities. I believe that I did correspond with the Member opposite. An estimate for the Ptarmigan Mine remediation outlined a cost in excess of $4 million.

Again, I would like to thank the Minister for that information. It's not clear how TerraX was able to acquire the mineral rights for the Ptarmigan Mine while it's under remediation, but this would seem to complicate these efforts, as exploration may interfere with the need to restrict access to the site. Drilling and sampling and trenching, that could disturb tailings, covers from vegetation efforts and so on.

I would like to know from the Minister: does GNWT, and/or the federal government for that matter, withdraw the mineral rights for sites that are under remediation such as the Ptarmigan Mine site, and if not, why not?

With respect to the site referenced by the Member opposite, the Ptarmigan site, mineral rights, rather, were issued prior to devolution by Indian and Northern Affairs, which was responsible for subservice rights and tenure. I understand, under the devolution agreement, our government has to respect existing interests at the time of devolution, including mineral interests that existed at the Ptarmigan site.

Oral questions. Member for Frame Lake.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I appreciate the answer from the Minister. I can tell him, though, that the mineral rights had been withdrawn underneath Giant Mine, so I don't know why we don't ensure that mineral rights are withdrawn for sites that are being remediated or under consideration for remediation. I want to move on.

TerraX indicates in its news release that it has no responsibility for environmental contamination or remediation of the Ptarmigan Mine site. Can the Minister tell us whether TerraX was given any kind of an indemnity or release by GNWT or Canada in acquiring these mineral rights, and how the company can make such claims in its news release? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

I also had the opportunity of looking at the press release, which does contain the line that TerraX has no liability for any remediation of the previous mine site. I can advise that this government has not given an indemnification.

I cannot speak for what the federal government may have done. I do know, however, that press releases by public companies have to be very careful in their assertions. All I can say, again, is that we did not indemnify them with respect to those liabilities. Thank you.

Oral questions. Member for Sahtu.

Masi. Minister of Finance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the P3 policy was enacted in May of 2011. I'm not sure the whole contents of the particular policy, but I do know, when they're putting a proposal together and it is presented, there are a number of factors that are taken into consideration. One is choosing a successful proponent. I would have to confirm it, but I think the question that the Member asked would be one of the items that they look at.

The driven approach for the P3 public/private partnership initiatives is to incorporate a P3 corporation, which this government has done. On our general tendering process, previous governments have incorporated the BIP policy to allow northern preference in giving that extra advantage to the local seasonal operators of our business community. In the concessionaire agreement that follows as part of the P3 initiative or tenement process, can the Minister confirm whether there's a BIP similar allowance in that concessionary agreement?

I would think not. The P3 projects that we do bring forward are usually very large projects that exceed the $5 million limit.

Will the Minister share some of the information on the highlights of the process for the P3 tendering process within the RFP?

I'd be happy to, if Members have questions on the P3 process. I would be happy to provide a briefing to the Members or I could have a conversation with the Member from Sahtu. We believe that P3 projects, we've had three of them: one is in the operations phase; one is in the construction phase; and one is actually in the procurement phase. Then we have three that we are looking at a feasibility study/business case for them. We'll continue to provide Members with regular updates on the P3 projects as we go forward.

Oral questions. Member for Sahtu.

Thank you. I look forward to the information on the process and the schedules from the Minister. Mahsi.

I take that as a comment to the Minister. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Infrastructure with regard to procurement. A few more around procurement.

Mr. Speaker, I worked for the Housing Corporation for a few years, a number of years ago. Honestly, I was in the department that dealt with procurement on a regular basis. I recognized on an ongoing basis that there were some flawed processes. There was nothing wrong with admitting that, and that there is a need for continual improvement and review in order to improve these process.

Maybe what I'll do is I'll start by asking the Minister: first of all, does he believe that the GNWT procurement practices are fair to begin with? Better yet, what practices does the GNWT incorporate to make sure that our procurement policies are fair? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Minister of Infrastructure.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier said earlier today, they believe this is one of the best policies we have in the Government of the Northwest Territories, and that is BIP. That's one of the first ones in the procurement process that helps Northerners be able to participate in a way that recognizes the high cost of operating in the Northwest Territories and being here. As I said earlier today, we have the community engagement process that's involved in the RFP process to help businesses when they're bidding on the process to add onto BIP, to give them more points basically for northern labour, northern materials suppliers, these sorts of things, with a huge community engagement criteria. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let's take it another step. I mean, we heard earlier today that a number of MLAs have heard from constituents, in particular businesses in their constituencies that feel that at times things are maybe not as fair as they ought to be. I would like to ask the Minister: if a vendor feels that a procurement policy wasn't fair, what kind of measures does the government have that a vendor can maybe make an appeal, or is there a committee in which a vendor can voice a complaint and be heard?

Yes, that's a great question. Back in 2010, the Auditor General did a review -- or 2009, I believe it was -- did a review of the department. It was brought forward at that time that we should have a vendor complaints system. That was incorporated in 2010. Since 2010 until December 31, 2017, we've had 22 complaints through that process, and only two have ever found merit.