I would like to remind Members to shorten their answers and also questions, because we haven't gone through all of the Members yet, and it is already five minutes before our session is done. Just a reminder to the Members.

A few minutes ago, I sent the Minister the questions I was going to ask, and I think he thought that that was one question because he answered all of them. How about this, then? Moving forward, the Minister mentioned there is a long-term care review. There are regulations that are being developed. Would the Minister commit to going and speaking with the actual residents of long-term care? Because that is where I hear these concerns coming from. Will the Minister commit to him or the department speaking to the residents so that they can develop some of these opportunities that we have discussed regarding opportunities to live a fulfilling life?

In many ways, I have already done that myself, but I hear the Member. I have visited many long-term care facilities. I have talked to many residents. I have heard many of the same things that the Member has already articulated, which is why we are doing much of the work we are doing.

Yes, staff will be going to facilities, will be learning from the residents, will be talking to the residents, but there are a number of things that we are already doing. I mean, we are implementing interRAI. I won't go into the details on that, because I know the Member knows how important it is to do assessments to identify what types of supports individuals need. We are currently getting our facilities accredited, which will help us articulate some more needs that we need to address. We are developing new regulatory framework, so we absolutely will be reaching out to residents, both in facilities today, but some that might be eventually in facilities. We are implementing our Continuing Care Action Plan that the Member commented about earlier. There is a lot happening, but absolutely, yes, our staff will be working closely with providers and residents.

Can the Minister give us a timeline for the completion of this review and of the regulations?

InterRAI will be rolling out in quarter four of 2019-2020. The accreditation is currently taking place in a number of facilities. I can't tell you exactly when that will be done. It really depends on how it rolls out. For the regulatory framework, we are going to need to do an LP and a number of other things. Some of that, we might not see the results in the life of this government, but the work will be beginning in the life of this government.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, approximately six months ago Yellowknife MLAs met with the Minister of Health and Social Services to ask him about how he was going to establish a new adult day program for seniors in Yellowknife. He outlined a range of options, and we haven't heard from him since. Could he please provide the House with an update? Mahsi.

Masi. Minister of Health and Social Services.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in follow-up to those meetings, staff from the department did reach out to a number of stakeholders in Yellowknife. There was a meeting. They had an opportunity to share what different organizations are doing within the community. I had an opportunity to speak, myself, to the mayor and talk about the concept of supporting Yellowknife to become a seniors-friendly community. I think there is a lot of room that we can do there.

There is another meeting scheduled for February 21^st to see where we can go based on what we have heard and what we have been able to compile. Like the Members, I am getting a little frustrated on the timeline here. I feel like it is taking too long. There are competing demands, but I have told the department that I hope to see some concrete results out of that February 21^st meeting. Otherwise, we will go to a different plan, as we discussed with the Members. I think it was the honourable Member for Frame Lake who suggested that, if we can't find an option, we just need to do it in-house. We all agreed that wasn't the best solution, but if we don't get some solid results out of the 21^st, it may well turn out to be the solution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you to the Minister for that. I want to note that contacting with community organizations seems to be off the table, no results to the RFP partnership model. We have capacity issues in the non-profits, so that seems to be off the table. At what point is the Minister prepared to go to the next option, which is operating it in-house? I mean, we have been waiting two-and-a-half years. At what point does this issue achieve priority that there is, in fact, a solution proposed that doesn't only involve meeting?

When we went with the Yellowknife MLAs, we explored a number of options, and we pretty much, I think, came to the conclusion that going out for an RFP was off the table, but it was suggested that we reach out to a number of different groups and figure out if there is an opportunity to partner together, building on the strengths that exist in a number of the NGOs, the municipality, and the government so that we could partner on a solution.

That is what we have been exploring since that time. There has been some progress, but I am really hoping that, on February 21^st, as I have already said, we will get a concrete direction. If not, I am prepared to go down the route that the honourable Member from Frame Lake suggested, which is the in-house option.

I would have more comfort in that answer if the Minister would make a commitment to offer it in-house within a specified time frame. I think we have waited long enough.

I am hoping to get some concrete direction on the 21^st from our partners working together in a collaborative way. If that does not happen, I am prepared to bring it in-house.

Masi. Oral questions. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like the Minister to tell us whether there is money to offer the program in-house in the next budget, the one for the next fiscal year, or whether he is prepared to obtain funding through a supplementary appropriation? Mahsi.

I don't think this is a surprise to the Member. We had money to go out for an RFP to deliver this service. We still have those dollars available for us. We will use those dollars to deliver a program in-house. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. The time for oral questions has expired. Item 9, written questions. Item 10, returns to written questions. Item 11, replies to the Commissioner's opening address. Item 12, replies to budget address. Item 13, petitions. Item 14, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 15, tabling of documents. Item 16, notices of motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that, on Thursday, February 14, 2019, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Great Slave, that, notwithstanding rule 4, when this House adjourns on February 14, 2019, it shall be adjourned until Wednesday, February 20, 2019, and further, that, at any time prior to February 20, 2019, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council of Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice, and thereupon, the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Masi. Notices of motion. Item 17, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 18, motions. Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.

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.

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

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