Mr. Chair, I do have what I read out there. I will read it out. I am going to run the Member's time probably, so he is going to have to get back on the list. I will read this out.

Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to discuss part 5 of the Mineral Resource Act, which refers to the new requirement for benefit agreements in the proposed legislation. We have heard from Indigenous governments and organizations that codify the territory's longstanding commitment to bringing benefits to Indigenous peoples in part 5 is of great importance to them.

Companies here have done a good job working with Indigenous communities to realize these kind of benefits in recent decades, leading across the country, in fact. We want to set that for the baseline for the future.

The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has been clear that Bill 34 is the enabling act. While the process and procedures for regulation development will be set by the 19^th Legislative Assembly, we are committed to moving forward in the spirit of partnership with Indigenous governments, industry, and other stakeholders as we develop regulations, should this bill pass.

The department has been clear that the Mineral Resource Act will not come into force until appropriate regulations have been developed and a level of comfort has been achieved with stakeholders prior to the implementation of the act. We will get it right.

We recognize a need for balance and also a need to attract and maintain investment in the mineral sector. Nevertheless and considering the feedback received, I believe there is value in clarifying the department's intentions around part 5 as outlined in the proposed bill.

I would like to walk you through some of them now and set the record straight.

Mr. Chair, I would like to first address the perception that this provision will deter investment. When we speak with major investors, we hear a growing trend towards socially conscious investing. Increasingly, whether projects have buy in from and to provide benefits to Indigenous peoples and their governments is a major consideration, we believe enshrining this requirement can enhance investment by preparing the Northwest Territories to lead in the sustainable investment movement.

Second, I wish to address the concern that legislating benefit agreements could deter small-scale mining operations at the grass-roots level from investing in the territory. The act outlines a benefit agreement requirement would only be triggered for those projects that meet a prescribed threshold. The intent is that only significant, major mining projects would meet this threshold. The exact ways to be determined will be defined in regulations.

Third, such major mining projects will be required to enter into agreements with Indigenous governments, organizations that the Minister considers appropriate for the specific project. The Minister will provide the proponent a list of these Indigenous governments and organizations. This means that, if the Minister identifies two Indigenous governments which should benefit from a project, a major mining proponent will be required to conclude an agreement with each of them. Whether there is a priority among various Indigenous governments and organizations in the distribution of benefits is a matter to be determined in negotiations between Indigenous governments and the organizations and the proponent because priority concerns the substance or contents of the benefit agreement is not a matter in which the GNWT would be involved.

Fourth, the requirement for a benefit agreement also does not mean the parties need two agreements. Duplication is not the intent here. An existing impact agreement, benefit agreement, participation agreement, or any other agreement whereby benefits are provided to Indigenous government and its members would suffice. It is intended that the regulations will only require a proponent to show that an agreement has been concluded which provides fair and proportional benefits in the context of the project.

Fifth, with regard to timing, the intent is for the requirement to be flexible to all major mining proponents to enter into these agreements at any time, as long as it is prior to commencing production from a mine or the operation phase of a mine. The benefit agreement requirement is not intended to affect or to be connected to the external regulatory process for a mining project, such as those that run through the territory's regional land and water boards.

Sixth, we have also heard concerns about perceived risk and uncertainty relating to the requirement for major mining proponents to negotiate satisfactory benefit agreements before entering into production and the impacts this might have on potential investors. Bill 34 has built in three components that will address such risks. The first component could be used where neither the proponent nor the Indigenous government or organization wish to enter into a benefit agreement for a proposed project. In this case, the two parties may approach the Minister and request that the requirement be waived. This can be done as long as both parties are in agreement.

The second component is the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism. If a proponent and an Indigenous government or organization does not wish to waive the requirement for a benefit agreement and have done everything in their power to negotiate an agreement, they may request that this dispute resolution body resolve the issue. The dispute resolution body here negotiates related issues and not benefit agreement implementation disputes. Parties can enforce implementation through contract law. The regulations will ensure that the dispute resolution is only used if negotiations break down significantly.

The third component is ministerial waiver power. This power is not expected to be exercised often, only in exceptional circumstances. The vast majority of issues will fall under the dispute resolution body's jurisdiction. Cabinet must also support any proposed waiver.

Mr. Chair, in closing, the department has heard the concerns about the need for the clarity around part 5 and a recognition of these concerns, and I am prepared to bring forward two motions during Committee of the Whole review of Bill 34 that will amend this part. I believe that these will add greater clarity around the requirement of benefit agreements, and I hope this will provide some confidence to Members about the department's intention. Once again, I look forward to continuing to work with our partners and Indigenous governments, industry, other stakeholders to provide further details around this section and others in the bill during regulation development, and, as we develop our execution plan with milestones and timelines, we will work closely with our key stakeholders while leaving room for our future government to define and implement a consistent process moving forward.