Thanks, Madam Chair. Yeah, I do have some prepared comments. For the record, whenever Bill 29 was on the agenda for discussion at the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, I declared a conflict of interest. I was not present for any discussion. The only exception was on September 15th, 2021, when I was invited by the committee to present on the bill and answer questions as part of the public hearing.
I will not discuss the bill directly or its merits as that is for another day. But I do wish to comment on parts of the committee report. The report states that some view the bill as "unaligned to other jurisdictions".
And that is true. What the bill does reflect is the concept of information sharing, including confidential information, that is at the foundation of consensus government. We even have a process convention where Regular MLAs can request confidential information and Cabinet can and does share confidential information with Regular MLAs, all in the interest of making better-informed decisions. That's not how party politics works.
We also have an evolving relationship with Indigenous governments that includes sharing of confidential information and even co-development or co-drafting of lands and resources legislation. So these two hallmarks of GNWT consensus government and an evolving relationship with Indigenous governments are what makes us different. And we should all be proud of that and incorporate that into how we review the mining fiscal regime. This is why Bill 29 is different than how things may be done elsewhere.
Concern was also expressed in the report that royalty information may be shared beyond financial and tax staff within the GNWT. This is what already exists now in the resource management legislation where royalty information can be shared within GNWT for "use in the development and evaluation of policy for the GNWT."
The current legislation allows royalty information to be made available to Cabinet and the public service but not Regular MLAs or Indigenous governments. This hardly seems fair in a consensus government.
The report states that some believe the bill does not support the mandate of the GNWT. The most relevant point from the priorities, and indeed the mandate of the 19th Assembly that we developed together back in November 2019, is the following, "adopt a benefit retention approach to economic development."
To me, this means finding ways to maximize benefits from development of one-time natural capital in the form of mineral resources. Our job as MLAs is try to find the right balance between competing rights and interests to maximize those benefits, including.
- Revenues to public government in the form of royalties;
- Profits to shareholders;
- Jobs and contracts from resource development; and,
- The distribution of benefits within the Northwest Territories and across generations.
This is exactly what we are trying to do with a procurement review and should be doing the same with the review of the Mining Fiscal Regime which requires informed decisions and access to information about royalties.
The only information now available from GNWT on resource royalties is the aggregate or total amount of mining and petroleum royalties and water fees on an annual basis. No information is available on how these royalties are calculated or the use of various allowances or depreciation. This makes our job trying to figure out ways to maximize benefits, including royalties, very difficult and more difficult than it needs to be.
The report states that royalty information is already available under the Federal Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act. This is true, but the information presented in the ESTMA reports is self-reported with little to no oversight from the federal government. ESTMA data also varies greatly in terms of financial year dates, property sale by more than one mine, currency reported, and other factors. ESTMA data does not represent what GNWT actually receives, and there is no information on how royalties are calculated or why they may change from year to year.
Lastly, on the topic of duplication, on Monday of this week I tabled details of the ESTMA reports covering the producing mines and petroleum projects from 2016 to 2020, the period where GNWT has managed these resources under devolution. I attempted to reconcile the royalty payments reported as paid to GNWT in the ESTMA reports and the royalties received by GNWT as reported in the public accounts.
There is no duplication between ESTMA and public accounts. There would be no additional reporting required under Bill 29, as it only covers royalty information already in the possession of GNWT. And sorry, I need to go back.
On any given year, the figures are presented in ESTMA and when you look at the public accounts, they're out between anywhere between about $11 million and $54 million. So there is no duplication. It's not the same figures. You cannot reconcile them.
The report from the committee expressed concern that Bill 29 would only apply to the mining and petroleum sector and not other extractive sectors such as quarrying or forestry.
Quarrying revenues are already reported separately in the public accounts as revenues to the Department of Lands and, generally, amount to $82,000 to $173,000 per year, a mere fraction of what mining and petroleum royalties comprise in any given year.
There is no current active commercial forestry in the NWT; and, if there was, those revenues would likely be reported separately by ENR in the public accounts.
All this to say that other extractive industries' payments to GNWT are reported separately in the public accounts, but we only get an aggregate resource royalty amount from mining and petroleum right now.
It was noted in the report that Bill 29 would give the ITI Minister discretion to disclose royalty information to Regular MLAs and Indigenous governments. This is absolutely true. But right now, there is a legislative barrier preventing the Minister from disclosing any royalty information outside of Cabinet or the public service.
It's my view such discretion is appropriate and that the Minister would exercise this discretion judiciously but in ways that should allow for better-informed mining fiscal regime review and ultimately better decisions around ways in which we can maximize benefits.
I know that at least three submissions on Bill 29 suggested changes but committee does not appear to have responded in any way to those recommendations. I was disappointed that committee did not express any views on these proposed changes and did not propose any amendments.
No recommendations for policy changes were made either, specifically with regard to information sharing during the mining fiscal review or more generally transparency and accountability regarding resource royalties and benefit retention.
I contrast this approach with what happened in the Standing Committee on Government Operations on another private Member's bill, a report that we dealt with yesterday, where specific recommendations were made to Cabinet, including proposals to deal with underlying issues.
In conclusion, I thank the committee for its work on the bill and look forward to more opportunities to discuss this bill, the mining fiscal regime review, greater transparency around resource royalty reporting, and benefit retention. Merci, Madam Chair.