Merci, Monsieur le President. I would like recognize one of the pages, Kole Lizotte. I believe he has a special someone who might work here as well. But also I believe Frame Lake resident Audrey Henderson is, I think behind me, is here as well and I want to welcome her to the Assembly. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Merci, Monsieur le President. I have been waiting patiently for about 20 years for GNWT to finally review its arsenic remediation guidelines. Yesterday I talked about the flawed environmental guideline for contaminated site remediation with its very short public comment period.

Buried in one of the appendices are new arsenic remediation guidelines that significantly lower the acceptable limits for arsenic in soils for various land uses. This appears to be based on new research and background studies. The research shows the background levels of arsenic are significantly lower than what was originally set and, also, that most of the arsenic contamination in the Yellowknife area is a direct result of mining activities. The background studies were only recently made public following my request on August the 7th to the Minister.

The new arsenic remediation guidelines would significantly lower the acceptable limits for all land uses from what was set in 2003. A few examples, residential land use is lowered from 160 to 120 parts per million arsenic, and industrial use has gone from 340 to 163 parts per million with no explanation. The most alarming part is that areas outside Yellowknife have much lower limits, at 47 parts per million for residential use and 90 parts per million for industrial use. It's not clear why it is okay to expose Yellowknife residents to three times more arsenic than those who live outside.

Perhaps the detail are in those documents that were only recently released. I tried to look at them last night, Mr. Speaker, but way over my head. But it is not explained in the guideline itself anywhere. I always thought that arsenic soil remediation guidelines were set far too high to protect human health. The new proposed guidelines seem to bear that out. The biggest implication may be for the Giant Mine Remediation Project that used the old 2003 arsenic soil remediation levels which may no longer be safe for human health. So of course the rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker, is will Giant Mine remediation now adopt the new lower arsenic levels? I will have questions later today for the Minister of Environment and Climate Change on the new proposed arsenic soil remediation levels. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I move that the chair rise and report progress.

Yeah, that's all great. And I do appreciate this Minister's approach to BDIC. And I think the new management has been great there too. I've heard lots of positive things. And I want to say that publicly. So, you know -- sorry, I'm picking on you on the name change, but the rest of it has been good. Everything I've heard. But I have heard complaints from small businesses about the name change. People feel -- some businesses don't think it's a good idea. They don't like it. And I guess what I'm getting at here is that there wasn't, in my opinion, and from having reviewed the documents, that I'm not allowed to talk about, adequate public engagement to support the name change. And I'm not trying to reach in and interfere with what the board does. But it's just not there. Plus, I think it also sets a bad precedent where we say we're going to do something, people are engaged, and then all of a sudden, wow, something knew is thrown in at the end without an opportunity for people to express views or concerns, whatever, about it. So that's a bad precedent. And I'm sorry, I can't support a bad precedent in that way. But in any event, I've asked the questions about trying to get more information out there about the basis for the name change and how that was done.

The Minister is of the view it was well informed. I disagree completely, having seen the information. I think there can and should have been public engagement around that. And if it -- if it had been up to me, I would have found a way to try to split this bill so we deal with the stuff that we can all agree on, which is getting these improvements to BDIC so that they can get money out the door and do their job better. That's different than the name change. That's a completely different thing. And that was not part of the original package. Rebranding might have been but I didn't clue to the fact that this was going to result in a name change. But maybe that's my fault, my failing. So.

At the end of the day, Madam Chair, I'm not sure I can support this bill because it sets a bad precedent where something pops up at the end of the process and wasn't -- people didn't have a chance to participate and express views about it. So the rest of it, good stuff. Keep doing what you're doing. And I want BDIC to continue to invest in things like the Fort McPherson Tent & Canvas, Dene Fur Clouds, the Fort Liard arts and crafts stuff. Those are great projects. It's at your own initiative. I believe in government intervention. I believe in government creating jobs in communities. And that is a big part of BDIC's mandate, and I want to see more of that, please. Please do it. So that's it. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. I participated in the review of the bill. And I want to say I support the bill, except for the name change. And the other items in here, though, are good items that are covered here. They are in response to three independent reviews that were done of BDIC. And if I get the dates right, 2013, 2014, 20 -- I don't know -- 16 or something, 2018. Anyways, that part of the bill, I don't have any problems with, and I think they're helpful changes that will allow BDIC to do more of what it can and should be doing.

The name change, though, very problematic. And look, I want BDIC to be independent. I want them to be arm's length from the government. I want them to have a full functioning board that's probably more representative than what's there now. And I might speak to that a little bit more. But, you know, the name change was not part of the whole plan. You know, we got a legislative proposal as Regular MLAs. Can't talk about it. But what I can talk about is the discussion paper that was put out. The public engagement that was undertaken. The name change wasn't part of that process. And all of a sudden, it bubbled up in the bill. It was a complete surprise to committee. So we tried to find out what it was all about. We had to ask, I think, three times to get the information. Committee shouldn't have to ask three times to get information, and committee was ready to use its power to compel production of a document. That doesn't happen very often in the eight years I've been here. I just don't know why it had to go that far.

So the Minister talked about how, in her view, this was a well-informed decision. When committee got the documentation -- and I can't talk about it because it's top secret -- there was -- well, I think I can say that there was nothing in there about a name change. So then we had to go back and ask a second time, where's the information -- where's the background stuff for the name change. So then we got some more stuff.

And I disagree completely with the Minister's assessment that this is a well-informed decision. And I respect the board. I want boards to be independent. But it's not a well-informed decision. I read the stuff. I'm a details guy. And I don't think it was done well. So anyways, one question I do want to ask is can the Minister agree to make that background work -- and if some of it needs to be redacted in some way, can the Minister agree to make that information public? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks, Madam Chair. It may not come as a surprise to the other side, I think this bill was not particularly well drafted. I don't think there was adequate consultation. And to have this bill not apply to GNWT, that's not good. This might actually help fix that through a one-time review that the department would undertake, would have to make public. So I'm going to support this motion. I think statutory reviews are actually good. I think it's a way to hold Cabinet to account. This one would actually be done internally by the department; they just have to make it public. So it's not carried out by standing committee. But, yeah, I'll support this but I'm going to vote against the bill because I just think it's poorly done and should bind the NWT. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, thanks. That sound pretty good to me. I would prefer having a little bit more meat on this non-derogation clause, so to speak, that makes sure that, you know, we support the land resources and self-government agreements that have already been negotiated, and there's the ability to add more. So I think this is good language. And it's a little more specific than just section 35 rights. It brings it down to our situation in the Northwest Territories, so. But it includes those so, yeah, I agree with this. I support it. We've done it before, and I think we should do it again. Thanks, Madam Chair.

Yeah, okay. Well, let me just try it, yeah. I understand that this language comes from other laws of the Northwest Territories passed by the Assembly. So I just want to find a way to confirm that, and which pieces of legislation it comes from.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I just want to understand. I believe this language comes from -- is repeated in at least a couple of other pieces of GNWT legislation. And can I ask the law clerk to confirm that for me, please.