Kevin O'Reilly

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 I can tell him, though, that the mineral rights had been withdrawn underneath Giant Mine, so I don't know why we don't ensure that mineral rights are withdrawn for sites that are being remediated or under consideration for remediation.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...

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?

Merci, Monsieur le President. On January 12, 2018, TerraX Minerals announced that it had acquired the mineral rights at the old Ptarmigan Mine for $5,000. While this may be good news for some, it raises serious questions about the remediation of the site. While this property was a gold producer in the 1940s, 1980s, and 1990s, it was abandoned over 20 years ago and is another mining public liability.

Some minor remediation work has been done at the site, including signage and fencing, but the buildings are in shambles. Dust from the tailings pond continues to blow around unabated. Further...

Merci, Monsieur le President. The report on the Mineral Resources Act public engagement exercise is a "what we believe" document from ITI, rather than "what was said." Can the Minister explain why he promised that there would be more information made available from ITI's "crossjurisdictional reviews and expensive policy research," in this report, yet there's nothing on that subject in the document? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Merci, Monsieur le President. Tomorrow is Valentine's Day, and I am starting to get that feeling. I love mining, as long as it is properly managed and we get our fair share. Unfortunately, that is not what we got yesterday from the Minister of mining when he tabled the "what we heard" report on the Mineral Resources Act. Rather than a good summary of what was submitted, it is a classic example of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture happens when a government agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial concerns or interests of the industry or sector it is...

Merci, Monsieur le President. Thanks to the Premier for that, of course. I'm not suggesting that that be the sole and exclusive focus of the document. I want to make sure that sustainability is incorporated into it. It's offered as genuine input, and I hope that he'll take me up on the offer of including that sort of information and perspectives into the document. It's not just about resource development, and nor should it be.

I have another question for the Minister: is he committed, then, to sharing drafts of the chapters as it is being put together with Regular MLAs and keeping us updated on...

I would like to thank the Premier for confirming that there was no public consultation with regard to the development of that statement. I have had a chance to look at it. It is supposed to be about sustainable development. You could actually take the word "sustainable" out and just replace it with "resources." There is nothing in the document, really, with regard to sustainability.

The classic definition of "sustainability" is to make sure that things that we do today do not take away from opportunities for future generations. It is about intergenerational equity. The Premier himself has...

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I don't think I actually heard a response to my question. I will try it again. I think he has leapt ahead to the next one I was going to ask. I was looking for a commitment from the Minister to an independent, evidence-based review of economic rent from mining, including taxes and royalties, during the life of this Assembly. Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks to the Minister for that response. He promised to give more information on how this is dealt with in other jurisdictions in the report. It is not there. On October 19th, when he did appear before the standing committee, he promised there would be targeted public engagement on this report. Yesterday, he repeated that promise in the House. Can the Minister explain what this targeted engagement is and who is going to be consulted and when?

Merci, Monsieur le President. As I said, it was disappointing to hear the Minister say yesterday that this important work is not likely to take place during this Assembly. Why did we bother to get devolution when something as fundamental as how much money the public gets from resource extraction is not going to be reviewed? Why should Ottawa give us any more authority when we won't even exercise what we have? Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the mining Minister later today. Mahsi.