Again, I would like to thank the Minister for that information. It's not clear how TerraX was able to acquire the mineral rights for the Ptarmigan Mine while it's under remediation, but this would seem to complicate these efforts, as exploration may interfere with the need to restrict access to the site. Drilling and sampling and trenching, that could disturb tailings, covers from vegetation efforts and so on.

I would like to know from the Minister: does GNWT, and/or the federal government for that matter, withdraw the mineral rights for sites that are under remediation such as the Ptarmigan...

Merci, Monsieur le President. My questions are not on the procurement zombie. They are for the Minister of Lands. Earlier today, I spoke about the recent acquisition of the mineral rights for the abandoned Ptarmigan Mine and the problems this may cause for remediation of this site and perhaps other contaminated sites. Can the Minister of Lands tell us the current status of remediation at the Ptarmigan Mine? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

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 I can tell him, though, that the mineral rights had been withdrawn underneath Giant Mine, so I don't know why we don't ensure that mineral rights are withdrawn for sites that are being remediated or under consideration for remediation.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

Merci, Monsieur le President. I just need to nail this down. The Premier mentioned that he was prepared to share drafts of the Arctic Policy Framework, NWT chapter, but he just didn't go as far as to say that the sharing is going to happen on this side of the House. Can the Minister clearly commit to sharing drafts of this NWT chapter, the Arctic Policy Framework, with Regular MLAs? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the Premier for that. I am certainly more than a bit disappointed to hear that our government has basically rejected the work, then, that was done by the ministerial special representative.

Of course, sustainable development is more than just about resources; it's about people, things like cultural sustainability, Indigenous language and cultural revitalization, social sustainability, recognizing the roles and contributions of business and civil society. Is there going to be some incorporation of these ideas of cultural sustainability, social sustainability, into the NWT chapter...

Merci, Monsieur le President. My questions are for the Premier, and they are with regard to the PanTerritorial Vision on Sustainable Development and the Arctic Policy Framework. I don't recall there being any public consultations on the panterritorial vision. Can the Premier confirm that for me? Mahsi, Mr. Speaker.

Thanks again to the Minister for that. Unfortunately, the "what we heard" report doesn't even invite any further comments or public engagement. Glad to hear it is happening, though. It might just be advertised a little bit better. In the House yesterday, the Minister said that a review on mining revenues would not likely take place during this Assembly. It is my view ITI cannot be left in charge of this review due to its conflict of interest as mining promoter and the obvious regulatory capture that has taken place. Many other jurisdictions like Alberta have conducted independent reviews of...

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...