I am going to give a fulsome answer here, so just bear with me. Okay? The threshold for dissent requirement is low federal consent is required for any amendment that would affect the regulatory functions of the NEB and the ISR onshore. Given that low threshold for federal consent requirement, ITI staff began engaging with the federal government in 2018, in July. ITI staff worked with the federal government and the NEB to ensure that it would be able to obtain federal consent for any amendments it proposed. The federal government, through an order in council dated May 21, 2019, provided its consent to specific amendments in Bills 36 and 37. Securing federal consent does not interfere with any processes of our legislator, and, should the legislator want to make changes to a bill that would trigger federal consent, it would be the GNWT's responsibility to secure such consent. We are not required to, and this work did not interfere with any process within the Legislature, so there was no need to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, I am not sure I agree with the Minister's assessment. I believe that this is really certainly not in keeping with consensus government principles, to go off and seek federal concurrence while a bill is before the Legislative Assembly. I would like to get confirmation from the Minister and his staff: the changes that have now been made to this bill, they, as I understand it, they will require federal concurrence again. Is that correct?
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, we will not. It is consented as a bill already. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. It was my understanding and I believe it was stated in committee that, with the amendments that were made that the Minister has already concurred with, that some of them do impact and affect the authority and jurisdiction of the National Energy Board as it relates to the ISR. Do any of those amendments require federal concurrence? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, nothing in the bill needs federal consent. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. That is not what I heard in committee, but I will take the Minister and his staff at face value. This could have still created a lot of duplication. It took 10 months for the department and the Minister to get federal concurrence, so this is a time-consuming process on their part. It's not what I heard at committee, but I will take it at face value. I don't think this was a good thing, to be messing around with a bill while it's before committee. I would like to ask the Minister: what are the next steps in terms of reviewing oil and gas legislation? This was step one. What is the next step, and when is it going to happen? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Well, we are figuring that out. I have the information here for Members on SDLs. Northwest Territories onshore, we have 90 SDLs, 90, nine-zero, covering 460,077 hectares. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. We are still awaiting answer, I believe, on Mr. O'Reilly's question, as this is his time. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will recommend to the 19th Legislative Assembly to review regulations under the PRA and the Oil and Gas Operations Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. When do the Minister and the department anticipate actually looking at the royalty regime? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As this has come up with the mineral side of things, too, my answer is exactly the same. Our fiscal regimes needs to be looked at carefully and holistically, not through the lens of just royalties. It's our opinion that there is insufficient time to put in the attention that this process deserves in the life of this Assembly, and it is our opinion the responsible thing to do was to get through these first-step amendments right and set the stage for the review of our government's fiscal regime for the mineral and petroleum resources for the next Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, and I hope to be here in the next Assembly to have some say in how that rolls out, but I think that is all the questions I had. I want to put the law clerk on the spot here, if I may, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask the law clerk: any of the motions to amend the bill in committee, did any of those motions -- I guess I can only really ask about Bill 36. Did any of those motions have any effect on the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board with regard to the ISR? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. One minute. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had understood that the definition of "hydraulic fracturing fluid" had to certainly be reviewed by the NEB and that that may require federal concurrence. I do understand that officials consulted with the National Energy Board on the change to the definition of "hydraulic fracturing fluid" that was inserted into Bill 36. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So can the Minister or his staff confirm, then, that definition of "hydraulic fracturing fluid" that we changed in the bill, does that require federal concurrence, and, if so, has it already been secured? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. I was going to keep everyone at a tight 10 minutes, but I will allow the department to answer very briefly as Mr. O'Reilly's time is up. Mr. Marion.
Yes. We worked with the law clerk and her staff as well as OROGO and the National Energy Board on this motion, on what would be an acceptable addition to the hydraulic fracturing fluid information, and then, from there, we talked to CIRNAC, the division of the federal government, and confirmed that it would not actually trigger the need for additional federal consent pursuant to subsection 22(2) of the Northwest Territories Act.
Thank you for the answer. Next, we have Mr. McNeely. General comments on the bill, Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, in general comments to the bill here, my colleague here from Kam Lake had mentioned what the government can do here. What we have been suggested by various reports is to reform our regulatory system to make it more certain and more flexible. However, that is our job, to legislate the balance of what is certain. Keeping this community or this territory to move up into the attractive world of a climate for investment is exactly what we are doing. When I ask, when I see revenues outside of our TFF, I look at industry's presence for that shortfall, and the longer we can keep industry here, the more sales or the more revenues can be realized, aside from the commerce of jobs and opportunities that industry brings. On the issue of SDLs, there was an SDL issued back in 1985 to Petro-Canada just outside of Colville Lake and later inherited to this government, and as well as a different oil company, called Suncor, that acquired that asset. I think, if anybody would give it some thought here, when they're having discussions with the Canadian Association for Petroleum Producers in Calgary they would realize that it only makes sense on returns on costs through the infrastructure that is available. Because of a lack of infrastructure, the Colville Lake gas field sits idle like many others, other SDLs that have been issued since.
We can't force industry to come back. It would just not be economical for the stockholders to realize that. Using this idle time in industry's absence, I think it's very productive as to what we are doing right now on regulatory reform. I am confident that the department is and has done that, and has consulted with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers that represents multiple membership in the industry.
I am quite satisfied on this made-in-the-North with our resource development legislation that we are doing now and will be doing, and keeping in mind, we are not going to agree on all the motions or legislation; however, I do respect everybody's position, and I do respect, more so, if others could respect mine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Any further general comments on the bill? Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am looking at the second page, and I am just going to read this sentence here, this paragraph: "This bill was developed through an extensive policy development effort, including significant legislative research. Two months of open multi-platform engagement with the public industry. Indigenous governments and NGOs, not as stakeholders, feedback, and also the Intergovernmental Council." I'm just wondering if the Minister can elaborate on that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Marion.
Yes. We had a fairly extensive public engagement period. We produced an engagement paper which identified issues and recommended options to address those issues. They looked at transparency and public accountability, administrative and technical issues, and significant discovery licenses. From that, we engaged. I believe we went to six regional centres, and at each regional centre we met with Indigenous governments and organizations. We had public meetings. We also had technical stakeholder meetings with the regulator, industry, NGOs, environmental, non-government organizations, and then that culminated in a "what we heard" report. Then we developed the legislative proposal and onwards.
Throughout that entire process, we had regular meetings with the intergovernmental council and worked with them to develop policy, and eventually the bills. Thank you, Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Coming from the Inuvialuit Regional ISR, there are definitely some, the industry there is obviously slow, and I am sure that the government is well aware of all the issues they are having in the region with their licences and with all the natural gas. I am just wondering what role the IRC had to play in this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. McEachern.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The IRC and other Indigenous governments that have a particular interest in the oil and gas sector were engaged extensively during the process of the development of these two bills. It was a very collaborative approach in sharing documentation with them throughout the process, and getting their input throughout. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Throughout this Assembly, I always encourage the government to work with Indigenous governments to develop policy, especially the regulation stages. It is good to hear that the GNWT and the department are involved with Indigenous governments, the IRC which is close to my region with oil and gas interests. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Anything further from committee? Seeing none, does committee agree that we begin our clause-by-clause consideration?
Agreed.
Thank you, Committee. We will defer the bill number and title until after consideration of the clauses. There are 18 clauses. I will call them out each individually. Members may put their hands up if they have questions or comments on the clause. When I call it out, please if you agree, respond accordingly, and if not, same thing.
Please turn to page 1 of the bill. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
---Clauses 1 through 18 inclusive approved
Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can the Minister or staff tell me when this bill will come into force? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. McEachern.
Mr. Chair, this bill will come into force as soon as it is ready to do so. There are some elements here that can benefit from guidance, for example, from the regulator. Those elements that require additional guidance can come into force when that guidance is ready. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. It's a bit of a cryptic answer. I know the Member is going to ask: is there an estimation of time? Is there a date that the witnesses can provide? Mr. Marion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would ask Mr. Marion to add to that answer.
