Statements in Debates
Thanks, Mr. Chair. When ITI went out the first time to talk about the Mineral Resources Act, the idea of royalties was part of the scope of those original consultations. They said that they were going to conduct a review of the royalty regime. That was what was promised. We didn't get it. I think I understand why: because it is very complicated. That is what they promised, and they didn't delivery. It is part of the post-devolution promise of "We are going to devolve and then evolve."
Now that our government has taken over something as significant as mineral resources and how we manage those, I...
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that makes it clear for me.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move that subclause 24(13) of Bill 34 be deleted and the following substituted:
(13) If a zone is established under this section, any person seeking to apply for an instrument in that zone must apply in accordance with the regulations establishing that zone. If those regulations differ from the general regulations establishing this act and may not rely on the general regulations established under this act to apply for an instrument in that zone.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do want to commend the department for the work that they did with the committee and our staff to prepare this rather extensive list that is now clause 7 in the bill about a registry, and particularly 7(3), which is going to create a public registry. The public is going to be guaranteed access to a lot more information under this bill than currently exists under the mining regulations. This is a good thing.
The list of things that are here, there is one important matter that's not listed, and that's this notice of intended work. As I understand it, notice of intended work is...
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing to add. I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, during the review of the bill, I raised the issue of what was the definition of "production project," because there is none in the bill, and I think that created unnecessary uncertainty. So I'm glad to see that the Minister is prepared to clarify this. I had my own motion at the clause-by-clause review to deal with this; the Minister would not concur with it, so it didn't go forward. So I'm glad to see that something I said in the clause-by-clause has actually made its way to the floor of the House.
I guess lastly, Mr. Chair, it's rather ironic that we're going to get...
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I support the motion, I think it needs to be clearly stated on the record that there were others who felt that they had expertise to offer in terms of prospector training. I think Indigenous governments, Indigenous elders, would have some perspective, some expert knowledge that they could share in terms of cultural awareness and awareness of the land rights agreements and our co-management system that mining is required to operate within. I know NGOs also expressed an interest in having an opportunity to look at whatever kind of curriculum was developed.
I note that, in...
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand the Minister is under no obligation to respond, here, of course, so I move that paragraph 17.1(1)(q) of Bill 34 be amended by adding ", and a breakdown of the amount of royalties paid by each mine," after "under Part 6". Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I requested a recorded vote. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While we're on the subject, I guess I'm not allowed to look forward. Where are the occurrences in the bill where settlement areas are referred to? I just can't find any. I don't have my computer opened to do a keyword search, but why was it necessary to include a definition of settlement area in the bill itself? Because I can't find any instances of it at my fingertips. Thanks, Mr. Chair.