Kieron Testart

Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the clause as amended, the new clause 1(2)(b) is saying that the requirements in subsection (1) can qualify if there is an existing agreement, but it also speaks to regulations.

Just for greater certainty, does the Minister envision a situation where, let's say, X mining company applies for a production licence; they meet the qualifications of the Tlicho agreement, for example; and then they go to the Minister and say, "We have this agreement. It meets the Tlicho land rights agreement." Will the Minister then say that that passes muster, "You have your benefits...

How does industry, then, build a new zone or create a new zone to enable prospecting permits once they expire after 15 years and the act comes into force? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Nothing further.

Thank you. You know, I am not trying to frustrate process here, Mr. Chair. We are trying to get clear answers, and what we heard was rationales referencing other parts of the bill that do not really relate to the point the Member raised, so, you know it's going to be a long night if we continue along this road. These are important questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. Nothing more, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee raised these concerns around the vagueness, and I want to commend the government on trying something here to give some more certainty to the provisions that surround benefit agreements with Indigenous governments and organizations. I think this is a much more precise point in time. It ties it to production licenses, unlike the current wording of the act, which is to a production project, which isn't clearly defined. The (a) part of the clause clearly connects it with the life cycle of mining work, so I think this is a needed improvement to provide that level of...

Section 24(1) says: For the purposes of the section, applicable in respect of Indigenous governments and organizations, or those Indigenous governments and organizations. That's at the request of a zone. How does industry who basically wants to obtain a prospecting permit, how do they apply for a zone because this section is fairly explicit that it would be an Indigenous government that would have to request a zone be created. How does industry go about doing it, as they did with prospecting permits? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This section, clause 53 deals with a change in material, a material change to an undertaking authorized under the mineral release. Can the Minister just explain clearly what this section contemplates because I think there's a concern? What does a material change look like, and does that mean an entire benefit agreement needs to be shifted to reflect that change? Can the Minister just explain how this would play out? How the department envisions this to play out in reality? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for that clarification. How is including a provision on the public registry for a notice of intended work related to providing direct notice to Indigenous governments and organizations? I am fine with that. I think that that is a pretty good choice. It is a separate issue. That is not the public registry; that is direct notice, which is another provision governed by the act. How does that matter impact at all with what is being raised here today? We already know that confidentiality issues around business interests can be protected by the Minister by preventing that disclosure on the...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that this is a commendable effort to improve, again, a section that is far too vague. Part of me very much wants to see this kind of certainty and specificity added to the legislation, especially after the debate that we have had on the floor so far where we couldn't even get a straight answer that this is just going to enshrine best practices and move forward along that basis. That being said, my concern is that, unlike section 52, I am not sure if industry has been properly consulted on this.

Even though this is a discretionary clause, I would like to know firmly...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Northerners expect real climate change leadership, and that means a plan that works for the NWT. The plan that is being proposed by the GNWT that is central on Bill 42 does not achieve that goal. Only one model of carbon pricing was explored and developed without adequate legislative oversight or public engagement.

Although I support some form of carbon pricing in principle, such as a cap and trade system, I cannot support this plan that leaves unelected public servants responsible for new taxes and rebates without approval by Members of this House, not to mention the...