Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point on this whole thing is it's not the Mineral Resources Act to have that discussion. It would be a broader government discussion, and maybe that's a discussion that needs to take place with the Department of MACA. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Well, the issue is that the mineral tenure rights that are governed by this act are impacting on municipal interests, so it is very much this piece of legislation and this department's responsibility. It might, perhaps, be other departments' responsibility, as well, but mineral tenure conflicts aren't governed by the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, the Hamlets Act, or any other statute governing municipalities.
Again, this is an issue that was raised by committee, taken very seriously by the committee. The amendments proposed by committee are not acceptable to government, so what is the government's approach to resolve this issue to prevent future conflicts and keep industry and municipalities out of the courts? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to put this on the public record again. The restricted are provision is not designed to protect things like municipal infrastructure. They are planned projects where existing issues can be studied and addressed, infrastructure located, planned and well-known. There is time to use existing tools to apply for protections or ensure access. Land-use planning offers appropriate tools to address the protection of areas that have interest like municipal infrastructure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Okay. So, again, I'm trying to find a way to ask this question, but fundamentally the committee found a way that was in order, that was acceptable to the legislation. We vetted that with our legal counsel. So this is not out of line with the act; it's out of line with the policy intent of the government, but the committee found this problem. We're not making this up; it's happened. So this is a very fundamentally live issue. If not the committee's amendments, the committee's policy direction that this be resolved, what is the approach of government to this?
I don't want to hear about why it couldn't be changed in this part. How are we going to support our community governments who have had this happen to them? How are we going to effectively manage conflicts between mineral tenure and community public infrastructure or community assets like quarries? How are we going to manage that, how is this government going to respond to that problem, and how are we going to solve it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not about a municipality's status. The entire restricted area provision was designed to provide an emergency tool to protect sensitive areas recently discovered from irreparable harm. It is in the spirit of reconciliation and recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous governments to their land, and it also recognizes the fact that Indigenous settlement lands are generally considerably larger than those of municipalities. This makes it far more difficult for Indigenous governments to know all the facets of their lands which they need to protect.
Furthermore, there is nothing preventing a municipality from petitioning the Minister to create a restricted area based on the criteria set out in the Mineral Resources Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That criteria is incredibly limited, and it's limited to archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical attributes. It does not govern infrastructure or community assets like quarries. That's the whole point of committee's policy direction on this. I understand, the Minister does not have an answer to this question. He does not have a solution to this problem, and our municipalities, once again, will have to wait until a conflict arises, they hire lawyers and go to the courts and something like a quarry is off-limits and useless to that municipality for years to come.
I think that's a shameful lack of attention to a concern that committee has raised in good faith, and I do not understand why, when there is a conflict between two policy directions, it has to be a flat no instead of finding compromise through other tools like regulation or public policy instruments that are available to this government, available to this Minister, and available to this department. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister. Nothing from the Minister. To clause 22, as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 22 of Bill 34 be amended by adding the following after subclause (7.2):
(7.3) The Minister shall, upon request of a municipality, consider designating an area as a restricted area within which interests in minerals may not be issued for a period of up to one year, if
(a) the Minister considers that the designation is required urgently and for a temporary period;
(b) the area is located within the boundaries of the municipality;
(c) the area contains sufficient municipal infrastructure or public utilities which could be negatively impacted by mineral development; and
(d) the area is no larger than necessary.
(7.4) If the Minister receives a request from a municipality for a designation under subsection (7.3), the Minister shall engage with all applicable Indigenous governments and organizations that may have an interest in the proposed designation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I know that this is kind of convoluted, but this is the main motion about this issue of how municipal governments can relate to what is happening in the Mineral Resources Act. This is where I think we should have the main discussion and debate around this issue.
The bill now outlines a process for Indigenous governments to request temporary restrictions for areas that are of interest to them with regard to whether they have unique, archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical significance. What this motion would do is basically replicate that process and allow municipal governments to request areas of temporary restriction for municipal purposes within their boundaries and no larger an area than necessary and that the Minister would consult with Indigenous governments in carrying out the consideration of that question.
Maybe the department didn't hear about this when they conducted their original consultations, but certainly committee did, and for the Minister to say that, because the department didn't hear about this in their consultations, I'm not going to do anything about, that's not why I am here; because that is what he just said, that the purpose of this is to allow for Indigenous governments to seek temporary protection. Well, here is a clause now that would give municipal governments the same sort of capability. This doesn't take away from what Indigenous governments want to do in any way. In fact, there is a requirement in here for the Minister to consult with Indigenous governments before that restricted area could be established.
I don't really understand why this is not something can be accomplished. This is about trying to avoid conflict. It's consistent with encouraging good relations, building good relationships, and in fact, in some cases, First Nation governments actually are a municipal government. I mentioned that. In the case of Lutselk'e, Wrigley, Sambaa K'e, Tsiigehtchic, those First Nation governments actually service the municipal governments. They already would have the ability to ask for restricted areas, not for municipal purposes quite yet, but why wouldn't we give this ability to request restricted areas? It's all at the Minister's discretion. The Minister doesn't have to do this.
If the purpose of this bill is to try to avoid land use conflicts and encourage better working relationships, why wouldn't we give this ability to municipal governments to protect key infrastructure? I just don't understand it, Mr. Chair. In any event, I look forward to the debate and discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the course of questioning, we have learned that the Minister does not have a plan to deal with this situation. I think that the Member's motion is a good way to deal with this situation. Clearly it is in order. Clear it is within the capacity of the bill and the legislation to deal with this. I see no reason why it can't be done.
Again, this is a gap. We don't know how to deal with this. We have no plan to deal with this. This seems like a good plan, and I applaud the Member for bringing it forward. If there is any good reason why this shouldn't be supported, I do not see it at this point. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. I will allow a last reply to the mover. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote, and I will be better at it next time when I ask for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote are: 4 in favour, 11 opposed, 1 abstaining. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 22 as amended.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clause 23. Mr. O'Reilly.
It was 24 that I wanted. Sorry.
Thank you. Clause 23. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We're speeding right through. Nothing can slow us down now. Clause 24. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion that clause 24 of Bill 34 be amended:
(a) in subclause (1), by striking out "settlement lands" and substituting with "a settlement area";
(b) in paragraph (3)(b), by striking out "the settlement lands" and substituting "a settlement area;" and.
(c) in subclause (4), by striking out "the settlement lands" wherever it appears and substituting "a settlement area."
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. It is being distributed. The motion is in order. Mr. Testart.
Mr. Chair, a point of order. I am looking at the copy of the motion that has been distributed, and the French translation does not seem to match the English translation. There is a subclause 4, and I can read the French if you like, but I believe you have a copy of this motion as well. I believe this motion is out of order as both sections do not match.
We will take a very brief 10-minute recess while I confer with my staff. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
The Member has raised a point of order and explained his reasons. I have come to a ruling after conferring with staff, and, although on the face of it this might appear different, the fact is that the French and English versions achieve the same objective and the additional subclause was a choice of the Frenchlanguage drafter to ensure that the French and English translation achieved the same thing. For further clarity and for the comfort of the Assembly, I am going to turn to the law clerk for perhaps a more detailed explanation, at least more eloquent. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I doubt I can be more eloquent than you in that regard, but I can indicate that the Frenchlanguage drafter felt it necessary, in order to replicate the same concept that is contained within the English version of clause 24(c), to reproduce the clause in its entirety with each section of the changed word. I actually have gone and compared the clause, and, indeed, it is replicated in its entirety with the exception of two words, which appear to connote "settlement area," which I am assuming connote "settlement area." In other words, it was felt necessary to repeat the same clause in order to achieve the same effect as contained in sub (c). This was necessary because both versions are equally authoritative. It is important that they both equally and accurately express the same concept, so sometimes more language is necessary in order to do that.
Thank you, Madam Law Clerk, for that explanation. For those who are late joining us, the motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Carried
To clause 24 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some remarks I would like to make about the concept of zones, if I may. I think this is an appropriate time, and I have some questions. I have had a lot of difficulty understanding the rationale for these zones. The way I heard it during the clausebyclause review is that the department wants to try to encourage mineral exploration and that this was a way to try to do that. I have said that I think that that's a dangerous mixing of objectives, where the department is supposed to be a regulator of mineral rights and at the same time of promoter, and I think that it's not appropriate to mix those roles and the objectives in this bill. That is what I believe this zones portion is really all about. I have not seen anything in writing from Indigenous governments in submissions that I think committee received, that I can recall, nor from industry, requesting the establishment of zones. The representation that we did get from industry on this part of the bill was really about continuing the current practice of prospecting permits and grandfathering that provision into the legislation, which is actually done further down in the bill, and we may get to that if we ever finish, in terms of the transitional provisions. I am trying to understand what the rationale is for this. Can I get the Minister to provide a clear policy rationale? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Zones can be created by a nomination from Indigenous governments. Zones were included in the bill to create a method for Indigenous governments to drive where and how they could attract investment within their lands if they so choose. Zones were intended to provide greater certainty for industry by indicating where Indigenous governments would welcome greater exploration. We are trying to encourage early exploration, which is fundamental to our government's position that we need exploration to foster new, responsible development and hopefully results in discoveries that could be our future mines. This is our solution to doing it in way that not only respects Indigenous governments, but allows them to have a say in how they wish to benefit from mineral exploration. We also have to remember that zones are temporary and can be adjusted with the agreement of IGOs if they have met the goal in the creation of that zone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
