Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think that I have made my point. Thank you.
Thank you. Clause 52 as amended. Mr. 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 agreement; here is your licence"? Is that what this does now? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That would depend on whether that agreement met our requirements to provide proportional benefits, reasonable benefits. However, I don't wish to speculate, but I think that most agreements that are concluded underneath the Tlicho agreement, or at least the requirement to commence negotiations, would certainly meet that requirement. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of existing land rights agreements that have conditions for benefits, will those satisfy this section? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you. If the IGO says it does, it does. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
For greater clarity, the government will not attempt to bring forward regulations that contradict or add conditions above and beyond what are included in land right agreements? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. They cannot contradict, because we have a prevailing clause in the earlier section of our bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Will there be additional requirements put onto those agreements if they are brought forward to the Minister, above and beyond what are contained in the land rights agreements? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There might be different requirements, because ours is for benefits. It's for a benefit agreement. It's not exactly the same as what is reflected in the land claim agreements.
However, as we said, the point of this clause is to clarify that, if there is an agreement that is concluded in another manner, such as under the purposes of a land claim agreement, and it has benefits, especially if the IGO brings to us the position that it provides appropriate benefits, then we would take it, and it would meet the requirements under this act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Well, we got there. Thank you for the clarification. That is exactly what I was looking for. My next question is: for an unsettled area, where a production licence is sought in an unsettled area, what is the process for that? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
To clarify, the question is: what is the process for benefit agreements in an unsettled area? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Yes, where there is not an existing land rights with benefit provisions within that land rights agreement. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The process would be that which is set out within this act and the regulations in terms of a benefit agreement, but again, section 53 clarifies that, if there was another agreement that provided benefits for another purpose that existed within that unsettled territory, if it met the requirements under this act, we would take it as a benefit agreement, and it does not need to be a separate agreement to meet our requirements. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Just for greater clarity, if an Indigenous government and a company negotiate an agreement, and the Indigenous government feels that it is satisfactory in an area without a signed land rights agreement, and they bring it forward, will the government accept that agreement, or will they say that it is insufficient to meet the criteria set out in regulations?
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Because this has not come to pass yet, I will have to just try and predict. However, the point of this whole part, in terms of section 52, 53, and onwards, is to allow Indigenous governments to determine their own needs and whether they are met. Therefore, if an Indigenous government said that the agreement that was concluded contains benefits that were appropriate for them, then yes, I don't think that we would challenge them on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart, your questioning has turned a little hypothetical. You are putting hypotheticals to the witnesses. I am sure that they can be rephrased in other ways, so just keep that in mind. Mr. Testart.
My apologies, Mr. Chair, but that did answer my question, and that is what I was looking for.
Let's turn to regulations, then. Again, this is a section that is key for the detail coming out in regulation, and that is why my questions veered into hypothetical territory. I won't do that now, but I think that it is imperative that Indigenous governments have a say on these regulations, so that they can be assured that their perspective, especially in unsigned areas, is reflected in benefit agreement requirements.
We also need to have a role for industry so that industry is comfortable with what is going and can explain best practice over the years that they have developed in bilateral relationships with Indigenous governments and nations.
What is the government's planned intention moving forward on development of regulations around section 52? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will continue to move forward in the spirit of partnership as we develop regulations, should this bill pass. That will mean extensive engagement with our partners from Indigenous governments, industry, and other affected stakeholders. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Will that engagement follow a technical working group model or some other model that the committee has familiarized itself with over the course of our review of this legislation? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We will continue to work with IGCS and other Indigenous governments who were invited to the table which was Dehcho and Akaitcho. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
By working with the IGCS and other partners, does the Minister mean a co-drafting of regulations, or merely consulting with the IGCS?
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't know what the process will be yet, but we will be sitting down having those discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
When will a decision be rendered on moving forward, on how these regulations are going to move forward?
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That will be up to the 19th Legislative Assembly.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nothing further.
Clause 52 as amended. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
