Ms. Green.
Mr. Chair, I move that you rise from the Chair and report progress. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. There is a motion to report progress. The motion is in order and is non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Clause 53. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 53 of Bill 34 be amended by striking out "production project" and substituting "undertaking authorized under the mineral lease." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister Abernethy. Sorry, I'm not used to looking that way. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intent of this motion is to make the language used in this section consistent with the amended language put forward in sections 52(1). Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Clause 53 as amended. Clause 54. Mr. Testart.
I had a question to the Minister on clause 53. Will that be allowed, Mr. Chair?
We haven't considered the next clause yet, so I can allow some questioning on this. Mr. Testart.
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. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intent on this section is to ensure that there is an enabling authority to allow us to address material changes. This is because we heard from both Indigenous government and organizations and industry that material changes is a very sensitive issue right now with regards to certain agreements, and therefore, I think we will need to work together with all interested parties in order to determine the content of these regulations. The enabling authority there is to allow us to deal with it so that we know we have the power to address it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The idea here is if there is a change in material, a material change, and that shifts the -- let's use the example of an agreement signed, an agreement that's authorized, that's signed pursuant to a land rights agreement that has been accepted by the Minister. There's a change in material circumstances. I see where you are going, Mr. Chair. Does this just mean that an agreement can be amended if it's brought forward as changed, or does this mean the regulations will be drafted in a way that the government can force changes, if the government notes a change in material circumstances? Who's driving this? Is it the two parties who signed the agreement, or is it the government through its regulations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I said, this is an enabling authority to allow us to make regulations, and within those regulations, we will have to have greater discussions with both Indigenous governments and organizations and different stakeholders including industry in order to find the appropriate rules and requirements around this. The intent, or I guess the idea behind it being that if there's a material change to the project, then perhaps, there might be an adjustment needed to be made in terms of which benefits that project should provide. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Nothing further.
Thank you. Fifty-three as amended?
Agreed.
Clause 54. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Can the Minister just provide clarity on how the dispute resolution body will operate, or will operate pursuant to this clause? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With respect to 54, the dispute resolution body, we will be engaging with our Indigenous partners on how we envision this clause working in the regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Will industry be engaged as well? I thought this was to resolve disputes between industry and Indigenous partners. Are we just going to engage one side of the equation here? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Strand.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it will be with our Indigenous partners and industry to find that balance. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's what I wanted to here. If there is a dispute, how soon can, do we have an idea of when this clause is triggered? Sorry, I'll rephrase. Can a production licence be issued if a dispute is in progress, or does a dispute prevent the issuance of a production licence? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Can we get an answer from the Minister? I'm going to call for a short recess.
SHORT RECESS
I call Committee of the Whole back to order. Minister, do you have an answer yet? Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In terms of what the act says, there is only the enabling authority that establishes the jurisdiction under section 54. However, I can speak to what is contemplated. I just want to emphasize that this is contemplated only, and as I said earlier, we do need to engage further with the IGC and stakeholders upon this.
However, what we did envision with this dispute resolution body, logically, there would not be things progressing that would make any determination that they made ineffective. It would allow time for the dispute resolution body to make a decision before things moved forward regarding the content of that decision.
We also envisioned that there would be a time limit on a dispute resolution body. This is very common within dispute resolution, but we recognize that it is particularly important here, because a delay can be very detrimental to industry. The dispute resolution body is contemplated to have different time limits set upon their determinations and their hearing processes, but that would have to be set out in the regulations, and it would also have to be subject to further discussions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. This is the first time that this information has come forward, so I appreciate learning it. That is why we are asking these questions.
In the case where there is a project that multiple Indigenous organizations and governments have a claim to, do there need to be agreements in place with all of those parties before a production licence is issued? Thank you.
Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pretty sure that I got the question, but could you please just repeat it for me? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Thank you. If there are multiple Indigenous land rights holders or rights holders who are all subject to an area where there is a production project, do they all need to have benefit agreements in place before a licence will be issued? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In order to meet the requirement under this part for benefit agreements, the way that the enabling authorities are set out, yes. To meet the requirement, they do need to complete the agreements with all Indigenous governments or organizations that the Minister considers appropriate in the circumstances.
However, that would be subject to any dispute resolution that arose, and the timing in regards to their production licence would be set out in the regulations. That tethers there, it is clear that that's the phase that we are talking about, but the linkages that you are talking about are not in the bill itself. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Testart.
Those linkages will be established via regulation? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
At this point, is there any clarity that the Minister can provide on what timelines are contemplated for the dispute resolution process? Thank you.
