Agreed.
Thank you, committee. This concludes consideration of Committee Report 33-18(3). Committee, we will move onto consideration of Bill 34 after a very brief recess.
---SHORT RECESS
I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, we have agreed to consider Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act. I will turn to the Minister responsible for opening comments. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am pleased to introduce Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act. Bill 34 is part of our government's work to improve the Northwest Territories land and resource management regime to ensure Northerners are able to make decisions that support sustainable, responsible development and protection of the environment while respecting Indigenous rights.
Today I would like to speak with you about its purpose and our vision for what it can achieve. First and foremost, this legislation is the foundation upon which our management of the mineral industry can be built. Its defining goals are to give our government the ability to respond to the wants and needs of our people, bring clarity and certainty where it is lacking, modernizing how we govern mineral resources, and codifying our current best practices. The new authorities proposed in this act will give us the ability to establish regulations to match those ambitions. We believe the Mineral Resources Act defines a vision for managing exploration and mining in a way that makes sure Northwest Territories residents benefit, fosters positive relationships, and advances the public interest while maintaining a balanced approach and encouraging investment.
Contained within this bill are provisions which would ensure benefits for Indigenous governments and organizations for major mining projects that enter the operations phase of a mine. It is our firm belief that it is good public policy to codify our territory's longstanding commitment to bringing benefits to Indigenous communities from resource projects. While this is the first in legislation for Canada, the intent is to simplify and translate the practice of negotiating with Indigenous governments, which mining companies are either already doing or are expected to do in some form, wherever they do business into law. We think that this requirement can have a positive impact on investment decisions, as there is a growing movement toward sustainable financing by large investors with benefit to and support from Indigenous governments increasingly seen as a necessity.
Bill 34 also addresses benefit-generating tools for all Northwest Territories residents. The bill will clarify an approach that has existed in practice in our existing socio-economic agreements. As a government, we work collectively with our producers toward shared goals, but at the same time, provide the flexibility to allow evolution in these agreements or to use other appropriate tools to generate benefits for the territory in the future.
For Indigenous governments, communities, public government, and those looking to do business here, there are measures in this bill which will benefit each of them as they work to build mutually beneficial relationships in the mining industry. We believe that this bill will encourage early engagement, better communication, and predictable dispute resolution. This bill defines new authorities, reducing conflict by addressing gaps around sensitive lands and local awareness amongst those exploring for minerals.
We have proposed zones to create a method for Indigenous governments to drive where and how they could attract exploration investment within their lands by recommending them to the Minister. We also believe that they will create certainty by providing clarity on where IGOs wish to encourage exploration and where exploration is welcome.
We are also proposing a tool for Indigenous governments to quickly access protection of areas or sensitive cultural, ecological, or spiritual considerations facing imminent harm exists and were previously unknown. This would be a short-term measure to bridge the gap on a way to a permanent solution.
The Mineral Resources Act will enable our exploration regime to move into the 21st Century with online map staking. This will actually help facilitate and improve communication and transparency once implemented. We recognize that geological information is key, and that a whole lot about it is collected through the mineral exploration to mining activities. This bill will give us the authorities to collect more geoscience information through all stages of the mineral development cycle. Such measures would add to our understanding of the territory's geology, and when that information is made public, it has the potential to encourage economic development in the future. The act also respects the need for reasonable confidentiality to protect commercial interests.
Bill 34 is one of the most significant pieces of legislation introduced in the Northwest Territories since devolution in 2014. The department completed extensive legislative research, multiplatform engagement campaign where the public, Indigenous governments, industries, NGOs, and other interested stakeholders were invited to comment, feedback from those on Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, and close collaboration with intergovernmental council throughout the policy development process.
The department produced and promoted plain language materials to assist in informing the public. The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has worked with the legislative division of the Department of Justice on this bill. The department has been clear that many regulations, along with the accompanying awareness materials, must be completed to bring provisions of this act into force should it pass.
We are committed to moving forward in the spirit of collaboration with our partners on the intergovernmental council, our industry, and of all our affected stakeholders, and we recognize how important that collaboration will be in getting implementation right. Everyone involved in the making of this bill wants improved investor confidence, and we also want to maintain increased investment in the Northwest Territories.
The bill will not come into force until necessary regulations are in place for the act's general function. The implementation of the Mineral Resources Act will be a phased approach. This is consistent among other jurisdictions that have done similar overhauls of their mining legislation.
I wish to commend the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment on their continued engagement with the public as this bill has moved through the legislative process. It is an important bill, and I appreciate how much time and effort has been dedicated by all parties. I hope that the plain language materials that the department has produced and promoted since introduction were helpful in informing the public.
I welcome any questions that Members may have. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Does the chair of the committee that reviewed the bill have any opening comments? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's opening comments. I think that he spoke well to the bill in general. I just do want to touch one more time on committee's experiences to some degree and just say again that we agree with the Minister that, clearly, this is one of those laws for this territory that is certainly incredibly important for the success of our territory going forward. The undertaking of this review was reflective of that. I think that it was extensive, and we are incredibly appreciative of all of the input that we have received up and down the entire valley as it related to this bill and from all of the important stakeholders and their contributions that they have made.
Committee, again, wants to extend a thank you to the Minister and his staff for the very collaborative approach that we had between us. There were a couple of unique circumstances where we really felt that there was an opportunity to sit face-to-face with the Minister and his staff, along with the committee and our staff, and I think that that really made a difference and allowed for some progress to be made where it may not have otherwise.
There might be other Members who want to speak to the actual bill itself, but I just wanted to share a little bit more about the process that we experienced and that, while it had bumpy roads at times, I am sure that there might be a few more bumps that could be experienced this evening over the next couple of hours, at the end of the day, the result is going to be a world-class piece of legislation that the territory can certainly show off to the rest of the country and others. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. I understand that there are witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the chamber. Minister, you may take your seat at the witness table. I see that we have a couple of visitors in the gallery who have joined us. I would like to welcome Mr. Tom Hoefer, the executive director of the NWT-Nunavut Chamber of Mines. Welcome. The Minister is ready. Would you please introduce your witnesses for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On my left is Pamela Strand, assistant deputy minister of ITI. On my immediate right is Laura Faryna, senior legislative advisor for ITI. On my far right is Kelly McLaughlin, legislative counsel with the Department of Justice. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Welcome to the witnesses. I will now open the floor to general comments on Bill 34. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant, pieces of legislations that has come forward that has been driven by this government's priorities and not in response to the priorities of other governments.
However, I think that we have a long way to go until it is world-class. That is because so much of this legislation is dependent on the regulations, which will come after the bill has passed, should it be passed, and those regulations are crucial on how this is going to operate. If the intention here is to create a positive environment for investment, then we need to ensure that those regulations are given the appropriate amount of both scrutiny from this House, but also engagement from Indigenous governments and organizations and from industry and civil society in general. Currently, the bill has no requirements for that. We know that the department has signalled that there will be at least some role for public engagement, at least in the regulatory process, but there is no certainty that that will occur. That is a key concern of mine in reviewing this legislation. You know, I think it's almost too much to ask to say, "Trust government will figure it out," when we have the opportunity to ensure that some things happen by changing statute through amendments, so this is an area of key concern for me moving forward.
As to other issues I have concerns about in this bill, the first would be the concept of zones. I think there is much confusion, both on the side of industry and what we have been told by the department on what zones are, how they will work, what is the policy intention of zones, and how they will ensure we have consistency across our mineral tenure regime in the Northwest Territories. The legislation does not provide much clarity. There have been some amendments that were brought forward, but I think we have to be very vigilant to ensure that there is a standard set for this regime, this regulatory regime, that is reliable, predictable, and effective and that zones are not a way to circumvent that, because, if we have a patchwork of regulatory environments competing with each other in the Northwest Territories, that is not what I think is best serving the public's interest, and, unfortunately, I do not think the bill answers many of those questions. Perhaps the regulations will, but this tool, I think, is one that could put us in a very uncomfortable situation if not managed effectively.
Second is part 5, which deals with benefit agreements. Now, I will say I commend the courage of the Minister to introduce legislation that is the first in Canada to do something. We have heard many a debate in this Chamber about how we cannot do things because the rest of the country has not moved forward on it. Banning genetic discrimination is one example. There was another one yesterday. You know, these are common refrains in this government, that we cannot be the first movers on major policy shifts, so the fact that we are doing that with this legislation is something to be commended. The question is: are we doing it in the most effective way, that does not concern all of our partners?
The committee received a great deal of feedback from industry on this concern, and, when we approached the department to explain what their intentions were with part 5, all the contents for legislated socio-economic agreements and other benefit agreements, the response we got early on was: this section was intentionally left vague. That caused a whole host of issues. I know the Minister is keen to resolve these, and perhaps we will have more resolution beforehand, but I think what is imperative as we close this process is that the government's policy intent is clearly stated in this House and on the public record so there is no confusion when the regulations are developed, because this legislation cannot be something that creates uncertainty, and this area of the legislation is creating uncertainty. All we have are clear signals of policy intent and a hope that that policy intent carries through the regulatory process, where most of these decisions are going to be made. So I still have some pretty significant concerns around part 5, and, if there are no changes today, it may affect my support for the bill.
Another significant issue is around the role of supporting local governments and municipalities in regard to mineral tenure conflicts in the act. The committee felt very strongly that we need to create a place in statute for municipalities to be able to exercise some degree of authority in protecting the public's interest within municipal boundaries and also receiving notice of when work is going on. This is something that has been consistent throughout our consultations on the post-devolution bills, as well. Unfortunately, we are not there with this bill. I spoke about it earlier, when we discussed the committee's recommendations, but, if there is a way to enshrine this in statute, again we are not taking rights away; we are ensuring local governance is sound, strong, and effective, and I think that is another fundamental flaw with this bill that needs to be corrected. Today is the opportunity to correct that.
Finally, there is uncertainty around the role going forward of Indigenous governments, industry, and civil society in the development of regulations, and that is a fundamental concern that must be addressed. So, ultimately, it's a better bill than what we started. I think the government has done its best to answer a lot of these uncertain questions, but, with so much to do with regulations, we need to get very clear answers on the record today, and I hope the Minister and his staff will oblige that. However, I will comment to say that the contentious issues and the inability to move forward in some cases was not for lack of trying. It should be noted that Members, the Minister, staff from the department, staff who support our committee worked very hard on this, and they should be commended for their efforts. It does take a lot. Sometimes there is just no way to move forward on fundamental differences of opinion, and that is where we found ourselves. So we will see how it goes today, but I hope the Minister can at least provide very clear rationale for the areas of concern that I have with this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. General comments on the bill. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, am glad to hear the Minister's address and feel in support of those comments and add mine. Mr. Chair, I comment on today's largest piece of legislation faced by this Assembly on post-devolution. As we modernize history in the spirit of balancing Indigenous engagement, stakeholder confidence, environmental concessions and protection, and the remedial process, it comes to the point in telling ourselves: do we society all stakeholders and produce valued legislation? Looking at the legislation that is going to govern the industry and looking at the industry itself and the huge presence of benefits by industry in this territory has over the course of our deliberations on the last four years have really given me a different perspective on the length of benefits created by industry's presence.
The Northwest Territories natural resource sectors are bedrocks of foundation of our economy. Our mining sector in particular is widely recognized as a global destination for mineral investment, as identified by the recent Fraser Institute report. The Abacus 2016 report identifying 86 percent of the Northwest Territories residents say that the mining sector is important to the economy, while 82 and 83 percent say regulation works well and would like to see more projects. I am confident that number will go nothing but higher given the fact that we are modernizing legislation.
Now, Mr. Chair, we have the benefits of our northern supply chain vendor system, a system that includes businesses and residents. As I mentioned earlier, this mining industry and the supply chain is truly the backbone of our economy outside of the PFF. At a time of global economic situation, drafting legislation and supporting our regulation regime is our responsibility, a post-devolution responsibility I personally take seriously, knowing the benefits of its production. On the federal level, the mineral legislation, particularly Bill C-69, has been welcomed by the Mining Association of Canada, which sees it as an improvement on the status quo. The status quo is not sustainable for Canada nor the NWT, where we have mines coming to an end and a few options to replace them. It is my hope that Bill 34, the Mineral Resources Act, will provide greater certainty to the mining industry on how to operate in the Northwest Territories, ensuring that our economic foundation remains firm.
I add those words, Mr. Chair, and look forward to making history on modernizing our Mineral Resources Act in confidence that we are providing confidence to the industry that we recognize there is a big economic driver in our Northwest Territories and the huge amounts of benefits provided to individuals, businesses, and government. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. We are making history here, and I want to take a moment to thank all the Pages who have been with us this past couple of weeks while we've been making history. Whoever said history was boring? Thank you guys all very much for the hard work that you've been doing for us.
---Applause
Seeing nothing further, I guess we can move to -- oh, Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I did want to take time to respond to a few things that the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, and then I'd like to ask a couple of lines of questioning, if I can.
I know that we held a lengthy clause-by-clause review the other night. There were a lot of intentions offered by the Minister on some of the language in the bill, but the language itself doesn't really reflect a number of the things that I think the Minister has said, even in his opening remarks here. I'll just pick up on a few of these.
The Minister is right that there was extensive research conducted by the department. It took a long time to get that information out of the department to the committee; in fact, it was not a good working relationship. I had to apply under Access to Information and Protection of Privacy to get some of that information out of the department. I think the relationship did improve over time, but I just continue to contrast that with what happened on the social envelope side of the legislation that I witnessed and saw, and I think it can and should have been a much more collaborative process. Committee tried to work, and we did achieve some compromises.
The Minister talked about how there is going to be some public benefit provided in the bill, and I only wish that the process and the ideas were as clear as they are on the Indigenous government side, in terms of benefit agreements. I do support those, and the Minister knows well my views on those, and I do support provisions from section 52 on, but the public benefits are extremely vague and weak, and it's not why I came to this Legislative Assembly. It's now why, I think, we're all here, to look at the public interest. So I have some ideas to suggest on the public benefits side, as well.
The Minister mentioned that the zones can be created at the request of Indigenous governments. The Minister also has the ability to establish zones on his or her own initiative. I have yet to see anything in writing where Indigenous governments, maybe I missed it, have specifically requested zones. Certainly, the industry submissions I saw, they wanted some clarification of what zones were about and that the prospecting permit process would continue, but I didn't see any specific requests for zones, either.
I'd like to turn, though, to three areas that I'd like to ask some questions about. We've heard some discussion of the royalty review, or some sort of fiscal regime review, that the department seems to have already started, so can someone please outline very clearly what the scope and substance of that review is? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Next, we have Mr. Simpson. Sorry about that; I'm slipping, trying to encourage history. Minister, do you have a reply to Mr. O'Reilly?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I get Mr. O'Reilly to repeat the exact part of the question? Not his opening comments, but the question?
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, the clock is ticking. Can the Minister clearly outline what the scope and substance of the fiscal regime is that his department seems to have already started? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have said that we will support a review of the NWT's Resource Royalty Framework and a review of the Northwest Territories Resource Royalty Framework will need to consider the Northwest Territories' total fiscal context, as well as our general operating environment. ITI, in partnership with the Department of Finance, has started the benchmarking work for such a review. There will be no public consultation at this stage in the process, as it is currently in a third-party research contract to benchmark the Northwest Territories against other jurisdictions, both nationally and internationally, and we anticipate and support this being a priority of the 19th Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. While the Minister was providing lots of reassurance around some of the concepts that the department wants to pursue through this legislation, can the Minister clearly state whether there is any intention to make this review open to the public at some stage and ensure that there are independent experts retained as part of it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a multi-departmental review, as I've just said, and that's going to be up to the 19th Legislative Assembly, what they want to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That's not the kind of reassurance I was hoping for and that I think the public deserves, so I'll continue to pursue that. The regulation-making process is not set out in the legislation. We had one Indigenous government, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated, actually bring to our attention that there was some preliminary work being done on developing a memorandum of understanding or some sort of an agreement on what level of engagement they would have moving forward in the regulations. Can the Minister clearly state on the record what that process is going to look like, beyond what he has already said in his opening remarks, and whether there is going to be an opportunity for Indigenous governments, the public, industry to have some level of involvement in drafting or at least the review of regulations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, I will say what I said the other night, too, just so it's on the record. We will continue to move forward in the spirit of partnership as we develop regulations should this bill pass. That means we are going to take the time to get this thing right, and that's how the Government of the Northwest Territories operates, Mr. Chair. We will continue to work closely with Indigenous governments as we move through the process, as is their right and our responsibility, and we will engage with industry, who is the most affected by these regulations. We will engage with Members of this Legislative Assembly, as has been our policy throughout this process, and we believe that is the right way forward. As I said today, I am confident that we are leaving the 19th Legislative Assembly the flexibility to find its own approach to regulation development. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate all of that, I just wish it was stated somewhere clearly in the bill.
Mr. Chair, we had this raised with us during the review. Can someone provide a clear definition of what "prospecting" is, and what can happen on a mineral claim, and what kind of prospecting or mineral exploration can happen off a mineral claim? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Schumann.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I need him to clarify the question again just so it is very clear.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. Mr. O'Reilly, could you [microphone turned off] please. Thank you.
Why is there no definition of "prospecting" in the bill? I would like someone to clearly explain what kind of exploration can happen on a claim versus off a claim, what kind of work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Schumann. Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, the rights that are granted under a mineral claim, the nature of that is the exclusivity. It is about who can do work on that claim and who cannot. The claimholder is the only one who can do work on the claim. Whether activities are authorized or not on that claim in terms of land use is under the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act. Whether or not the work done on the claim is given credit under an act is under the work assessment regulations currently under the mining regulations, which would be reflected in the regulations under the Mineral Resources Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Faryna. Next, we have Mr. Simpson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was going to say, "I will keep my comments brief because they have been extensively canvassed," but I have to remind myself that, despite the fact the committee has spent countless days considering this bill, the only real public consideration of it has been in the clause-by-clause as well as some of the public meetings.
I think that this bill cleans up a lot of the issues that have been lingering in the industry. I think that there are some very progressive ideas in here. The idea of including benefit agreements in legislation is one of those things that we can claim is world class. I think that, in the end, it is going to work out to be a model for other jurisdictions.
My concern is that that section of this bill, which could be the most important section of one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Assembly is going to see, is that it doesn't quite seem to be ready for primetime. It is still quite vague. When I look at it and when committee looked at it, we had more questions than answers. I know that industry felt the same.
I am a little confused by why that is. I understand that this co-development process was tough, and it wasn't necessarily always fast. You can only get so much done in a certain amount of time. Just because we are coming to the end of an Assembly doesn't mean that all the work has to stop and you have to hand in your homework right now because it is the deadline because that is not the case. This work could have gone on for another year. Perhaps we could have fleshed out this section.
The regulations where this information that we are looking from part 5 will be kept are generally reserved for more technical details. The information in part 5 that we would like to see is of a much grander nature. It is really broad public policy. I think that, as Legislators, we need to have a look at it. I think that that is sort of a difference of opinion, maybe, between Cabinet and the Regular Members because I was struck that, in the clause-by-clause, when certain Members were explaining the reasons why they thought this wasn't ready to be put forward, the Minister used those exact reasons to demonstrate why it was ready to be put forward.
I think that, when we are passing broad legislative policies, it needs to come to us as representatives of the public and as the people who bring it out to the public for comment. I had a very difficult time trying to come up with any way to amend section 5 in order to make it more clear because it was so broad that you would just be making guesses in the dark, essentially, by trying to amend it.
We also heard from at least one Indigenous government, I believe two, but I know for sure one, that, if a single word was changed in part 5, they would pull their support for the bill. While we still had the ability to make those amendments, it was very difficult, especially when we are not subject-matter experts necessarily. I think this should be a lesson for future Assemblies on how to put forward legislation and how not to put forward legislation.
I guess I would like to try to address some of those issues that we are all a little confused about. Like I said, my concerns are around part 5. I would like to ask the Minister if he could get on the record, and I will point this out, as well, that the most clarification we have had about part 5 happened at about 10:00 p.m. last Thursday out in the Great Hall. When we were in the middle of a four-and-a-half-hour meeting, the Minister made some statements which I think would be great to have on the public record, but the fact is that that meeting, while it was public, it wasn't transcribed and it wasn't really attended by members of the public necessarily. I think there were industry representatives there, but there was no media there. It was not streamed live, as well. It only exists in video format somewhere on YouTube or the Legislative Assembly website.
I would like to see if the Minister has that information for us again. I would like the Minister to, if he can, state the objectives of part 5 and provide clarification on the questions raised by industry, including the types of agreements that would satisfy the benefit agreement portion of the bill, at what point between exploration and production such an agreement would be required, and any other concerns that the Minister thinks need to be addressed here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Simpson. Minister Schumann.
Mr. Chair, I do have what I read out there. I will read it out. I am going to run the Member's time probably, so he is going to have to get back on the list. I will read this out.
Mr. Chair, I would like to take a moment to discuss part 5 of the Mineral Resource Act, which refers to the new requirement for benefit agreements in the proposed legislation. We have heard from Indigenous governments and organizations that codify the territory's longstanding commitment to bringing benefits to Indigenous peoples in part 5 is of great importance to them.
Companies here have done a good job working with Indigenous communities to realize these kind of benefits in recent decades, leading across the country, in fact. We want to set that for the baseline for the future.
The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has been clear that Bill 34 is the enabling act. While the process and procedures for regulation development will be set by the 19th Legislative Assembly, we are committed to moving forward in the spirit of partnership with Indigenous governments, industry, and other stakeholders as we develop regulations, should this bill pass.
The department has been clear that the Mineral Resource Act will not come into force until appropriate regulations have been developed and a level of comfort has been achieved with stakeholders prior to the implementation of the act. We will get it right.
We recognize a need for balance and also a need to attract and maintain investment in the mineral sector. Nevertheless and considering the feedback received, I believe there is value in clarifying the department's intentions around part 5 as outlined in the proposed bill.
I would like to walk you through some of them now and set the record straight.
Mr. Chair, I would like to first address the perception that this provision will deter investment. When we speak with major investors, we hear a growing trend towards socially conscious investing. Increasingly, whether projects have buy in from and to provide benefits to Indigenous peoples and their governments is a major consideration, we believe enshrining this requirement can enhance investment by preparing the Northwest Territories to lead in the sustainable investment movement.
Second, I wish to address the concern that legislating benefit agreements could deter small-scale mining operations at the grass-roots level from investing in the territory. The act outlines a benefit agreement requirement would only be triggered for those projects that meet a prescribed threshold. The intent is that only significant, major mining projects would meet this threshold. The exact ways to be determined will be defined in regulations.
Third, such major mining projects will be required to enter into agreements with Indigenous governments, organizations that the Minister considers appropriate for the specific project. The Minister will provide the proponent a list of these Indigenous governments and organizations. This means that, if the Minister identifies two Indigenous governments which should benefit from a project, a major mining proponent will be required to conclude an agreement with each of them. Whether there is a priority among various Indigenous governments and organizations in the distribution of benefits is a matter to be determined in negotiations between Indigenous governments and the organizations and the proponent because priority concerns the substance or contents of the benefit agreement is not a matter in which the GNWT would be involved.
Fourth, the requirement for a benefit agreement also does not mean the parties need two agreements. Duplication is not the intent here. An existing impact agreement, benefit agreement, participation agreement, or any other agreement whereby benefits are provided to Indigenous government and its members would suffice. It is intended that the regulations will only require a proponent to show that an agreement has been concluded which provides fair and proportional benefits in the context of the project.
Fifth, with regard to timing, the intent is for the requirement to be flexible to all major mining proponents to enter into these agreements at any time, as long as it is prior to commencing production from a mine or the operation phase of a mine. The benefit agreement requirement is not intended to affect or to be connected to the external regulatory process for a mining project, such as those that run through the territory's regional land and water boards.
Sixth, we have also heard concerns about perceived risk and uncertainty relating to the requirement for major mining proponents to negotiate satisfactory benefit agreements before entering into production and the impacts this might have on potential investors. Bill 34 has built in three components that will address such risks. The first component could be used where neither the proponent nor the Indigenous government or organization wish to enter into a benefit agreement for a proposed project. In this case, the two parties may approach the Minister and request that the requirement be waived. This can be done as long as both parties are in agreement.
The second component is the creation of a dispute resolution mechanism. If a proponent and an Indigenous government or organization does not wish to waive the requirement for a benefit agreement and have done everything in their power to negotiate an agreement, they may request that this dispute resolution body resolve the issue. The dispute resolution body here negotiates related issues and not benefit agreement implementation disputes. Parties can enforce implementation through contract law. The regulations will ensure that the dispute resolution is only used if negotiations break down significantly.
The third component is ministerial waiver power. This power is not expected to be exercised often, only in exceptional circumstances. The vast majority of issues will fall under the dispute resolution body's jurisdiction. Cabinet must also support any proposed waiver.
Mr. Chair, in closing, the department has heard the concerns about the need for the clarity around part 5 and a recognition of these concerns, and I am prepared to bring forward two motions during Committee of the Whole review of Bill 34 that will amend this part. I believe that these will add greater clarity around the requirement of benefit agreements, and I hope this will provide some confidence to Members about the department's intention. Once again, I look forward to continuing to work with our partners and Indigenous governments, industry, other stakeholders to provide further details around this section and others in the bill during regulation development, and, as we develop our execution plan with milestones and timelines, we will work closely with our key stakeholders while leaving room for our future government to define and implement a consistent process moving forward.
Thank you, and I will just once again remind all Members of the rule against anticipation. Do not speak to motions that are yet to be moved, as they are to be spoken to once they are moved. Next, we have Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will not comment too much. The Minister had spoken a lot about section 5. You know, coming from an Indigenous government and having our land claim signed, I definitely have been around the activities from the beginning and closing of exploration. I am a firm believer that we must attract investment in our territory and in fact attract it safely and responsibly, and I believe that this act will do that. I will not have much to add. A bunch of my colleagues have mentioned a lot about it, so I will not reiterate. However, I would like to ensure that my concerns are definitely around benefit agreements with Indigenous governments, impact benefit agreements, as well as investor confidence, as well as partnerships.
Mr. Chair, as we move forward, the government must ensure that industry and Indigenous governments actually work together on some of the regulations on some of these so that we can actually work out some of the kinks that will likely occur moving forward. Nothing ever comes out perfectly. It will never please everybody. This is the government's bill, and the government own, but we must ensure that this looks at industry and Indigenous governments, and safe mining is what it comes down to, Mr. Chair, so let's get drilling. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Further general comments. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I was in the process of trying to get some clarification about why there is no definition of "prospecting" in the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, at this time, because we do not govern land use authorizations and activities and because there is a process in terms of reasonable prosecutions, we do not believe that at this time we need to define "prospecting" as there is an industry understanding of what that means. I think across Canada and across the globe, you can see that there is an industry understanding of what that means. Should there be a need in the future to define "prospecting," we do have the enabling authorities to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. There may be an industry understanding of what "prospecting" is, but it's not outlined in the bill. It requires a licence. You have to get a prospecting licence to do prospecting, but I cannot get a clear answer as to what it really means and what work. I understand, if somebody stakes a claim, only they can do prospecting on the claim, but what if you have a prospecting licence? What can you do off of a mineral claim? Can someone tell me that? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
