Thank you, Mr. Chair. With a prospector's licence, you can do activities that are below threshold, and those thresholds are set out in the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is just going in circles, so I think I will stop it there. It's not clear to the public, it's not clear to me, what prospecting necessarily is as authorized under this act. Somebody has to get a licence to do it. It's not clear what it is, where it can be done, whether you have to have a mineral claim to do it or not. I think this is part of the problem here. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Seeing nothing further, does committee agree we move to the clause-by-clause consideration?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. There are 116 clauses in the bill. As I accept there may be a number of amendments that Members wish to move, I am going to take each clause one by one. Committee, we will consider the bill number and title after consideration of each clause. I will begin calling out the clauses one by one. If committee agrees or disagrees with the clause, please respond accordingly. Each Member may get my attention if they wish to speak to any particular clause. The first clause is found on page 10. To clause 1, does committee agree? Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a number of motions to make on behalf of the Minister responsible. Shall I proceed with Motion 1? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intent of this motion is to change clause 1 of Bill 34 so that the definition of "settlement lands" to "settlement areas," which is intended to clarify that the term captures all areas covered in land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you. I just need clarification. I understand that there is nothing in the Dehcho, Akaitcho, and Acho Dene process. I understand that it is under (e), other areas prescribed as settlement areas for the purpose of this act. When they finalize this process, where are they going to be? Are they going to be in the act, or are they going to be in regulations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. As this is a motion, there is no question and answer period. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. To clause 1 as amended. Does committee agree? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you. Can I get clarification from the law clerk on where land claims where the settlement is not done would be fitting into this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The definition of settlement area in this motion would allow for those claims to be included through regulations that would be adopted under the act. You can see that in sub (e) of the definition of settlement area, which allows for other areas prescribed as settlement areas. Prescribed is lawyer's language for "by regulation."
Thank you, Madam Law Clerk. Anything further, Mr. Thompson?
Just to clarify, when it gets to regulations, then they can bring it forward to make an amendment to this act to include those prescribed areas that we were talking about? Thank you.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. An amendment would not be necessary, as the settlement areas could be added by regulation, and that would have the same effect as if they were listed in this legislation. However, if he thought it would be more helpful to have a complete list right in the act, the Minister could also choose to amend the act at the appropriate time to include any future land claim settlements.
I will note that, as we are discussing clause 1 as amended, you can direct questions to the witnesses, meaning the Minister. Mr. Thompson, anything further?
No. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've clarified what I was trying to understand. Thank you.
Thank you. To clause 1 as amended. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to seek clarity from the law clerk as well. Just an observation, fundamentally, I think it goes to the heart of this proposed legislation that there is distinction between settlement areas and areas that don't have a land claim that could be perhaps referred to as regions or treaty areas. My question is: would settlement areas also mean treaty areas? Thank you.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Not as the definition is current set out, Mr. Chair. The definition includes the four claims that are set forth in (a) to (d), and then anything else that might be added by regulation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is supplementary. Why is it, then, we put a lot of effort in terms of formalizing recognition of settlement areas, but we don't also, in the same effort, recognize unsettled areas, say, like the Dehcho region or the Akaitcho region and their communities? Thank you.
Thank you. That is a question for the Minister. I will direct it to the Minister. Mr. Nadli.
Just for the record, if maybe the law clerk could clarify for me that point, I think that it is a legal question. In my own mind, I want to understand the certainty of the language. Mahsi.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am happy to do so. The use of the word "settlement area" in the Mineral Resources Act is used in a very specific context throughout the act, and it is often used to refer to issues and occasions where notice is required to be given. As a consequence, it is very important to know where notice is required to be given, and it is in that context that the definition of settlement area is used.
I also note that, and again, being aware of not jumping ahead too much, but section 3 of the act does provide a statement that the act is not meant or is to be interpreted in a fashion consistent with the recognition of Indigenous and treaty rights.
Of course, there is also the usual conflict provision saying that Indigenous and treaty rights would prevail over this act if there is an inconsistency, because we are not able to detract from Indigenous rights. They are constitutionally guaranteed rights. However, in this context, the use of the word "settlement area" is often used to allow for the decision-maker to know to whom notice must be given under the act of various steps that are taken throughout the mineral process.
I hope that helps the Member, Mr. Chairman. It may also be that the Minister would be able to further elaborate on why the Minister wanted to amend this bill to include this specific definition. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Further, Mr. Nadli?
Yes, it's concerning that unsettled areas are not recognized. There have always been aspirations of First Nations of being recognized. There are always challenges in recognition of committees or First Nations, and this legislation basically spells that. That is, perhaps, the next step. Maybe the Minister could clarify for me, at least, my concerns that I have, perhaps he could maybe clarify in those regions, like in the Deh Cho and the Akaitcho, because they're not explicitly recognized in this legislation. It doesn't mean that the legislation will never apply to their lands. Mahsi.
Mahsi. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to clarify, this definition only defines settlement areas, those under the land claim agreements as listed. However, every provision in MRA that refers to settlement areas in terms of engagement or notice also has a similar accompanying parallel provision for unsettled areas in terms of traditional territory. There is no difference in what this bill discusses. It's just a technical term in how to refer to the different areas, and should those lands have a settled agreement as we previously discussed, it could be add to this list, but effectively, this bill treats all those areas the same way. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli.
Just for the record, First Nations have to be recognized is to have a settled land claim. Is that how it will be recognized? Yet, at the same time, we don't recognize treaty areas?
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to clarify what I previously said, so they are recognized in the bill. Any provision that has an engagement or a notice for settlement areas also has a very parallel provision for traditional territories that is that would recognize the types of lands and peoples that you are speaking of, so they are absolutely recognized in the same way within this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. I think I had Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While we're on the subject, I guess I'm not allowed to look forward. Where are the occurrences in the bill where settlement areas are referred to? I just can't find any. I don't have my computer opened to do a keyword search, but why was it necessary to include a definition of settlement area in the bill itself? Because I can't find any instances of it at my fingertips. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. McLaughlin.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The definition of "settlement area" that was just inserted, replaced a definition of "settlement lands." The settlement lands terminology, it can be found in the bill, and it has been replaced with a definition for settlement area. I understand we can't speak to matters that come, but I understand that there are adjustments that are made flowing out of that change. In that case, settlement area will be referred to in multiple provisions. Now, the Member could look to where it says "settlement lands" and anticipate a settlement area. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
I guess I just anticipate too much, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
