Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To clause 1 as amended.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. One hundred and fifteen to go.
---Clauses 1 through 6 inclusive, approved
Clause 7. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do want to commend the department for the work that they did with the committee and our staff to prepare this rather extensive list that is now clause 7 in the bill about a registry, and particularly 7(3), which is going to create a public registry. The public is going to be guaranteed access to a lot more information under this bill than currently exists under the mining regulations. This is a good thing.
The list of things that are here, there is one important matter that's not listed, and that's this notice of intended work. As I understand it, notice of intended work is going to be defined through regulations, and is basically to help encourage good working relationships, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, and the definition of that is going to be worked out through regulations collaboratively with industry, hopefully the public and Indigenous governments, as well. I'm just wondering: why is that not included in the public registry? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. A question for the Minister. I guess, technically, the Minister is directing me to Ms. Strand. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We've heard from the Ministry that there were concerns related to confidentiality. As stated, this is a notice of intended work, so at this time, a wider disclosure of these notices of work could be detrimental on their intellectual property. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, we are going to deal with this issue. It is contained in the bill. In fact, the Minister has the ability to exclude information, is required to exclude information that could be detrimental to business interests that even go above and beyond what's in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Minister has extensive powers there that go above and beyond what we've already legislated. The Minister has the ability to prescribe what this notice of intended work is going to look like. In fact, good companies already do this. TerraX already does it here. They tell people what they're going to be doing each winter.
It is my understanding that, in Ontario and in Quebec now, companies do this. They tell people what they are generally going to do at a high level in terms of exploration, and this just makes for good neighbours. It helps avoid land use conflicts and so on, and I have every confidence that the department is going to work with industry to make sure that no detrimental information is going to be disclosed. We're going to be doing five drills around Prelude Lake, or something. Why can't that kind of information be put on a public registry? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will take the comment as noted, but we will certainly have a look at this as we develop regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think there was a question made in the comment. Mr. O'Reilly, could you please repeat?
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Given that the Minister already has the discretion to define what is in this notice, the good practices that are already in place, is shown by TerraX here locally, why can't this information about intended work be filed on a public registry? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Confidentiality, as we said, was identified as an issue, so we chose to tailor this provision to have a provision obligation to circulate the notice to Indigenous governments as a way to demonstrate our commitment to their inherent rights and relationship to the land. As I have said earlier, we will look at this in the regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand that this is going to be dealt with by regulation, what a notice of intended work is going to look like, but we are talking about a requirement that it actually be disclosed on a public registry after the Minister negotiates some kind of an arrangement through a regulation to protect business interests. This is about encouraging good working relationships, good neighbours, and avoiding land use conflicts. I am trying to understand what the problem is in saying that that should be part of the public registry now. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bit of a red herring, as most observations, example of TerraX, who have acquired a vast majority of mineral interests surrounding where they are doing business. In this particular instance, there may not be a concern related to intellectual property. If certain companies wish to do so, that is their prerogative, and we encourage it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have yet to hear any good reason why this cannot be included now. The Minister has the authority to develop regulations that define what this notice of intended work is going to look like, and the Minister is required in the act to keep information confidential that could be detrimental to business. I just have heard no good reason why this cannot be put on the public registry. I understand that there may be another Member who would like to speak to it. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To clause 7. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am keenly interested in some of the rationale that we have heard from the Minister. I would just like to pursue that further. Does the Minister agree that there are sufficient protections included in the act to allow the Minister of the day or the government to prevent the disclosure of information that would be harmful to business interests in the public registry? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some of the concerns that we have around this is what and where activities are happening on a claim and what could potentially come about from that activity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. I would appreciate if the Minister could answer my question. Is it the position of the government that the Minister has adequate ability to protect the confidential business interests of industry from being posted in the public registry? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we heard was that this was a very sensitive discussion point with industry. What we are trying to do is strike a balance here. Until we have that further conversation on content and what areas this intended work might apply to, we are recommending that we, at this point, do not make them public until we have that secondary engagement and discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. I have reviewed the clause that allows the Minister to provident unintended disclosure in the public registry, and I am satisfied that it has broad powers for the Minister to prevent disclosure of information that would be harmful to business interests. I hear what the witnesses are saying, but I also heard them talk about inherent rights. Could the witnesses walk us through how a disclosure of intended work would impinge on the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to request clarification. Because these are circulated to Indigenous governments and organizations based on recognition of their inherent rights and status, I don't believe that the bill reflects that it impinges on their rights. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Sure. I just want to make sure that everyone checks their light in front of them before they begin speaking. Sometimes it takes a second to change the microphones. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When questions were being put to the Minister by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, one of the responses was that the reason that the government has declined to include intended work in the public registry is concern, A, around confidentiality, which we have discussed, and B, that it would somehow impact or limit or infringe upon the inherent rights of Indigenous persons. I would like the government to walk me through that about how, and I will be very precise here, including a provision that intended work would be provided in the public registry infringes on section 35 rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
I think what we need to do is clarify, because I think he is thinking that I said something which I didn't say. Let's read this exactly here again so that everyone is quite clear on it. Confidentiality was identified as an issue, so we chose to tailor this provision to have a positive obligation to circulate the notice to Indigenous governments as a way to demonstrate our commitment to the inherent rights and relationship to the land. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you for that clarification. How is including a provision on the public registry for a notice of intended work related to providing direct notice to Indigenous governments and organizations? I am fine with that. I think that that is a pretty good choice. It is a separate issue. That is not the public registry; that is direct notice, which is another provision governed by the act. How does that matter impact at all with what is being raised here today? We already know that confidentiality issues around business interests can be protected by the Minister by preventing that disclosure on the public registry. That's a section of the act. That's another section that the Minister just quoted.
Let's get back to the real issue here. Why can't this be done in this section? If we could have a very clear answer that is not related to other parts of the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This provision was to ensure Indigenous governments have an idea of what is going on in their settlement lands, which can be vast. As the Minister and we have stated, there have been concerns from industry about the confidentiality of that data, if it was public until we have the conversation about the content and how we would be asking them to report on that information. At this point, we need to leave that space to have the conversation with industry before we commit to making these notices public. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
So, if industry filed an objection, let's say there was a notice to be made public, what would be the process there? Would the Minister work with industry to prevent the disclosure of that information, or would the Minister just insist that disclosure take place? Thank you.
Thank you. That was a hypothetical, and those are not the kind of questions that we pose here, but, if the Minister cares to respond, I will let him. Minister. The Minister has indicated he does not care to respond. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. You know, I am not trying to frustrate process here, Mr. Chair. We are trying to get clear answers, and what we heard was rationales referencing other parts of the bill that do not really relate to the point the Member raised, so, you know it's going to be a long night if we continue along this road. These are important questions that have not been satisfactorily answered. Nothing more, thank you.
Thank you. I think we are in for a long night regardless. Clause 7. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 7 of Bill 34 be amended by adding the following after paragraph (3)(r):
"(r.1) any notices of intended work filed under subsection 42(1) and any waivers made under subsection 42(4); " Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. It is being distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am kind of in this awkward situation where I wanted to get some clarification about what the intent of the registry was and so on and why the list of intended work, at least in the Minister's and the Minister's staff's view, could not be put on the registry. This motion would require that it be put on the public registry, subject to the confidentiality requirements in the act. There are confidentiality requirements even in this section of the bill. There are other provisions further down in part 8 of the bill. I have heard concerns around that industry might be worried about what's in here, but the Minister already has the authority to define through regulation what this notice of intended work is going to look like, so the Minister already has that authority.
The Minister has an obligation to protect confidentiality in other parts of the bill. If this bill is about doing some of the things that the Minister talked about in his opening remarks, about encouraging good relationships and transparency, all of those good things, why shouldn't people know in general terms what's happening in their back yard? I believe that Indigenous governments should be entitled to that information, but I do not see where the problem is in sharing that information more broadly. Maybe even it's different kinds of information. The Minister could define that through regulations. This is what happens now in places like Ontario and Quebec, so why can't we get with it and do the same things here? You know, all of this is going to be at the discretion of the Minister, anyways, because the Minister is going to have the authority to define what this notice of intended work is going to be in regulations, so I think this is perfectly reasonable.
I haven't heard any reason why this can't be done. I am sorry we had to walk everybody through this, but I think people get a small taste of some of the frustration the committee had in trying to work with the Minister and his staff on what we felt were some reasonable things to bring us up to best practices in other parts of Canada, so I don't see what the problem is in doing this. All of this is going to be up to the Minister's discretion at any event in the future, so I hope that Members would support this. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
