Thank you, Mr. Chair. So a key component of this motion is how it relates to the parent clause, and, to quote from that, there is an exception section that says nothing in this act requires a document to be included in the registry under subsection 3 that is or may be prohibited from disclosure by any other act of the Northwest Territories or Canada or contains information that is provided implicitly, explicitly, in confidence to a person or body exercising powers, performing duties or functions in this act.
So that means, if a third party, including a business interest, came forward and said, "This is confidential information," that it could not be disclosed. You know, the rationale I would have liked to hear is: look, if we put this in the public registry, because everything is so confidential, there is no way we can get it in there, so why put it in there, because it's all going to be blocked by confidentiality concerns anyway? That is something that would be clear to me. Well, don't do it, then, because we are creating false expectations as a result. So the real crux of this is: why can't this be done? Again, we have a Minister who is willing to be the first in Canada to put forward legislated socioeconomic agreements even after the objections of industry, you know, the continuing objections of industry, over a lack of clarity. However, this we have to hold fire on; this can't be done because of objections from industry. If we can do part 5, we can do this, and Members should support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Earlier on at the opening remarks of the Minister, I spoke about Indigenous governments and industry, and this is just a side door. You know, if the Members are concerned about or anybody in the general public is concerned or interested people, they can approach the Indigenous organization where if it's on their lands or industry or the government, I think this is just, I think this would scare away industry, and also I do not think this would be approved by Indigenous governments, so I am not going to approve this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. I will allow the mover to close debate. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't have anything to add other than I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote are: four in favour, 12 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
Defeated
To clause 7, does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 7 of Bill 34 be amended by adding the following after paragraph (3)(r) I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. My motions are out of order.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. We will be taking a dinner break in about 16 minutes, just in case anyone is wondering. I know we are all getting a little tired and confused. To clause 7, committee already agreed. Thank you.
Clauses 8 through 17 inclusive approved
Clause 17.1. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I have a question I'd like to start with, and I want to commend the department, again. This took a lot of work. The annual report requirements are new. This was something that committee worked hard on with the department, and it's definitely an improvement.
So 17.1(1)(q) says the total amount of royalties paid the Government of the Northwest Territories. I understand that, right now, this actually doesn't happen, the public reporting of total royalties. We do get public accounts where there are combined figures for oil and gas and mining royalties, so can someone with the department confirm for me that this is actually an improvement and that it is going to require greater disclosure on our part as a government? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The answer is yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. That's great. Is there anything that would prevent the reporting of royalties by each mine? I'm not talking about the calculation of those royalties, but disclosure to the public of an actual figure of the royalties remitted to our government by each mine? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Presently, it's confidential under the Mining Regulations, but as part of our broader context, like we said, going forward the review and reporting will be part of the discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Some of our mining companies here actually are required under the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act, federal legislation, to disclose on an annual basis what they pay actually to our government in the form of taxes, fees, royalties. Part of the issue is that there is no consistent reporting period, but can someone confirm for me that, indeed, the royalties paid by those companies that do business in the Northwest Territories, portions of that may actually already be disclosed under the federal legislation? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it might, but it's a self-reporting mechanism. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I raised these issues right at the beginning in some of my remarks on the bill, that it is a self-reporting mechanism, and there are different reporting periods, and there are different reporting entities. Are there any reasons why we couldn't disclose the royalties paid by each mine to the public? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a conversation that we have to have with our producers going forward, and we've talked about this many times with the committee. This is a complex issue, as I've said before in this House, and it's a conversation that deserves its own time. We need to have those discussions going forward on how that's going to work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to understand what the problem is, here. It's okay to report an aggregate amount of royalties paid, but it's not possible to report that as a breakdown because of some larger fiscal review that the Minister and his department want to undertake? Look, companies file, or will be filing, an annual royalty return. They remit money to our government. What is the problem in disclosing to the public what that figure actually is? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I have said before, royalties is a subject of a conversation we've had many times in this House. As another Member's opening comments said, there needs to be a wider context of what is actually included in what the mineral industry contributes to the Northwest Territories, such as property tax and these such things. That's a discussion that needs to take place, and that's why we've separated it from this act to have that conversation at the 19th Legislative Assembly. That work has already begun, to look at that process. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Look, I don't want to debate the benefits that the mining industry provides to the Northwest Territories. I've acknowledged them openly in this House. They pay property taxes, they pay taxes, their employees pay taxes. That's all great, but what is the problem with disclosing to the public the amount of royalties paid? That's just a calculation. This is not the entire picture, but I'm trying to understand what the rationale is to prevent disclosure of the royalties that are paid. I just haven't heard a good reason why that amount can't be disclosed.
The other benefits, that's great, that can be part of a discussion, but why can't the royalties paid to this government be disclosed to the public for each mine? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question has been asked and answered, Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand the Minister is under no obligation to respond, here, of course, so I move that paragraph 17.1(1)(q) of Bill 34 be amended by adding ", and a breakdown of the amount of royalties paid by each mine," after "under Part 6". Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There's a motion on the floor. It is in order and it is being distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. What I heard from the earlier discussion was that, in fact, in some cases the actual royalties paid to our government are disclosed under federal legislation. There are problems with consistency, reporting entities, and so on. Some of this information may, indeed, already be disclosed. This is not a debate about what the benefits are from the mining industry; this is a debate about why a calculation of a figure of an amount paid to our government under mining legislation, you know, I guess the intent of this is to require that it be disclosed on a per-mine basis. I don't think that has any effect whatsoever on the broader discussion of the fiscal benefits of this industry. This is about providing for greater disclosure, revenues that our government gets, and a breakdown.
I'm trying to understand what the problem is with this, and I have not had an adequate explanation from the Minister, so I would hope that, in the interest of transparency and greater accountability, Members of this House would support the reporting of this information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a point for the record about why I abstained from the last motion and I plan to abstain again. This report on the Mineral Resources Act landed on my desk today, still warm from the photocopier, 2 centimetres thick. I haven't had an opportunity to go through it, and I am not part of this committee, so I haven't been in the discussions of the act itself and the development and modification of it. The clause-by-clause review was held on the same evening as the clause-by-clause review for the Corrections Act.
The point that I want to make is that there is very limited communication between the Economic Development and Environment Committee and Members who are not on that committee about the development of this bill. I don't feel that I have the information available to make informed decisions about it, and so I am not going to either support or oppose this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are all pressed for time, so we are doing the best we can, I think. The House is doing the best it can.
On the motion proper, I think that there is a need for a more global transparency environment that kind of governs how we do this across the board, not just for the minerals industry, but also for oil and gas, and that might be a standalone piece of legislation. It might be consequential amendments, a bill that amends several pieces of legislation to deal with this, but just putting the cart before the horse in regards to what we know is coming, a comprehensive review, I think that this is too soon.
My fear with this is that, if these royalties don't come in to a degree that provides public confidence, let's say, that mines are paying their fair share, because it is only judging royalties and not judging the other revenues we face, we could politicize this issue to a point where it becomes unhelpful. I would suspect that that might be the Minister's concern at this point as well. If we do a complete picture, we take a holistic look at all of the fees, all of the taxes, everything that has been done, because we do things differently in the Northwest Territories, then we can come to a clear picture of the costs and benefits of the mining regime and make a plan to deal with transparency.
If anyone knows me, it's that I stand for transparency, but we have to do it in the right way, and I would like to see a more comprehensive approach to our extractive sectors across the board. Again, whether that is a new piece of legislation or a new act that provides consequential legislation, that is the way to go, so that we are not coming back to this factor.
At this point, I can't support this motion. I think that it is a commendable effort to raise this again, but I think that we need to wait for that more global approach to everything that is wrapped up into this issue. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to reference the previous motion, 17.1, here as well, too. I think this, again, would scare away industry. I think that this would also, Indigenous governments, there could be unsettled claims. Look at Yellowknife for an example. They have agreements, and they have a great education system. I think that we need to protect that and preserve that so that industry can continue to explore and invest in our territory.
This is one that would scare away industry, and I think that this is a ridiculous motion. I won't support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
