Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think that committee has the purview where this is maybe one of those crossroads where we are going to have a difference with the Minister and the department in general perspective, at least based on the way that some committee Members view this. I think that we genuinely feel that we want to serve the best interests of the public. I think that, if the public knows that royalties shall be paid to this government, the government that represents them, certainly there should be the obligation to report it on a mine-by-mine basis.
If we were to just leave this in here as it stands right now as it relates to subsection (q), the total amount of royalties paid to the Government of the Northwest Territories under part 6 for that reporting year, if all we were left with was one mine in the territory, then we would know the total amount of royalties coming from that one mine. It's not as though it's not an impossibility to know that. Quite frankly, you would think that mines, to some degree, each individual mine would kind of want the public to know what their contribution is to our royalties, so that the public is aware of what the mines' contributions are.
I am going to be supporting the Member here. We tried to move this motion as committee, and as chair, I was somewhat neutral, but now that it is here before us, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the principles of balancing transparency and investor confidence, industry certainty, seeing the benefits of the encouragement to have industry remain here, and understanding the environment of the industry, there are certain areas of confidentiality. I respect that, having experienced some of the confidential records in some of the projects that I have participated in in my home riding. If the information is disclosed, and I believe that the regulations, as Ms. Strand had mentioned earlier on the previous bill, would look after that. It may seem that regulations should be legislated, but there is a certain level of accommodation that should be taken into account.
Given that and my other thoughts, in the spirit of confidence and certainty, I can't support this motion. Thank you.
To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, maybe I am trying to seek a legal opinion on the matter. It relates to process. I have heard the term loosely thrown around with this that a lot of these matters that we are seeking detail on have been deferred to regulations now. As a legislature, our primary task is to legislate changes and legislate government initiatives. It is perhaps unprecedented that we find ourselves moving towards the impression or expectation as legislators that we will be involved with regulations as well.
Could I get an opinion from legal counsel if that is perhaps where we might find ourselves in terms of the legislative process? I am seeking an opinion in terms of the legislative process, whether regulations are part of this process as well. Mahsi.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For this particular motion, what it does is it tries to have included in the annual report the royalties that are paid by each mine rather than the royalties that are paid generally. There is a broader issue of the amount of requirements that are going to be found in the regulations.
Typically, requirements are either in a bill or they can be in regulations. This bill sets a structure and a lot of the detail will, in fact, be set forth in regulations. Regulations are generally an executive function. They are generally done either by Cabinet or by Ministers, not by Legislative Assemblies on the floor of the House. Some jurisdictions have committee scrutiny of regulations. We are not one of those jurisdictions.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli. To the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that makes it clear for me.
Thank you. To the motion. Seeing nothing, I will allow the mover to conclude debate. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. This is going to be a long evening. Sorry for that. I haven't heard a commitment out of the Minister to actually make this fiscal regime review that he has talked about actually open to the public. He talks about how he is willing to make sure that the regulations that are developed in the future are going to be open to the public but not the fiscal regime review.
I have also heard some arguments that this somehow is ridiculous that this kind of disclosure might be required and that payments to Indigenous governments might have to get disclosed or something. Actually, the federal legislation does require that now. If you go and look, you can find out how much Diavik paid to the Indigenous governments on an annual basis. That is disclosed in the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act webpage. That is a requirement.
This is part of a worldwide movement towards greater corporate transparency. I mentioned the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. This is part of global requirements that industry becomes more transparent about the payments that they make. Governments should get more transparent about the payments they receive. I don't and I have yet to hear any good reasons from the Minister why this information cannot be disclosed.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife North, 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, and the Member for Kam Lake.
All those abstaining, please rise.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
The results of the recorded vote: three in favour, 12 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
It is time for dinner. I am calling a recess. Thank you, committee.
---SHORT RECESS
I now call the Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, to clause 17.1 Does committee agree?
---Clauses 17.1 through 19 inclusive approved
Clause 20. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion that clause 20 of Bill 34 be amended by deleting paragraph (g) and substituting the following:
(g) lands that have been designated by the Minister as restricted under section 22, except for those interests as described as unaffected by a designation in subsection 22(12) .
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister Abernethy.
Mr. Chair, this motion is intended to clarify that mineral interests that existed in an area prior to an area, its designation as restricted, under section 22 are unaffected by the restricted area designation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
To clause 20 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, when I look at clause -- sorry, we're on clause 22, or sorry 20. I am trying to determine why the wording in 22(12) which says, "For greater certainty, a designation made under this section does not affect any interests in minerals issued in respect of the area in the designation before the designation is made, including any right of." I'm trying to understand why we needed to make that change, Mr. Chair. Can I get an explanation from the Minister's staff? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's just a for greater clarity clause that accompanies 22.12, because section 22 is the process; 22 sets out the designation of the restricted area and how the designation happens, but it's actually section 20 that affects the prohibitions during the time of the designation, so it's just an accompaniment to 22.12 for greater clarity. They're both for certainty and clarity. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am all for providing clarity, so I'm okay with this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Clause 20 as amended.
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Clause 21.
Agreed.
Clause 22. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion that clause 22 of Bill 34 be amended by:
(a) striking out "settlement lands" in (1), and substituting a "a settlement area";
(b) deleting paragraphs 3(b) and substituting the following:
(b) if an area is within or overlaps with a settlement area or the asserted traditional territory of an Indigenous government or organization after the Minister engages with all applicable Indigenous governments or organizations; and
(c) striking out the "settlement lands" wherever it appears in paragraph 4(b) and substituting "a settlement area."
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. 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 the term "settlement lands" to "settlement areas" as we did in motion 1. This motion would ensure language in the bill is consistent with my previous motion to change the definition of "settlement lands" to refer "settlement areas." 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
To clause 22 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I move that paragraph 22(2)(b) of Bill 34 be amended in each of the subparagraphs (i) and (ii) by striking out "or historical" and substituting "historical or municipal." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is a motion. The motion is in order and is being distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. This section of the bill is all about this idea of restricted areas. This gives Indigenous governments the ability to request temporary restrictions on areas of up to one year, that can be extended to two years, for a number of purposes including areas that might have unique, archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical significance. Of course, they have to cover the minimum area, and the area can be no larger than something that might be prescribed by regulations.
This would add in to those reasons why an Indigenous government may want to seek protection of an area so that it could serve municipal purposes. Of course, some Indigenous governments actually serve as municipal governments; one being the First Nation Council in Lutselk'e or Sambaa K'e or Wrigley. I think even in Tsiigehtchic, the council is basically the First Nation government.
Thank you. To the motion.
