Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 22 of Bill 34 be amended by adding the following after subclause (7.2):
(7.3) The Minister shall, upon request of a municipality, consider designating an area as a restricted area within which interests in minerals may not be issued for a period of up to one year, if
(a) the Minister considers that the designation is required urgently and for a temporary period;
(b) the area is located within the boundaries of the municipality;
(c) the area contains sufficient municipal infrastructure or public utilities which could be negatively impacted by mineral development; and
(d) the area is no larger than necessary.
(7.4) If the Minister receives a request from a municipality for a designation under subsection (7.3), the Minister shall engage with all applicable Indigenous governments and organizations that may have an interest in the proposed designation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I know that this is kind of convoluted, but this is the main motion about this issue of how municipal governments can relate to what is happening in the Mineral Resources Act. This is where I think we should have the main discussion and debate around this issue.
The bill now outlines a process for Indigenous governments to request temporary restrictions for areas that are of interest to them with regard to whether they have unique, archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical significance. What this motion would do is basically replicate that process and allow municipal governments to request areas of temporary restriction for municipal purposes within their boundaries and no larger an area than necessary and that the Minister would consult with Indigenous governments in carrying out the consideration of that question.
Maybe the department didn't hear about this when they conducted their original consultations, but certainly committee did, and for the Minister to say that, because the department didn't hear about this in their consultations, I'm not going to do anything about, that's not why I am here; because that is what he just said, that the purpose of this is to allow for Indigenous governments to seek temporary protection. Well, here is a clause now that would give municipal governments the same sort of capability. This doesn't take away from what Indigenous governments want to do in any way. In fact, there is a requirement in here for the Minister to consult with Indigenous governments before that restricted area could be established.
I don't really understand why this is not something can be accomplished. This is about trying to avoid conflict. It's consistent with encouraging good relations, building good relationships, and in fact, in some cases, First Nation governments actually are a municipal government. I mentioned that. In the case of Lutselk'e, Wrigley, Sambaa K'e, Tsiigehtchic, those First Nation governments actually service the municipal governments. They already would have the ability to ask for restricted areas, not for municipal purposes quite yet, but why wouldn't we give this ability to request restricted areas? It's all at the Minister's discretion. The Minister doesn't have to do this.
If the purpose of this bill is to try to avoid land use conflicts and encourage better working relationships, why wouldn't we give this ability to municipal governments to protect key infrastructure? I just don't understand it, Mr. Chair. In any event, I look forward to the debate and discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the course of questioning, we have learned that the Minister does not have a plan to deal with this situation. I think that the Member's motion is a good way to deal with this situation. Clearly it is in order. Clear it is within the capacity of the bill and the legislation to deal with this. I see no reason why it can't be done.
Again, this is a gap. We don't know how to deal with this. We have no plan to deal with this. This seems like a good plan, and I applaud the Member for bringing it forward. If there is any good reason why this shouldn't be supported, I do not see it at this point. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. I will allow a last reply to the mover. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote, and I will be better at it next time when I ask for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
