Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a motion that clause 24 of Bill 34 be amended:
(a) in subclause (1), by striking out "settlement lands" and substituting with "a settlement area";
(b) in paragraph (3)(b), by striking out "the settlement lands" and substituting "a settlement area;" and.
(c) in subclause (4), by striking out "the settlement lands" wherever it appears and substituting "a settlement area."
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. It is being distributed. The motion is in order. Mr. Testart.
Mr. Chair, a point of order. I am looking at the copy of the motion that has been distributed, and the French translation does not seem to match the English translation. There is a subclause 4, and I can read the French if you like, but I believe you have a copy of this motion as well. I believe this motion is out of order as both sections do not match.
We will take a very brief 10-minute recess while I confer with my staff. Thank you.
---SHORT RECESS
The Member has raised a point of order and explained his reasons. I have come to a ruling after conferring with staff, and, although on the face of it this might appear different, the fact is that the French and English versions achieve the same objective and the additional subclause was a choice of the Frenchlanguage drafter to ensure that the French and English translation achieved the same thing. For further clarity and for the comfort of the Assembly, I am going to turn to the law clerk for perhaps a more detailed explanation, at least more eloquent. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I doubt I can be more eloquent than you in that regard, but I can indicate that the Frenchlanguage drafter felt it necessary, in order to replicate the same concept that is contained within the English version of clause 24(c), to reproduce the clause in its entirety with each section of the changed word. I actually have gone and compared the clause, and, indeed, it is replicated in its entirety with the exception of two words, which appear to connote "settlement area," which I am assuming connote "settlement area." In other words, it was felt necessary to repeat the same clause in order to achieve the same effect as contained in sub (c). This was necessary because both versions are equally authoritative. It is important that they both equally and accurately express the same concept, so sometimes more language is necessary in order to do that.
Thank you, Madam Law Clerk, for that explanation. For those who are late joining us, the motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
Carried
To clause 24 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some remarks I would like to make about the concept of zones, if I may. I think this is an appropriate time, and I have some questions. I have had a lot of difficulty understanding the rationale for these zones. The way I heard it during the clausebyclause review is that the department wants to try to encourage mineral exploration and that this was a way to try to do that. I have said that I think that that's a dangerous mixing of objectives, where the department is supposed to be a regulator of mineral rights and at the same time of promoter, and I think that it's not appropriate to mix those roles and the objectives in this bill. That is what I believe this zones portion is really all about. I have not seen anything in writing from Indigenous governments in submissions that I think committee received, that I can recall, nor from industry, requesting the establishment of zones. The representation that we did get from industry on this part of the bill was really about continuing the current practice of prospecting permits and grandfathering that provision into the legislation, which is actually done further down in the bill, and we may get to that if we ever finish, in terms of the transitional provisions. I am trying to understand what the rationale is for this. Can I get the Minister to provide a clear policy rationale? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Zones can be created by a nomination from Indigenous governments. Zones were included in the bill to create a method for Indigenous governments to drive where and how they could attract investment within their lands if they so choose. Zones were intended to provide greater certainty for industry by indicating where Indigenous governments would welcome greater exploration. We are trying to encourage early exploration, which is fundamental to our government's position that we need exploration to foster new, responsible development and hopefully results in discoveries that could be our future mines. This is our solution to doing it in way that not only respects Indigenous governments, but allows them to have a say in how they wish to benefit from mineral exploration. We also have to remember that zones are temporary and can be adjusted with the agreement of IGOs if they have met the goal in the creation of that zone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't accept all of the reasoning there from the Minister, but he also neglected to indicate that 24.7 here would allow the Minister to create zones on the Minister's own initiative. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, but we would have to consult with Indigenous governments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great, so the Minister can do this as well. Can I just get an explanation from the department of what the purpose of subclause (13) in this section is? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose of subsection (13) in the reprint is a for-greater-certainty clause. It is just to clarify the interpretation of this, and that any zone creates an option doesn't change the normal rules and their availability. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I read this, (13) says that a person may apply for an instrument in accordance with the regulations establishing a zone or in the general regulations established under this act. There are going to be maybe two sets of rules, terms, or conditions that are established that could apply to somebody getting an instrument in a zone. For a prospecting licence, a mining claim, a lease, there could be two sets of rules that could apply to those instruments. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is incorrect to suggest that there are two sets of rules. There is only one underlying set of rules for the Mineral Resources Act, and that is for getting and maintaining mineral interests. That lays the groundwork. The incentives that would be put in place if a zone is established would modify some of the requirements in a specified area where that zone is in place.
If I can use a practical example, if you had a zone, a proponent could apply for whatever instrument we are giving out under that zone. Alternatively, that proponent could also say, "Well, I'm just going to stake a regular mineral claim and follow the regular act." That would be an example of where the overall MRA regulations for mineral tenure would apply versus one that a proponent would select to follow the zone rules. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the witness proved my point. There could be two sets of terms and conditions that relate to claims: one for the zone and one of general application, which I think is going to create confusion -- it is creating confusion in my own mind, obviously -- about having two sets of rules for anyone applying for an instrument.
Can someone from the department clarify whether anybody has actually requested this ability to have what I interpret as two sets of rules for someone securing an instrument? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This shouldn't be new. We have zones currently in the Northwest Territories, and they are referred to under the sections in the mining regulations, called prospecting permits. We are simply building on that tool.
Right now, under our mining regulations, we have two zones: one north of the 68th parallel and one south of the 68th parallel. That means that the entire Northwest Territories is divided into two zones. Somebody can apply for the instrument of a prospecting permit, or somebody can apply for a mineral claim, go out, and stake one. That would be two sets of rules that we currently have where people can apply for two different sets of instruments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I continue to respectfully disagree. I think that this is going to create confusion that there are two sets of rules that can apply within one zone.
I want to move on, Mr. Chair, to one other issue with regard to zones, and I neglected to raise it earlier. It is what I call the race to the bottom, where we could have Indigenous governments competing with each other to try to attract investment by having lower and lower standards. What is the department going to do to prevent that from happening? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems that certain Members may not share that confidence.
Zones cannot override requirements under any other legislation. The favourable terms are limited to how mineral interests are acquired and maintained. They cannot cover things like water or environmental rules, which are rightly enshrined in other legislations. We plan to set out the baseline of what kind of incentives are allowed within a zone in regulations in partnership with Indigenous governments and stakeholders. We don't believe that this is all that different than regimes in places like Manitoba, Ontario, and the Yukon. Members can rest assured that there are examples in place.
Furthermore, we believe that the checks and balances offered by the Executive Council engagement with Indigenous governments is more than enough to prevent this kind of issue. We should also note the reality that exploration is driven by geology and not by incentives. Incentives are simply a tool to enhance how and where that happens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to raise a point of order. The Minister is impugning motives on my part, saying that I don't have confidence in Indigenous governments. I have never said that in this House, and I respectfully would request that he withdraw those remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. One moment. I will give the Minister a chance to respond to the point of order. Minister Schumann.
I will repeat exactly what I said, Mr. Chair. I said, "I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems certain Members may not share that confidence." That's what I said, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Schumann. One moment.
Thank you, committee. I will rule that there is no point of order, because the Minister used the term "may," and he did not name particular Members, although I can understand the Member's concern. Language perhaps has the potential to cause disorder.
Like I have stated a number of times over this past week, if we can all remain civil and all respect each other's opinions, as there are many differing opinions in this Assembly, we can get through the next few days without any more animosity bubbling to the top. I think that we would all appreciate that, and it would make for a much more productive week for everyone.
To clause 24 as amended. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could the witnesses explain how this provision of the act applies to prospecting permits? I hope I've got that right, but I'll just express the concern. The correspondence committee heard from industry that this was broadly supportive of the zones because they have been told, and they see it as an extension of prospecting permits which are under the old mining regulations. Could we have an explanation of how zones apply to that? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Strand.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The prospecting permit the way it is right now is an example of an instrument that is issued in a zone. We will have to define what the new instrument is going to be in the new MRA under zones. It could be the continuation of prospecting permits as they stand now, or a modification, or something completely new. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Which part of the subclauses of clause 24 address the prospecting permit instrument? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Within section 24, section 24 is the enabling authority, the new enabling authority for prospecting permits. You will see, in 113(5), there is a continuation provision. The current regulations that are housed within the mining regulations when this comes into force, will move over. They will be, by all means, open for review and improvements, but they live on under the MRA under that provision as is like the rest of the mining regulations. Therefore, prospecting permits in their current form are transitioned with this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
Thank you. Would it be fair to characterize this zone section as having nothing to do with prospecting permits in its current form because they are addressed through a transitional provision? Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Faryna.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is actually extremely related because section 24 of the zone is the enabling authority for prospecting permits. Without section 24, we cannot move over the prospecting permits. That's because, as was previously said, prospecting permits is based on zones, and right now, that divide is north and south of 68. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Testart.
