Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Of the many pieces of devolution-related legislation that came forward, only a few contain preambles. Others contain purpose statements. Some contain both, and some contained nothing. Some Indigenous governments who provided evidence before the committee and some members of civil society, as well, expressed a desire to see a preamble or to see a stronger purpose statement or those kind of features to the bill.
Curiously enough, members of another committee worked on a bill that didn't have a preamble. There was some discussion about adding one. Ultimately, the committee learned that that was not admissible under the rules of amendment, which I spoke to earlier. There are formal rules for what can be added to a bill, and a preamble is not one of them. We also learned from our hearings that there seems to be a policy amongst the drafters of the Department of Justice that preambles should not be used. Apparently, the reason why we did seek preambles to some of these bills is they emerged from the co-drafting process.
This created a kind of state of confusion for the committee because sometimes it felt like a preamble would be helpful to lead into the legislation with an aspirational statement. There are merits and drawbacks to that approach. Other times, it felt like a purpose statement was really needed. If the act needs to be interpreted by a court of law, it is pretty clear what the purpose of the entire act is and that is how those clauses are interpreted.
These are important features of the bill. As they are quite difficult to change after they reach the committee stage, what this motion calls for or contemplates is: in our process in the consensus government, committees receive a legislative proposal from the government before a bill is brought forward. Committee is allowed to review that proposal, make comment on it, and provide that to the government. When those legislative proposals come forward, or LPs, to include a section that just says whether or not there will be a preamble proposed or a purpose statement proposed, at that point, the committee can say whether or not it needs one, whether or not the purpose or preamble is sufficient, and those kind of details. Once the bill is brought forward, those parts of the bill are much harder to change.
We don't want to be put into a situation again where we have a great deal of public interest on adding a preamble and our only option is that committee is to say, "Unfortunately, we can't because the rules of amendment don't allow us to add a preamble." That is not the situation committee wants to find itself in.
That was a lengthy explanation. Putting it upfront, I think, will greatly ease the ability of committee to assess that issue. Also, if committee members feel like these features are required for legislation, they can ask for it and have some say over purpose statements and preambles. I think that is a better process, ultimately. It is one that I don't think you would think of if you were just eyeballing the legislative process in our institutions. It is one the committee noted. I think this would be a really good improvement moving forward into the 19th Assembly. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adding preambles into every bill, I don't know if that is the right thing to do. Some of them involve many different countries, and sometimes, it is useful. In this case, there are a lot of different Indigenous groups that have differences. I don't know if they would want to see this, myself, coming from one. Just for the record, Mr. Chair, I come from the Inuvialuit settlement region. A lot of these motions are made not from Indigenous recommendation or interactions. I think they mostly come out of the capital. I see this, and I am worried about this.
I would like to assure you, Mr. Chair, that I believe in the work that the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation does, and their relationship with the GNWT is improving as well as it is improving with the federal government. I think we need to look at those and ask them how that is really working. For interpretation for us in our committees, I think some of these are just low-lying fruit, and it may cause some confusion to some Indigenous governments who are actually working hard with the government. I just wanted to share that, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't want to get into a debate here, but I want to provide the Assembly and the public with reassurance that committee considered these recommendations very carefully. From my recollection, actually, the majority of them came from Indigenous governments, certainly the ones around technical working groups wanting to be involved in regulation-making, resourcing of technical working groups. These actually are very reflective of what we heard from Indigenous governments themselves, so I don't think it's really quite fair to say that these came from Yellowknife, and that just needs to be very clearly stated on the record. In fact, business, industry, actually raised a number of these issues, as well, so I just don't think that the comments from the honourable Member for Nunakput are really fair or correct. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lastly, I move that this committee recommends, to the extent it is possible before the dissolution of the 18th Assembly and for the public record, that the government provide a response to these recommendations, even of a preliminary nature, that the committee may publicly disclose. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Committee, do you agree that we have concluded consideration of Committee Report 32-18(3)?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We have concluded consideration of the Committee Report 32-18(3), Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, Committee Report on the Process Used for Devolution Legislation Initiatives. Thank you, committee. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the chair rise and report progress. Thank you.
There is a motion on the floor. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
The motion is recognized. I will rise and report progress.
Mr. Speaker, your committee has been considering Committee Report 29-18(3); Committee Report 32-18(3); Committee Report 34-18(3); Bill 45, Corrections Act, and would like to report progress, with 26 motions carried and that Committee Reports 29-18(3), 32-18(3), and 34-18(3) are concluded, and that Bill 45, Corrections Act, is ready for third reading as amended. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with. Mahsi.
Masi. Do I have a seconder? Member for Hay River North. The motion is in order. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.
---Carried
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the first time, and, Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded vote. Thank you. Do you want me to say it again? Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Yellowknife South, that Bill 34, Mineral Resources Act, be read for the third time, Mr. Speaker, and I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
Masi. The Member has requested a recorded vote. To the motion. Member for Kam Lake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to start in addressing this bill by confirming my support for this, for Bill 34, and I will confine the majority of my commentary to the process that brought this bill to third reading today.
The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment lived up to his promises: this bill has made no one happy. Instead, we have a bill that has created confusion, uncertainty, and shown a huge contrast in how legislation has been developed and reviewed in this Assembly by different committees.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee's clause-by-clause review lasted four-and-a-half hours. Yesterday, the Committee of the Whole review lasted nearly six hours, late into the early-morning hours. This unprecedented amount of time this Legislative Assembly spent in review of this bill was in no way deliberate. Rather, it was the sincere effort of the honourable Members on this side of the House to get clear answers from the government on parts of the bill that were drafted to be "intentionally vague." I cannot agree with the suggestion that this bill is "world-class." The vast majority of important content is left entirely to regulations. Such broad authority and lack of real detail fails to provide the certainty that industry, the public, and Indigenous governments have asked for over the years.
At this point, I can say that much of the policy intent of these vagaries has been teased out through questioning of the Minister and his officials. Thorough review of Hansard should give clarity to those who seek it, but I cannot fathom why it took a combined 10 hours of public hearings to get to this place. The standing committee made best efforts to collaborate with the Minister, including a six-hour working meeting between the Minister, committee members, and staff on both sides. Government intransigence has no place in the spirit and intent of this institution, and I strongly encourage for this not to happen again, especially on such a crucial piece of legislation, vital to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude again by reiterating my support for this bill, now that I am confident clarity has been achieved over the most contentious sections of the bill. It is high time the NWT modernized its mining legislation and, while far from perfect, it is good enough for now. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Frame Lake.
Merci, Monsieur le President. I have always said in this House that I support mining as long as it contributes towards sustainability and provides benefits to Northerners. Our job, despite some heckles, is to ensure that our government sets clear rules around sustainability and benefits. The Mineral Resources Act is not about promoting mining. It's about setting up a system for mineral rights management. A lot was promised, not all of it delivered.
The bill is really about trying to balance a complex set of rights and interests. The bill was developed by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment. The department has a job to promote mining, and I've always given the department and the staff lots of credit because they do a great job in promoting mining. The problem is, in the post-devolution role, they also now have a job of trying to manage the mineral rights, and that complex set of interests sometimes competing. I don't think it's good to have both of those mandates within one department. I think it creates conflict.
Mr. Speaker, we did make some progress in improving the bill as a standing committee, and I want to give the department credit for the work that was done to create a public component to the registry. There's going to be an annual report. Unfortunately, we're only going to get total royalties. The role and composition of the mineral rights board has been clarified. There are benefit agreements and some legislative requirements around those. There's a lot of contention around this bill, and my colleague from Kam Lake discussed some of that. I've been here for four years, and I've watched the Legislative Assembly for many years before that, but to have a four-and-a-half-hour clause-by-clause review, six hours in Committee of the Whole, that speaks for itself. Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, we dealt with a bill, Corrections Act, in about 40 minutes. That is an example of how consensus government can and should work.
I just don't understand what happened exactly with the Mineral Resources Act, other than the Minister did not seem to be able or willing to work with committee on the issues that we heard and raised. These weren't items that the committee itself dreamt up. This is what we heard. It seemed to me like we were raising issues, and if they didn't fit within the confines of the policy work that they had already done, it was just not going to get addressed.
Much of the work that committee did was trying to seek some clarity in the sea of uncertainty. We did get a lot of intentions out of the Minister on the record. That's great, but there's this overall broad enabling authority with some great intentions, but we just don't know how that's actually going to play, and that's not how the bill actually reads.
To my mind, there are still three main areas that require further work. We really failed to recognize legitimate interests of community governments in this bill. They have a legitimate interest in protecting their lands, water, and infrastructure, and we should really be doing our best to try to avoid land use conflicts in the future. That's not what this bill does. We had opportunities to do that, and I really regret that we weren't able to reach an understanding of how we could do that. We tried to insert a notification process, provisions, and ability to request restricted areas. These things actually exist in some other jurisdiction now, Mr. Speaker, as best practice in Ontario and in Quebec. That's not what we do in the Northwest Territories. It's not what we will do in the Northwest Territories.
Another area that still, I think, needs some work is benefits. I've been on the public record that I always support the concept of Indigenous governments getting benefits for mining, even if it requires legislation. I'm very much in support of that, and it is a reflection of best practices that what this bill does is attempt to codify some of that. There's a solid process in the bill for that, dispute resolution and so on, and I support that. I want to give the Minister some credit because some of the concerns I had around some vague and unclear language, even in the Indigenous government benefits section, have been cleared up as a result of some of the amendments that were made last night. Unfortunately, that kind of precision and clarity is not in the bill when it comes to public benefits. We heard some great intentions out of the Minister last night, but there are no clear triggers or expectations of what those benefits are going to look like and how far back they can reach in the mining cycle. Is it actually going to include prospecting? I don't think that's what our public deserves. There's an expectation that we're going to do our job to communicate clearly what our expectations are. Unfortunately, the legislation doesn't do that.
The last item, Mr. Chair, that I wish to speak to is zones. I've said, and I've been on the record, that I think this is just clearly bad public policy. I can't see any record of any requests for zones such as they have been drafted in the bill. I think this is a mixing of objectives of trying to promote mining and encourage investment. At the same time, is trying to balance a whole variety of competing interests. I still believe that this has a potential to create a race to the bottom, where different regions are incentivized to lower and create more favourable standards to try to attract investment in our regions. As I said, I don't think this is sound public policy.
This was very much a rushed review despite the amount of time that we spent on it, Mr. Speaker, in committee and in this House. I think we can and should have done a much better job collectively, and that's what our citizens, I think, really deserved. I don't think this is best practices. I know it's not best practices. This is not world-class, and we saw that from how other jurisdictions have dealt with some of these issues.
Our job as standing committee and as legislators today is to try to resolve these issues and concerns that were brought forward during the bill, create certainty, and balance the competing interests. Unfortunately, this was not accomplished, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting Bill 34. Thank you.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife Centre.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to discuss some process issues with this bill. As you may know, we received the report on this act, this world-class, most-significant bill since the Devolution Act, yesterday, still warm from the photocopier, about two inches thick, and we who were not on the committee had no time or opportunity to go through it fully engaged, obviously, in what's happening here.
For people like me who are not part of the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, I was at a real disadvantage to appreciate the complexity of the motions that were being proposed and the ways in which they would change the bill. I also was unable to attend the clause-by-clause because my committee was having a clause-by-clause the same evening.
The net result of this isn't anyone's fault. I'm simply saying that the whole timing issue prevented informed consideration on my part of the bill, and really represents a significant downside of the legislative burden that has been a part of the last six months of this Assembly, the fact that the bills were all backed up and there were no choices about when the reports came in and when they had to be discussed. I mean, the very same thing happened with the Corrections Act.
I really regret that this is the way it is. It leaves me feeling that I haven't done a complete job as a legislator, through no fault really of my own, and no fault of anyone else, but for the fact that this is the way the schedule worked out. For this reason, I don't feel I can either support or oppose the bill, and I will be abstaining. Thank you.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Deh Cho.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting the motion despite having some concerns. I'm not on the committee that oversaw at least the discussion on the overhaul of this piece of legislation, and I understand from my previous work that the big concern of Indigenous peoples was the idea of a free entry system where, if it exists on their traditional lands, industry could basically go in, explore, find a deposit, and basically own it. Whether it was your outdoor toilet behind your house, it could happen, and you don't have a say in that. That was the biggest common concern that I think was and still continues to be an issue, but there is a common effort being pulled together by Indigenous people to try to make some changes on that whole fundamental issue.
If there are any concerns, they are in regard to settlement areas as defined, which I sought clarity on yesterday with the legal counsel for the committee. It makes reference to settlement areas. It doesn't really specifically reference and stipulate areas that don't have settled land claims. They are basically not recognized. The Dehcho, for that matter, and the Akaitcho are not referenced in this draft, and for that matter, the Metis. Of course, that is a very serious concern. We try not to leave anyone behind in terms of major government initiatives, but in this piece of legislation, it creates "haves" and "have nots," which is not right.
The other interesting track about this is that it heralds section 35 rights, Aboriginal and treaty rights, and the interesting thing is that it upholds the territorial legislation. It enables the legislation. It's a fine balance. It's a house of cards. It's a framework of creating a climate for mineral resource development, and the major players, the mining industry, governments, the public at large, and Indigenous governments, had a hand. That's a presumption that everybody played a hand in developing this piece of legislation.
With that in mind and those points that I outlined, I continue to try to advance forward, and I will be supporting this. Mahsi.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Hay River North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the other Members have referenced last night. It was about six hours that we discussed this. At the clause-by-clause, there were another four and a half hours, and the committee itself spent days and days and days focusing on this act and how we could make it better. Even now, after all of that, as I stand here, I am still torn about whether or not I fully support this legislation, and there are a number of reasons for that.
There are a number of reasons to support the legislation. It is not, maybe, the world-class legislation that we were promised, but it does some very progressive things, like legislating benefit agreements. I have said this before; I think that what we do with this in the future will be used as a model elsewhere in Canada and, perhaps, around the world.
The problem with that is that the bill wasn't ready to be brought forward, and the benefits agreement section is a perfect example of that. It was not done, but, for whatever reason, it was brought forward. One of the Members mentioned free entry and the fact that, early on, there was no buy-in for free entry and the fact that the working group was able to get to the point where all of the Indigenous governments could agree on a system for entry shows how progressive this bill is.
I am concerned about the vagueness of certain points, that so much of this was left to regulations. There are big policy issues that should be discussed by the legislators and not left to regulations, which are usually reserved for things that are more technical. I am disappointed that there were major amendments proposed by the government on the floor of the House that bypassed the committee process, which is where the public is supposed to have their say into the legislation.
However, with all of that said, I do have faith in the people within the department who have been working on this. We have seen a lot of departmental officials come before us as a committee over the last four years, and I have always said that the mineral resources people are some of the best that we have in the government.
I feel like, if I support this bill, I would be rewarding bad behaviour on the part of Cabinet by bringing forward something when clearly it wasn't ready and clearly the proper processes weren't followed in terms of bringing forward amendments -- appropriate to democracy, not procedurally incorrect, but appropriate in the spirit of consensus government.
Mr. Speaker, even as I sit down here, I am not quite sure what I should do. Is this better legislation? Absolutely. Will it get to where it needs to be? I believe so, but, like I said, we have processes in place. Before I became an MLA, I saw lots of pieces of bad legislation, and I said, "I don't want to be part of that." Yet, here we are where there is legislation that is not fully formed and is not ready for prime time, and we are sitting here ready to approve it.
That is really why I am torn, Mr. Speaker. I guess we will all see, including me, how I vote on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am in favour of this motion. Ever since we inherited devolution, I feel very comfortable in saying that we have something. As a result of that, we have the abilities in the agreement to govern our destiny and manage our affairs and exploit our affairs in a manner that we see is responsible.
As mentioned numerous times in our road trips for this piece of legislation, we live in a very diverse area with a number of jurisdictions, including reserves, settled claims, unsettled claim areas. Making choices and making decisions is the hardest part of leadership, but making them shows leadership. Our people have placed us in this Assembly to do just that.
This new piece of legislation goes back to the recommendation from the Neil McCrank report on upgrading legislation and regulations. I am very confident that the government has the resources and the necessary staff to direct them in that manner.
I really want to show to the people that we are here, and to industry, that we have heard everyone during the road reports during the development, during the "what we heard" report that was tabled by the government a year ago, and that we are doing our best to engage, listen, and design a piece of legislation that would create, as we mentioned numerous times, certainty and confidence in industry's interest to have a presence here in our territory and the large amount of benefits that they bring.
I feel comfortable that we have drafted a piece of legislation. In some views, it may not be the best, and that could be said for every piece of legislation that we have dealt with, but in the spirit of balance and comfort and certainty, I am satisfied with what we have drafted, and we will leave it up to the staff of the government to draft regulations to accommodate the legislation and basically try to bring commerce and stability to our area. Mahsi.
Masi. To the motion. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate everybody sharing their comments today. It just goes to show the importance of this bill. I want to not reiterate everybody's concerns, but I do want to say that, with well over 100 motions, I had the opportunity, as the chair, to observe the growth of this process and of this bill, from the time in which it was originally proposed, and I can tell you that, when we saw that originally, there was a lot of deep and dire concern from committee at that time.
There has been a willingness from the Minister and the department to come together with the committee on a few occasions to recognize that there was some serious and important work that needed to be done to get this bill to a place that it needed to be.
I also want to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to commend the many stakeholders that took part in getting this bill where it is today. Most important are our Indigenous governments and organizations and, of course, industry. I think their ability to be patient with us and to understand and have an understanding is very admirable and committee, I think, really, genuinely appreciates that.
I want to acknowledge my committee's frustration; they have shared that over the last number of days. As the chair, I have the opportunity to see the peaks and valleys of this bill as we have moved forward, but I want to also commend the committee for the tremendous effort that they have put into getting this bill to where it is and exposing those challenges that we've had, and digging down, and going into the depths of this, and never relenting, and continuing to pound forward. I mean, I think, clearly, at points in time we were ready to just throw our arms up in the air and kind of give up, but the proof is, when you sit here until 11:30 at night in a clause-by-clause, and again until after midnight the other day in Committee of the Whole, there is genuine effort that has been put into this bill.
I, Mr. Speaker, think that that's too much at risk to not support now. I think the work that we've done, that everybody has done, is to be commended, and it would be too risky to let all of that go to a future Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, I will for sure be in support of the act. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion. Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm not going to get into all the particulars of what the Members like and don't like about this bill. We've had those discussions over the last few weeks in great depth. I took the unprecedented move; I went in front of committee, myself and my staff, for six hours to discuss this thing to try to work things out and bring clarity to the Members.
As the previous speaker just said, we had the unprecedented amount of time that we spent in front of the clause-by-clause review with the public and what we spent here last night in this House. I have always said from day one, and I will repeat it again today, and I've said it to industry, I've said it to Indigenous governments, and I've said it to you guys: not everybody is going to be happy with this bill. This is very complex, probably the most important bill since devolution in 2014, and I think, even with our differences, with all Members across the floor, 11 of you, we are at a place where we've brought this thing forward and we're going to do a vote on third motion here today, and I believe this act is in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.
Certainly, I can stand here and say maybe I'm not happy with certain sections, myself, and I will say that, but this is a big piece of legislation for the people of the Northwest Territories, and this is very important to us. This is the biggest part of our economy. This bill is based around investor confidence; it's based around Indigenous participation; and it's based on public input and the benefits that they are going to generate from this thing.
Yes, we've had some big differences, but as I've said, we've put those aside and we have worked very, very hard on this. I'm not complaining about being here until 11 or 12 o'clock at night. That doesn't bother me. That's what we're here to do; we're here to work. I'm not going to sit here and complain about it. It doesn't bother me that we spent this much time on it. That's what we need to do. This is a very important piece of legislation.
Even for the Members who aren't happy with it and who aren't going to support it, your input was input and made some significant changes. People do not talk about it; not one person over there has talked about 40 amendments that you guys made to this bill to make it better. Forty. That's a significant contribution to this bill, not the 32.
The other thing that I don't like about the conversation in the closing arguments today is comparing it to the Corrections Act. That is not even the same thing. That's not even close. This is a devolution bill on lands and resources that involves Indigenous governments in a serious way. So I can stand here and say Cabinet is very supportive of this bill, and a number of people on that side, and I think we're doing the right things for the residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Masi. To the motion.
Question.
The Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Hay River North, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, 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.
Masi. All those opposed, please stand.
The Member for Frame Lake.
Masi. All those abstaining, please stand.
The Member for Yellowknife Centre.
