Kieron 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.

Will that engagement follow a technical working group model or some other model that the committee has familiarized itself with over the course of our review of this legislation? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant, pieces of legislations that has come forward that has been driven by this government's priorities and not in response to the priorities of other governments.

However, I think that we have a long way to go until it is world-class. That is because so much of this legislation is dependent on the regulations, which will come after the bill has passed, should it be passed, and those regulations are crucial on how this is going to operate. If the intention here is to...

Thank you. I think that system works very well. Yet, we have this clause. What is the intention of this clause? Is the intention of this clause to change best efforts? Sorry. What is the policy direction? Will this clause be used to change the state of play away from best efforts and towards prescribed benefits for the public? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, the Minister has said that this will be a decision of the 19th Assembly. Will these regulations also be subject to direction from the 19th Assembly? Thank you.

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...

Just for greater clarity, if an Indigenous government and a company negotiate an agreement, and the Indigenous government feels that it is satisfactory in an area without a signed land rights agreement, and they bring it forward, will the government accept that agreement, or will they say that it is insufficient to meet the criteria set out in regulations?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mines in the Northwest Territories or the minerals industry in the Northwest Territories pays a lot more than just royalties. Our fiscal regime is very unique in that we charge rents and other forms of revenue-generating fees to active mines that produce revenue that is used for public purposes outside of that royalty regime. I think that what I learned, at least, and I won't speak too much for committee here, but this is a much larger issue than just royalties. It is how we deal with public benefits by raising revenues from the minerals industry across the board.

If we...

Flexibility is one way to put it. I would call it intentionally vague. The committee received evidence that that is what was intended here: to make it intentionally vague so it could be plugged by regulations. My concern is that this is so wide-reaching, it could cover every aspect of the mineral cycle, including exploration. Can the Minister confirm that the intention of the section is solely restricted to the conditions that cause socio-economic agreements to arise, namely production? Thank you.

Those linkages will be established via regulation? Thank you.