Kieron Testart

Just once more for clarity, the Minister will confirm that the government's position on this clause is to continue the practice of best-effort socio-economic agreements moving forward into the regulations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Nothing further, Mr. Chair.

Clauses 54 through 110 inclusive approved

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.

My apologies, Mr. Chair, but that did answer my question, and that is what I was looking for.

Let's turn to regulations, then. Again, this is a section that is key for the detail coming out in regulation, and that is why my questions veered into hypothetical territory. I won't do that now, but I think that it is imperative that Indigenous governments have a say on these regulations, so that they can be assured that their perspective, especially in unsigned areas, is reflected in benefit agreement requirements.

We also need to have a role for industry so that industry is comfortable with what is...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I think that we have heard a commitment from the government that there is going to be this comprehensive financial review of everything that is at play with natural resources, including royalties, including transparency, including reporting.

I have great confidence that the 19th Assembly will be dealing with this issue. I view these recommendations as more of guidance to the next Assembly on what this committee's experience was and to take those lessons on in building that review and ensuring that it addresses the concerns that we have heard and the evidence that we...

Thank you. That was very clear. That is what industry is looking at when they see a section like that that is so vague you could drive a truck through it, having that kind of certainty. If a socio-economic agreement is so signed that is governed by this section, if a company or mining project isn't able to meet the terms of the agreement, will regulations be drafted to create some sort of penalty if the agreement is breached in any measurable way? Thank you.

At this point, is there any clarity that the Minister can provide on what timelines are contemplated for the dispute resolution process? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That criteria is incredibly limited, and it's limited to archaeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical attributes. It does not govern infrastructure or community assets like quarries. That's the whole point of committee's policy direction on this. I understand, the Minister does not have an answer to this question. He does not have a solution to this problem, and our municipalities, once again, will have to wait until a conflict arises, they hire lawyers and go to the courts and something like a quarry is off-limits and useless to that municipality for...

Yes, where there is not an existing land rights with benefit provisions within that land rights agreement. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with the intent of this motion, and this is not a hypothetical situation where there is a problem with the interaction between the challenges of rights issuances within municipal boundaries. This is a live issue. It has happened in Inuvik, and the committee was told about it in Inuvik. During the clause-by-clause, there wasn't support from the sponsoring Minister to resolve this issue the way that the committee thought would be a reasonable way to address it.

That being said, I think that there is a lot of merit to this, and the motion does more or less speak to...