Thanks, Mr. Chair. I understand the Minister is under no obligation to respond, here, of course, so I move that paragraph 17.1(1)(q) of Bill 34 be amended by adding ", and a breakdown of the amount of royalties paid by each mine," after "under Part 6". Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There's a motion on the floor. It is in order and it is being distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. What I heard from the earlier discussion was that, in fact, in some cases the actual royalties paid to our government are disclosed under federal legislation. There are problems with consistency, reporting entities, and so on. Some of this information may, indeed, already be disclosed. This is not a debate about what the benefits are from the mining industry; this is a debate about why a calculation of a figure of an amount paid to our government under mining legislation, you know, I guess the intent of this is to require that it be disclosed on a per-mine basis. I don't think that has any effect whatsoever on the broader discussion of the fiscal benefits of this industry. This is about providing for greater disclosure, revenues that our government gets, and a breakdown.
I'm trying to understand what the problem is with this, and I have not had an adequate explanation from the Minister, so I would hope that, in the interest of transparency and greater accountability, Members of this House would support the reporting of this information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to make a point for the record about why I abstained from the last motion and I plan to abstain again. This report on the Mineral Resources Act landed on my desk today, still warm from the photocopier, 2 centimetres thick. I haven't had an opportunity to go through it, and I am not part of this committee, so I haven't been in the discussions of the act itself and the development and modification of it. The clause-by-clause review was held on the same evening as the clause-by-clause review for the Corrections Act.
The point that I want to make is that there is very limited communication between the Economic Development and Environment Committee and Members who are not on that committee about the development of this bill. I don't feel that I have the information available to make informed decisions about it, and so I am not going to either support or oppose this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are all pressed for time, so we are doing the best we can, I think. The House is doing the best it can.
On the motion proper, I think that there is a need for a more global transparency environment that kind of governs how we do this across the board, not just for the minerals industry, but also for oil and gas, and that might be a standalone piece of legislation. It might be consequential amendments, a bill that amends several pieces of legislation to deal with this, but just putting the cart before the horse in regards to what we know is coming, a comprehensive review, I think that this is too soon.
My fear with this is that, if these royalties don't come in to a degree that provides public confidence, let's say, that mines are paying their fair share, because it is only judging royalties and not judging the other revenues we face, we could politicize this issue to a point where it becomes unhelpful. I would suspect that that might be the Minister's concern at this point as well. If we do a complete picture, we take a holistic look at all of the fees, all of the taxes, everything that has been done, because we do things differently in the Northwest Territories, then we can come to a clear picture of the costs and benefits of the mining regime and make a plan to deal with transparency.
If anyone knows me, it's that I stand for transparency, but we have to do it in the right way, and I would like to see a more comprehensive approach to our extractive sectors across the board. Again, whether that is a new piece of legislation or a new act that provides consequential legislation, that is the way to go, so that we are not coming back to this factor.
At this point, I can't support this motion. I think that it is a commendable effort to raise this again, but I think that we need to wait for that more global approach to everything that is wrapped up into this issue. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to reference the previous motion, 17.1, here as well, too. I think this, again, would scare away industry. I think that this would also, Indigenous governments, there could be unsettled claims. Look at Yellowknife for an example. They have agreements, and they have a great education system. I think that we need to protect that and preserve that so that industry can continue to explore and invest in our territory.
This is one that would scare away industry, and I think that this is a ridiculous motion. I won't support it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Nakimayak. To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I think that committee has the purview where this is maybe one of those crossroads where we are going to have a difference with the Minister and the department in general perspective, at least based on the way that some committee Members view this. I think that we genuinely feel that we want to serve the best interests of the public. I think that, if the public knows that royalties shall be paid to this government, the government that represents them, certainly there should be the obligation to report it on a mine-by-mine basis.
If we were to just leave this in here as it stands right now as it relates to subsection (q), the total amount of royalties paid to the Government of the Northwest Territories under part 6 for that reporting year, if all we were left with was one mine in the territory, then we would know the total amount of royalties coming from that one mine. It's not as though it's not an impossibility to know that. Quite frankly, you would think that mines, to some degree, each individual mine would kind of want the public to know what their contribution is to our royalties, so that the public is aware of what the mines' contributions are.
I am going to be supporting the Member here. We tried to move this motion as committee, and as chair, I was somewhat neutral, but now that it is here before us, I will be supporting the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. To the motion. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the principles of balancing transparency and investor confidence, industry certainty, seeing the benefits of the encouragement to have industry remain here, and understanding the environment of the industry, there are certain areas of confidentiality. I respect that, having experienced some of the confidential records in some of the projects that I have participated in in my home riding. If the information is disclosed, and I believe that the regulations, as Ms. Strand had mentioned earlier on the previous bill, would look after that. It may seem that regulations should be legislated, but there is a certain level of accommodation that should be taken into account.
Given that and my other thoughts, in the spirit of confidence and certainty, I can't support this motion. Thank you.
To the motion. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, maybe I am trying to seek a legal opinion on the matter. It relates to process. I have heard the term loosely thrown around with this that a lot of these matters that we are seeking detail on have been deferred to regulations now. As a legislature, our primary task is to legislate changes and legislate government initiatives. It is perhaps unprecedented that we find ourselves moving towards the impression or expectation as legislators that we will be involved with regulations as well.
Could I get an opinion from legal counsel if that is perhaps where we might find ourselves in terms of the legislative process? I am seeking an opinion in terms of the legislative process, whether regulations are part of this process as well. Mahsi.
Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. For this particular motion, what it does is it tries to have included in the annual report the royalties that are paid by each mine rather than the royalties that are paid generally. There is a broader issue of the amount of requirements that are going to be found in the regulations.
Typically, requirements are either in a bill or they can be in regulations. This bill sets a structure and a lot of the detail will, in fact, be set forth in regulations. Regulations are generally an executive function. They are generally done either by Cabinet or by Ministers, not by Legislative Assemblies on the floor of the House. Some jurisdictions have committee scrutiny of regulations. We are not one of those jurisdictions.
Thank you. Mr. Nadli. To the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that makes it clear for me.
Thank you. To the motion. Seeing nothing, I will allow the mover to conclude debate. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. This is going to be a long evening. Sorry for that. I haven't heard a commitment out of the Minister to actually make this fiscal regime review that he has talked about actually open to the public. He talks about how he is willing to make sure that the regulations that are developed in the future are going to be open to the public but not the fiscal regime review.
I have also heard some arguments that this somehow is ridiculous that this kind of disclosure might be required and that payments to Indigenous governments might have to get disclosed or something. Actually, the federal legislation does require that now. If you go and look, you can find out how much Diavik paid to the Indigenous governments on an annual basis. That is disclosed in the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act webpage. That is a requirement.
This is part of a worldwide movement towards greater corporate transparency. I mentioned the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative. This is part of global requirements that industry becomes more transparent about the payments that they make. Governments should get more transparent about the payments they receive. I don't and I have yet to hear any good reasons from the Minister why this information cannot be disclosed.
