Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would request a recorded vote, and I will be better at it next time when I ask for that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. The Member has requested a recorded vote. All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

The results of the recorded vote are: 4 in favour, 11 opposed, 1 abstaining. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Clause 22 as amended.

Thank you, committee. Clause 23. Mr. O'Reilly.

It was 24 that I wanted. Sorry.

Thank you. Clause 23. Does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. We're speeding right through. Nothing can slow us down now. Clause 24. Minister Abernethy.

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 French-language 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, Madam Law Clerk, for that explanation. For those who are late joining us, the motion is in order. To the motion.

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 clause-by-clause 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.