All those abstaining, please rise.

The results of the recorded vote are: four in favour, 11 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Clause 22, as amended. Mr. O'Reilly, you've spoken to this clause, so unless there is a procedural issue or something you'd like to raise, I'm not going to allow any more comments on this. So, since you've already spoken to it, I'll allow Mr. Testart to go first, but I will put you on the list.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, of the issues that have been raised around protecting public infrastructure, or I shouldn't say that, not protecting public infrastructure, but avoiding conflict when the rights contained in this act impact the infrastructure of municipal public interests, if the government is not content to seek changes in statute, what is their approach? How are we going to resolve this and keep these matters out of the courts and provide certainty beforehand, so they don't end up in the courts? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the point on this whole thing is it's not the Mineral Resources Act to have that discussion. It would be a broader government discussion, and maybe that's a discussion that needs to take place with the Department of MACA. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. Well, the issue is that the mineral tenure rights that are governed by this act are impacting on municipal interests, so it is very much this piece of legislation and this department's responsibility. It might, perhaps, be other departments' responsibility, as well, but mineral tenure conflicts aren't governed by the Cities, Towns and Villages Act, the Hamlets Act, or any other statute governing municipalities.

Again, this is an issue that was raised by committee, taken very seriously by the committee. The amendments proposed by committee are not acceptable to government, so what is the government's approach to resolve this issue to prevent future conflicts and keep industry and municipalities out of the courts? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to put this on the public record again. The restricted are provision is not designed to protect things like municipal infrastructure. They are planned projects where existing issues can be studied and addressed, infrastructure located, planned and well-known. There is time to use existing tools to apply for protections or ensure access. Land-use planning offers appropriate tools to address the protection of areas that have interest like municipal infrastructure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Okay. So, again, I'm trying to find a way to ask this question, but fundamentally the committee found a way that was in order, that was acceptable to the legislation. We vetted that with our legal counsel. So this is not out of line with the act; it's out of line with the policy intent of the government, but the committee found this problem. We're not making this up; it's happened. So this is a very fundamentally live issue. If not the committee's amendments, the committee's policy direction that this be resolved, what is the approach of government to this?

I don't want to hear about why it couldn't be changed in this part. How are we going to support our community governments who have had this happen to them? How are we going to effectively manage conflicts between mineral tenure and community public infrastructure or community assets like quarries? How are we going to manage that, how is this government going to respond to that problem, and how are we going to solve it? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's not about a municipality's status. The entire restricted area provision was designed to provide an emergency tool to protect sensitive areas recently discovered from irreparable harm. It is in the spirit of reconciliation and recognizing the inherent rights of Indigenous governments to their land, and it also recognizes the fact that Indigenous settlement lands are generally considerably larger than those of municipalities. This makes it far more difficult for Indigenous governments to know all the facets of their lands which they need to protect.

Furthermore, there is nothing preventing a municipality from petitioning the Minister to create a restricted area based on the criteria set out in the Mineral Resources Act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

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 years to come.

I think that's a shameful lack of attention to a concern that committee has raised in good faith, and I do not understand why, when there is a conflict between two policy directions, it has to be a flat no instead of finding compromise through other tools like regulation or public policy instruments that are available to this government, available to this Minister, and available to this department. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister. Nothing from the Minister. To clause 22, as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that clause 22 of Bill 34 be amended by adding the following after subclause (7.2):

(7.3) The Minister shall, upon request of a municipality, consider designating an area as a restricted area within which interests in minerals may not be issued for a period of up to one year, if

(a) the Minister considers that the designation is required urgently and for a temporary period;

(b) the area is located within the boundaries of the municipality;

(c) the area contains sufficient municipal infrastructure or public utilities which could be negatively impacted by mineral development; and

(d) the area is no larger than necessary.

(7.4) If the Minister receives a request from a municipality for a designation under subsection (7.3), the Minister shall engage with all applicable Indigenous governments and organizations that may have an interest in the proposed designation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I know that this is kind of convoluted, but this is the main motion about this issue of how municipal governments can relate to what is happening in the Mineral Resources Act. This is where I think we should have the main discussion and debate around this issue.

The bill now outlines a process for Indigenous governments to request temporary restrictions for areas that are of interest to them with regard to whether they have unique, archeological, cultural, ecological, geological, or historical significance. What this motion would do is basically replicate that process and allow municipal governments to request areas of temporary restriction for municipal purposes within their boundaries and no larger an area than necessary and that the Minister would consult with Indigenous governments in carrying out the consideration of that question.

Maybe the department didn't hear about this when they conducted their original consultations, but certainly committee did, and for the Minister to say that, because the department didn't hear about this in their consultations, I'm not going to do anything about, that's not why I am here; because that is what he just said, that the purpose of this is to allow for Indigenous governments to seek temporary protection. Well, here is a clause now that would give municipal governments the same sort of capability. This doesn't take away from what Indigenous governments want to do in any way. In fact, there is a requirement in here for the Minister to consult with Indigenous governments before that restricted area could be established.

I don't really understand why this is not something can be accomplished. This is about trying to avoid conflict. It's consistent with encouraging good relations, building good relationships, and in fact, in some cases, First Nation governments actually are a municipal government. I mentioned that. In the case of Lutselk'e, Wrigley, Sambaa K'e, Tsiigehtchic, those First Nation governments actually service the municipal governments. They already would have the ability to ask for restricted areas, not for municipal purposes quite yet, but why wouldn't we give this ability to request restricted areas? It's all at the Minister's discretion. The Minister doesn't have to do this.

If the purpose of this bill is to try to avoid land use conflicts and encourage better working relationships, why wouldn't we give this ability to municipal governments to protect key infrastructure? I just don't understand it, Mr. Chair. In any event, I look forward to the debate and discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.

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 see it at this point. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion.