Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Minister Abernethy.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Once again, I'm seeking clarity. I'd like to ask two or three questions to the law clerk. This is a territorial statute that we are considering at this point, is it?

Mr. Nadli.

Thank you. Now, in speaking of Indigenous governments, the presumption is that Indigenous governments have section 35 rights. Is that at a constitutional or federal level?

Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.

Thank you, Madam Law Clerk. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's all, thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can support this motion. I raised this issue when the Tlicho Government appeared before committee. Their land rights agreement actually contains provisions for the beginning, at least, of negotiations on a major mining project that is over $50 million in value, and there is a list of benefits, not unlike other ones that we've heard about here tonight, that a company has to at least initiate discussions with the Tlicho Government around. I said, "If the Tlicho Government actually reached an agreement under the Land Rights Agreement, do you think that would satisfy the requirements of the bill?" They thought that that would be the case, but they were interested in seeing some language around that. Presumably, that is what we have here.

It would be helpful to actually hear at some point from the Minister whether they actually consulted with the Indigenous governments in drafting this because there was a commitment made by the Minister during the clause-by-clause review that that was actually going to happen. I think this provides some greater clarity that this requirement for a benefit agreement with an Indigenous government is not on top of what may already be provided for in a land-rights agreement or perhaps some other arrangement that might be made outside of the statute itself. It is not clear to me who actually makes a determination that the requirements have been satisfied. I am going to hold off on that for right now.

When I raised this with the Minister and his staff during clause-by clause and even before that, they just weren't prepared to do anything about it, quite frankly. I don't know. All of a sudden, this bubbles up out of thin air that all of a sudden, the Minister wants to clarify this. That is great. I just wish that he had done this earlier in connection with the work that committee had done. I am pleased to see it here right now, this evening. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a much-needed improvement, as well. I support it. It is important that we clarify this section because there was a great deal of confusion and not just amongst industry looking at the clause and trying to figure it out and providing submissions to the committee's public consultation but also when the committee consulted with Indigenous governments who were involved in co-drafting. There was some confusion as to what benefit agreements are.

I think this is a much-needed improvement to the bill. I think it shows that the Northwest Territories is a place where social licence is a very high priority for our industry, where they have taken great pains to ensure that the conditions contained in Indigenous land rights agreements are carried out to the letter and that benefits are provided to the people who have used the land since time immemorial. I am glad that we finally can turn the page on this in the legislation and we have provided certainty.

I may have more questions if this motion amends the bill. At this point, I am very pleased to see this, and I commend the Minister for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Thank you. To the motion. Minister Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to request a recorded vote.

The Member has requested a recorded vote. I will put the question to committee. All those in favour, please rise.