Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that this is one of the most significant, if not the most significant, pieces of legislations that has come forward that has been driven by this government's priorities and not in response to the priorities of other governments.
However, I think that we have a long way to go until it is world-class. That is because so much of this legislation is dependent on the regulations, which will come after the bill has passed, should it be passed, and those regulations are crucial on how this is going to operate. If the intention here is to create a positive environment for investment, then we need to ensure that those regulations are given the appropriate amount of both scrutiny from this House, but also engagement from Indigenous governments and organizations and from industry and civil society in general. Currently, the bill has no requirements for that. We know that the department has signalled that there will be at least some role for public engagement, at least in the regulatory process, but there is no certainty that that will occur. That is a key concern of mine in reviewing this legislation. You know, I think it's almost too much to ask to say, "Trust government will figure it out," when we have the opportunity to ensure that some things happen by changing statute through amendments, so this is an area of key concern for me moving forward.
As to other issues I have concerns about in this bill, the first would be the concept of zones. I think there is much confusion, both on the side of industry and what we have been told by the department on what zones are, how they will work, what is the policy intention of zones, and how they will ensure we have consistency across our mineral tenure regime in the Northwest Territories. The legislation does not provide much clarity. There have been some amendments that were brought forward, but I think we have to be very vigilant to ensure that there is a standard set for this regime, this regulatory regime, that is reliable, predictable, and effective and that zones are not a way to circumvent that, because, if we have a patchwork of regulatory environments competing with each other in the Northwest Territories, that is not what I think is best serving the public's interest, and, unfortunately, I do not think the bill answers many of those questions. Perhaps the regulations will, but this tool, I think, is one that could put us in a very uncomfortable situation if not managed effectively.
Second is part 5, which deals with benefit agreements. Now, I will say I commend the courage of the Minister to introduce legislation that is the first in Canada to do something. We have heard many a debate in this Chamber about how we cannot do things because the rest of the country has not moved forward on it. Banning genetic discrimination is one example. There was another one yesterday. You know, these are common refrains in this government, that we cannot be the first movers on major policy shifts, so the fact that we are doing that with this legislation is something to be commended. The question is: are we doing it in the most effective way, that does not concern all of our partners?
The committee received a great deal of feedback from industry on this concern, and, when we approached the department to explain what their intentions were with part 5, all the contents for legislated socio-economic agreements and other benefit agreements, the response we got early on was: this section was intentionally left vague. That caused a whole host of issues. I know the Minister is keen to resolve these, and perhaps we will have more resolution beforehand, but I think what is imperative as we close this process is that the government's policy intent is clearly stated in this House and on the public record so there is no confusion when the regulations are developed, because this legislation cannot be something that creates uncertainty, and this area of the legislation is creating uncertainty. All we have are clear signals of policy intent and a hope that that policy intent carries through the regulatory process, where most of these decisions are going to be made. So I still have some pretty significant concerns around part 5, and, if there are no changes today, it may affect my support for the bill.
Another significant issue is around the role of supporting local governments and municipalities in regard to mineral tenure conflicts in the act. The committee felt very strongly that we need to create a place in statute for municipalities to be able to exercise some degree of authority in protecting the public's interest within municipal boundaries and also receiving notice of when work is going on. This is something that has been consistent throughout our consultations on the post-devolution bills, as well. Unfortunately, we are not there with this bill. I spoke about it earlier, when we discussed the committee's recommendations, but, if there is a way to enshrine this in statute, again we are not taking rights away; we are ensuring local governance is sound, strong, and effective, and I think that is another fundamental flaw with this bill that needs to be corrected. Today is the opportunity to correct that.
Finally, there is uncertainty around the role going forward of Indigenous governments, industry, and civil society in the development of regulations, and that is a fundamental concern that must be addressed. So, ultimately, it's a better bill than what we started. I think the government has done its best to answer a lot of these uncertain questions, but, with so much to do with regulations, we need to get very clear answers on the record today, and I hope the Minister and his staff will oblige that. However, I will comment to say that the contentious issues and the inability to move forward in some cases was not for lack of trying. It should be noted that Members, the Minister, staff from the department, staff who support our committee worked very hard on this, and they should be commended for their efforts. It does take a lot. Sometimes there is just no way to move forward on fundamental differences of opinion, and that is where we found ourselves. So we will see how it goes today, but I hope the Minister can at least provide very clear rationale for the areas of concern that I have with this bill. Thank you.