All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

The results of the recorded vote are: four in favour, 12 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

To clause 7, does committee agree?

Thank you, committee. Mr. O'Reilly.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

The results of the recorded vote: three in favour, 12 opposed, one abstention. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

It is time for dinner. I am calling a recess. Thank you, committee.

---SHORT RECESS

I now call the Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, to clause 17.1 Does committee agree?

---Clauses 17.1 through 19 inclusive approved

Clause 20. Minister Abernethy.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

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

---Defeated

Clause 22 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Before I go on to something else, I would like to ask the Minister a question about: is there anything in this section that gives municipal governments, community governments the ability to request temporary protection of areas within their boundaries that might be covered by key municipal infrastructure? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, there is not. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the Minister explain why that isn't in here? Is there a rationale? Is there some reason why this could not be extended to community governments? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The intention of what a restricted area is to be is more to protect sensitive areas that are set for a set amount of time for the long term and find long-term use solutions. Moreover, restricted areas are justified by unique attributes, fragile attributes that could face irreparable harm, significance tied to ethical values rather than public utilities or economic worth, urgent need for temporary protection until long-term measures may be secured. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Are there any sort of legal impediments here to providing this ability to request restricted areas to municipal governments? Are there any legal impediments to doing that? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is not the intention of this motion. As I have said, I laid out the intention of it. Municipal infrastructure is not any of these. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. That wasn't my question. Is there anything in law that the Minister can cite that would be used as justification to exclude community governments from being able to request restricted areas? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. We did hear from the Northwest Territories Association of Communities. Sorry. I just can't recall now whether there was specific requests from the individual community governments for this ability to ask for temporary restricted areas. Were there any conversations like that between the department and community governments in developing the bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. During the public engagement session, this wasn't a concern that was raised, but maybe it was possibly raised with the SCEDE's engagement. I am not sure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can certainly assure the Minister that it was raised with committee. It is in the committee report. Committee tried to work with the Minister and his staff to reach some kind of resolution, compromise on this, and we were unable to. That is why it is here again before us.

I understand that this section actually deals with written reasons for why restricted areas would be declined and this would insert municipal governments into that process. It is probably not the best place where this fits. The point is that municipal governments just were not accorded the kind of recognition and place in the bill that they could and should have gotten.

Sorry. I am speaking to a motion. I shouldn't have done that. Sorry, Mr. Chair.

Pardon me. Could you repeat that? Sorry, Mr. O'Reilly.

All those opposed, please rise.

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.

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.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

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

---Defeated

Committee, we are on clause 24 of probably altogether around 120 clauses. We are about a quarter of the way through this, and everyone is getting a little testy, I can tell. What we are going to do is we are going to take a break, and we are going to come back after people have a few minutes to calm down and maybe get some fresh air. We are in recess.

---SHORT RECESS

I will now call Committee of the Whole back to order. Committee, clause 24 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.

All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

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 28 as amended.

Clause 42. Minister Abernethy.

All those opposed, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise.

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

---Defeated

To clause 42 as amended.

---Clauses 42 through 49

Ms. Green.

Mr. Chair, I request that you rise and report progress. Thank you.

Ms. Green, do you wish to move a motion?

I move that the chair rise and report progress. Thank you.

There is a motion to report progress. The motion is in order and non-debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

I will sit here in this chair and keep going. Clause 50.

Clause 51. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This clause governs benefits prescribed in respect to measures to provide benefits to people of the Northwest Territories. What is the practical instrument force that is contemplated by this clause? Is it a socio-economic agreement? Can the Minister confirm that? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it is, but we still need the flexibility. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. What does that mean, we need the flexibility? I am unclear on that. I wasn't proposing any changes to this. I was asking: is it a socio-economic agreement? What flexibility is the Minister indicating in his response? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Legislation needs to be built in a way that can be flexible to allow for the evolution of tools we use to maximize benefits. What tools we use and how are best left to regulations. That is because the industry is dynamic and people are dynamic and the kinds of benefits available are dynamic. It is a fast-changing industry. Adding a prospective list to the legislation would actually undermine our government's ability to be dynamic enough and act in the best interests of the residents of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Testart.

Thank you. I am not sure what list the Minister is referencing. There is list that is being proposed. I am asking very clear questions about what this means because I am hoping to get a clear policy intent for the public that is listening to these proceedings. If the Minster could be careful to understand the questions and I will be careful to read them clearly. This section is quite broad in its application. If I am to assume that this is to legislate socio-economic agreements, what is the government's vision for this? Is it to legislate socio-economic agreements to be binding on industry? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a tool which is currently under review. As I have stated to the Members during this Assembly, this is part of the reason why we approached this provision with flexibility in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Testart.

Flexibility is one way to put it. I would call it intentionally vague. The committee received evidence that that is what was intended here: to make it intentionally vague so it could be plugged by regulations. My concern is that this is so wide-reaching, it could cover every aspect of the mineral cycle, including exploration. Can the Minister confirm that the intention of the section is solely restricted to the conditions that cause socio-economic agreements to arise, namely production? Thank you.