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.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Zones can be created by a nomination from Indigenous governments. Zones were included in the bill to create a method for Indigenous governments to drive where and how they could attract investment within their lands if they so choose. Zones were intended to provide greater certainty for industry by indicating where Indigenous governments would welcome greater exploration. We are trying to encourage early exploration, which is fundamental to our government's position that we need exploration to foster new, responsible development and hopefully results in discoveries that could be our future mines. This is our solution to doing it in way that not only respects Indigenous governments, but allows them to have a say in how they wish to benefit from mineral exploration. We also have to remember that zones are temporary and can be adjusted with the agreement of IGOs if they have met the goal in the creation of that zone. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't accept all of the reasoning there from the Minister, but he also neglected to indicate that 24.7 here would allow the Minister to create zones on the Minister's own initiative. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Great, so the Minister can do this as well. Can I just get an explanation from the department of what the purpose of subclause (13) in this section is? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I read this, (13) says that a person may apply for an instrument in accordance with the regulations establishing a zone or in the general regulations established under this act. There are going to be maybe two sets of rules, terms, or conditions that are established that could apply to somebody getting an instrument in a zone. For a prospecting licence, a mining claim, a lease, there could be two sets of rules that could apply to those instruments. Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Strand.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the witness proved my point. There could be two sets of terms and conditions that relate to claims: one for the zone and one of general application, which I think is going to create confusion -- it is creating confusion in my own mind, obviously -- about having two sets of rules for anyone applying for an instrument.

Can someone from the department clarify whether anybody has actually requested this ability to have what I interpret as two sets of rules for someone securing an instrument? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Strand.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I continue to respectfully disagree. I think that this is going to create confusion that there are two sets of rules that can apply within one zone.

I want to move on, Mr. Chair, to one other issue with regard to zones, and I neglected to raise it earlier. It is what I call the race to the bottom, where we could have Indigenous governments competing with each other to try to attract investment by having lower and lower standards. What is the department going to do to prevent that from happening? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems that certain Members may not share that confidence.

Zones cannot override requirements under any other legislation. The favourable terms are limited to how mineral interests are acquired and maintained. They cannot cover things like water or environmental rules, which are rightly enshrined in other legislations. We plan to set out the baseline of what kind of incentives are allowed within a zone in regulations in partnership with Indigenous governments and stakeholders. We don't believe that this is all that different than regimes in places like Manitoba, Ontario, and the Yukon. Members can rest assured that there are examples in place.

Furthermore, we believe that the checks and balances offered by the Executive Council engagement with Indigenous governments is more than enough to prevent this kind of issue. We should also note the reality that exploration is driven by geology and not by incentives. Incentives are simply a tool to enhance how and where that happens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wish to raise a point of order. The Minister is impugning motives on my part, saying that I don't have confidence in Indigenous governments. I have never said that in this House, and I respectfully would request that he withdraw those remarks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. One moment. I will give the Minister a chance to respond to the point of order. Minister Schumann.

I will repeat exactly what I said, Mr. Chair. I said, "I myself have a whole lot of confidence in our partners and Indigenous governments to effectively represent their interests. It seems certain Members may not share that confidence." That's what I said, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Schumann. One moment.

Thank you, committee. I will rule that there is no point of order, because the Minister used the term "may," and he did not name particular Members, although I can understand the Member's concern. Language perhaps has the potential to cause disorder.

Like I have stated a number of times over this past week, if we can all remain civil and all respect each other's opinions, as there are many differing opinions in this Assembly, we can get through the next few days without any more animosity bubbling to the top. I think that we would all appreciate that, and it would make for a much more productive week for everyone.

To clause 24 as amended. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could the witnesses explain how this provision of the act applies to prospecting permits? I hope I've got that right, but I'll just express the concern. The correspondence committee heard from industry that this was broadly supportive of the zones because they have been told, and they see it as an extension of prospecting permits which are under the old mining regulations. Could we have an explanation of how zones apply to that? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Strand.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. Which part of the subclauses of clause 24 address the prospecting permit instrument? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Thank you. Would it be fair to characterize this zone section as having nothing to do with prospecting permits in its current form because they are addressed through a transitional provision? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Could I just get the section of the transitional provision again, covering the prospecting permits? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

I see that now. Is the plan going forward to better define, I guess on the top of this and what we've heard over the course of the debate is that it's a discrete mechanism or instrument for Indigenous governments to seek greater mining benefits, or encourage more mining exploration in their co-manage areas or traditional territories. That's the explicit purpose of the section.

I think prospecting licences or permits, rather, have a different purpose, a different policy statement, and I think that's why there's the confusion here. I agree 100 percent with the read that the transitional, that these are enabling for those transitional provisions, but this section, it feels orphaned with the stated intent of this.

What is the plan going forward? Is it to do this through the regulations that come next? Is it to provide a legislative amendment to include another subclause that's going to contain zones? The prospecting licences are not clearly defined apart from that traditional provision, and using this section as an instrument. Can we get some clarity on what the policy intention is moving forward as it relates to clearly defining zones as an instrument for prospecting permits apart from a transitional provision? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. I'm going to pause your time for a moment. We're going to have to send the Pages home right away so we don't violate any child labour laws, I think, but I want the Assembly to join me in thanking them for spending some long hours with us here. Thank you to all the Pages for all your work.

---Applause

Minister, your mic is on.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are going to continue prospecting permits. What we are changing is making this not just a tool for our government, but an Indigenous-led partnership to attract responsible exploration, and we'll continue to do that when we do the regs development and have a look at it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Section 24(1) says: For the purposes of the section, applicable in respect of Indigenous governments and organizations, or those Indigenous governments and organizations. That's at the request of a zone. How does industry who basically wants to obtain a prospecting permit, how do they apply for a zone because this section is fairly explicit that it would be an Indigenous government that would have to request a zone be created. How does industry go about doing it, as they did with prospecting permits? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. Testart.

Okay, that's clear. That grandfathered clause that's going to be carried over, will it be subject to the 15-year period as outlined in clause 11? Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Faryna. The time is ticking down. Can the Minister produce an answer? Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Remain in force until amended or repealed to the regulations. That's the case. The old system for zones which were again a tool of government to promote exploration. They all remain in perpetuity, but any zone requested by an Indigenous government will expire after 15 years. That seems inconsistent with how this clause works. In actual effect of an Indigenous government requested zone, it will operate for no longer than 15 years, and then can be renewed, but the ones that the government has created and is carrying over from the old regime, will last forever. That seems to be, perhaps, "unfair" wouldn't be the way to characterize it, but it seems to be inconsistent with section 24. What's the position of the Minister on that? Thank you.

Thank you. A minute left on the clock. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Forty seconds, Mr. Testart.

How does industry, then, build a new zone or create a new zone to enable prospecting permits once they expire after 15 years and the act comes into force? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Twenty seconds or less. Ms. Faryna.

Thank you. Mr. Testart, your time has expired. To clause 24 as amended. Mr. O'Reilly.