Kevin O'Reilly

Kevin O'Reilly
Frame Lake

Statements in Debates

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. This is going to be a long evening. Sorry for that. I haven't heard a commitment out of the Minister to actually make this fiscal regime review that he has talked about actually open to the public. He talks about how he is willing to make sure that the regulations that are developed in the future are going to be open to the public but not the fiscal regime review.

I have also heard some arguments that this somehow is ridiculous that this kind of disclosure might be required and that payments to Indigenous governments might have to get disclosed or something. Actually, the...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know that is a mouthful. The drafting of this motion is to say that there are two sets of rules that apply, one inside a zone and one outside of a zone. The way this had been drafted, it looked like, to me, that there was the potential for two sets of rules to apply within a zone: the special rules established by the regulation setting up the zone and then the general regulations established under this act. That is what the purpose of this is. One set of rules, whether you are inside or outside of a zone. When you are inside, you live with the rules that are established...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, we are going to deal with this issue. It is contained in the bill. In fact, the Minister has the ability to exclude information, is required to exclude information that could be detrimental to business interests that even go above and beyond what's in the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The Minister has extensive powers there that go above and beyond what we've already legislated. The Minister has the ability to prescribe what this notice of intended work is going to look like. In fact, good companies already do this. TerraX already does it here...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

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...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

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...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, yes, committee did hear concerns around the impacts of mineral exploration and development within municipal boundaries and where this has led to some issues of land use conflicts, particularly in Inuvik. I am certainly well aware of a number of prominent cases that have been in the media around land use conflicts in Dawson around Placer Mining. Although committee tried to work with the Minister on this to try to find ways to provide notice and opportunities for temporary restrictions linked to municipal interests and purpose within communities boundaries and so on, we...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. What I heard from the earlier discussion was that, in fact, in some cases the actual royalties paid to our government are disclosed under federal legislation. There are problems with consistency, reporting entities, and so on. Some of this information may, indeed, already be disclosed. This is not a debate about what the benefits are from the mining industry; this is a debate about why a calculation of a figure of an amount paid to our government under mining legislation, you know, I guess the intent of this is to require that it be disclosed on a per-mine basis. I don't...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. My job is to actually get into the weeds. That is why I am here. I tried to correct the Minister on this; I'm not disrespecting Indigenous governments. This does not take away from Indigenous governments by any stretch of the imagination. Those rights are already protected in other provisions in the bill. This is about affording the public an opportunity to comment on the establishment of regulations that would establish zones. The Minister doesn't even have to listen to whatever the public says. I could say something about how that has played out in the context of this...

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

I guess I just anticipate too much, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Debates of , 18th Assembly, 3rd Session (day 87)

Thanks, Mr. Chair. This would extend the ability to receive written reasons to municipal governments on if the Minister declines to accept a restricted area. Thanks, Mr. Chair.