Kieron Testart

Again, the Minister has said that this will be a decision of the 19th Assembly. Will these regulations also be subject to direction from the 19th Assembly? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Over the course of questioning, we have learned that the Minister does not have a plan to deal with this situation. I think that the Member's motion is a good way to deal with this situation. Clearly it is in order. Clear it is within the capacity of the bill and the legislation to deal with this. I see no reason why it can't be done.

Again, this is a gap. We don't know how to deal with this. We have no plan to deal with this. This seems like a good plan, and I applaud the Member for bringing it forward. If there is any good reason why this shouldn't be supported, I do not...

Just for greater clarity, if an Indigenous government and a company negotiate an agreement, and the Indigenous government feels that it is satisfactory in an area without a signed land rights agreement, and they bring it forward, will the government accept that agreement, or will they say that it is insufficient to meet the criteria set out in regulations?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mines in the Northwest Territories or the minerals industry in the Northwest Territories pays a lot more than just royalties. Our fiscal regime is very unique in that we charge rents and other forms of revenue-generating fees to active mines that produce revenue that is used for public purposes outside of that royalty regime. I think that what I learned, at least, and I won't speak too much for committee here, but this is a much larger issue than just royalties. It is how we deal with public benefits by raising revenues from the minerals industry across the board.

If we...

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.

Those linkages will be established via regulation? Thank you.

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...

Well, we got there. Thank you for the clarification. That is exactly what I was looking for. My next question is: for an unsettled area, where a production licence is sought in an unsettled area, what is the process for that? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am going to try to confine my comments as much as possible to the substance of the report and the committee's experience in reviewing the bill.

Not getting into the substantive merits, flaws, or concerns around the actual piece of legislation, committee's process was, I think, an interesting one, where the steps were taken to collaborate with the sponsoring Minister on how we could find common ground on improvements to the bill, but there were some very hard lines that were established in our process. That kind of intransigence is very difficult to deal with in a system...

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.