Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could just start with maybe what we can call the land trading provisions in the mirror act. The reason it was thought necessary to do that is that, at least as of April 1st, this act will only apply to lands that come into the administration and control of the GNWT on April 1st or after. So, as the Member correctly pointed out, there are two different land regimes and there are a lot of reasons why you'd want to have a way to coordinate administration of those lands. Maybe if I could give an example. With a community that has a block land transfer with Commissioner's lands around it, maybe there's a need to administer lands that are just outside the block land transfer. This would allow Territorial lands to be transferred under the administration of the Commissioner's Lands Act, so you would have a single regime applying to both lands.
Further on, the intention is not to avoid any requirement of either one of the two acts. I think the Member correctly points out, as well, that there is no express requirement for security to be given under the Territorial Lands Act. That's a feature of how old this act is. It's a standard term of leases right now under the Territorial Lands Act that security can be given and there are provisions of remediating the lands essentially after the end of the lease.
Further, maybe I can just point out that in Yukon the same kind of land trading provisions were included in their mirrored lands act for the same reasons. So that was the model that we used for those provisions. Thank you, Madam Chair.