Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill 46 contains provisions that broaden the existing securities authority in the Commissioner's Land Act. This means that securities may be required where risks are identified rather than limiting it to leases or specific categories, like commercial or industrial. Understand that no other jurisdiction in Canada has a mandatory securities requirement in equivalent legislation. Now, Bill 46 uses a "may" instead of "shall" to give the Minister the ability to require securities for the types of dispositions that have risk. A mandatory securities requirement for all commercial and industrial dispositions of public lands would include any type of business, such as smaller businesses, small-scale businesses, and so on. So those are the reasons why we went with the legislation that we did, and, again, it gives us the "may" rather than "shall," gives the Minister the ability to require securities for the type of dispositions that have risk. We recognize that some do have risk. Thank you.
Louis Sebert on Committee Motion 202-18(3): Standing Committee on Economic Development and the Environment Report on the Review of Bill 46: Public Land Act - Consultation on Amendment of Regulations for the Public Land Act, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on August 19th, 2019. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 202-18(3): Standing Committee on Economic Development and the Environment Report on the Review of Bill 46: Public Land Act - Consultation on Amendment of Regulations for the Public Land Act, Carried
Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
August 19th, 2019
Page 6178
See context to find out what was said next.