I will start off perhaps, Mr. Chair. Well, the Member is quite correct. It was under section, I think, 3.1 of the Commissioner's Land Act, but that dealt with conditions of leases of land for commercial and industrial use. To some degree, of course, we have broadened the geographic ambit of it. Again, we do realize that there have been problems in the past. We would be foolish to say there have haven't been. It is just not mines that this would cover. We tend to think of them because those are the most spectacular and difficult examples in the past. Mines are often used to justify matters of security and quite correctly. We get that.

Mines are in some ways designed and permitted from the outset to close. We didn't want anything to be overly restrictive on smaller operations. It is not mandatory. It is a "may" rather than "shall" clause, but it is hard to imagine that a major project would slip through the lines and not be covered. Again, we wanted to have the flexibility. Obviously, in the modern world, there is a recognition that certain projects are more dangerous. Surely, the Minister involved would be able to recognize that. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. When decisions around financial security have flexibility, that is when problems start. I would like to ask the law clerk, if I may: the way that section 8(1) is written, it says, "The Minister may, in accordance with regulations, require that an applicant for disposition," blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, "post financial security," essentially. Does this give the Minister the scope to set financial security requirements in regulation where there could be thresholds of activity that would require financial security? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

I appreciate the advice from the law clerk. My interpretation of that is that the Minister already has the authority to set thresholds to deal with some of the issues that he has raised about different size of commercial operations and so on, some of which may not require financial security in his or her view in the future. I don't accept the reasoning that the Minister has provided that he or she in the future requires total discretion to determine financial security and that it not be mandatory in some way. I would like to move a motion if I may, Mr. Chair on this clause.

I move that clause 8 of Bill 46 be amended by adding the following after subclause (1):

(1.1) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the Minister shall, in accordance with the regulations, require that an applicant for, holder of, or prospective assignee or transferee of a disposition for a commercial or industrial use, provide and maintain security with the Minister in an amount and manner that the Minister determines to be sufficient to protect the public interest.

in subclause (2), by striking out "to which this section applies" and substituting "for which security is required under subsection (1) or (1.1)";

in subclause (3), by striking out "subsection (1)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (1.1)";

in subclause (5), by striking out "to which this section applies" and substituting "for which security is required under subsection (1) or (1.1)"; and

in that portion of subclause (6) preceding paragraph (a), by striking out "subsection (1)" and substituting "subsection (1) or (1.1)."

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. I believe it has been distributed. It has been distributed. To the motion. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. This was a motion that was introduced at the committee clause-by-clause review of the bill. It was supported by committee, but the Minister did not concur for the reasons that he just provided, the need for flexibility and so on to allow for some commercial operations not to have security required of them. The wording of this would make it mandatory to some degree that for dispositions for commercial or industrial use, that financial security would be required subject to whatever the Minister sets out in regulations. There, again, is an opportunity for the Minister to set appropriate thresholds for when financial security would be required, even for commercial or industrial uses. At least, that is what I take away from what our clerk had indicated earlier on the original wording.

The Minister still would have authority here to set the thresholds, but there would be a requirement, whether it is commercial or industrial, to have in place what those thresholds would be. In the interest of transparency, openness, that would be a good thing to have those, as well.

All of this comes back to the experience from about five kilometres down the road where our government assumed $23 million of financial liability because earlier Ministers had discretion over whether financial security should be required. I think we will continue to see that practice unless we plug this gap. This is what this really does.

There are a lot of words in here to basically bring us back to the provisions that are already in place in the Commissioner's Land Act, have been there for seven years. The Minister has not provided any evidence that there is a problem with the way that those provisions have been operating for seven years. Why change it now and put taxpayers and the environment at risk? This is about bringing back a plan and stopping the rollback the Cabinet wants to do on mandatory financial security.

I look forward to my colleagues on this side of the House debating and discussing it. I will request their vote. When we are closed, I would request a recorded vote. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. To the motion. Minister Sebert.

Thank you. To the motion. First, Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am sympathetic to my colleague bringing this forward. I serve on the committee where this was first discussed. Again, I won't reflect on the disposition of that outcome. My concern around this is the impact it might have on those small-scale businesses. We talk a lot about wanting certainty in statute when reviewing legislation.

Again, I am sympathetic to the idea of a large chemical plant requiring a posted security. A mandatory security on a retail outlet or something along those lines that has less impact on the land that it occupies, I think, might be a bit of an overreach. I don't have the comfort of huge certainty to that point. I think the Minister has raised that, as well.

The one thing I will say in response to the Minister saying we are not the first jurisdiction to do something: that is never a good reason to not do something. I think we should be carefully considering the merits of why we are proposing things in legislation and not just, "Well, no one else has done it, so we can't."

Although I don't buy that argument, I certainly have concerns around this motion, so I will not be supporting it at this time. Thank you.

To the motion. Mr. Vanthuyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually going to be in support. I have been seeing both sides of how some of these land uses have taken part in the past. I don't think that the mover of this motion has any intention to limit anyone's ability in terms of, let's say for example, leaseholders who are going to have recreational properties or cabins or the like; that's not the intention of the mover to want to put any kind of mandatory security on those types of leaseholds.

While the Member has mentioned the Giant Mine project and the now remediation that we have to deal with, and the lack of security there, and what it has incurred our government now to have to cover the bases, it is only one example of many throughout this territory that show that we have in the past, by not having some forms of security allowed for various forms of uses to take place that maybe would have otherwise been swayed or dissuaded, had there been appropriate mandatory securities in place. We have at last count, I think, somewhere over 400 various contaminated sites throughout the Northwest Territories, from as large as Giant Mine to as small as some call it barrels of diesel or what have you that have been left at an old site.

I think, when people or land users of various kinds are going to engage in commercial or industrial uses, that it isn't unbecoming of a government to expect that they put some degree of security in place. Remember that it is a security and, if you do what you are expected to do in this territory, then it's a good chance you're getting your security back.

I appreciate that, in other various forms, we've tried to make security a thing within our pieces of legislation, and I am supportive of the Member's motion. I look forward to passing this. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that the size of the project or the size of the development will determine the size of the security. Security can come in various forms. It doesn't have to be cash up front. It doesn't have to be cash put in the bank. It can be a letter from the bank, and it can be a letter that the bank writes to say that the credit is available for clean-up should it be necessary. A letter of comfort bonds, whatever. My belief is that there are more than 600 contaminated sites in this area alone. Across the territory, there are probably a lot more, and we shouldn't allow that to increase. I think we should stop the contaminated sites at this point, and, if there is credit available for the companies that are going in and, of course, it depends on the size of the operation, the scale of the operation, then this is a good thing that there will be no sites left.

Of course, I represent the riding of Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, and the majority of mining explorations and so on have been in that riding. Also, I am aware of some contaminated sites right close to the community of Lutselk'e where the community has a lake there that have an abundance of trout. They won't fish that lake because of the contaminants that were left behind by an exploration camp.

If we could do something in advance, we are not asking companies that are just trying to start out to spit out a bunch of cash and put a bunch of cash in the bank. It could come in various forms, all kinds of forms, in fact, as long as it's security backed up by the bank, is one example. I think it's a good thing. I think it will prevent us from having 900 contaminated sites in this region a few years down the road, so I would support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. McNeely, to the motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Adding my comments here to the motion, I can't see myself supporting this motion on the basis of we shouldn't be using previous experiences, considering the fact that rights issuance were issued on a lot of these sites as identified in schedule 7, which we seem to be reflecting on this department for the downfalls of somebody else's mistakes. This is a new department, and given the fact that it just got incorporated here with devolution taking effect in 2014 of April 1^st, I think we should straighten out our management systems, give some ministerial discretion, and learn from the past so that it's not repeated. We're inheriting these sites which we are looking at to remediate or reclaim and learn from that and move on; and in the process of what we can reclaim or what we can remediate, let's see if we can create some economic development in the process of cleaning up somebody else's mistakes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. To the motion. I will allow the mover of the motion to close debate. Final word, Mr. O'Reilly, to the motion.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just would like to, well, first off, seek the advice of the law clerk first. The way the amendment reads that says that the Minister shall in accordance with the regulations require an applicant, blah, blah, blah, for a commercial or industrial use. As I understand this, the Minister could set thresholds in regulations, even for commercial or industrial uses, such that some would require financial security or certain types of thresholds. Is that a correct interpretation of this, or is that the kind of authority that the Minister has with this clause? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Madam Law Clerk.