Thank you. Mr. McNeely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am satisfied with that comment. I was just curious about getting the message out there that these two acts are now one, and what better way to do it than have community engagements with local and regional governments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Seeing nothing further, does committee agree that we move to a clause-by-clause review of the bill?

Thank you, committee. There are 80 clauses, the first of which can be found on page 6. I will group the clauses as I call them out. Please respond accordingly. We will consider the bill number and title after consideration of the clauses. Beginning on page 6, clauses 1 through 7. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to turn to clause 2.1, if I may, which is the purpose section. I would like an explanation from the department as to why the department's Land Use and Sustainability Framework and even its own Lands Establishment Policy, which is a policy that was signed off by the Premier, Cabinet-level approval, why it appears that some of those principles were not incorporated into the original bill, which did not even have a purpose statement? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Ms. Bard.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I also referenced the Cabinet-approved Department of Lands Establishment Policy that references some of the same sorts of things that you see in the purpose section, so these are the reasons why the Department of Lands was set up, the principle that should guide how they operate. I am just going to read some of these: land management decision making should recognize and respect Aboriginal treaty rights; decisions about public lands should take into consideration ecological, social, cultural, recreational, and economic values; decisions about land and resources should be made in an effective and accountable manner; traditional and scientific knowledge should be brought to bear; land use planning should be a shared responsibility; land management decision making process should be clear, transparent, consistent, and communicated; natural resources should be managed and developed in a manner that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

So I think we have captured some of those things in the items in the purpose, but can someone explain to me why initially the bill that we got did not really have any of these items as sort of guiding principles for how land administration and land management would be carried out under this bill? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

Yes. I thank the Member for the question. The principles by which we administer a resource may evolve over time, and, in our view, it's best to clarify to the public in policies and other tools. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, if I was to rewrite this, this is the one place where "polluter pays" should actually be found, and there is no reference to "polluter pays" in the purpose section. Can someone from the department explain to my why that is the case?

Thank you. Ms. Bard.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the comments from the witness. If that is what the intention is, we should have included it in the bill itself. I would urge whoever takes up the torch after us to give this bill a very thorough going through to make sure that it does incorporate principles around polluter pays because I do not think it does, and we are going to get to some other matters in the bill itself where I think we have opportunities to address that. Those are all the comments I have for now on the purpose section. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Clauses 1 through 7. Does committee agree?

---Clauses 1 through 7 inclusive approved

Agreed. Thank you, committee. Clause 8? Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I do have some questions for the Minister before we get into other matters. Can someone explain to me why this clause would appear to make financial security completely at the discretion of the Minister? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Minister.

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.

Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thanks, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the Minister for raising the financial security provisions in the Commissioner's Land Act which have been in place. They were actually brought into place on February 14, 2011, and those do require that financial security for industrial and commercial purposes would be mandatory so that this has now been in place for seven or eight years, over eight years. That was largely based on the experience from what happened with Giant Mine, where our government assumed a liability of $23 million because the surface lease that we had, GNWT had for the property, there was no financial security that was requested, zero, and, in order to move forward with the remediation of the site, our government signed in 2005 a cooperation agreement with the federal government where we agreed to provide $23 million towards remediation costs because our government did not ask for financial security for a surface lease for the mining operation.

Our government has also assumed financial liability of we do not know exactly what that is at this point, for another abandoned mine down the Ingraham Trail, at the Ptarmigan Mine site. Our government did not fix up the financial security around Cantung. Our government has not fixed up financial security in relation to the Prairie Creek mine site. I think, largely, this stems from the fact that Ministers have discretion. I would like to know from the Minister: if this provision for mandatory financial security has been in place since 2011 under the Commissioner's Lands Act, why do we need to change it now? What is the evidence of any kind of problems, complaints? Why does this need to be changed now? Thank you, Mr. Chair.