Subject, of course, to priorities of the next Assembly, we expect it to be 12 to 24 months. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have already set out some of the reasons and our concerns about the "shall" rather than "may." I won't go into them in great depth. Again, no other jurisdiction in Canada has a mandatory securities requirement in equivalent legislation. I don't think we want to send the wrong message.

The bill we propose has a "may" rather than a "shall" to give the Minister the ability to require securities for the types of dispositions that have risk. Again, a mandatory securities requirement for all commercial and industrial dispositions would include any type of business, such as greenhouses, agriculture, tourism, small-scale businesses. Again, we do not want to send the wrong message here. For that reason, Cabinet will be voting against this motion. Thank you.

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. 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.

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.

You heard that committee did travel through several communities and also, too, there were a fair number of submissions made, I understand, from the report that we looked at very briefly earlier. As we proceed with changes, of course, if there changes to be made in the future, there will be consultation if there are changes to this act.

Engagement, yes. I'm sorry; I may have missed part of the question, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I suppose that we could do some preliminary high-level work. I just don't want to set up unreasonable expectations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In a perfect world, Mr. Chair, I would be able to say yes to that. I just don't know if we have enough time, and that is the problem. There are not many days left. This is an important issue. We want to have a measured, sensible response, and I just don't think we have enough time for the sort of work that is required. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't know whether I am in a position to speculate on that possibility. Thank you.