Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Lands today in follow-up on an earlier set of questions about financial security. We last talked about surety bonds being a promise to pay, a form of security, and I asked the Minister if he would agree that that’s not acceptable. He said we will ensure that we have security that’s, as the Member said, something other than a promise to pay.
Now, surety bonds, the point of discussion, Wikipedia defines surety bonds as a promise to pay. Is the Minister still sticking with this or is the media right that in fact we are taking security bonds for the Ekati Mine, $170 million of liabilities and accepting something less than irrevocable letter of credit? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister of Lands, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A security bond is an instrument that is typically issued by an insurance company to pay one party a specified amount if another party fails to meet their obligations. So under the Waters Act, that is a sufficient instrument to use.
The Minister sounds like he’s changing direction here, and I would ask him to do some research in this area and provide to committee exactly what is going on here, without any input from committee, I might add, other than what we’ve had in the House, and obviously, that doesn’t seem to be holding any water.
I’ve heard officials from the Minister’s department and division that deals with securities indicating that the promise to pay will be accepted, so maybe I could just get a commitment from the Minister to start with, that he will come to committee with this before any final decisions and talk to us about what is acceptable and why we are not demanding, as in all the other ones on the list, the tabled document, an irrevocable letter of credit as the bankable instrument standard we want to meet.
The boards usually set the securities that are required, the amount. We negotiate with the proponent as to the instrument that we are going to use. A surety bond is an insurance bond that’s carried by major multinational insurance companies, which is an acceptable form under the Waters Act. I can update or I can give committee a bit of a briefing on the direction that we’re going so they can have some assurance that we are protecting, as we said we’re going to, the opportunities for cleanup and so we need to make sure that we’re protected, and I stand by that.
Thanks to the Minister for that. I also heard the department’s official saying that they have to balance protection from environmental liabilities with a supportive economic development as some sort of justification, I suppose, for accepting a lesser form of security. I think the Minister is well aware that that approach by the federal government has resulted in $8 billion in liabilities that the taxpayers of Canada will be paying, mostly from northern mining companies that have failed to clean up their messes. These are real things that we are talking about.
Is it the purpose of the Department of Lands to support the balance in favour of economic development, as the federal government has done to the tune of $8 billion in liabilities to the taxpayer, or is it to protect our land for everybody?
I can’t speak for what the federal government does. That’s their decision to make. However, we are now responsible for decision-making in the Northwest Territories and, of course, we want to protect the environment. That goes without saying. I mean, anybody in here can realize that. But what we want to do is, we want to have some sustainable economic development so our people can actually go work, get a job. But I can assure the Member, and again, it goes without saying, that of course we want to protect the environment and we do what we have to, to do that.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for that commitment, I think. Just my last question here. The tabled document, the letter from the Environment and Natural Resources to the Wek’eezhii board. The Wek’eezhii board is saying they want to put some teeth into the legislation and require that securities for liability assessed be provided within 90 days, and the department is fighting this, and of course, the result is that it might take six months or a year. I don’t know. It’s probably been more than a year. It’s probably been years, in fact, for the Ekati Mine without providing this security. This leaves the public vulnerable. That’s a concern.
What will the Minister do to support the Wek’eezhii board and the representatives, the people that the Minister has put in place to do their work, to support them in getting this work done and not let the bureaucratic processes make the public vulnerable?
As I stated before, the security amount is set by the boards that review the applications. We then negotiate with the proponents as to the instrument. The Member says that it’s a lesser form. I would like to personally brief the Member on the surety bond that is covered. It’s basic insurance that’s carried by multinational insurance companies, world-renowned insurance companies, that we can call on demand. I’d be pleased to give the Member a briefing on that, and as I committed before, I would be pleased to brief committee.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
