Thank you. Mr. McEachern.
Mr. Chair, one could actually argue and consider that what would be fair to interest-holders would be to have no period at all following conformation from the regulator that their well or works have been successfully abandoned or decommissioned. In trusting one's regulator, if a regulator says something has been successfully abandoned or decommissioned, one would think that an interest-holder should have a deposit returned to them because, as anyone knows, a company needs that cash flow desperately to continue their business.
With that said, then the question becomes: how long after something has been successfully abandoned or decommissioned should that be held? Certainly, any extensive period of time would be unfair because they have already successfully completed their work, and for any government to hold that or any regulator to hold that money for an extended period of time jeopardizes a company's ability to conduct their business. With that said, a one-year period seems reasonable based on other legislations at the federal level and can ensure that there is at least a little bit of time should there prove to be anything that did not go right with the abandonment. That is typically in the industry, if anything did not go right with the abandonment and was not picked up by the regulator at that time, it would happen sooner rather than later to catch any issues, and so that one year is sufficient. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. McEachern. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Okay. I don't agree with everything that has been said. I would like to know, after the one-year period, if something goes wrong, who is responsible and who pays? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. McEachern.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The well owner is responsible for anything that goes wrong with any sort of work on a well, well suspension, or well abandonment, and that continues beyond any period of time in which the proof of financial responsibility is held. If a well owner is proven at fault after the proof of financial responsibility is returned, if there is a problem with a well 10, 15, 20 years down the road, then that well owner is liable for cleaning up that well and for any damages associated with it, and there is no limit to that liability.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, I am glad to hear that there is no limitation period on the liability that might be associated when something does go wrong. I would like to know how much financial responsibility is held right now and what form it generally takes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. McEachern.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the regulator would have that information and could provide it, although we do not have it in front of us at this moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can I get a commitment, then, out of the Minister to provide that information in the next few days, or maybe even tomorrow? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marion.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, we can commit to asking the regulator. There may be concerns about the existing confidentiality provisions, but we can commit to asking the regulator for that information.
Thank you, and noting that that is the regulator's information. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I get all of that, too. As I understood, I think the regulator is actually going through a process now of developing a methodology for determining financial responsibility, so I think the answer may actually be zero, but I just would like to get that confirmed. I understand, the OROGO, you can ask, but they may not be able to deliver, but I assume that they will. I think that is all I have on this. I still remain a little bit concerned about the one-year period, but I will have to see how this plays out. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.
---Clauses 9 and 10 approved
Clause 11. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So, like I asked yesterday and I think I heard in the Minister's opening remarks, there do not seem to be any regulations that are required for this bill to be brought into force, but can I have some explanation of when that is going to happen and what the schedule might look like? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. McEachern.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, yesterday we committed to basically work out a plan for the so-called coming into force of the two bills related to oil and gas, so we will do that. We will basically look through the bills clause by clause and identify which parts of the bill, which clauses, can come into force right away versus other ones that will need some additional guidance work to support them and estimated timelines by engaging with the regulators where their assistance or where their leadership in developing these guidance notes will be required. Clearly, when the regulators develop guidance notes, they have an engagement process therein, so there would be elements of these bills that will need to wait for that, but there will be much here that will be able to come into force very expeditiously. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Nothing further from Mr. O'Reilly. Clause 11?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Please return to the bill number and title. Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Operations Act. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole, does committee agree that Bill 37, An Act to Amend the Oil and Gas Operations Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 37 is now ready for third reading. I would like to thank the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber. Does committee agree this concludes our consideration of Bill 37?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Committee, we have next agreed to consider Committee Report 24-18(3), Standing Committee on Social Development Report on the Review of Bill 48, Post-Secondary Education Act. I will turn to the chair of the standing committee for any opening comments. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Development is pleased to report on its review of Bill 48, Post-secondary Education Act. The committee read their substantive report into the House on August 12, 2019. To commence its review of Bill 48, the Standing Committee on Social Development sent letters inviting input from an extensive list of stakeholders, including all municipal and Indigenous governments in the Northwest Territories, and a number of non-governmental organizations.
The committee held eight public hearings on Bill 48 in Fort Smith, Hay River, Fort Providence, Behchoko, Inuvik, Tuktoyaktuk, and Yellowknife. As well, the committee received three written submissions on the bill, from the Information and Privacy Commissioner, College nordique francophone, and N. Kabiri. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank the communities who welcomed us on our travels and everyone who provided input on Bill 48.
The clause-by-clause review was held on August 6, 2019. At this meeting, the committee moved 18 separate motions to amend Bill 48. All 18 were carried with concurrence from the Minister.
Individual Members may have additional comments. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Are there general comments on the report? Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is primarily an administrative act to set up the framework for commissioning new post-secondary institutions, whether they are public or private. The real weakness of this act is that it doesn't lay out, even in aspirational detail, the terms and conditions for commissioning Indigenous institutions, of which we already have one in the NWT: Dechinta Centre for Learning. It also doesn't lay out any of the criteria for the partnership model that the College nordique is pursuing.
The fault that I find with this bill in general is that it doesn't address the institutions that already exist, while it does provide for institutions that may exist in the future. The importance of the latter is that it provides clear direction on issues such as quality assurance and advisory committees and so on that would strengthen those post-secondary educations when and if additional institutions are applied for. I think that we have done some value-added work as a committee in ensuring that there is procedural fairness in this act, and I appreciate the Minister and her staff being willing to negotiate the changes that we agreed on. Thank you.
Thank you. Further general comments on the report? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that the committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment consult stakeholders in the development of eligible requirements by which application for status of post-secondary institution will be measured. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order and is being distributed. The report was, I believe, distributed on Monday. The motion has been distributed. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment target a comprehensive group of interested stakeholders in the development of regulations concerning the recognition of Indigenous institutions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Green.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We heard quite a bit about Indigenous institutions while we were on the road. There is, I think, some interest in creating Indigenous institutions and some disappointment that there was no detail in the act about what that might entail. What we heard was that there were stakeholders, and in particular, I recall the Gwich'in Tribal Council who said that they had already been consulted on this point. The way that the bill was developed, they are set up for a second round of consultation on the same topic. This is an area where there is a certain amount of duplication and consultation fatigue that will result, and it's not necessary. I think that the work should have been done up front on developing the section on Indigenous institutions.
Having said that, I certainly will support this motion. Thank you.
Thank you. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed?
---Carried
Thank you, committee. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that this committee recommends that the Department of Education, Culture and Employment develop regulations containing a requirement that the Minister provide reasons, in writing, for his or her decisions under the act. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I listened intently to committee's report on this recommendation. I am just wondering -- well, I guess I can't wonder; this isn't question period. These things are best dealt with by way of statute. You can do anything in regulations, just about, if pursuant to the contents of the act. My concern here is that those regulations may be a long time coming, and they may not be as forthcoming as we may want.
I think that, as the committee noted, there needs to be some explanation given to people who are turned down. It would have been nice to see that coming forward in legislation. The committee that I serve on has dealt with a number of these kind of decision-making pieces, and written reasons have often been sought by the committee and agreed to. We have seen that come forward. I think it is unfortunate that that didn't make it into the bill, and I know that was contemplated by committee.
Although I support this recommendation, I don't think that it goes far enough. We should be giving certainty to the public and to stakeholders that, when they are rejected for qualifications or for certification, that there is something coming to tell them exactly why. Right now, apart from the goodwill that this motion represents, there is no requirement in law for them to do so. You might just be told "no," and that's it, without any way to understand why the decision was made. I think it is imperative that, as on overall thing, government and this Assembly endeavours to ensure that written reasons around decision-making, when sought, are put into law as much as possible. Clearly that was not possible by committee, so this recommendation will have to suffice. Thank you.
