Thank you, Mr. Chair. I request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Yellowknife North.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh, the Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote are: five in favour, 12 opposed, zero abstentions.
---Defeated
Clause 22. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. To the schedule. Minister McLeod.
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.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I would thank the law clerk for that clarification. I just would like to address some of the arguments that I heard from the Minister. He said that a few other jurisdictions, or no other jurisdictions, at least perhaps in Canada, required financial security become mandatory. I don't think many other places in Canada have a Giant Mine in their backyard that is going to cost taxpayers well over a billion dollars.
This provision that's in the Commissioner's Land Act right now was carefully considered by a previous standing committee, and actually agreed to by a previous Minister based on the result of the experience from Giant Mine. Committee, previous standing committee, and a Minister actually agreed. It came to the floor of the House. It was voted on and approved. Now, this Cabinet wants to roll that back without any evidence that the current provision causes any problems. The current mandatory financial security has been in place for seven years. The Minister and his department could not provide any evidence that this is a problem. No evidence. The Minister says we don't want to send out the wrong message.
I think we want to send out a clear message. If you're going to come here and do things, you have to be able to pick up if you make a mess. That is the kind of message that I think we need to tell people. This is not about stopping business. This is about implementing the "polluter pays" principle. The best way to prevent public liabilities is to put in place mandatory financial security. That is what this is attempting to do. I would like to think that we have actually learned from the past and want to maintain the system that we have in place, based on the past experience from Giant Mine and other contaminated sites that have created public liabilities, and keep that system in place. I don't think that it is appropriate to roll back that protection for taxpayers or the environment, but that is what this Minister would like to do.
I encourage my colleagues to support this, and Mr. Chair, once again, I would ask for a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Mackenzie Delta, the Member for Sahtu, the Member for Kam Lake.
All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote are: six in favour, 11 opposed, zero abstentions.
---Defeated
---Clauses 8 through 70 inclusive approved
Clauses 71 through 80. Does committee agree? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I would like to start with a couple of questions for the Minister. Clause 80 deals with the coming-into-force date of the bill. Can the Minister tell us when that will be? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
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. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I couldn't quite catch it all. I think the Minister said 24 months. Why would it take one or two years to actually bring this bill into force? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
I think my estimate was 12 to 24 months, but perhaps I can get some assistance on that. Thank you.
Thank you. Ms. Bard.
Sure. Before the act is brought into force, there are a number of regulations under the existing two lands acts that need to be addressed. There will be some harmonization necessary in the Commissioner's land regulations and the territorial land regulations. That will necessitate some further engagement and so on. There are a number of land withdrawals that will need to be reregistered, and there are the coring regulations, among other regulations, that will all need to be reviewed and reregistered.
To account for the time that that work takes and any engagement necessary, we want to make sure that we can do those things before bringing the act into force, but the objective is to do it as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. How is that information going to be communicated to the public? We had a significant number of individuals and municipal governments, Indigenous governments, come to committee and talk about some of the issues that committee raised in the report. How is this information about implementation of this bill, and maybe some potential fixes for some of these issues, communicated to the public? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
We will be communicating with the public to provide them with this information. I think a commitment was made to committee, also. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am not going to flog this one any further, other than to suggest that the department should develop some kind of an implementation plan, share that with Regular MLAs in the next Assembly, and make that available to the public so that they know how the bill itself and the provisions in here are going to roll out over time. Some pretty high expectations have been set, and maybe some expectations have been crashed. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. More of a comment. Would the Minister care to respond? Minister.
Point taken.
Thank you. To clauses 71 to 80. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Mr. O'Reilly.
Yes, thanks, Mr. Chair. I detect a certain amount of frustration here. This is not as if committee has not tried to work with Ministers, with Cabinet, to get to some sort of understanding of how regulations are going to be made in the future, given that, most of these bills, all of the details are off into the future. So, as my colleague said, we tried to adopt language from the MVRMA requiring consultation. We even tried to add permissive language to allow the Minister to enter into agreements with Indigenous governments moving forward on how to co-draft regulation or engage Indigenous governments on regulations. That approach was rejected. I agree. Gazettes are for nerds, maybe, but, if you do not like the way the Gazette is done, change it. Make it something that is user friendly. What is the system to ensure that our Cabinet is going to work with our residents moving forward on the development of these regulations? There is no process. This government does not even have a process to develop regulations and allow for public input. It's all done on a case-by-case basis.
The way to a certain place is also paved by good intentions. I hear the Minister's intention. He cannot bind the next Minister or the next Cabinet in how this is going to be done moving forward, but, without any requirements, any provisions, in the bill, this may not even happen. So here we are again, and I have a funny feeling this is going to come back to the House again because Cabinet has failed to provide an opportunity, a way, for the public to comment on regulations moving forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Sorry, I would request a recorded vote. Thank you.
The Member for Frame Lake, the Member for Yellowknife Centre, the Member for Deh Cho, the Member for Yellowknife North, the Member for Kam Lake, the Member for Tu Nedhe-Wiilideh, the Member for Nahendeh.
All those opposed, please rise.
The Member for Nunakput, the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, the Member for Range Lake, the Member for Great Slave, the Member for Yellowknife South, the Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, the Member for Hay River South, the Member for Thebacha, the Member for Sahtu.
All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the recorded vote are: seven in favour, nine opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Committee, please return to the bill number and title. Bill 46, Public Land Act. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole. Does committee agree that Bill 46, Public Land Act, is now ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Bill 46 is now ready for third reading. Does committee agree this concludes consideration of Bill 46?
Agreed.
Before we conclude, the Minister has something he would like to say. Minister Sebert.
I would like to thank committee for all of their work on this. I know that there has been a lot of time pressure on it, which is never good, and there was a question which I didn't answer very well about communicating with the public, and, of course, we will do that. So thanks to everybody for their cooperation and hard work in view of the time pressure we've been under. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. This concludes consideration of Bill 46. I want to thank the Minister and the witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, you may escort the witnesses from the Chamber. Members, we have concluded the business we agreed to consider. What is the wish of committee? Mr. Beaulieu.
