Louis Sebert

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, to state the obvious, an unauthorized occupant is someone who puts up a permanent structure and occupies land without a lease or without a legal right to occupy the land. That has been an issue in the Northwest Territories for some time. Our estimate is that there are about 715 structures on public land that do not have any tenure, that is to say, no lease or other legal right, and about two thirds to three quarters of those are in the Yellowknife area. Thank you.

I have not contemplated that to this point, but certainly would be willing to look into it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, both inside this House and outside this House, I did hear loud and clear that people felt that the 10 per cent was too much. I agree with that. Therefore, the amount that we are looking at is half of that, which is 5 per cent of the assessed value. That is the value of the land. If there are improvements on it, that won't affect the lease for the land. Thank you.

As I mentioned previously, Canadian Zinc has met all current security requirements under the permits, licences, and authorizations, and we are holding slightly over $2 million in securities. I am not certain, but I could look into it to see whether an overholding lease would allow us to increase the security. It seems to me that it might be unlikely that we would have the ability to do that. That might be seen as being in bad faith, but we could get back to you with an answer. Mr. Hagen tells me he could give a better answer.

Yes, I understand that is the case. Thank you.

Yes, as the Member pointed out, people are cross-appointed, and, prior to devolution, basically, these functions were carried out by a single department. It would seem to make some sense to have them combined, but maybe I will let Mr. Hagen take it from there. I understand what the Member is talking about. I know that different inspectors do work closely together and some are cross-appointed, so hopefully the system is not rendered inefficient by the fact that there are two departments, but I do understand the point.

Yes. We are engaging and have been engaging with various communities and governments with respect to this legislation, and I hope to be bringing forward legislation this year.

I certainly feel that that would be the most satisfactory resolution on this matter. I simply want Committee of the Whole to know that, in the unsettled areas, there is that additional complication. We are hoping to do that, and I am pretty sure that virtually all of those holding these leases, although I think there might be a few exceptions, will want fee simple. Assuming they want fee simple, in the settled areas, I think that is going to be fairly straight forward. It is more complicated in the unsettled areas. Perhaps I could let Mr. Hagen add to that.

The Department of Lands led the GNWT's participation in the current proposed amendments to the MVRMA and also the proposed Federal Impact Assessment Act. Members will recall that there was some litigation that led to the change in the federal government's process or procedures in this whole matter. I think, ultimately, we would like to bring this piece of legislation home, but that may be sometime in the future.

We have participated in the federal review of environmental and regulatory processes. I don't know if Mr. Hagen wants to add anything to that.

As I understand it, the staff at the centre will be working with ECE and Aurora College on the development of a geomatics curriculum through kindergarten to grade 12 programming, and exploring opportunities to create post-secondary geomatics program development. So, yes, we are interested. We do see this as a potential area for growth in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chair.