Directorate in headquarters has $185,000 in contract services; North Slave region has $11,000; South Slave region has $7,000; Inuvik region, $1,000; Sahtu, $30,000; Deh Cho, $120,000 and $92,000 of that is related to strategic initiative with the protected areas that was approved in the 2010-2011 main estimates. Policy legislation and communication has $22,000; shared services finance and administration has $17,000; and shared services informatics has $11,000.
Could you tell me what that $1,000 was spent for in the Mackenzie Delta?
Ms. Magrum, the $1,000 in the Inuvik region.
Mr. Chairman, no, I’m sorry, I cannot.
Thank you, Ms. Magrum. Anything further, Mr. Krutko?
I was going to ask to swap out for the $120,000. You can keep that $1,000. Just getting back to the geographical information systems, again, the information depends on who the user is. At the end of the day, that information could be used to benefit businesses whether you’re a miner or a geologist. You want that information so you can look at the potential of prospecting and whatnot. That’s the type of stuff I was trying to get at. We’re collecting this information but who is the end user at the end of the day of that information that we’re collecting? Is that information released freely? Can you go in and ask for it without paying anything?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All that information is available in the public domain. We also put on open houses where if anybody wants to understand how it works, we’re very pleased for anybody who is interested to come in and show them how it works, show them all the information we collect. The geosciences information that comes through the NTGO arrangements we have with the federal government. It’s all there, it’s all available to the public.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Committee, we’re on page 12-13, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, $7.735 million.
Agreed.
Page 12-14, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, information item, corporate management, active positions. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know in the past they used to break these numbers down into P1s, P2s, P3s, disabled, female. Is there any possibility we could get that type of breakdown to get an idea of what the statistics are in relation to the Affirmative Action Policy and looking at people with disabilities and the number of female workers in this department and in the area of senior managers?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We can provide those statistics to the Member. We have it here.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Once again, committee, we’re on page 12-14, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, information item, corporate management, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 12-17, Industry, Tourism and Investment, activity summary, minerals and petroleum resources, operations expenditure summary, $6.063 million. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With regard to the area of the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, I know we had a presentation the other day on a whole bunch of obligations and regulatory requirements that we have to fulfill but also with regard to the federal requirements. In that presentation, reference was made to the regulations that have to be established to move that project forward. Could you give me an idea of what type of obligations we’re fulfilling and what type of regulations are we talking about bringing into place?
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The kinds of things we’re talking about are that northern regulators would conduct the review of applications for authorizations and complete any requirements for hearings or consultations once the proponents conduct additional route alignment studies and detailed engineering. Technical expertise on the regulatory mitigation approaches to addressing air quality, waste management, hazardous materials management, spills planning, and environmental planning issues associated with oil and gas and pipeline construction activities will be required to handle the workload associated with the Mackenzie Gas Project process. Over the past two years ENR has developed the necessary expertise in the existing pipeline environmental officer position and I believe we have to do additional work with regard to the conversion of community gasification. So we would have to develop that and respond within a year once the federal government approves the pipeline project.
In regard to the overall pipeline, I think we’re talking about a couple of thousand applications for land use that is going to be required for land use permits. Are we going to have to bring in any special type of regulations into the Legislature to meet some of our obligations with regard to the recommendations that came out of the National Energy Board report? I would like to know if we have budgeted for the type of work that has to take place going forward in regard to our obligations to develop regulations or establish regulations that we may not have on the books right now that we’re going to have to bring forward.
As we outlined in our presentation or briefing the other day, the Government of the Northwest Territories is a signatory to the regulatory agreement and we’re participating in the coordination of the Mackenzie Gas Pipeline regulatory process. The Mackenzie Gas Pipeline is expected to require 6,911 permits or licences, most of which will be reviewed by the Government of the Northwest Territories. The regulators and boards have made a commitment to a maximum 11-month review process for permits. It hasn’t been contemplated that we would have to change any regulations or develop any new legislation to deal with the pipeline. That’s where it is at this point.
Just on that, since we’re looking at bringing in or changing regulations, under the land claim agreements with regard to the Gwich’in under Section 21 and Section 20 for the Sahtu with regard to the subsurface resources section, it does say that you have to consult if you’re bringing forward any regulations or changing policies or procedures or regulations. I would like to know if the Aboriginal groups will be involved and consulted in that work that has to be done.
We have been fulfilling all of the consultation requirements. As we go forward if there are additional consultation requirements, we will be conducting those as well.
Maybe the Minister and his staff could take a look at Section 21 of the Gwich’in agreement which talks about subsurface resources because it’s clearly spelled out and it says you shall, so that way it’s an obligation not like the devolution process we were going through.
If it says you shall, then we will. Six years ago or even earlier when the regulatory process started, I know that directions were given out to everybody to be very clear and be mindful of the consultation requirements that everybody had to follow and to be mindful of what was in the land claims that have been negotiated to date. We will go back and double check to make sure that all of those consultation requirements have been followed.
With regard to the regulatory legislation that’s being pushed by the federal government is the whole area of surface rights legislation. I think that’s something that we, at some point, will be responsible for. Where are we with the surface rights legislation? Are we included in the drafting of the federal regulations? I know there’s a big push to amend the Mackenzie Valley Resources Management Act but there’s also a need to establish the surface rights legislation as it’s developed in the land claim agreements. I’d just like to know with regard to the regulatory reviews and processes that have taken place, are we involved in that and when are we intending to see that come forward?
As the Member knows, the land claims agreements reference surface rights board and when discussions on access and benefits agreements were being discussed, everybody rushed to look at the land claims agreements to see what tools were there to deal with it. Obviously we don’t have a surface rights board, we don’t have surface rights legislation. The land claims only envision arbitration if there are differences of opinion. The federal government, if they were to develop surface rights legislation, it would probably take them a couple of years at least. My understanding is that the federal negotiator that was appointed, Mr. John Pollard, part of his mandate was to look at the surface rights board possibilities or potential as part of his report, just from my understanding. Other than that, we haven’t been involved with any of the surface rights development and if we were it would be ENR that would be involved because they are responsible for the regulatory process of the federal government and our dealings with the federal government and our government. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Minister. Next on my list I have Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Chairman, some of this might sound similar to a conversation I had with DOT earlier today. Ongoing improvements to our North Slave transportation system are critical to supporting the mine sector and the Slave Geological Province and economic development projects across the Northwest Territories and western Nunavut. What is ITI doing with industry and DOT and Aboriginal groups to improve winter road access to Tlicho communities in the Slave Geological Province? I know it is ultimately a DOT responsibility, but given the economic opportunities of these road realignments with Aboriginal organizations, I am wondering what role, if any, ITI is providing or playing.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Minister.
Mr. Chairman, whenever we meet with the mining industry or specific proponents of individual mining projects, most of the projects require two things to become feasible. It is usually some sort of road or cheaper power. Every opportunity we have, we try to facilitate. With regards to the Tlicho, we haven’t met with NICO. They expressed their concern with regards to a road, any road. The department had set aside money for a road, some sort of an all-weather road or at least improving the existing winter road. They were waiting for some response from the Tlicho government. I think they are still waiting on that. We have committed we would facilitate a meeting or I would meet with the Minister of Transportation to discuss that road. We are still working on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to hear that there is some work going on with DOT. I think you both play an important role in this particular area. I am glad to see that is going. We have a lot of Aboriginal organizations right now that are really seizing the opportunities through the Tlicho and the Akaitcho to provide essential services and other services to the diamond mining industry here in the Northwest Territories. I know that there is some interest in becoming more engaged and more active in road construction, which means there has to be an opportunity for them to build some capacity that they may not have at this point. I know Deton’Cho is talking about building some capacity so that they can become more involved in time in road construction in the North Slave as well as throughout the Northwest Territories. I understand they are getting equipment and they are doing all sorts of things. What role, if any, does ITI have in helping them build some capacity and get some opportunities? Is ITI working with them on helping them tailor their bids to suit the needs of DOT so that they fully understand? Is there any business counselling going on, any opportunity for them to build some capacity so that they can start getting these road contracts so that they will be a road builder in the future? That is including seasonal and all-season roads, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, through the tools that we have which are primarily the Business Development Investment Corporation and the Department of ITI and we are still waiting to see whether the Opportunities Fund will be a tool that we can use. We work very closely with the development corporations to develop capacity. We don’t give them counselling on specific projects or specific bids, but where they come to us for capital or for loans and we counsel them on whether we think it is a viable or feasible investment. We continue to work with them on an ongoing basis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Next I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered what work is being done in terms of the Pollard report, if the Minister knows if that is going to be returned to us and are we done with that or do we have an opportunity to contribute to his review of the environmental process still. Thanks.
Minister McLeod.
Mr. Chairman, it has been a while since we met with Mr. Pollard. I believe it was early in the summer of 2010. Indirectly we understand that he is still working on his report and that as soon as he completes it, he will be communicating it to the Minister of Indian Affairs. I expect that at some point after that we may or may not see the report, depending on whether that is something the federal government feels they can utilize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, did we comment to try and get clarification that we are not a provincial government? We are a consensus government, a territorial government, and all MLAs need to be able to contribute to decisions made on these projects. Was that clarified to Mr. Pollard? My understanding is that this was probably a one-off sort of process this time hopefully and that other projects will not necessarily follow the review panel process. We need to be clear. I am wondering if the Minister managed to get that input to Mr. Pollard.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we communicated that to him, but Mr. Pollard, being an outstanding former Member of this Assembly, I am sure he understood how the consensus government works. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, he has indeed. I managed to bend his ear a bit myself. I appreciate that he was well qualified to do this job. How many personnel do we have in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Office? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we have six members right now. I believe that is our plan to keep it at that for the next while because of the fact that the NEB report indicated that proponents are to give an update in 2013. Our expectation is we will probably keep it at that for a year or so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, obviously by keeping it at that, we know we have had that number for some unknown amount of time but probably a considerable number of years. We are still a considerable amount of years away from the project. Are these people being loaned out in the department to other initiatives?
Mr. Chairman, we reduced the number of personnel from seven to six. We are continuing to have the division continue to focus on the Mackenzie pipeline. They are working on the permitting. They are also working on the communities and making sure the communities are aware of what is going on and also making sure that we are ready when the decision is made to go ahead and also we are doing work on the community gas conversions that we are planning to do once the pipeline is constructed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
What about the socio-economic agreement? When do we anticipate that to come into force and are there people amongst these six staff that are working on that? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had previously identified $300,000 for the operation of the Socio-economic Advisory Board and we have deferred that until 2012-2013 -- I believe it will show up in one of the pages -- and that is mainly due to scheduling changes and there is no position associated with that at this time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My understanding is that our socio-economic agreement stipulates that the pipeline proponents will contribute a spectacular $75,000 a year for the socio-economic office. In fact, I understand that there won’t be an office. Is that still the case?
Not at this time.
It just seems that given the agreement that we have apparently signed, it is essentially the agreement from the proponents, I would suggest that the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Office has a lot of work they could be doing towards an improved socio-economic agreement before the project goes ahead. Is there the expertise within that office to look at that should we decide that is a reasonable direction for their work? Thank you.
We have signed an agreement with the proponents which still stands. There are some appendices that have to still be negotiated, mainly in the area of transportation and health. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
