Thank you, Member. Questions for this section? Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. One of my favourite areas, land use planning, it brought me up here in 1985, and it's almost as long as the Dehcho Land Use Plan has been in development. It's now been in development for 20 years. I asked the Premier about this in June of last year in connection with a decision that the government had made to make permanent the subsurface land withdrawal for Edehzhie. Can someone give me a brief update of the Dehcho Land Use Plan and why it hasn't been completed after 20 years? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. For 20 years, I probably can't give you that answer. What I can tell you right now is that we've appointed our government person on there. The committee's excited, and they basically said within the next two years, supposedly, that we are going to have the land use plan up and running. We are working on that. If I've misspoken, I will actually, with your permission, turn to the deputy minister. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Deputy Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Edehzhie was referenced earlier, and in the lead-up to actually putting forward the subsurface withdrawal for Edehzhie, there was considerable discussions with representatives from the Deh Cho. A commitment to devote extra and continued energy towards work on the land use plan and completing that work. The Minister referenced that we did have the GNWT representative for that work retire and appointed a new representative. We received a very favourable response from the Deh Cho in relation to that, and from that, took to heart that the commitment to continue to work diligently on completing the land use plan would continue. The Minister said three years? Two, sorry. I think in the lead-up to discussions around the subsurface, the expectation actually was and the impression formed was that it would be a shorter time frame than that for the completion of the work. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm hoping that I can bargain the other side down to a lot less than two years. As I've said, this has been dragging on for 20 years, and I know some of the people who have been engaged and involved in this over that period of time. It's just incredible. There's been at least two or three plans prepared. They were rejected by our government not once, twice, three times, so we're the problem now. It's our government that's the problem. I'm hearing, though, that the Edehzhie subsurface land transferred to the federal government, that's going to happen in the next six months. Did I hear that correct? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
We're transferring land to the federal government? Sorry, I apologize. I'm asking the Member questions. Is that what he's asked?
[Microphone turned off]
Okay. We've withdrawn the land subsurface rights as per their request. Basically, once the land use plan is completed, then the land will be basically transferred as part of the land use plan. We're not doing it in six months for the Member because I know the Member's trying to get things done in six months, but we're working with their committee. We, as this government, has shown good faith. Usually, you do a land withdrawal for a short period of time. We've done the withdrawal permanently until the land use plan is completed. We are working with the Deh Cho First Nation and the committee. We're working on it to get it done. I would actually thank EIA for the work they did to remove -- just not have it for short periods of times, withdrawals. Now, we're working on getting the land use plan completed. When I say "we," the collectively "we." We are working with the Deh Cho First Nation on it. I'm excited about it. I am from that riding, the Member beside you, and if we are able to get this done in this Assembly, I would be very, very happy. You said it's 20 years? I'm hoping it's going to be done in 22 years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member.
I thought I was patient, but 22 more years, it better not. Look, I'd understood that the subsurface for Edehzhie needs to be transferred to the federal government so that it can actually formally set up as a national wildlife area. The money can then flow from the federal government. This is on hold while our government continues to twiddle its thumbs about whether we're actually going to transfer the land back to the federal government. It should never have been given to us in the first place under devolution. I don't know why that ever happened. It's my understand you have to transfer the subsurface back to the federal government so then they can start to invest money and complete the agreement that's already been made with the Deh Cho. Anyway, I'm going to move on because my clock's running down here. I hope that the Minister can get that clarified.
Wek'eezhii land use planning, earlier, we talked about how we're going to carry out some federal responsibility even though we may not have the money. Now, we're going to be carrying out federal responsibility again using our own money. Wek'eezhii land use planning, why are we paying for land use planning in the Wek'eezhii management area? I keep asking this. Why is the federal government not paying for this? It's in the Tlicho agreement. It's an implementation issue. Why is our government paying for land use planning? Thanks, Mr. Chair. How much in this budget is for Wek'eezhii land use planning? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
We have a three-party approach to it: the federal government, the Tlicho, and the GNWT. What you're seeing here and our budget here today is our money to complete that commitment. It's our commitment that we agreed to be part of. As for the amount of money in there, with your permission, I will ask the deputy minister to provide that information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Deputy Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The total amount of funds for the Department of Lands for the Wek'eezhii land use planning governance work includes funds to lease office space in Behchoko and positions, and it amounts to $443,000. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't think I really got an answer to my question. Can someone tell me, then: how much money is in this part of the budget for Gwich'in and Sahtu land use planning? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
For that detail, I will turn to Ms. Macdonald. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Macdonald.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't have specific funding for those categories, but it would just be included in our base funding under land use and sustainability. For land use planning, our budget for 2021-2022 is $2,357,000. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Macdonald. Member.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I just made my point. We are not making a financial contribution for land use planning in the Gwich'in or the Sahtu settlement area. Yes, we are at the table. We help participate. We provide information and so on, but we don't make a financial contribution there because the federal government pays for it, as they should, in terms of the land rights negotiations agreements that were reached for those two settlement areas. Why are we paying for land use planning in the Wek'eezhii management area? This should be a federal responsibility under the Tlicho agreement. Can I get an answer? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
I guess this is going to be one of those "I agree to disagree" with the Member. This is our commitment, the Northwest Territories' commitment to the Wek'eezhii part of the plan. That's our commitment. That is our understanding. This is what we have to pay, and we are honouring that. We have worked with the federal government, we have worked with the Indigenous governments, and this is what our costs are. This is something that we are honouring. We have worked with them, and we are able to do it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm happy that we have a new Public Lands Act. I look forward to the day when it's implemented. I'm looking for an update on when we will see some changes in how we assess and we essentially tax land. I think it's fair to say right now that there are some inconsistencies in the system right now. You pay 5 percent on a residential lease on Commissioner's land and 10 percent on a recreational. Many people live on their recreational leases, and if they actually were allowed to, they would then pay less tax. Then we have territorial lands, and both are appraised differently, using different methodology. It's fair to say that we're hoping to clean all of this up with the Public Lands Act, but I'm hoping the Minister can give me a timeline on when we will see some changes on lease fees. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. My understanding is: we are 18 months away from getting everything done, completed. The team is working diligently. We are on schedule, from my latest report today I received. We do have a template that shows us where we are, so right now, we are on schedule to be done. It will talk about leases, lease fees, not taxation. Please understand, taxation belongs the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs. I know the Member may not like that answer, but that is the reality of it presently. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member.
Admittedly, I don't fully understand this, Mr. Chair. Can the Minister help me clarify? My understanding is that Commissioner's land uses the Property Assessment Taxation Act. Territorial land uses a different metric created by the Department of Lands. Is that going to change? Are we going to have one metric for how we assess value and then charge a fee? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
The answer is yes, but for further detail, I will turn to the deputy minister, with your permission. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Deputy Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The department is in the midst of broad public engagement and land pricing has probably been the vast majority of comments that we've received as part of that process. We are aware that there is a great deal of concern about this, and it is our objective to take more time to look at how land is assessed and priced and to create a unified process and approach and not have multiple approaches. One of our inherent underlying principles in the work that we're doing on the regulations is to support greater transparency, so we do want to have a process that is clearer to individuals, as well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I get an understanding of how improvements to land fit into the assessment? Are we taxing improvements presently on Commissioner's, recreational, industrial, commercial, and the territorial lands? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you. The Member is asking about taxation again, and that's not our department. That is Municipal and Community Affairs' responsibility and how they assess the taxes. The question that he is asking, he will probably have to reach out to the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs to get clarity on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a lot of issues with how the taxes are calculated, as well, but no, sorry. Right now, you pay a lease rent, and your lease rent is based on 10 percent or 5 percent or some other different methodology. I believe the lease rent is the Department of Lands. That lease rent, which is a percentage of the assessed value, does the assessed value for the multiple different types of lands we've created include improvements to land is my question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
I would get clarity for how we assess the leases from the deputy minister. Thank you.
Deputy Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. For most leases, there is a five-year periodic review of the lease rent that is charged, and for that, we do rely on some information provided to us from Municipal and Community Affairs to assist us with that lease rent review. My understanding is that Municipal and Community Affairs' process does include potential improvements to the land, so there is a factoring in, given the process that we follow. In terms of going forward, because I think there was interest in pricing going forward, we do have to, as I indicated, determine what that process is going to look like in terms of the value of land going forward and whether it's based on the assessed value of the land or not and how improvements factor in. Those are definitely items that we will have to consider as we move forward on regulation development. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Member.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I think a lot of work needs to be done here. I recognize that Commissioner's land that falls under MACA does tax improvements. Then the territorial land on which we have our own evaluation, I get different answers depending on where you are and whether there is any market in that land or the improvements have any value. There just seems to be inconsistency depending on who decided whether the land has any value because we're using two different assessments. I understand that we will have that resolved, hopefully, in 18 months. Where I was also going with this is: in the Department of Lands business plan, one of the goals is to develop criteria for assessing applications for agricultural uses of land. How many agricultural leases do we have presently, commercial leases that are using agricultural land presently in the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
