Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we can get maybe a little bit of information here because it’s a new department. Understanding the number of active positions that are required to run this department, can the Minister indicate how many positions that AANDC or our federal counterparts use to complete the very same workload that we’re embarking on? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Eighty-six came over from AANDC, plus we have our folks that came over from MACA and our informatics division. Thank you.
Thank you. So 86 employees from our federal counterparts were doing exactly the same amount of work that we’re undertaking. Is that my understanding? Thank you.
Thank you. I don’t think it’s a question of 86. The workload is going to be different. There’s going to be some changes. We’re inheriting the 33 folks, so we’re inheriting folks from MACA. So the workload will be different. So I can’t say or agree that it’s going to be 86 that came over doing exactly the same work. You’ve got to look at the quality of work. I mean, there could be a number of different reasons. So we’re making sure that we’re prepared to hit the ground running and not try to learn this on the fly, but I think there’s a difference there. Thank you.
Thank you. I guess what I’m trying to do is establish what I call a baseline. So if our federal counterparts were doing very similar work in terms of providing, you know, the terms of reference and the mandate directorate of lands today, we keep hearing about devolution as being taking over control of activities and that we will evolve later. We keep hearing this from the Premier. I have to be honest, with all of the changes in devolution, I have to say that this is the one area that drew my most attention of concern that we were devolving and evolving on the same day. We’re adding roughly over 40 percent more employees than what I consider AANDC was providing with what I consider a very similar workload. So we’re adding, if my math is correct, 57 new employees to which AANDC was providing with 86 employees. I guess I have a hard wrapping my head around that. We’re adding a little over $8 million of wages at a time of constraint when I think that we’re trying to build this department and evolve this department to something to which I think we are going to be happy at the end of the day, but we’re doing so almost on day one, which I have a hard time understanding.
My question is: The workload that we’re expecting here with the bringing in of the MACA employees, informatics, we’re bringing in the AANDC employees, is the workload, is the mandate that much different than what AANDC was doing as of today?
It seems like when you go from 86 to the number that we have here, it’s a lot, but if you look at the 86 plus 33 that we inherited, that’s 119, so there are 119 existing positions. So there are 119 positions that are doing the work from AANDC and the territorial government, and we’ve identified, I think, the need for 25 new positions. I’m not sure if we’ve filled them yet but, I mean, we’re going to have to start briefing committee after April 1st to fill them in on some of the direction that we’re going on some of the hiring that we’ve been doing. It’s actually 119 existing. I know 86 came over from AANDC. Again, here’s an opportunity, I think, post April 1st to have a good briefing with committee and fill them in on some of the responsibilities that we have. We have new inspections that we need to do. I mean, there’s a whole different workload, but it’s actually 119 existing positions, which sounds a lot better than 86.
If I can have a little latitude here just so I can compare apples to apples with the number of active positions. We know that the budget that we have for this department is a little over $26 million. Do we know what AANDC ran this very same department with in terms of what their budget was?
We don’t know exactly what AANDC’s budget was to run their operation. I mean, we do know that we received $67 million from the federal government as part of the devolution and the positions that we were going to be inheriting. As far as exactly what their budget was, we don’t know that. I suppose if we dug around we could find that.
If I can get the Minister and the department’s commitment to track down what the, say, rolling average of AANDC’s budget and Lands was for the last three years, and if they can supply that to committee. Again, I’m trying to use this as a baseline as we emerge and try to find a happy medium as to what this budget is for Lands and how we’re moving forward factoring in potential forced growth for next year. But it’s important that we, as Members, have a good understanding of what baseline means. My only baseline is what AANDC was using running this department for years and decades, so would the Minister commit to providing that information to committee?
I’ll commit to the Member that we’ll try and gather some of that information, if possible, and we’ll share it with committee.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Committee, we’re on page 14-10, information item, active position summary.
Agreed.
Page 14-13, activity summary, directorate, operations expenditure summary, $4.160 million.
Agreed.
Page 14-14, information item, directorate, active positions.
Agreed.
Page 14-17, activity summary, planning and coordination, operations expenditure summary, $5.850 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ve got a couple of questions here. I’m just looking down at the narrative here on page 16, and I see the land use planning and sustainability unit, the land use sustainability unit, the land use planning unit. That’s three different sections or divisions or whatever. The land use planning and sustainability unit and then we have the land use sustainability, then we have land use planning. There’s something that is just mind warping about this. Do we actually have, like, a manager or a director or something in each of these units and why the heck don’t we get rid of one of them or two of them? Get rid of two of them. I think this might go towards Mr. Dolynny’s question.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is actually meant to be like how we’re accounting for the expenditures and not the organization. The organization is headed by a single director which has three managers under it. The management units are one of land use sustainability, a branch related to project assessment, and a branch related to land use planning, so one director with three managers.
Thank you, Mr. Warren. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did look back at the organizational chart here, and again, I’d say there’s room for some efficiencies. I’m a big proponent of sustainably, I’m sure the Minister knows, and the land use planning, but just in terms of the use of our positions, I’m a bit perplexed here, although you can subtly define the differences between them. I bet the coordination, I bet the results would be a lot better if you combine them in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, but I’ll leave that to the Minister. I’ll throw that out there as maybe that’s something more that we can chat about during a briefing on this new department as we get close to that time.
On the land use planning whatever it’s called, section, I see government-led land use planning initiatives in the Wek’eezhii Inuvialuit Settlement Region or the South Slave in the last sentence there. Rather than Wek’eezhii, do we mean Tlicho there? Sorry, Akaitcho, because Wek’eezhii seems like it would be covered by the Tlicho which has their own land use plan for their region. I’m just wondering again. I want to make sure we’re well organized there.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. The Member is correct. We’ll have to make that change and put Tlicho.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Bromley.
Finally, just on the project assessment branch, I think this follows up a little bit on our original discussion here earlier today. Coordinates interdepartmental participation and environmental assessment processes and, eventually, and consensus building. Again, I thought each Minister was going to have and retain their own perspectives here, but this seems to mean that there’s going to be one piece of input that’s a consensus, so I’m just wondering what exactly that means in this process.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The difference here is it’s building consensus on how to feed into the decision-making process, not having a consensus decision. I know that it’s a fine point, but that’s what it is here. This is collecting the information and building consensus amongst the responsible Ministers as you feed into the process, and then the final decision that is made is a singular decision. That’s what we’re coordinating, the feeding into the process to aid with making an effective decision by whichever responsible Minister we’d be feeding into.
Thank you, Mr. Warren. Committee, we’re on page 14-17, activity summary, planning and coordination, operations expenditure summary, $5.850 million.
Agreed.
Page 14-18, activity summary, planning and coordination, grants and contributions, $680,000. Mr. Bromley.
I see contributions for Aboriginal groups for consultation and supportive decisions on disposition of lands and again for Aboriginal groups in North Slave and South Slave regions supportive land use planning processes. Obviously, we need to be consulting with other people that are not Aboriginal or don’t have Aboriginal treaty rights. Where is the budget to support consultation in those areas? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, it’s kind of the nuance of the wording. This is to provide a contribution to allow people to participate in the consultation process. We will consult with others through our staff members, with members of the public. It is encompassed in doing land use planning or doing project assessment and others. We would consult out, but this is to allow them to provide feedback to Aboriginal governments specifically related to their Aboriginal rights to be able to feed into the process.
Thank you, Mr. Warren. Mr. Bromley.
I disagree. I’m talking about exactly the same thing. I’m talking about funding those without Aboriginal treaty rights so that they have the ability to feed into the process exactly as this is being done for Aboriginal groups. In fact, one of the difficulties with our process, environmental review processes, for example, and other processes, such as the proposed Intergovernmental Council and so on, is the lack of recognition of the need for a budget in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have a duty to consult with the Aboriginal governments. We do try and consult with as many interested stakeholders as possible, but we do have a duty to consult with the Aboriginal governments. Again, this is another issue that, as we go into the next business planning process, if the Members and committee feel that this is something that we need to address, I suppose we will have to have a look at it then. My basic understanding is we have a duty to consult, so we provide some funding for that. Thank you.
You do indeed have a duty to consult. That’s exactly what I’m talking about. You are choosing to fund only half the people of the Northwest Territories.
I brought this up during early discussions on this department and got the agreement of people at the table that this needs to be recognized. This government is dividing people by not recognizing this need. This has been brought up repeatedly and recognized as a legitimate point. Nothing is happening. We’re at the birthing of a new department and a new approach by this government. Where is this recognition? I mean, let’s put our money where our mouth is.
Mr. Chair, I believe we have put our money where our mouth is. Again I’ll say we have a duty to consult with the Aboriginal governments. I don’t believe we have duty to consult, but we do consult with everybody that may have some interest. Again, as we go through the business planning process next year, if the Members feel strongly that that needs to be included, then it’s a discussion I think we will have to have at the time, but we do recognize that we do try to consult with all interested stakeholders. If the Member feels that we need to fund them all, then let’s have that discussion during the business planning process.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Committee, we’re on page 14-18, activity summary, planning and coordination, grants and contributions, $680,000.
Agreed.
Page 14-19, information item, planning and coordination, active positions. Questions?
Agreed.
Page 14-21, activity summary, operations, operations expenditure summary, $10.486 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first question here is about securities. I see it’s mentioned here both under the Commissioner’s land administration, which I understand, and the Territorial land administration.
What is the situation with securities on the Territorial lands with the new legislation we will be adopting here? Right now, for example, under the Commissioner’s Land Act, securities are required for any leased territorial property, Commissioner’s land property that has a liability of $1,000 or greater. What is it under the Territorial lands administration new federal legislation?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The boards set the security on the advice of the government and then the government holds the security payment. Thank you.
So, at this moment in time, there is no requirement to set up financial security for a leased property. Is that my understanding? Just if the boards decide to do it, or can we request it or require it? Thank you.
