Page 337, Lands, operations, operations expenditure summary, $11.770 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m just enjoying the chorus from the other side of the room. I want to ask a few questions here. First of all, do we inventory aggregate resources as part of this Lands operations division and maintain inventories, that sort of thing? What’s our role there? I see we provide quarry permits. I’m just wondering what that is based on, if we have any kind of inventory approach. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As such, one of the things that was not transferred over as part of the devolution exercise was what we euphemistically call the “dirt doctor role” and having an understanding of the quarrying potential and the aggregate resource potential out there. That is something that we’ve identified as a gap within the department and something that we will be trying to add capacity around because there is a huge potential if we manage our sand and gravel resources both from a revenue perspective and also something that we would want to do anyway. But it is not something that we currently have within our mandate.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s a curious one. It would be fun to explore that one. I won’t do that here, but it would be fun to explore that one a little bit and see. I wonder what the federal government was thinking there.
Just looking back, I see we’re expecting $290,000 of royalties in the coming fiscal year which is substantially less than what we’ve already achieved this fiscal year. I wonder if that’s because of this limitation or whether there are other things going on there. Maybe I will start with that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Director Hilderman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The $225,000 that we estimated for ‘15-16 revenues was based on the open active quarry permits that we’re aware of and the quarrying activity over the last five years. Quarrying is actually really hard to estimate or to know what might or might not be quarried. The royalty is paid in advance and then only on final inspection do you recognize the revenue, and oftentimes the amount of royalty deposited in advance is actually refunded if the quarrying doesn’t take place. From the information that we had available since Lands came into being, we felt that $225,000 was a reasonable and conservative estimate. Hopefully, we do much better than that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Hilderman. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for that information. That helps to understand the process a bit.
I believe the Recreational Leasing Policy falls in this division, managing and administering leases. I know that there’s a public consultation process going on. I just wonder if we can get a quick update on where we’re at on that, when we can expect results and how the Minister will be responding to some of the points that are being raised. Thank you.
Deputy Minister Warren.
Mr. Chair, the rec leasing land management framework is currently in the consultation phase. We’ve held a number of consultations so far. We held our first consultations in Hay River. It was represented by five participants, and we’ve now published on our website what we heard from those participants. We have also had sessions in Fort Simpson with 11 attendants; two in Yellowknife, one with 65 and one with 40 people attending; and one in Detah with eight people attending; then Fort Smith, 17; and just last week we had I think it was another 18 people attend the session in Behchoko.
As well, we have an online survey and a request for comments and we’ve had around 46 people commenting on that so far. As I said, the only summary we produced, though, is for the first set of consultations, so we will be publicizing the results of those consultations fully from all of the consultations once we’ve finished the current ones that are ongoing up in Inuvik right now.
Thank you, deputy minister. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you for that update. It sounds like a pretty good response to me. I guess I’ll just ask at this point, have there been any comments that the Minister has been able to incorporate or address already in the planning for the recreational leasing policies? If not, I’ll leave it at for now on that subject and move on to another one. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through one of the consultations here in Yellowknife there was a concern raised by some of the residents that they wanted the focus area expanded to include some of the islands, so we took that into consideration and I believe we have now expanded the focus area to include some of the islands that many residents were concerned about. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Bromley.
Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Minister. I know lots of people will be very interested in that and I appreciate that response.
I see that securities are mentioned here and I believe there is a whole division on securities and assurances. Is that because of the two different acts, the Commissioner’s Land Act and the NWT Lands Act? I’m just wondering if securities are still a part of this division’s operations. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Securities are included in the land administration division because of the linkage with the inspection function. Part of the responsibility of the inspector is also to examine the site, should there be additional things that require more security, as well as be able to report on progressive reclamation and as it would then affect the levels of securities that were held. So as a company does progressive reclamation, they would ask of us that we inspect it so that potentially some of the security that’s being held could be released. The linkage here is to the inspection function around securities.
So inspectors are in this division? I understand, okay. So, are we fully staffed now in the inspector positions that we have? Maybe I can get an update on how we’re increasing the inspections as compared to the federal performance and the cost that that engendered in the past. Thank you.
We are not fully staffed in the inspection function. We are currently running a number of competitions and hope to have a full complement of RMO 3s and RMO 2s complete in the next short while. We also, as the Members are aware, and as the Minister announced just last week, have the new RMO 1 positions, and when the inspectors got together along with the superintendents to look at that program they made it clear that it was important to have the 2s and 3s in place to be able to mentor the 1s. So they spent their time over the last while devising a comprehensive training program that would allow entry-level community-based participants to come into that program.
Those positions are actually out for advertisement, and if the Members know anyone that would be interested in applying, we would encourage them to do so. Those positions, then, we hope to have filled in the next four to six weeks or so.
Thank you, deputy minister. Next on my list I have Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of questions here with regards to land in and around the city of Yellowknife. For quite some years now we’ve had an interim land withdrawal around the city. I think it started in 2006 or so. It’s been extended a number of times, and my understanding is it’s now set to expire November of 2015. So, is there an intention on the part of Lands to extend it again? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Deputy minister.
Mr. Chairman, the current land withdrawal in place around the city of Yellowknife is primarily associated with setting aside the lands associated with negotiation of the land claims agreements with the various Aboriginal governments in this area. So it has been the practice in the past, to the extent that those agreements are unsettled, that land withdrawals are maintained.
I guess that tells me that you haven’t heard from the local Aboriginal government, but the intention, and I guess the policy is that this land withdrawal will stay in place until there’s a land claim agreement. Is that correct?
Yes, that’s the intention.
To the Minister: I have to say, on behalf of my local government, that’s a very far in the future date, in my estimation, when we’re going to get a land claim agreement with the local Aboriginal group. So, you know, for my community government it severely hampers what they can do in terms of acquisition of land in and around the city.
My second question has to do with the Yellowknife harbour, so to speak, and it’s no secret that the city is investigating the development of a harbour plan and they’re looking at trying to put some system in place to get some revenue from houseboats. Some of them are apparently willing to pay some taxes or some sort of a fee.
So can I ask where the department sits in terms of turning over the lakebed, or the bay bed, for lack of a better way of putting it? Where are things at with the City of Yellowknife in coming to some kind of agreement to give them control over the bay? Thank you.
To the best of my knowledge it’s not within the authorities of the Territorial Lands Act to regulate the lakebeds. So we wouldn’t have any authority over the lakebeds.
So where would that responsibility lie? Which department? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really couldn’t give the Member an answer at this time. We’ll do some research and we’ll come back to the Member and committee. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. I appreciate that commitment and look forward to some more info.
Lastly, it’s my understanding from the conversations that Yellowknife MLAs have with City Council – we do that fairly regularly – the city has asked for a number of parcels in and around the city and that some of them, in negotiating with the GNWT, are going to be not turned over to fee simple but are going to be turned over as leases. I wonder if I can get some kind of an explanation. That makes me frown. As an ex city councillor I don’t understand why we would want to force the city to take over a piece of land as a lease instead of in fee simple title. Thank you.
If its land that’s within a municipal boundary I would think that would be a MACA issue because MACA still deals with land within the municipal boundary. If the Member is able to provide us with some detail, I will commit to the Member that we will investigate. I’m a little surprised to hear that myself. I would think it would be something that’s covered under MACA if it’s still within a municipality. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. I will provide that info. I am struggling to understand why MACA would have responsibility for municipal lands. I thought all Commissioner’s lands had been turned over to the Lands department. Does this mean that our communities are applying for lands in two places? Thank you.
I apologize if I’ve confused the Member. I was made to understand that we do the block land transfer within the city, like the hinterland would go through Lands. Dealing with city lots is still through MACA. So we would do the block land transfers and we do all Commissioner’s lands within municipal boundaries too. I apologize if I confused the Member. I just assumed that MACA took care of everything like it normally does. Thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have no further questions.
Thank you. Next on my list I have Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to welcome the department here today, because this department is still in its infancy stage and Members are still trying to grasp all the roles and responsibilities here. Because we’re talking about operations, it’s important for me to understand what Lands’ role is when we have a real encompassing fire season like we had in 2014.
Could we get a brief overview as to what role the department plays in working with ENR and DOT and the different stakeholders? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Deputy Minister Warren.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last year during the fire season, the Department of Lands was contacted on a number of occasions to provide information on what we knew about cabins, either authorized or unauthorized. We were asked to provide locations of any known cabins or camps that were out there for protection of individuals. We were also asked, through our leases, to provide all the contact information we had for anyone we knew that was out there so they could be told to evacuate if necessary. Thank you.
I thank Mr. Warren for that. Do you see the role moving to anything else other than what we just heard today? Do you see this as a progression of the department for fire seasons in terms of playing a more significant role with your partners?
Through the informatics division, the department also has a broad responsibility, working with ENR and ITI, on identifying any significant landscape disturbance issues. We would, for instance, have in our plans for the summer, working with ENR, to be able to do some aerial surveys and landscape mapping of the areas around Yellowknife just to see what the implications of the fire season were for last year.
I appreciate that. It’s good to have that background information.
Changing gears, Mr. Chair, with your indulgence, with the regulations of the Wildlife Act, what role does this department now play in the drafting of those regulations? Thank you.
The Department of Lands works with other departments through Managing this Land Committee of deputies to bring forward any issues that would have implications for our department or other departments related to managing this land. To the extent that the regulations for the Wildlife Act would have an implication on habitat, landscape disturbance, land use planning-type activities, we would be asked to be involved in those.
As Members, we have to get used to a new department and what roles it plays. I apologize if I may seem a bit outlandish with some of the questions. I do appreciate the response.
Just a question on the operations side, if I may. We see an amortization entry for $25,000 in the 2014-15 year and then we don’t see any amortization entry. Was there something that was completely amortized in one year, or was that at the tail end of something that we acquired? I would just like a clarification because it’s odd that you see one entry of amortization and then no entry after that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Director Hilderman.
The amortization under operations was for two facilities that we anticipated would be transferred to the Department of Lands from AANDC on transfer date, April 1st. It was actually determined after the printing of our main estimates for 2014-15, that prior to transfer date those two particular assets were already transferred to the GNWT. The Fort Smith warehouse transferred in 1987 under the forest and fire management transfer and the office building in Inuvik was with the Northern Scientific Research Centre transfer.
On the revenue page – if I can go back to that – the capital transfer of $461,000 with a one-time recognition, under new accounting standards of assets to be gifted from the federal government, this was the amortization associated with those two assets. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Hilderman. Mr. Dolynny.
