Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, this is good to hear, that there is maybe some possible future consideration to bringing those two in line. I wonder: are there any challenges right now with the Department of Lands trying to achieve some of its work, especially as it relates to inspections, with water and Lands being separate? Are there any current challenges that the department is hindered by in that regard? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Yes, Mr. Chair. Perhaps I could have Mr. Hagen answer that operational question. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Lands and ENR work very well together, so, as a result of that, we really don't come across any problems with how we do inspections. If you are looking at being costeffective, there is probably a better way of doing it for budgeting purposes, but we do not encounter any problems working with ENR in Lands. We collaborate well. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the department describe, then, some of the challenges that those outside government might be having with regard to those two being separated?
When it comes to permitting or, again, inspections, is this creating some degree of redundancy and double effort and potentially even double expense for those who are applying for land use permits and those who are applying for access to water? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can't really speak to that, because I haven't heard that concern from private industry to this point. Perhaps Mr. Hagen might have something to add to that, but I've not heard any submissions on that specific item. I mean, there are always concerns by those in the corporate or industrial world about the complexity of oversight and the regulatory system in the Northwest Territories, but I haven't heard that specific concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like I stated before, operationally the two departments work well together. It doesn't create a conflict or an overkill on inspections. You referred to land use permits or water licence. Of course, we don't issue those; those are issued, I'm sure you know, through the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board or the Tlicho Land and Water Board or the Wek'eezhii Land and Water Board. Sorry, the Sahtu and the Gwich'in. So we don't handle the ISR in the regulatory boards, but our inspectors do not complicate them applying for a permit or a water licence. When they get one, they have terms and conditions that are put into the land use permit, for example, and our inspectors then go out and inspect the terms and conditions laid out by the land and water boards. We do the lands part. The ENR water inspectors do the water part of that permit.
I mean, perhaps it could cause confusion by a proponent thinking why it's Lands and Department of ENR, you know, both coming in on one permit; they may question that, but they don't lose anything by having two departments coming in. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Like my colleague had mentioned on why there's not a proposition in place here to hold lands and waters underneath the same department here, as the Minister's statement mentioned earlier on cross-appointment of inspectors between Lands and ENR. So picking that up here, I'm just wondering about the word "efficiencies" and less confusion to developers: are there any intentions for this fiscal year to see a transfer of the water inspector to the Lands department? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister.
Perhaps Mr. Hagen could answer that question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. McNeely, for suggesting if it happens it comes to Lands; I appreciate that.
There is no confusion in the way it's structured today. Whether they should be transferred to Lands or to ENR, of course, it's the Cabinet's decision and not ours. I have views on it operationally, but it works the way it is so there's nothing to say that it can't go forward the same way it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen, Minister. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, the word I used in my previous comment as well is "efficiencies," and I guess this is what we're trying to do is utilize efficiencies and apply them where it's applicable for a more streamlined administration system.
So I look forward to any further discussions on our recommendations, if there is willingness. Sure it might be working but can it work better I guess is my personal statement, but if there is, with the powers that be, to entertain the idea of transferring the water inspectors to the Lands, okay, we'll leave it at that as a suggestion.
My next question on the Lands Act -- no, I'll leave that for later, Mr. Chair. I'll go to the operational budget as set out in 293. I noticed 2015-16 versus 2017-18; 2015-16 we see a transfer of devolution authorities and related transfer budget allowances there from the agreement that was negotiated, and it has dropped ever since. My understanding is that devolution has seen some transitional funding that was supposed to come within the next three years or the next five years of operations. Why has the head office administration funding budget been on a slide or decreasing since takeover of devolution? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister.
Perhaps Mr. Hagen might respond.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I suppose the short answer to why the decreases is that when Lands came into being a little over two and a half years ago it was a brand new department. They didn't exactly know how it was going to function, never having a Lands department before. I can give you an example of the administrative people who Mr. Thompson was talking about, that some of them have been let go is that before devolution INAC had four administrative people in the field, including the finance people. When Lands came into being, they put 10 in the same regions, 10 altogether,
So as the operation goes along you realize that there have been some good decisions and there have also been some decisions that had to be revisited, and that reduction in the budget is the sign of the revisiting them and realizing that it was overkill in a lot of the areas.
I think you mentioned the head office; the decrease to the head office was, again, operational; it wasn't required. Lands is a small department; there's a budget of $26 million and 148 people compared to other operations. So now, like it was mentioned by a Member there that we're not four years into it, we're almost three years, yes, we're coming out to a spot where Lands is functioning and it's running very efficiently and cost effective. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Minister, you'd like to add something?
Yes, Mr. Chair, I would like to add something. I think that when we see amalgamations, whether they're governmental or corporate, there is almost always a rationalization of positions. Hopefully, this is not on a fact-based basis and we believe that to have been the case here. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have nothing further on this chapter. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Seeing nothing further I will call the department. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to come back to efficiencies and working with it. Now, I am not totally familiar with this world, so bear with me. My understanding is that the water and land boards are together and so they deal with lands and they deal with water together, so why is this government having Lands over here and water in ENR? Why is it separated? We don't have the efficiency. The boards seem to be efficient, and we, as government, seem to be less efficient, so can the Minister explain that, the rationale for this? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am not certain of all of the consideration that went into the manner in which the two functions were divided, but I am very pleased to hear that Members are interested in us having the department act more efficiently. As I say, it certainly could be a matter for consideration in the future, that these two functions be combined. Further to that, I have really nothing to add except, as I say, I am very glad to see the Members are interested in efficiencies. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for his answer. Yes, I really support efficiencies. However, I am sitting here looking at Lands and Water, which are two separate things. It is great that we are looking at the future. Will the Minister make a commitment to work with the Minister of ENR and the Premier to actually make this more efficient within this fiscal year, the year that we are looking at, 201718, so that, when we come to the 201819 budget, we will actually see more efficiencies in making it work better? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Mr. Chair, I think I can speak for this government in saying that we are always attempting to make our operations more efficient. As everyone is well aware, we are combining other departments to make them more efficient. That, in itself, is a large change in the manner in which we do business. I don't know whether we could consider within the next year whether we should combine these functions of water and lands, but, certainly, it probably should be considered in the future. I think, frankly, for this year, as far as amalgamating departments, we already have enough on our plate. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for his answer. You, the government, have come to us with amalgamations. You guys are the ones who put this stuff on the plate, and you are talking about efficiencies. What I am saying is I am not asking you to do it this fiscal year because you've already got the amalgamations going, but I am talking about next fiscal year. That gives you a year to work on this. Will you work with the Minister of ENR, the Premier, and the Finance Minister to look at this and come back to committee to make a decision? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister.
Mr. Chair, I think all of us realize the potential wisdom of making the government, our department, more efficient, and I think that I am prepared to discuss this matter with other Ministers, what has been suggested today and does seem to be make sense. As I say, we are always interested in making the government more efficient. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Would the Minister of ENR like to comment?
Well, the light is on. I may as well. I get five minutes. I think the Minister of Lands pointed out before, we will have the discussion. We have heard the Member's concern, and we will have that discussion amongst our Cabinet colleagues to see if there is merit in that, first of all, if it will streamline things and make it more efficient. I mean, we will have to have that discussion, but we take the Member's point.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you. I thank both Ministers. I appreciate that answer. I guess my next thing is: when you talk about it, can it be evidencebased? It has to be zerobased budgeting and evidencebased. Just don't throw things together, but do it as evidencebased. I would hope that the departments would look at that as evidencebased and bring forward a good solution. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Would the Minister like to comment?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to think that all of our decisions are evidencebased. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Anything further? Mr. Thompson.
No, I am good. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
