Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I will wade into this. Be careful what you ask for because we saw with some of the other departmental amalgamations that have been put forward that, in my humble opinion, they were not evidencebased and they are not zerobased budgeting. In any event, I think we have to be very careful.
You have separate pieces of legislation that deal with land and water, and I think that that is just a historical artifact of the last manager, which was the federal government, so you have to be very careful thinking about how you are going to merge those two responsibilities. Not to say that it can't be coordinated better, and I think we have already got some examples in terms of the crossappointment of inspectors, and those guys work very hard at their job. We want to make sure that they are properly supported.
I do want to talk just briefly about what my colleague, the MLA for Sahtu, touched on, the declining corporate management dollars in the budget for Lands. We got $26 million up front to look at transition costs of us taking over these responsibilities. That is almost the entire annual budget of the Department of Lands. Then we got another $65 million a year to administer land and waters. Look, there are lots of startup costs. We are learning and trying to feel our way. That is great.
Has the Minister or his department or our government ever looked at the money that we got from devolution and whether we are actually using and spending it all on resource management? Or are we diverting it for other purposes? Is that what we are starting to see happen here now? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to think that the government has been a good steward of the monies we have received. As I mentioned at the outset and has been repeated several times, this is a very new department and, as we move forward, inevitably there were costs in combining to two corporate cultures that existed previously. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I sort of expected to hear that. I guess, even before I became an MLA, this was a concern that I raised with devolution, that there needed to be a time, you know, maybe after five years or even three years or something, to start to look at the implementation of devolution and how it has actually worked out.
This Department of Lands is a creature of devolution, quite frankly. A piece was taken from MACA and a few other little bits thrown together, but I think we need to start to think about evaluating how devolution has actually gone. Certainly, it was a concern that I raised even before I was an MLA, about making sure that the money that we actually got under devolution was actually spent on resource management and not diverted for other purposes.
I have even suggested to the Auditor General's staff that this is something that they should consider looking at, that these are new responsibilities we have inherited; are we doing the best that we possibly can? I am going to leave it at that, though, for now, Mr. Chair, because I will have some other questions when we get into some other parts of the budget. I am not convinced that we are doing as well as we could or should and as our residents deserve. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
I don't think, Mr. Chair, I really have anything to add. I think we are making efficient use of the resources we did receive, but we are several years in. I know in other portions of devolution and things will be looked at after five years. It may be wise to see if we have properly transitioned from what we had before to what we have now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Nothing further. I will call this activity on page 293. Lands, corporate management, operations expenditure summary, total activity, $2,908,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will move on to informatics shared service centre; it includes the activity description on page 295 and information item on page 297. The expenditure summary is on page 296. Do we have comments or questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess I would like to ask for a plain-language answer as to what is happening with the NWT Centre for Geomatics, how that relates to the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Optic Project and then this Northern Canadian Centre of Excellence for Remote Sensing. What is the relationship between these three initiatives, and are we making wise investments with the money that is in the Lands budget for any of this work? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
That is a multipronged question that has been asked, Mr. Chair. I am going to ask Mr. Hagen to attempt to respond.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Western Arctic Centre for Geomatics was put into the budget. During a time of reductions, it was felt that we shouldn't be starting a new initiative. It didn't go ahead. We have one employee in Inuvik that is there until the end of March and the money will be let go in next year's budget. We intend to make a submission in 2021 to bring back the Western Arctic Centre for Geomatics. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate and thank the deputy minister for his response. I didn't really hear what the relationship is between the Centre for Geomatics, the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link, and then this Northern Canadian Centre for Excellence for Remote Sensing.
I recall seeing the business case for the NWT Centre for Geomatics. It looked very compelling. I thought it was a good business case where we could start to generate some revenues as well and sell some technology and so on. If we have the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link being finished this year, hopefully, and offering high speed access to the Mackenzie Delta and data highway and all those sorts of if things, why are we not going ahead with this Centre for Geomatics at the same time? What is this Northern Canadian Centre for Excellence for Remote Sensing? What is the relationship between all these initiatives? Thanks, Mr. Chair. Sorry. If they don't have the answer now, I am happy to get it in writing within a reasonable period of time, but this is all rather murky, and I am trying to understand this. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Mr. Speaker, this hydra-like question has many heads and I am going to ask the deputy minister to attempt to respond. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.
The establishment of the WACG in Inuvik, it was suspended as a start-off, to start at the beginning of your request, as a result of departmental phase 2 reduction of proposals. However, the Northwest Territories Centre for Geomatics and Aurora Research Institute are still committed to strengthening the investment in the Inuvik satellite facility and the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link to enhance geomatics and remote sensing services to support strategic planning and decision making. There is still a link like he mentioned to the WACG; there is still that link in the other Centre for Geomatics and Aurora Research Institute. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think I am getting a little bit more information. We will spend $85 million on this fibre link and it is going to end in Inuvik and that is it? We are not going to take advantage of having the fibre link? We are not going to have this NWT Centre for Geomatics? We have one guy now who is going to fly a drone around, that is great, but I just don't sense there is any urgency. I think we are going to miss an opportunity if we have to wait until 2021 for an investment to pull together these initiatives. Can't we do this any quicker or sooner? This is clearly an area that we should be investing in to help diversify our economy. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Of course, Mr. Chair. I am sorry. This is an important area. I take that comment of Mr. O'Reilly under consideration. I don't think we are missing the boat on this yet. Financial restraint, perhaps, has caused us to not move ahead as fast on certain projects as we would have wished, but that is where we are. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think I almost heard a commitment from the Minister that he is going to get back and provide something in writing to help clear up this murky water between the NWT Centre for Geomatics, Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link, and the Northern Canadian Centre for Excellence for Remote Sensing. Am I correct that he is going to get back to me in writing within a reasonable period of time? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister.
Yes, I think we could do that. I am wondering if Mr. O'Reilly might be able to put the question in writing. It might make it easier to respond to it, to make sure that we properly and fully answer the question because it somewhat complex. I am simply asking that he put it in writing to us. That being done, I think we could undertake to respond in writing. Thank you.
Thank you, minister. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I can do that, but I don't think it is going to be any more complicated than something like, "Please explain what the relationship is between the Northwest Territories Centre for Geomatics, the Mackenzie Valley Fibre Optic Link, and the Northern Canadian Centre of Excellence for Remote Sensing and the timing of those initiatives." Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Mr. O'Reilly said he would put that in writing for the Minister, or you could check Hansard tomorrow. Does that suffice, Minister?
I am sorry. Could you repeat that, Mr. Chair, so that I am certain what undertaking I might be making?
Will you provide an answer in writing to Mr. O'Reilly's question, Minister?
Yes. I only ask that he put his question in writing to us so that we could fully respond. I want to make sure that we do make a response to him that answers fully his question. We have heard his oral question. We will attempt to make a response. However, it might be in all of our best interest to have him write to us a detailed question. That is my simple submission on this, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly, will you put the question in writing for the Minister?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. I will do a cut and paste from Hansard.
---Laughter
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. We have gotten to the bottom of that. Anything further with your last minute 20? Nothing further from Mr. O'Reilly. I see no further comments or questions. I will call this section on page 296, Lands, Informatics Shared Service Centre, operations expenditure summary, $7,076,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. We will now move on to the activity operations on page 299. Activity description on page 298 with accompanying information item on page 300. Comments or questions about Lands operations, pages 298 to 300? I'll give committee a moment. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I notice that this section of the department covers inspections. Actually, I'll just get the Minister to confirm if this includes the inspections? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, this is the section that deals with inspections. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So the amount of total funding for inspections has been decreased in this budget. I'm wondering if the Minister can explain the rationale clearly so we can understand why an important function like ensuring that our liabilities are intact and well understood are being cut? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
Mr. Chair, as I mentioned at the outset, the number of inspectors is not being cut; the money allocated for travel for inspections is being reduced. It's simply a function of the fact that there is less activity out on the land. Certainly, if that changed radically we would have to look at an increase, but we're not anticipating any drastic increase in this upcoming year, therefore we've made this projection that the money we set aside for inspections is sufficient. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Mr. Testart.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think perhaps that speaks to the state of our economy right now, which is regrettable, but I think we need to ensure we have robust inspections even at a time of economic decline so we can maintain a high level of public certainty that we are ensuring our environment is protected and the people who use that environment are equally protected.
Snap Lake went to care and maintenance before this cut, so is that part of the reason the budget has been decreased, because one of our diamond mines has ceased full operations? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.
