Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for that answer. That is a positive step. Five per cent is a really good step. Has the department looked at the 3 per cent number and is the department willing to share that number with us? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert.
I did think about other amounts myself and thought that clearly a reduction from the 10 per cent was warranted and felt that 5 per cent was reasonable. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. He didn't answer my question. I understand what he thinks is reasonable. I am asking: did the department look at 3 per cent when they were coming up with the numbers? I heard 5, and I understand that is the number that the department looked at, but did the department look at 3 per cent, and if they did, do they have those numbers that they can share with us? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister Sebert.
I felt, Mr. Chair, that cutting it in half was very reasonable. I don't know whether Mr. Hagen wants to add anything to that. I think it is important to remember that, overall, the department is not turning a profit on leases. We are administering an area double the size of most European countries. It is an expensive, complicated process. This isn't making money for us, as I understand it. I will let Mr. Hagen add to that if he wishes.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. To answer your question, Mr. Thompson, on the instruction from the Minister we looked at 5 and we looked at 3. Five was the number that was given to us to reduce it, which is half. I had to agree with it. I am a big believer that after devolution we had 1.3 million kilometres of land transferred to us. It has a value. There are 40,000 plus people who see that as a lot of value. I think they expect us to be able to get some revenue from that asset. We believe that the value of the land shouldn't be lowered. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Next on the list we have Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, along the same line, I would like to have seen 3 per cent as well, but I am satisfied with 5 per cent. My question is, although I don't want to go too far into the weeds, it is a question of what the possibility is for individuals who have incomes that are pension income, I forget what you call that type of income, but people who don't have a regular income where they are working and potential for them to have greater possibility of increasing their income. Fixed income. People with fixed incomes like pensioners and so on. Is it a possibility that they could pay for their leases on a monthly basis? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, of course, people could pay on a monthly basis. I see there is a note here that informs me that, under section 3 of the Income Assistance Policy Manual, applicants who reside on Commissioner's lands, the Department of Lands, or the NWTHC may qualify for monthly allowance to assist in the cost of the land lease. I wasn't aware of that. It appears there are avenues to assist people who find themselves in the position that you have mentioned. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my second question is on the status of the particular lots. Previously, there were areas that were maybe earmarked for commercial development and the commercial development areas don't pan out, so they end up essentially being strictly residential lots. I would like to know if the department has a process in which individuals who find themselves on commercial lots, which appear to have a higher value. I am only saying appear because I am seeing one side of the road that is commercial with a residential property and one side that is a residential lot with a residential property, of course, being quite different in costs. I would like to ask the department if it is possible to switch land status, essentially, from one type to another type. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Sebert.
Yes, that certainly is a problem in some communities. We do recognize that. It seems to me that what is needed perhaps is a zoning change, so that could be dealt with through MACA, but I will let Mr. Hagen add to that if he wishes to assist.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Chair. You are quite correct, Mr. Beaulieu. There are some lots in communities that we have discussed where it was a commercial property, and it didn't pan out, and they kept it just as residential. The lot is sometimes twice the size of a normal residential lot, so they are paying, a lot of times, twice the amount of lease payments. Any community has a bylaw to change it back to residential. It could be surveyed, going through MACA and ourselves, surveyed, and the lot could be split in half into residential lots dropping their payments probably by at least 50 per cent. The taxes would also go down dramatically. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Minister Sebert.
I would just like to add that sometimes getting zoning changes, that type of request, it could be a little bit difficult, and I can't speak for MACA, but generally they don't like to do spot zoning. Maybe if there is a whole section of land involving several properties, that might be easier to have rezoned than a single property, which would then have a different zoning designation than the properties around it. That could be problematic.
Thank you, Mr. Sebert. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, I guess I was not thinking about the size of the lot, unfortunately, but I see that where the deputy minister is coming from. He is correct that those lots are substantially bigger than residential lots across the street.
My next question is on a different line, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I know that the department goes into the hinterland and taxes cabins, so I am wondering what the position of the department is in as far as taxing cabins that are used for harvesting. I am referring to, I think we could have a fairly broad definition of harvesting, but keep it to hunting and trapping at this point. I am wondering if there are any different designations by the department on whether or not an individual is using a cabin for recreational activities, something that they can drive to and have their picnics and so on, versus where the individuals are having cabins along rivers that they are boating to and snowmobiling to and so on. I am wondering if there is any difference in that designation, first of all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Sebert.
Yes. I cannot speak to deferred designations. I am not certain if that would be part of what this department does. I do not think so. I do realize that the taxation of cabins is a difficult issue, of course. In those areas with settled land claims, it is not a problem anymore; that has been resolved, or on treaty land. I realize there is an awful lot of land in the unsettled areas that is outside those two situations. I do know that we are attempting to, of course, resolve the land claims in those unsettled areas, which would hopefully resolve this thorny problem, which I do realize is an issue, certainly in the Fort Resolution and Fort Smith area. I do understand that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as quickly as possible, I wonder if there is a difference in the designation of the taxing of cabins if the owner is treaty or if the owner is Metis or non-Aboriginal? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Sebert.
I think the determining factor is where the cabin is located. If it is in a settled land claims area or on treaty land, that resolves the question. With respect to the other part of the question asked, I do not believe that MACA does differentiate between the owners of the cabins. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That just confuses me a bit because of MACA's involvement. When I was at the far end of Artillery Lake two summers ago, the people who landed there and started posting letters on cabins were from the Department of Lands, not MACA. I am just wondering: how MACA is involved with taxing cabins in the bush? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Sebert.
Well, there are several different departments involved in this. Of course, I have mentioned MACA. Taxation, of course, taxation amounts are pursued by the Department of Finance. I do not know if Mr. Hagen wants to add anything to this. We do realize this is a complex issue that we would all want resolved by the settlement of land claims. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Minister is quite correct; a taxation of cabins is done by the Department of MACA. It is collected by the Department of Finance, and any postings you might see on the cabins from Lands would be our inspectors out doing enforcement on compliance and finding a cabin has an unauthorized occupier, so we would post it to give them notice that they are illegally occupying that space. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Beaulieu, your time has expired. Next, we have Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is on page 320. On the budgetary number allowances for the program detail and looking forward from this budget, were there resources allowed or budgeted for on the five-year devolution review that would most likely cost them some efforts towards entering into the five-year review negotiations? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister Sebert.
Sorry, I am not entirely sure I understand the question. I understand the Member is pointing to something on page 320; could he direct us to which line?
Thank you, Mr. Minister Sebert. Mr. McNeely.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll clarify it a little bit more. There are seven entries there underneath the program detail, and I am just wondering if there was money set aside within those entries for the five-year review, the five-year devolution review?
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Minister Sebert.
Well, of course, Mr. Chair, we are always reviewing our estimates going ahead. There is no money specifically set aside for a five-year review as I understand it. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. McNeely.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you think we should allow for some costs within our budget for the five-year review if we are going to hire a consultant to do a five-year review? I am not too sure of the details, the terms and conditions throughout the process for the five-year review; I am just wondering if we have allowed some resources for that particular process? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. McNeely. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am just not certain where the Member is coming from on the five-year review. I assume perhaps it is on the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act that is coming up, among other things, for a five-year review, and as far as I know there are no monies set aside. A lot of those responsibilities are in the Department of EIA and the negotiations of bringing the MVRMA to the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. McNeely.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I was referring to the five-year review underneath the devolution agreement. My understanding, the agreement allows for a five-year review to review the performance on the previous six months and maybe even inheritance of the MVRMA, so I am just wondering if we are preparing for that additional task to negotiate additional responsibilities underneath the five-year review of the devolution agreement.
