Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you Mr. Chair. To my knowledge, I could be wrong, I know we have had inquiries for agriculture land in the area that have existing leases that are not zoned or dedicated to commercial. It is dedicated as a recreational lease, and a commercial operation is not allowed on a recreational cabin lease. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Okay, that provides clarity for me. It is an instance such that he just described that I am aware of, that somebody on a recreational property has applied for an agriculture lease. I guess the question becomes: is that a possibility? Are people who are on existing recreational leases allowed the opportunity to apply for an agricultural lease on all or part of it and be given consideration to be able to use some of it for agriculture? There are a lot of people who have lands, who live on existing lots, and again I am referring to Ingraham Trail, who would certainly maybe like to take advantage of the agricultural industry. I am wondering if the department gives these lease applications consideration to promote agriculture in the territory. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, it is a possibility. Recreational leases are laid out as people have cabins with quiet enjoyment of a peaceful environment. If they have neighbours who would agree that agricultural operation could go ahead and not affect them, we would engage them and do that. Although, if you want to really go to the letter of the regulations, people actually don't have the right under the regulations to be living out in those cabins. It is done all the time, obviously, but the access is seasonal, so in fact that isn't really allowed under the regulations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to ask a little bit more about when somebody puts in an application for agriculture. Do we have a clear distinction between those who are applying for the growth of vegetables versus those that are raising animals, let's say, for example? Do we distinguish between the two, or are those two different applications? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you know, the agricultural strategy has just been developed, and we actually haven't really gotten to the point where we distinguish between whether you have animals, farm animals, or you plant a garden. I mean, you can plant a garden for your own use or your friends' use. It just becomes a problem agriculturally when you go commercial and you sell your product. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Minister Sebert.
There is funding of $100,000 in 2018-2019 to develop policies and procedures and criteria for evaluating land leases for agriculture, so hopefully that will address some of these issues. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, yes, that would be helpful, and I am sure it will. We definitely need clarification along those lines. What do we have as it relates to rates for land leases for agriculture versus land leases for commercial? You know, is land for agriculture more affordable? Is it at more affordable rate than that of commercial? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Sebert.
Some lands that are, say, suitable for grazing are leased at $0.25 a hectare or $50 per annum, whichever is greater. Beyond that, generally, Commissioner's land that is used for agricultural purposes is leased at 5 per cent of the assessed value, which is, well, currently 50 per cent of the standard lease rate for other commercial properties, so there is an incentive and very reasonable cost to lease land. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Sebert. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Okay. I appreciate all that. I think I have to take a step back for a moment and just touch again on land use plans. I am going to touch on the Yellowknife Recreational Periphery Land Use Plan. My understanding, from what I was hearing earlier, is that basically we are not going to make any headway on these land use plans until there is settlement of land rights agreements. Have we explored the opportunity to work directly with the -- and maybe you answered this already, but just please repeat for me: are the Yellowknives really not in favour of working even on that land use plan specifically right now in terms of finding some degree of, I do not know if resolution or certainty might be the right word, on that particular land use plan? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The recreational land, it is a framework, not a land use plan per se, and Yellowknives have indicated a little late in the game that they would rather not be engaged in this recreational land use framework until they are further along or they have a land claim agreement signed. Now, a land use plan that you mentioned is something that is going forward. It is going forward in the Tlicho region on public lands. It is going forward, the Akaitcho now have expressed a big interest in moving forward in land use plan. That would take in the Yellowknives area also. There is an interim land use plan going forward in the Deh Cho. It is unusual. All of the land claim agreements in the Northwest Territories were settled and signed off and then the land use plan was put into place. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. No further questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to turn to the securities coordination line item on page 332, I believe it is. In the mains, it is shown as $915,000 for 2018-2019. When I go back into the business plan, which is publicly available, it shows that item as $885,000 on page -- well, it is not numbered. It is in schedule 2 of the Department of Land's business plan. Can someone explain the discrepancy here? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Ms. Hilderman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the time that the business plans were developed, the adjustments for amortization were not included, so between the business plan and the printing of the means, we wrote what the amortization requirement for 2018-2019 is expected to be. That includes $30,000 for the securities and what we call SAPS, Securities Administration Processing System, which is being developed this year. It is in the testing phase and is expected to go live in 2018-2019, and that is $30,000 which is the difference. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Hilderman. Mr. O'Reilly.
Okay. I appreciate the explanation there, thank you. The member of the Lands team mentioned this SAPS system, where we are going to track securities better, and that is a good thing, but I am concerned about the lack of progress on the mandate commitment to make sure that we do not incur any or that we prevent further public liabilities. There has been nothing changed in legislation policy. This department basically signed on to or agreed to continue the old Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Mine Site Recognition Policy. There has been nothing public come out of this unit in terms of the mandate commitment. What is going on here after more than two years? Is the unit fully staffed? Why is there no policy work or legislation or regulations coming out of this unit? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Yes, as the Member indicated, we did, of course, inherit much of this, in fact, all of it from the federal government in 2014. Perhaps Mr. Hagen can expand a bit on some of the work that we have been doing. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Yes, I agree it has been a long, painful progress to find the staffing of that unit, and that has been done, finally. They are very hard people to find. We have gone out two or three times actually for different employees' positions. It is staffed. We are moving forward for legislation as per our mandate. We mentioned the SAPS; that is in its testing phase. We hope to have that rolling out in the near future. As for the legislation, all I can say is stay tuned because I think we are going to be making great progress from here until the end of the mandate. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Minister Sebert.
I guess to add to that, I am looking at some of the other things we are doing. You have heard already that we are going to continue to build an inventory tracking system to address the handling and processing of securities, and the system design and testing will be completed in the 2017-2018 fiscal year and go live the following year. We are also considering securities in our current land, water and resource legislative initiatives, which includes amendments to the Commissioner's Land Act and Northwest Territories Lands Act. We are making progress, though, admittedly, not as quickly as we would like to, for the reasons that have been mentioned by Mr. Hagen. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, progress is not as quick as I would like it, either, and, I think, as required in our mandate, but I will move on to a couple of more problematic sites. The first one is Cantung. Have we finally been able to get rid of the lease for the surface of the Cantung site? I know I have asked numerous times about this, and every time, it seems to be a little bit closer, but has it actually been transferred back to the federal government? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Yes, this is a complicated situation, as the Member well knows, and it has been difficult for us. I think I will let my deputy minister get into some of the details about what is going on. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair, and yes, it's the ongoing saga of this file. We were within arm's reach for the federal government to take back administrative control of the surface lands, with the GNWT keeping the subsurface, and at the eleventh hour their Department of Justice decided that they could not take back administrative control yet until they made some policy changes, and that is where it has stalled at this moment. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, it sounds like there is a little bit more to be told about that. If the Minister wants to share some other information with Regular MLAs, or at least the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Environment, can he give us a more detailed update of what's happening there? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Yes, thank you. As has already been mentioned, there have been many twists and turns in this, and the federal government seemed to have some late-breaking concerns. Certainly, I would be very happy to meet with committee to discuss this unresolved matter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The other site that tends to sometimes keep me awake at night is Prairie Creek, and I probably don't have to tell this Minister, who is the Minister of Lands, he is going to get an Environmental Assessment Report sometime in the near future, probably from the Mackenzie Valley Review Board, about an all-weather road into the site.
The more our fingerprints are on this site, the more likely we are going to assume some of the liability. What, if anything, has our government done about the existing liabilities at the site? If I remember correctly, it is about $9 or $12 million that is unsecured at the site. What has our government done to ensure that we don't incur any of that liability? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Apparently, Canadian Zinc has met all of its current securities requirements under the permits, licences, and authorizations that are currently in place. I understand that our government is holding $2,075,000 in securities for the mine site and winter road, which includes water licence leases and land use permits. Perhaps, at this stage, I could it turn it over to my deputy minister for a full explanation. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Hagen.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you mentioned, Prairie Creek is out of an EA. It is in the hands of the INAC Ministers and the responsible Ministers from the GNWT. That is where the Minister has asked for more engagement with the Aboriginal communities in the Deh Cho, and then they come back for her final decision on the water licence.
As for liability, there is some historical liability there that the federal government is responsible for, and unless this mine actually takes off and goes to production, then, at that time, there are liabilities that could be incurred by the territorial government, but in order for them to go into production, they will have to apply for a lease from the Department of Lands. On that lease, we have the power and the ability to put in the required securities that we feel are needed to take care of the liability that could possibly be incurred by an operating mine. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to add, the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board has a total security amount of $17,007,000, which the proponent will be required to post in stages, if and when the project proceeds. Thank you.
