Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the Minister's commitment, but so far, the solutions haven't worked with the fiscal strategy of Cabinet to reduce this department because it hasn't been able to accomplish everything that it wanted.
I want to ask, though: when was the last time that there was a good review done of a fire suppression in particular? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Member and I will continue to disagree on the capacity issues. We feel that our folks feel that they're able to do the work they do with the appropriation they have, and if there's a need for further appropriation, then they would approach FMB. I have a lot of confidence in our people.
To the Member's question, 2016-2017, my understanding was the last time the fire suppression appropriation was reviewed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am talking about, I guess, a review of the effectiveness; not just the expenditures, but a value-for-money audit or something along those lines of our fire suppression program, whether there might be other ways to do it more effectively. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, again, my understanding is that 2011 is the last time that there was a review done of the value for money and effectiveness, and my understanding, again, is, this upcoming year, they are looking at possibly doing another review of the overall fire suppression. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. The time has expired. Any further questions, committee? Seeing none, I will call the page. Forest management, operations expenditure summary, $36,971,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. That brings us next to page 86, water resources, operations expenditure summary, $11,454,000. Committee, that is from page 85 to 88. Any questions? Comments? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really just have one line of questioning, and it is with regard to our transboundary agreements. I would just like to know from the department: how is the management going with regard to our more recent transboundary agreements that we have established, and where are we with regard to the continuing negotiations with the outstanding transboundary agreements that we are negotiating? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we look at the different negotiations that are currently going on, I will just go through each jurisdiction.
With Alberta, we have been working with Alberta to implement the Alberta-NWT Transboundary Water Management Agreement. The first comprehensive annual report of the inaugural implementation year, 2015-2016, was released in November of 2017 with the Minister and the Minister in Alberta at CCME in Vancouver. Work on the 2016 annual report is well under way.
With British Columbia, ENR anticipates an inaugural BC-NWT Bilateral Management Committee meeting will be held in the winter of 2018, following the appointment of the BC representatives to the committee. This meeting will discuss implementation priorities and associated work planning.
In the Yukon, active negotiations to update the existing 2002 Yukon-NWT Transboundary Agreement began in the fall of 2017 and will continue into 2018. With Saskatchewan, ENR anticipates ongoing discussions towards the establishing of a Saskatchewan-NWT agreement, and this will resume in the winter of 2018 with the negotiation of a Transboundary Agreement.
The last, the Nunavut-NWT Transboundary Water Agreement will occur once Nunavut has completed their territorial water strategy. That is the last one, Nunavut. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Dragon. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the detail that the deputy minister has provided. No further questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Any further questions, committee? Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in regard to the cross-water boundary things here, can the Minister update us on what is happening with Site C? I have been hearing a lot of concerns with this on how it is going to actually affect our communities down river, and I have been given a whole bunch of information here. What has the department been able to deal with regarding that issue? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we do not have that level of information at our fingertips, but we will endeavour to gather the information, come back and share it with the Member, and share it with committee when we have the appropriate resources to do so. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the Minister for that commitment. I guess I should just give the Minister a head's up. I am actually going to do a Member's statement on it next week. I will give you some time on that one, but I will ask some questions on that.
In regard to the water inspectors, is this the area where I should be asking a question about that position? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.
Yes, he can. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In regard to these positions, has the department looked at the potential of moving that position into the Lands area and have them tag team? It is my understanding that a lot of the inspectors of Lands actually cross over and do water for the department as well. They do, actually, the mines and that. Has the department looked at putting that position into Lands so that they can actually work together? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have worked with Lands and, I think, pretty effectively in being able to provide resources to each other. In certain cases, the Lands inspectors are cross-appointed, but mainly dealing with mine sites.
When we look at undertaking any of the actual water type of enforcement issues, when we deal with type A, type B licences, and so on and so forth, then it becomes an opportunity where, if we were to combine them, I am not necessarily sure that is an effective distribution of resources. I think Lands has a very specific role in which they do their job and the officers.
In ENR, what we looked at doing is we cross-appoint mostly all of our officers depending on the region. We have environmental protection officers. We have, you know, looking at wildlife officers, forestry officers, and, in some cases, fisheries enforcement as well.
Having them so that we're having officers there or here, I am not sure if we are getting to that efficiency beyond collaboration and coordination of activities. In cases where we are going to mine sites, we do plan trips together where the Lands are doing their job and we are doing our job, and it has been working very effectively. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Dragon. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you to the deputy minister for that answer. From my understanding in talking to people, it is a little bit different. I am hearing a different story. There are some concerns in this area. I understand the cross-training, but I think putting these two positions in the same building and same department would be more efficient.
I guess, if we are not going to allocate moving positions around, is the department willing to work with the Department of Lands and maybe house the water officers with the Lands officers in the same building so that they can work together and work on files that way? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, in talking to people, or if we have Members who are talking to people, then, you know, I would appreciate if the Members would come and have a conversation with me to see if we can take care of that. Our Lands and ENR folks, they work very well together, but putting them in the same building, I am not sure if that will create efficiencies; but if there is a particular issue that the Member would like to raise, I would more than happy to have a conversation with the Member. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, and I will actually thank the Minister for that, and I will take him up on it. I am not talking about staff. I am talking about people out in the industry and stuff like that, and that is what the people have come to me and said, that it makes more sense. Like I said, I thank the Minister for that, and I will follow up later on with this. That will be my last question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson, more of a comment, but I will get the Minister to reply if he would like.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, Mr. Chair, I take the Member's point, and I will be glad to have a conversation with him, and we will have a discussion on the issue that was brought to his attention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Any further questions, committee? Mr. O'Reilly.
Sure, yes, there is shown in the business plan a $50,000 reduction to the water regulatory budget, and I think it shows up on page 86, as well. Can someone tell me what that reduction is all about? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the $50,000 the Member refers to is to reduce the contract service budget within the water regulatory section, and the water guidance documents will be further reduced because my understanding is that most of this work has already been done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. So what is the total contracting budget, then, for water regulatory? If it is reduced by $50,000, what is left? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there is $481,000 left in the budget. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
I guess this is a reduction of over 10 per cent. So, it is coming at an interesting time, where there is some significant closure planning underway for Snap Lake. Diavik is redoing its closure plan. There is stuff happening with the Jay expansion; there are a lot of management plans and things that need to be reviewed in that regard. So it is not like it is not a busy time or anything, so what is the rationale? $50,000 seems to be a rather with round number. What is the rationale here for the cut? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister McLeod.
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we are well aware of all the work that needs to be done. The department feels like that work can be done within the existing $481,000 budget. The $50,000 I spoke of earlier, before, was to reduce contract services within the water regulatory section. The department obviously feels like they have the capacity to do the work that is required within the $481,000. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. O'Reilly.
Yes, I remain concerned about this. A $50,000 cut just seems to be a convenient number for the fiscal reduction targets, so we will just leave it at that, but, once again, I do not see any real rationale for this cut because I do not think there is a reduced level of work or activity.
I want to follow up on some remarks made by my colleague the MLA from Nahendeh about moving the water inspectors to Lands. I know I had questions for the Minister of Lands about this. To me, it would make much or sense to have the Lands inspectors moved into ENR. ENR does the wildlife inspections. You do other environmental inspections. You do water work, as well. I think all of those environmental-related inspection activities should be housed within this department. Is that conversation or that discussion happening between the two departments? Can the Minister let me know what's happening, if anything? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
