Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There is reporting required from the rental office, and we are very mindful that this is a concern. As the Minister mentioned, with the extra capacity through the additional resource of another rental officer, we do expect that those wait times will be reduced, and that will be something that we will be watching for. Unfortunately, there were some procurement challenges, and it took us longer than we had hoped to get that resource in place. We are also looking at other changes in process to streamline this, and we also anticipate that, once those are put in place and made effective, we want to see this process made easier for those utilizing it and certainly more timely. That still remains an objective. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the additional information. Now that we are working towards putting adequate resources in at the rental office, one of the undertakings of the rental office is that they are available to present at public forums, for example.
Is there any indication from the department as to whether the department will actively go out and promote some information workshops in order to communicate a little better to both landlords and tenants around what their responsibilities might be with regard to the Residential Tenancy Act? Would the Minister look into how they might actively engage the public so that they can be better informed? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Minister Sebert.
Yes, clearly, information is important because a lot of these disputes might be able to be resolved informally rather than going through the rental office. Certainly we do recognize that education is important. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think what I am trying to get at is that I can't speak for the whole of the territory, but certainly in Yellowknife there are a number of landlords of various kinds, whether it's in apartments, whether it's in town homes, whether it's actually in residences, who are challenged to understand what their obligations are. I am trying to see if the department would take an active role in trying to educate the public and, in particular, landlords and their tenants on what their obligations would be. Is there a way? Is there a means? Is there some budget or some resources that we can put toward doing that form of communication? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Vanthuyne. Mr. Goldney.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can advise, of course, that the focus for the rental office has been to address those wait times and triage some of those most pressing matters, but we do anticipate, as these new resources are being added, that there can be the types of activities that the Member is suggesting, including some public education. We will commit to having the rental office look at the tools that it has now online and potentially updating those and making them easier and being more proactive in making staff available to provide that education. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Goldney. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the Minister and his staff for that commitment. No further questions at this time. Thank you.
Thank you. Committee, any further questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I want to thank my colleague from Yellowknife Centre for asking questions about the victim assistance funds. I just had a couple of quick ones, perhaps. Can the Minister tell us why the surplus is growing? Is it an issue of not enough applications to use up the funding, or are applicants being turned down? What is going on? Why is the surplus building? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Certainly, disbursements of funds, if I can put it that way, are based on the applications that we do receive, and I do see that many of them tend to be modest. The money is available, so as I said earlier, I think we can have a conversation with the committee about the opportunity to come forward or have those organizations, such as the Native Women's Association and Justice Committees, to come forward and seek funding. Perhaps we are not disseminating enough information or the committee isn't. Certainly, we are willing to work on that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, I am glad that the Minister is going to have a conversation with the staff and that they are going to talk to the people that administer the fund. Can the Minister then make a commitment to get back to us and provide an explanation as to why the surplus has been growing over time? Is it there are not enough applications? Is it that there maybe hasn't been enough promotion? Can the Minister make a commitment to get back to standing committee with the reasons why the surplus is growing and what the plan is going forward to make sure that the money is disbursed? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
As I mentioned or has been mentioned, we are willing to enter into discussions with the committee. To my mind, the surplus has been growing simply because there are fewer applications or the applications are not eating up the cumulated surplus over the years, which I see has grown over the years. Again, yes, we certainly would get back to this committee with respect to our committee discussions with the committee that, after all, I appoint. I don't think it is necessary to go to them and say, "You must spend this money," but there probably are projects out there that are worthy of consideration. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I think I am asking for a simple commitment here. I would like to know whether the Minister is committed to get back to standing committee with (a) the reasons why the surplus is growing, and (b) what the department is going to do to try to get more money out the door to help victims of crime. Can the Minister make that commitment? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. I see no further questions. Committee, I will call the page. Justice, services to the public, operations expenditure summary, $4,249,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Please return now to the departmental summary found on page 267. Justice, total department, $127,617,000. Does committee agree? Ms. Green.
Mr. Chair, I have questions on the revenue summary on page 268. Is this the appropriate time to ask?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question for the Minister is: what is the Drug Treatment Court Funding Program? Could he please describe that initiative? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
I understand that funds the specialized courts, Wellness Court and DVTO. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Green.
I thank you, Mr. Chair. The Domestic Violence Treatment Option court is not the Drug Treatment Court Funding Program, unless there is a mistake in the main estimates. This shows a revenue of $100,000, starting in the next fiscal year. I am looking for an explanation of what this is.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
I may have not given the best answer to the last question, so I am going to refer this to Ms. Bolstad. Perhaps she can give a more accurate and helpful answer to the question. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Bolstad.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is a $100,000 federal contribution to the Wellness Court Program. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Ms. Bolstad. Ms. Green.
Thank you. Could I have some detail about how this money is going to be spent? I have never heard of drug treatment court before. I wasn't aware that we had one. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Ms. Bolstad.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The federal funding pot is called "Drug Treatment Court Funding," and we are eligible under it for our Wellness Court. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bolstad. Ms. Green.
Thank you. Okay, I understand that now. My next question is about an increase of $500,000 worth of revenue in legal registries. Why is revenue going to increase by that much in that area? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
Yes. This is an increase in fees. It is under the Land Titles Act and the PPSA, Personal Property Security Regulations. Anyway, Members may recall there had been some discussion in the past about a land transfer tax. Anyway, what we have done is looked at, fairly, in my view, minor increases in the area of land transfers. That is where the majority of this money is going to come from, and mortgage registrations. Our estimate is that there will be increases in funds with the new fee structure. Again, land transfers average over the last three years have been $483,000. We are talking about the land transfer itself. Estimated incremental fees will be $168,000 to come up with $650,000; mortgage registrations, $460,000 over the last three years. Estimated incremental revenue with the new fee structure would be $230,000 for a total of $690,000. PPSA registration or Personal Property Security registration or renewals will be increased, also.
So, yes, those are these increases, and, also, so Members will recall, there was a good deal of discussion about a land transfer tax. What we have brought forward here is a modest, in my view, increase in the amount of fees. Most of this money will be obtained through the increase of fees on land transfers and mortgage registrations. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Sebert. Ms. Green.
Thank you. If I understand correctly, the land transfer tax has been scrapped and, instead, all the fees are going to go up. The Minister ran through a list, but one that I wrote down here is going up by 100 percent, from $230,000 to $460,000. So this is the case, that the land transfer tax has now been replaced by an increase in fees at land titles for land transfers and mortgage registration? Could he confirm that, please?
Thank you, Ms. Green. Minister Sebert.
The mortgage registrations will go from $460,000, average revenue, to $690,000. Land transfer is from $483,000 to $650,000. So, if I might, if I could use an example, if your house of $400,000 with a mortgage of $300,000, currently, the fees on that would be $1.50 on the $400,000, which is $600, and a dollar on the mortgage, which would be $300. What we have suggested here is increasing those fees, the land transfer, going to $2 per $1,000, so that would be $800, and the fees on the mortgage going from a $1 to $1.50. So, in the example I gave, that would go from $300 to $450. It is not a doubling. It is an increase, but it is not a doubling.
