Thank you, Dr. Dragon. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That is great information. However, in the business plan, it just says it is fulfilled. I am trying to understand how it has been fulfilled if we are still working on it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Dr. Dragon.
The commitment was researching the feasibility of creating a Northern Centre of Excellence. Again, the staff time we have done interdepartmentally, as well as externally, to research councils down in Ottawa to come up with the best approach for the RFP. What was stated was researching. We have done the research; we just need to fulfill the RFP to get it going. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Dr. Dragon. Mr. Thompson.
The commitment was to do the research, not do the job? Is that correct? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The mandate was to do the research. The research has been done, and they will plan a path forward from there. The commitment has been fulfilled, as the research has been done. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister for that clarification. We still see $150,000 in this budget area. Is that what the cost is for the next step to this project? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.
Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the Minister and his department for clarifying that for me. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Further questions? Seeing none, I will call this activity on page 69. Environment and Natural Resources, corporate management, operations expenditures summary, $13,986,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
We shall move on to the next activity, starting on page 73, with details on 74 and 75. Questions? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can someone tell me what the status is of the contaminated sites manual? I have been asking about this document for three years now, and it's shown in the business plan as something, I think, that was supposed to be delivered in the last quarter of 2018. If someone could tell me where this work is at, I would appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The truth is I am not sure where the manual is at. I will commit to the Member that, if there was a commitment that was made to have this brought to the Assembly, then we will find out where it's at and report back to committee.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, I have been asking about this for three years, so it would be great to find out what is happening with it. In this section of ENR's budget, there is a reduction of $50,000 to science budgets, so can someone explain to me what is being cut here? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, looking at a $50,000 reduction, when it was initially proposed, it was proposed as reducing the science budget. That was in 2016. As a part of the reductions, in terms of looking at this, we are going to take $25,000 from environmental stewardship and climate change, and that is the reduction of casual wages that will have no impact on our functions nor on our programs, as well as another $25,000 in the same area, and that is reducing contract services. Again, this will have no impact to programs. It's primarily for consultants for third-party workshops, and we have been able to do that in-house now.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that detail. I am not convinced. It may not have an effect on programs and services, but it may have an effect on the kind of submissions that we make to land and water boards, regulatory bodies, the kind of expert evidence that they require to make sound decisions. Is that going to be impacted by these reductions? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No, it's not going to be impacted by the reductions. I think our folks over at the department are still capable of doing high-quality work within the $88-million appropriation budget that they do have. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Well, I don't want to get into a debate with the Minister about the capability of his staff. I believe we have already settled that, that we agree that they work hard, they do good work. The problem is that they don't have the resources that are necessary to deliver on the mandate, and part of that mandate is to provide sound evidence for evidence-based decision making. If you cut contracted services, and that means outside expertise to help you deliver good technical advice to boards, it's not going to happen. In any event, I have one other question here. There is another $25,000 cut to undertake departmental functional review, so I am trying to understand. That is the description. Is that a correct description, Mr. Chair? Thanks.
Thank you. Mr. Marchiori.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as a part of a clarification, when we looked at how the department was functioning and the business plans, we had done some movements of functions, so some of the reductions you are noting that were originally in here are now in environmental stewardship and climate change. That $25,000 that was listed for the functional review was something that was mentioned by Dr. Dragon a little bit earlier. That is part of that reduction exercise and the functional review, which was $75,000 in not funding an analyst position. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Okay, so I guess the business plan is no longer correct, the one that is available on the Department of Finance website. The $25,000 reduction in environmental protection and waste management has now been moved down to environmental stewardship and climate change. Coming out of the departmental functional review, then, there was supposed to be an analyst hired to help to better organize the department, and that position is not going to be staffed now? Is that what's happening? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Marchiori.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As part of the work on the business plans and moving what we had into the various divisions, which included the restatements for the department, the $75,000 that was mentioned by Dr. Dragon earlier, part of it was initially listed under environmental protection and waste management, but, as we did the restatements, it falls under, with the movement of climate change, out of what was the environment division, into environmental stewardship and climate change. That $25,000 is now listed as not fully funding an analyst position. ENR believes we have enough analysts within that area to continue to do the work that we are doing, and so that now falls under environmental stewardship and climate change. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Okay. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Can I get a commitment out of the Minister, then, to provide an update? I am looking at, I think, it's schedule 3 in the business plan, which does not seem to be correct anymore. This is from the Department of Finance website. Can I get a commitment out of the Minister, then, to provide a corrected version of this, where the reductions are shown and the proper categories, according to the reorganization of the department? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I understand the Member's concern, and I will make that commitment to provide the schedule and the up-to-date information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Yes, thanks, Mr. Chair. I guess it's kind of hard for us to do this on the fly without knowing what's been moved around in the various parts of the department. I am working from this schedule, and that is not what those folks seem to be working from, which is not a very helpful place to be. That is just a comment. I do not expect a response. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Further to environmental protection and waste management? Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to touch for a moment on the contaminated sites program within this activity. I would like to maybe start by asking the department: are they aware of how many contaminated sites that we have assessed here in the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes. Right now, in terms of the devolved sites that we had when we first got all of those, we were at about 700. We have worked in terms of going through all of those projects to assess in terms of remediation of any of those contaminated sites. Right now when we look at our devolution agreement, part C, in excepted waste sites, we currently have five excepted waste sites. That's Ptarmigan, Tom, Crestaurum, Burwash, Rodstrom, and Tin Mines. As well, under the devolution agreement, part E, in operating sites, we have a total of seven operating sites. In terms of other waste sites, we have eight other sites that are part of the devolution agreement. We have two staff in this area who oversee all of that and then have an ongoing listing of all of those waste sites, the work completed, and, as well, kind of the next steps. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, of the sites that we have identified and even the ones that you were referring to as waste sites and then those being operating sites, what is the relationship that we have with regard to responsibility of ours, like our responsibility and/or the federal government's responsibility in that regard? What number are they responsible for, if any, that are still a hangover from devolution, or are we jointly responsible? I would like to get a little clarification on that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In looking at all of the waste sites, what we have to do is come up with a determination of whether or not there is still remediation work that needs to be completed and whether we are agreeable to the amount. We work with the federal government to determine those sites. Where we have questions, we go back to them, and we work with our colleagues, in terms of providing technical support, with Lands and ourselves, to be able to come up with whether or not we feel that we have the money that is negotiated for the remediation of these sites. For a lot of them that we review, we have the opportunity to be able to say that we feel that we have enough money to be able to remediate this site, or we don't. If we don't, then we go back, and we negotiate with the federal government to be able to get the appropriate money to clean those up. Again, we do that with our colleagues in the Department of Lands, and if we do the negotiation, then we do it in Executive and Indigenous Affairs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
