Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am getting a little bit clearer understanding. The actual on-the-ground investment in remediation of contaminated sites is a negotiated process. Who manages that money? I guess what I am getting to in all of this is that, if we have this many contaminated sites, it is a concern for Indigenous governments, our government, and the federal government. Unless you can explain to me a little bit more about the pot itself, it seems to me that that $319,000 is probably covering off on just more administrative-type stuff. I am just trying to get to where we are really investing in identifying these sites and putting a genuine effort into cleaning them up. How many active contaminated sites are we negotiating investments in right now out of these many that need to be cleaned up? I ask because almost every one of these five waste sites that you named are in my riding. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You are right. In terms of looking at the $319,000, that is really the O and M and the program management to look at all of these files. As we go through and we determine contaminated sites, the other part that this group does is actually look at the coordination and seeing that the remediation done is done per our standards. The funds that actually backstop all of this are in the environmental fund within Finance. That is a $50-million fund that we have access to in order to do remediation projects. For the money that we initially negotiated with the federal government, when we look at contaminated sites, we need to assess how much it is going to cost to remediate. Then our departmental staff will oversee third parties that would come in and do the remediation to our standards. Once that is completed, then that remediation site is then deemed cleaned up. Really, the $319,000 is just the operation and the management of all of these sites.
As I said earlier, we have five accepted waste sites. We have seven operating sites and eight sites that are a part of the devolution agreement that we are currently working on right now. We have a deadline to the end of March to report on where we feel that some of those are in the queue and whether or not we have enough money for them, and we continue to negotiate with the federal government. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess, come end of March, after we have done that due diligence, then we are going to possibly see the resources start to hit the ground in terms of investment in cleaning up a number of these identified sites. Is that correct?
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Yes, that is correct. Thanks.
Thank you. Environment and Natural Resources, environmental protection and waste management, operations expenditures summary, $4,069,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Please turn to activity 3, environmental stewardship and climate change, on pages 76, 77, 78, and 79. Mr. Nakimayak.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 77, on climate change, can I just get a little bit of information on the increase? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The increase is an additional $390,000 funding for the development of the Climate Change Strategic Framework. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Nakimayak.
That is all I have for this one right now. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, first of all, want to say that I appreciate the increase to the climate change line item, but I do have some questions on that. The department has always been very aware of the Auditor General report and has had their own action plan to address a number of those issues. Committee, though, has made it known to ENR in the past, and in particular during business plan reviews, that we would like to see a policy or legislation developed that would clearly establish the department as the lead on climate change issues. Can the department give us some insight on how the diversity of climate change is being managed by our government, and is ENR our lead? What is our direction going to be with regard to policy or legislation, if any, with regard to ENR being the lead on climate change? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We did change the title of the division to environmental stewardship and climate change, recognizing that we are going to be the lead on climate change for the Government of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does that mean, then, that now the responsibilities with regard to climate change aspects that affect Infrastructure and even the Minister's other department, Finance, the direction for intergovernmental action on climate change will now come from the Department of ENR? Are we developing some kind of legislation or policy that will provide some degree of certainty for folks? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Taking all of the comments that we got from the Auditor General, I think, again, we accepted all of those recommendations. One of the things, unfortunately, that the Auditor General couldn't speak on was any documents that were currently in the queue.
When we look at what we developed for our action plan for the Climate Change Strategic Framework, I think that we have a very robust plan that is going to be able to be shepherded through, within government, a lot of interdepartmental committees that we are going to have, a lot of reflection on what all of the various departments are able to do in the climate change portfolio.
Really, as we look at that, we also have to see how it relates to other new initiatives that are coming in, like the knowledge economy or the implementation of the knowledge agenda and how that is incorporated into climate change. I can reassure the committee that we have a number of interdepartmental committees within the bureaucracy that deal at the director level, at the ADM level, at the deputy minister level, and also at the ministerial level, where we are looking at all of the climate change impacts of what is going on in the North. I think a big part of that, as well, is really understanding that we don't have any magic bullet for climate change. We just have to approach it and really look at a real accounting of what everybody is doing. That is really in part one of our climate change action plan. I think that there are 100 different actions that are identified within that action plan for part one. In part two, there are another 50 actions that are identified within the action plan.
Again, I really look forward to being able to roll that out. I think that we are just about there, and it should be done this spring where we would have that rolled out. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. Vanthuyne.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the deputy minister giving some insight as it relates to the number of interdepartmental collaborative efforts. How about the efforts in terms of also reaching out to the Indigenous government council? Is there a connective effort there as it relates to our climate change efforts? Will they have a role to play as it relates to being consulted on with regard to our climate change strategic action plan? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Recognizing the value of our Indigenous government partners through the knowledge agenda, I think that they are going to be a part of the process, and we will seek their input in any types of initiatives as we go forward. Thank you.
Thank you. Nothing further from Mr. Vanthuyne. Anything further to environmental stewardship and climate change? Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I hope that I have this right, because I am not working from the same page as our friends. I think there is $37,000 that has been cut out of community-based monitoring and research under the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program. Can someone tell me why that cut has been made and what is being cut? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, as we went through the initial reduction exercise within the department, the wording again was community-based monitoring. That title has stayed in there, but going through the functional and the operational review, we reviewed the activities and what should actually be taken out for the $375,000. That was the initial rationale for that allotment. The reality of it is that these alternative reductions identified have minimal negative impact on the departmental operations.
What we have, and I will take you through, is a series of five of them that get to that reduction. There are four within water management and monitoring, and the fifth reduction is environmental stewardship and climate change.
The $150,000 from the first one is $150,000 from water management and monitoring. This is from our grants and contributions, and it is a reduction in our contribution agreement to Mackenzie DataStream. This system is up and running now, and therefore, it no longer requires the funding that has been allocated to it. That is why we deemed it as part one of this reduction.
The second part is an $85,000 reduction in, again, water management and monitoring. This is on water research studies, and it is a reduction in contracts for data interpretations and review of water quality and quantity testing services. By using contractors, we are able to now have people in-house who are able to do this work. Again, these services will be conducted internally to promote program efficiencies.
The third one is a $75,000 reduction in environmental stewardship and climate change. This is a reduction in the contracts for updates on the information of various environmental portals and travel for meetings. One of the things that we invested in last year was video conferencing in the department. We do a lot of meetings now with our trans-boundary partners via video conferencing versus actually having to fly into the various jurisdictions.
In terms of the fourth, again, $50,000 in water management and monitoring. This is in water partnerships and agreement. Again, this is a reduction in travel. This section will utilize, again, the video conferencing equipment for negotiations in trans-boundary.
Finally, the last one of $15,000 is in water management and monitoring in water research and studies. This is a reduction in travel, and this is basically for the essential meetings and conference attendances that will be maintained. It is just being a little more particular to the conferences and meetings that we are sponsoring staff to go to. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. While I appreciate getting this level of detail now that we are in Committee of the Whole, why was this information not made available as part of the business plan, the exchange of information requests, and so on that have been going on in this Assembly since September? Why am I finding out about this now on the floor of the House in Committee of the Whole? That is probably a question for the Minister. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My understanding is that the reductions were part of the business plan. I think what may have been a little confusing is that some of the restatements that we have done may have confused it a bit. I have committed to the Member that we are going to be providing them information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the commitment from the Minister, but that is not very helpful as I try to work my way through the rest of the main estimates in Committee of the Whole. This information can and should have been provided to us before we arrived here. I would like to know whether there are any reductions made to the Cumulative Impact Monitoring Program now, because I don't know what I am working from anymore. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
There are none.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't believe that the standing committee or the public has seen a formal response to the Auditor General Report on Climate Change. Is that something that the department is still working on? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am a little confused here. We may have responded to the report of the Auditor General. I know that there were a number of recommendations that were made in there, and we responded that we were acting on all of those recommendations. I will commit to the Member, because my understanding is that we did respond to that, but I will confirm that and share it with committee.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I don't think I have seen a document. I think I have seen a draft of a document, a very early preliminary draft. The department claims that it has responded to the OAG recommendations and the Climate Change Strategic Framework action plan. I would probably disagree with their assessment, but I don't think that we have actually seen a formal response to the Auditor General report.
ENR says that it has the authority and leadership under the Climate Change Strategic Framework for monitoring and reporting on climate change. What kind of monitoring and reporting do they intend to do, and will it include information about the Energy Strategy and proposed carbon pricing, as well, so that all of that information is found in one document? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Dragon.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that we're looking at doing in terms of the ongoing accounting of all the different activities that we're doing on this file is ensuring that we're having a quarterly conversation at the end, so we're having a normal accounting on all the different items that are going on.
I can assure the committee that we are line in step with the energy plan and the carbon strategy. We've been working together. Our departments work very much in lock and step. When we look at the climate change action plan, really, goal number one is from the energy plan; it is improving and tracking and monitoring GHG emissions. That is one of the goals of the energy plan. We look at having that ongoing discussion about all the different activities, but we're going to be doing a yearly report of all activities that we've done, and also put a performance management methodology towards the 100 actions that we're looking for part one of the action plan so that we're able to see how well we're doing in terms of what we proposed as actions and how well we are able to deliver on those actions. At the end of the five years, we'll also be looking at a summary report that goes through all of this plan, but also looks at the next five years. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Mr. O'Reilly.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I will have to wait to see what the detail is because I don't think we've really nailed that down yet. I want to go back to the Climate Change Strategic Framework Action Plan. My colleague from Yellowknife North talked a bit about this. I understand that there are going to be a few new interdepartmental committees established, but there's nothing that establishes the authority of the department in legislation, regulation, or policy with regard to something like collaborative and coordinated reporting on climate change. There's nothing about how Cabinet decisions might include climate change implications, how infrastructure funding submissions should be screened for climate change impacts, or assistance with greenhouse gas reductions. I think those are the kinds of tools that we need to have to ensure that the department has the authority and the leadership in legislation, regulation, or policy to make sure that we are successful at climate change. That's what the Auditor General has said. That's why we failed in the previous two strategies. What is the department going to do to address this situation in next year's budget? Thanks, Mr. Chair.
