Thank you, Madam Chair. Right now, we have increased that funding to the city in the tune of $186,000 on top of what you see on page 220, which is really going to enable them to look at what the new NWT Yellowknife Visitors Centre looks like. We just chatted with the city last week about some of their visions. It can be pretty exciting. They are doing that work right now. As for the old site, I actually don't know what's happening with that site, but rest assured, with the new site, they are looking at options in the core downtown. That funding that we have is for this year, and we have committed that we need to be able to find that funding ongoing. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Historically, we spend about 10 percent of the tourism product diversification program on southern operators, recognizing that 90 percent goes to northern operators. That's great, but I don't really understand why we give public money to businesses not based in the Northwest Territories to run tourism operations here. Is the Minister willing to amend the tourism product diversification program to make it only northern businesses? Thank you.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Of that 10 percent, you often have businesses that employ guides locally, boat operators, airline operators locally, and certainly may use other tourist products here, such as local hotels during transfers and food operators, logistics, supplies, et cetera. Whether it's direct employees or whether it's indirectly spent, those who may be based in the South are still often very important local operators. What I would, perhaps, suggest or commit to doing is to provide information, to the extent that we have it, that outlines the spending that we are aware of by those operators so that we can see just how much the dollars that we give their support do, in fact, wind up circulating back here. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no doubt that there are spinoff economic benefits from a large southern paddle company or a hunting outfitter coming up here and running their lodge. I actually talk to a lot of the lodge owners who run them seasonally, and they're great businesses. I just question the justification for us actually giving them money, especially when a lot of them are historically quite competitive in running good programs. I look forward to seeing those numbers. I have made this request before. On to another point, though, we waived the $500 tourism operator licence fee for this fiscal. Are we going to do that again? Thank you.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you. Best answer I could have had. I would like to plant in the Minister's ears, perhaps, I know this isn't a lot, $500, but it is a bit of a barrier to entry to starting a business. I know the tourism act was created to, perhaps, promote tourism, but it has quite a process that may disincentivize some of the smaller people who want to dip their toes into the waters. I don't view a tourism operator licence as the type of licence that has to generate revenue. It seems completely counterintuitive that we charge all of our tourism operators, especially the small seasonal ones, $500 every year. Is the Minister willing to, going forward, look at completely getting rid of this fee? It just doesn't seem to make much sense to me. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe, certainly for the small- and medium-sized operators, my understanding is that it's actually $175 as a fee. Again, if that's incorrect, I will ensure that we correct that. With respect to having the licence, it is one way that we are able to assure the public that there is protection for them, that there is some control over who is offering services and often offering services that are in remote locations. Actually, you know what, Madam Chair? I am getting information in real time, so $580 for a new licence but only $175 for a renewal. Again, it hasn't come back to me that this is, in fact, a burden. I would expect that, if it is a burden, there is quite a number and variety of various funding tools in ITI to help support those small operators. One of the other major things that tourism licensing and its amending provisions do is allow us to go out and consult with Indigenous governments when there are tourism operations happening on traditional lands or on settled lands.
What I will say and perhaps make a commitment, even, is that I can go back and check in with Northwest Territories tourism and see to what extent there are some barriers, if this is a barrier, or if it's a question of just filling out the paperwork. This isn't a money-making tool, necessarily. I will need to go back and have some conversations with those who are impacted by these rules. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps trying not to rehash the entire debate about the tourism act and whether it has accomplished its goals. I think the problem with going to NWT tourism is that part of the reason we brought the tourism act in was to get a lot of people licensed who weren't licensed. I know that's still a problem. I have constituents who run tourism operating businesses who are not licensed and probably don't want to go talk to ITI. As part of that view there, can the Minister look to how we are bringing people into the licensing scheme? Charging them $500 doesn't help. s I will just leave that as a comment.
We wouldn't be complete for tourism and parks unless I talked about the opening of the campgrounds. Madam Chair, every single year, I go down to Kakisa, and I go fly fishing. Every single year, someone cuts the gate and goes camping there, or they run through the creek to go camping there. There is an insatiable demand to go camping earlier that people are cutting gates. I know we can't open the parks because we have to hire some people, but there are certain campgrounds in this territory that people camp at regardless. The way that I view this is that there are certain kinds of, I think they're operated by ITI, if you took Hidden Lake Territorial Park, these giant parks where people camp. They camp all year-round. They go to them. There are roadside pullouts, some of which are parks operated by ITI, that aren't necessarily campgrounds, but people camp at them. Is that something the department allows? Is there a way to create some of these campgrounds that allow people to go in and pull in regardless of the actual registered fixed season? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have that in my mains. It's not something I have in front of me, other than to sort of rehash what was already discussed earlier this week about the costs of expanding the season for a month being into the tens of thousands of dollars, let alone the fact that there are contracts in place with operators and some simple physical facts about what they can or cannot do before the real thaw happens.
The question involved was towards what could be done in maybe the day parks as opposed to the camping parks. That's a new spin on the question. What I would like to suggest is that I take that away and have a conversation with the department about whether there are options for some of the other parks products that are not the formal campgrounds. I can sort of commit to get an answer on that, but it may be that I need to come back to the Member to make sure that I am actually answering where that question ended up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member for Yellowknife North.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope one day I will be able to go camp in the winter without Lands showing up and calling me a squatter. Thank you, Madam Chair. My next question is: I see that we still have the lease commitment in the visitors' centre in Dawson. I thought we actually weren't doing that, but perhaps I was wrong. Can I just get an update of what the plan is for the continued visitor services in Dawson City, Yukon? Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know we were looking at the status of that and trying to determine if, in fact, it is something that ought to be renewed. It's not at a final point of decision because it hasn't hit me yet, Madam Chair, but let me see if the Deputy Minister can provide a bit of an update on where that consideration is at. Thank you.
Thank you. Deputy Minister Strand.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. We have asked the region to do an analysis, a cost-benefit analysis, on that visitors' centre, recognizing its location and what we can do more within the territory, so we are aiming to have that done by the end of this fiscal. This visitors' centre does have a lot of people come through it. The question is: how many actually end up in the territory? For example, in 2018, 10,000 people came through that. We recognize it's a good location in downtown Dawson. Do we want to keep it? Do we not? That will be a decision we'll look at early next fiscal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Deputy Minister. Are there any further questions under tourism and parks? Seeing none, Industry, Tourism and Investment, tourism and parks, operations expenditure summary, 2021-2022 Main Estimates, $16,232,000. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. There are additional information items from pages 222 to 226. Do Members have any questions in regard to any of those information items, that are specifically to the information items? Seeing none, we'll continue on. Thank you, Members. Please return now to the departmental summary found on page 203. Member for Frame Lake.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I want to put some questions about the revenue somewhere because this is the only place revenues show up for this department. There are a couple of ducks here that need to be flushed out. The line on 204, licenses, rental, and other fees, the main estimates for last year showed $2.4 million, but the revised estimates actually show $47.7 million. Is this a typo? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Madam Chair, it is not a typo. It is a license forfeiture from Husky Oil that I would be happy to provide in some finer detail, Madam Chair. I'm just not getting back there fast enough. Perhaps I could suggest that Deputy Minister Strand can speak to it, or it may go over to our director of finance, please.
Thank you. Deputy Minister Strand.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, that is correct. That is the work bid deposit forfeiture from Husky Energy. They had a work commitment. It wasn't fully fulfilled, and so as a result, under our legislation, the balance of that deposit is forfeited. That's what the amount is for. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member.
Thanks, Madam Chair. This is good news, but there is no explanation whatsoever of what this amount is. I'm kind of surprised that it's just kind of dropped in here, no footnote, nothing, so any member of the public wouldn't know what this is. Is there not a better way to present this for future main estimates? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. It's obviously a significant bid deposit forfeiture. It's much higher than what we would often see in a particular year. I think I'm certainly happy to say that, though I don't know what threshold there might be or if there should be a threshold of at what point a footnote is offered, but the point is well-made. I accept that, yes, it certainly shows as being a number that seems unusual, and yet there is actually a very clear explanation available for it. The commitment would be that, if there is going to be another significant variance of that nature, we find a way to report that publicly so that it's more clear. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister. Member.
Thanks, Madam Chair. Yes. I appreciate that. I just want to get a little bit more clarification of what this work bid forfeiture actually is. Does this mean that Husky has surrendered its exploration licence and that they are not going to be carrying out I think it was over $300 million worth of work that they were required to carry out to keep their exploration licence in good standing? Is that what has happened here? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Member. Minister.
Madam Chair, no. It's not like that, Madam Chair. I'm going to suggest, though, that this go to Deputy Minister Strand.
Deputy Minister Strand.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Husky had about $94 million in the deposit, and they worked it down to $45.2 million. It's when the conversion from an exploration license to a significant discovery licence happens that that is forfeited. They have spent a lot of money on this EL, I think upwards of $200 million, if not way more than that. That hopefully summarizes it. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Member.
Thanks, Madam Chair. The company, though, has applied for a significant discovery licence. This means, though, that they don't have to carry out the other commitment of, I guess it would have been another $50 million, total of $94 million worth of exploration work? That's not going to take place now? Is that correct? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
Madam Chair, I'll direct it to the deputy minister, please.
Thank you. Deputy Minister.
Madam Chair, yes, that is correct.
Member.
Thanks, Madam Chair. That's not good news. That's almost $100 million worth of work that could and should have been done in the Sahtu. It's great that we get a $45 million cash windfall, but in converting this to a significant discovery licence, is that being done under the old legislation or the new legislation? Is there any requirement for even one cent to be spent under a significant discovery licence? Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Minister.
