Thank you. Mr. Campbell.

Would it be false for me to say this is actually a federal initiative or a federal amount of money that would have come to us and is not coming to us in 2013? Would it be fair to say that this has anything to do with personnel or aircraft, this amount?

Thank you. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. What we have here from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013 is a change in accounting treatment. In the past we would list it on a revenue summary, but as we have gone through all our reviews, there’s no markup or profit generated. So there’s not a revenue, we just get compensated for our costs. It’s a mutual aid agreement and it could apply to aircraft, it could apply to crews and equipment as well. So this year it’s not going to be listed in revenue. Going forward, it won’t be an item in the budget anymore identified under the revenue summary.

I’m still a bit confused. Is this not, as I said, a federal initiative that we’re getting to help offset? If it is indeed a revenue, was treated a revenue in 2011-2012-2013, I’m getting the sense that this is somewhere else. If this is somewhere else, can the Minister indicate where is the recovery then? Thank you.

This is not a federal program. When it’s a federal program, all the provinces and territories have agreements signed with each other. So if there’s a significant demand in, for example, Ontario and they need help and they call us and we’re able to send people, we will do that and we will recover our costs. Henceforth, going forward forevermore it will be listed right now under page 13-38 under work performed on behalf of others. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister. You are referring to fire work, I presume. Right?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Madam Chair. If I heard correctly, I heard 13-38, work on behalf of others. There’s no category that deals with fire management or fire suppression. Again, can I get clarity from the Minister?

The acronym MARS stands for Mutual Aid Resource Sharing Agreement. That is the agreement that encompasses the arrangements for fire suppression sharing of resources. Thank you.

Thank you. Did you find it, Mr. Dolynny?

Yes, I did, Madam Chair. We’re not on page 13-38, unfortunately, but I don’t see an increase in that line entry. I assume we’ll want to talk about that when we get to that line as to how do we go from $300,000 to actually a decrease, if that’s indeed the changeover. Again, Madam Chair, we’re not at 13-38, so I will ask my question then. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Nadli.

Thank you, Madam Chair. My question is not so much on a monetary matter but in terms of timber permits and licences. I think the Biomass Initiative is a fairly positive and forward initiative that complements local skills. I think one of the obstacles that some organizations have is access to lands and areas where there has been an effort to do an inventory and analysis in terms of the tree species and whether they are prime for harvesting. My question is: How is the department trying to mitigate access to forested areas in terms of trying to make biomass successful?

Thank you. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There are two main areas. We are continuing to work on inventories of the forest, and an equally important piece, especially as you look at the possibility of a biomass plant being put up that could do as many as 30,000 metric tons, are these forest management agreements that would have to be entered into with the Aboriginal governments and the GNWT to be able to have access to the material to generate the pellets in a sustainable, go-forward basis so the person or the business making the pellets is able to buy the material to make the pellets.

Forest management agreements are going to be very critical pieces of work. There are none in existence right now. We have staff hard at work sorting out how we do that, so when we move forward with the negotiations with the various partners in this whole operation, we can make sure we have knowledge of what’s there and agreements that lay out how that resource will be used over time. Thank you.

Just for clarification, what is the term life of a forest management agreement?

At this point, we’re looking at agreements that would last 15 or 20 years.

Thank you. Mr. Nadli, we are on revenue. We are on the revenue summary. If you have further questions, maybe they can wait for the forestry management section. Yes, they can? No, they can’t?

Yes. If I could, I would just like to ask a final question, Madam Chair. Thank you for the response in terms of clarifying the forest management agreement with more likely local organizations for terms of 15 years.

Is there an effort to try to ensure that communities, if at the local level the department is equally going to work parallel with them to ensure they build up capacities at the same time? It’s a cooperative effort so, in the end, there’s a forest management agreement that’s beneficial to both the government and local organizations. Does the department have a position to try to help with capacity issues with local organizations? Thank you.

Thank you. Minister Miltenberger.

The forest management agreements have been triggered specifically by the project that’s under consideration right now, or development right now for a pellet plant. We, ITI, the government is at the table trying to do our part. The arrangements between the business in the communities in terms of negotiating access to the material, the capacity building, are going to be driven through that business arrangement. There will still be ongoing access to existing programs that the territorial government now has that could be possibly brought to bear, as well, but the main relationship will be between the communities and the proponent who has laid out quite extensively the capacity building, training, local employment and all these critical areas. There is no request for territorial money in this project either. Thank you.