Inform Members that inspectors use a risk management program to determine the frequency of inspections required each year on projects, so it's not as though this reduction was arrived at willy-nilly. As always, it was evidence-based. Perhaps Mr. Hagen would like to add something to that answer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Hagen.

Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So just to be clear, I appreciate the information. I do wonder if we still need to maintain a high level of awareness of what's happening at Snap Lake. Even though it's not in full operation, it still has a significant impact on our environment and represents a significant liability in ensuring that the company is maintaining its obligations throughout the care and maintenance period. Hopefully, we can get it back online but at this point I would hope that our current budget can accommodate that. I think I heard that from the deputy minister.

I want clarity on this. The Minister is telling us that this is an evidence-based decision to reduce this and that inspectors have a risk matrix and they've determined that there will be few requirements so this is a natural kind of progression. The deputy minister is saying they were asked to make cuts; they looked at their available programs, found the ones that would be least impacted where they could make those cuts. So which is it? Was this program cut -- was this funding cut because it will not impact services but they needed to make the cut anyway or was it cut because it would have been cut anyway due to the risk matrix. Is it evidence-based or is it reduction driven? Still unclear on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister.

The decision to make this reduction was, of course, evidence-based, as are all our decisions. Again, we look at the matrix to ensure that we will give the coverage that residents of the Northwest Territories expect and we simply felt that this was an area that could be reduced still meeting all of our obligations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'll just put it a bit more plainly. If there was no reduction exercise asked of the department, would this funding have been cut? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister Sebert.

Mr. Chair, some of this funding might have been lapsed had there been no reduction exercise, but again, the amount of money allocated for this very important function was based on a risk matrix and not based on concerns about the overall budget. So it's not as though we're not living up to the expectations of the people of the Northwest Territories; again, this is based on a risk matrix. There's less activity out there; therefore, less money was required for travel.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Deputy Minister Hagen.

Thank you, Deputy Minister Hagen. Mr. Testart.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If increased activity requires a greater inspection budget, how will the department meet that demand in the wake of this cut if it goes forward? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Testart. Minister Sebert.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe we would have sufficient funds within. I suppose, if there was a very, very drastic increase of activity, we would have to seek supplementary funds. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I just want to get this straight. We had the Minister first say that these cuts were being made because there was reduced activity. Then it transitions now into explanation that they re-jigged the risk matrix so that there is less work to do and that is why the cuts are being made. That does not really quite flow the way I had expected an evidence-based decision to come out of that.

Let's start with facts here. First, when we got devolution, we promised that we were going to do better than the federal government, and that is promise that was made to our residents. Now, the Minister says, at least initially, that part of the reason for doing this a reduced level of activity out there. I don't see any evidence of that. Where is the evidence that there is a reduced level of activity out there?

If you look at the business plan for the department, and the deputy minister talked a little bit about this, in 2014-15, 669 inspections were carried out; in 2015-16, 791 inspections were carried out. That is on leases, water licences, reservations' land use permits. This year their target is 768. That is a little bit of a dip. That is not a lot. Commissioner's land assessment activities, these are, looking at Commissioner's lands, usually close to built-up communities. In 2014-15, there were 1,650 inspections; 2015-16, 2,818.

So, really, where is the evidence that there is a reduced level of activity out there? Does the Minister actually have statistics on the number of active land use permits, active water licences, active leases that we are required to monitor and carry out inspections on that he can point to about a reduced level of activity? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Minister Sebert.

Well, Mr. Chair, we have not adjusted the risk framework to meet the reduction. The risk matrix still remains the same, so we based our decisions on that as to the number of inspections required. I don't have all of the numbers requested. I can look into that and get back to the Member, should he wish. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Sebert. Mr. O'Reilly.