Thank you, Dr. Dragon. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you to the deputy minister for that answer. From my understanding in talking to people, it is a little bit different. I am hearing a different story. There are some concerns in this area. I understand the cross-training, but I think putting these two positions in the same building and same department would be more efficient.

I guess, if we are not going to allocate moving positions around, is the department willing to work with the Department of Lands and maybe house the water officers with the Lands officers in the same building so that they can work together and work on files that way? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Minister McLeod.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, in talking to people, or if we have Members who are talking to people, then, you know, I would appreciate if the Members would come and have a conversation with me to see if we can take care of that. Our Lands and ENR folks, they work very well together, but putting them in the same building, I am not sure if that will create efficiencies; but if there is a particular issue that the Member would like to raise, I would more than happy to have a conversation with the Member. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Mr. Thompson.

Thank you, and I will actually thank the Minister for that, and I will take him up on it. I am not talking about staff. I am talking about people out in the industry and stuff like that, and that is what the people have come to me and said, that it makes more sense. Like I said, I thank the Minister for that, and I will follow up later on with this. That will be my last question. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Thompson, more of a comment, but I will get the Minister to reply if he would like.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. No, Mr. Chair, I take the Member's point, and I will be glad to have a conversation with him, and we will have a discussion on the issue that was brought to his attention. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister McLeod. Any further questions, committee? Mr. O'Reilly.

Sure, yes, there is shown in the business plan a $50,000 reduction to the water regulatory budget, and I think it shows up on page 86, as well. Can someone tell me what that reduction is all about? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, the $50,000 the Member refers to is to reduce the contract service budget within the water regulatory section, and the water guidance documents will be further reduced because my understanding is that most of this work has already been done. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. So what is the total contracting budget, then, for water regulatory? If it is reduced by $50,000, what is left? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, there is $481,000 left in the budget. Thank you.

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

I guess this is a reduction of over 10 per cent. So, it is coming at an interesting time, where there is some significant closure planning underway for Snap Lake. Diavik is redoing its closure plan. There is stuff happening with the Jay expansion; there are a lot of management plans and things that need to be reviewed in that regard. So it is not like it is not a busy time or anything, so what is the rationale? $50,000 seems to be a rather with round number. What is the rationale here for the cut? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, we are well aware of all the work that needs to be done. The department feels like that work can be done within the existing $481,000 budget. The $50,000 I spoke of earlier, before, was to reduce contract services within the water regulatory section. The department obviously feels like they have the capacity to do the work that is required within the $481,000. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Yes, I remain concerned about this. A $50,000 cut just seems to be a convenient number for the fiscal reduction targets, so we will just leave it at that, but, once again, I do not see any real rationale for this cut because I do not think there is a reduced level of work or activity.

I want to follow up on some remarks made by my colleague the MLA from Nahendeh about moving the water inspectors to Lands. I know I had questions for the Minister of Lands about this. To me, it would make much or sense to have the Lands inspectors moved into ENR. ENR does the wildlife inspections. You do other environmental inspections. You do water work, as well. I think all of those environmental-related inspection activities should be housed within this department. Is that conversation or that discussion happening between the two departments? Can the Minister let me know what's happening, if anything? Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly. Dr. Dragon.