Yes, just one final one, Mr. Chairman. I remember last year when we got into capital and I found that Mr. Todd -- when he was the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance -- decided just like that to get rid of something -- even though a lot of thought, a lot of planning had gone into it -- because there had not been a sufficient explanation as to why we were doing what we were doing. And once he understood, it went back in again, no problem. The concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is that we always want to try to find out why something happens. Why is it that this is happening the way it is.

I know many of the people in the public here, who drive that highway, are aware of the number of people who lose their lives on it or who are involved in rather serious accidents. About 33 per cent of all accidents in the Northwest Territories, on our highways, occur on that stretch of road because that's where the traffic is and that's where the wear and tear is. That's where the problems are.

So therefore, you have an obligation as a government looking after the public trust -- it's one thing that government's do -- to make sure that we provide for the health, welfare and safety of the people that we serve. If that many people who lose their lives were involved in accidents on that one stretch of road, we are responsible. Surely that has to be a priority. You have to have some system for deciding what you do. By comparison, the Mackenzie has got 20 per cent. The rest of the roads -- all the rest of them -- 11 per cent.

So, if we want to get down to specifics and facts, let's look at that one issue of the obligation we have as legislators and Members of this Assembly to concern ourselves with the safety and well being of the people that we serve. And if we don't regard that as a priority, we won't have very much public credibility.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I too was a Member that went to that particular briefing for highways and let me tell you, I certainly wasn't pleased. The Minister is fortunate he wasn't at that briefing. For one thing, we as legislators, should ensure that our highways are in safe condition. I agree.

Hear, hear.

But at the same time, we as legislators have to make sure we make every effort to keep people who are intoxicated off that highway. Many of the accidents happen because of abuse of alcohol. That's one point I want to bring up.

My foremost point, when you look at this budget, when you look at this whole highways' budget, $20 million of this highways' budget goes to paving all these roads on highway 3, highway 7 and highway 1, but there's not $1 to look at paving highway 5, nor is there any money to look at paving highway 6. Is that fair and is that equitable?

I am disappointed with the fact that...First of all, let me tell you, there is a highway from Yellowknife along Ingraham Trail that gets paved every year. Yet, my constituents are denied paving. Why? Is that fair, when you have 2,500 people being served?

I don't believe this capital budget is distributed in a fair and equitable manner. As a Member, to serve my constituents I will make sure they are treated just as equally. It's been one of my goals to make sure the highway is paved, and if it means I have to speak out and get angry in this Assembly, I will. I am trying to find a fair method in trying to make sure that my concerns are addressed. I believe this recommendation is a fair method. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with both Brian and Jeannie, with regard to the equitable distribution of capital money. Mr. Chairman, I come from Fort Providence, which has a little over 700 people and maybe ten per cent of them own vehicles. If I was to say that the highways are based on ten per cent equally, then I cannot make a justification or an argument. Certainly I could make the argument for Fort Smith as justifiable because there are more people there and also more vehicles there, but not everybody lives on the highway system. So, we have a situation in which we also have to look at the equality by the volume of traffic that is on those highways.

In all fairness, it's good to point at a population such as Fort Smith being around 2,000. How many of them are drivers? I don't know what the stats are. I would also hope that when we look at equality, we not only look at the stats in the communities, but also the volume on the highway systems.

Thank you. I, too, totally agree with the Member for Thebacha. I raised the issue yesterday. In terms of fairness and equality, there are over $20 million for highway 1 and 3, and $2 million for highway 7. I was also at the Transportation briefing, and very clearly in the briefing, probably the most unsafe highway in our system is the Dempster Highway. Yet, I look at the budget and there is $1 million for next year in the capital estimates.

I can accept that, yet I'm not pleased. The Minister knows I'm not pleased and the Standing Committee on Finance also knows I'm not pleased, because six months ago there was supposed to be $2 million there. Based on the five year plan and based on the long-term plan, I can accept it even though I'm not pleased with it. I'd like to see this stretch also get equitable treatment. There have been deaths on that highway, too. I'm not going to get into numbers, I don't have the numbers that my colleague from Yellowknife has. People drive that highway and they're concerned. They're concerned in the winter when it snows. The little bit of money that was in there for snow control has been removed. I don't know why yet. But the overall reconstruction of that highway has to be a priority somewhere down the line. The department has indicated that highway 1 and highway 3 are the priorities. Over time, hopefully, the Dempster Highway, highway 8, is going to get fair treatment. The budget as presented doesn't reflect that in 1994-95, so I have a concern and that's why I'm supporting this recommendation to be looked at. Whatever can be done, I would support. Thank you.

Question.

Mr. Chairman, I am just wondering what the intent of the motion is here. I agree that there should be reconsideration by the department, but it focuses on four highways. It doesn't focus on highway 7 or highway 3. If we are looking at redistributing the monies with regard to the 1994-95 fiscal year, then should it only be for those four highways. Or are we saying, "The committee further

recommends that all highways listed below be considered in conjunction with the objective?"

We do have a transportation strategy document and we also have a new one coming up that has also been considered by Mr. Gordon Wray. He is doing another report on that. I don't know what the forecast is for the next two or three years, but I think if we are going to be supporting a motion like this we should be supporting all highways in conjunction with that.

If we support this does it mean that we don't support the allocation for next year for highways 1, 3 and 7? It certainly looks that way to me.

Mr. Chairman, it is not that we don't support the idea of highways 1 and 3 being addressed. One of the principles of the Standing Committee on Finance is to ensure that funding is distributed in a fair and equitable manner. When you look at this particular page -- and I know we're not into the details of the budget yet -- highway 3, in itself, has a $7.4 million allocation in addition to $6.3 million. So, you're looking at $13.7 million just for highway 3. There is another $1 million for highway 1. I haven't totalled up the details but there is also another $2 million or so for highway 7. It was recognized by the committee that there has been no funding, not one dollar allocated for highway 5 or highway 6. Therefore, it is not adhering to the principle of the Standing Committee on Finance with regard to allocation of funds in a fair and equitable manner.

It is not as if these funds are not planned in next year's budget. They are not even planned in the next five years' budgets. I believe the intention was to bring these concerns to the Minister and that he would place them in his budget and plan accordingly, to ensure that fairness and equity occurs across the territories. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether other ordinary Members have the benefits that the finance committee has with regard to forecasts. I am not aware of the five year forecast. All I see is the capital for 1994-95 and prior years. In future years there is about three or four numbers here I see, including Nahanni Butte for $4 million. I don't know what next year's allocations are going to be. I don't have them in front of me. I would hope that what the government started four years ago will continue and that it doesn't end half way because of other priorities.

Four years ago the finance committee and Members supported that we do some major improvements to all major highway systems. By chance, they chose highway 3 as being one of the highest priorities. I agreed with that at the time, and so did a lot of other Members. I would hope that construction could continue without ignoring other highways.

I have no difficulty with the Fort Smith highway being looked at, or the Dempster or Resolution highways. I support the motion as it reads but I would hope that it also means it includes highways 3 and 7.

Question.