Again, just with regard to recreational facilities, the Minister has indicated that, over the years, the historical cost summary, the criteria has changed and varied, and it has come now to a point where, at one time, the original standards criteria saw communities contributing ten per cent of the construction cost for gyms and 40 per cent for arenas. The percentage has been revised from zero to ten, respectively, so, if that is the case, then we are looking at a situation in which communities that have recreation facilities pay 30 per cent less than what other communities had to contribute, and I find that totally unfair. I would like to ask the Minister why he has decided to change this policy. The old 1985 policy has been changed to reduce the contribution costs.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether or not the policy of government is under capital or if it is under O and M. If it is a policy that governs the way expenditures are made on capital projects, I would presume that it is under operations and maintenance as opposed to capital. Can I get that clarification?

Mr. Chairman, I believe the question the Member is asking is under the standards and criteria of the department which is a capital policy. Now, to be able to answer the question, I would have to get a clarification from the Member, if he wants to pursue this.

Mr. Chairman, is my question out of order?

Mr. Chairman, we don't have the information that the honourable Member is requesting, but I could take the question and respond to him at a later time.

I will accept that, then, but the problem is that the Minister did sign a letter dated February 14, 1994, which clearly states that there has been a change in the policy.

I recall the particular letter that the Member is referring to but I don't recall the details of the letter, so I would have to freshen my memory to be able to respond. If he could clarify his question, I might be able to respond.

Mr. Chairman, I don't have a difficulty with the direction the government is going. The only difficulty I find is that half-way through the game, suddenly the policy is changed. The government pays more and the communities pay less. I find it is unfair for the communities. Before Fort Providence even had the approval to have the arena and the community hall built, they had to give $251,000 up front to the government, which they did. Now, it is ten years later, from

1983, the programs are going on, but all of a sudden, the rules have changed. I just wanted to know why the sudden change.

Mr. Chairman, again, I may not be able to respond correctly as I don't have the information with me. I could go by memory and indicate that it is unfortunate that the community was put in this situation, but I believe the request to change the criteria under which the particular facilities fall was a request made by communities. Now, this was also before my time as a Minister. The request was made by the community to change the criteria of the particular facility that the Member is referring to from an additional facility for a community, which it was under, where the communities were not able to contribute the amounts that were required under that particular criteria. When it was changed at the request of the community to basic facilities, the position was made that the communities would be able to contribute the amounts that are required under that particular criteria. Again, I would have to say that it is unfortunate that the community of Fort Providence was put under that situation, but that is the way I understand the situation to have occurred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister was elected in November of last year. The policy was revised at that time. It was in 1993 that the policy was revised to reduce the formula. I don't know why the Minister was not aware of it. I am sure his department must have made him aware of it. For him to write a letter on February 14 would indicate that the Minister was informed of the decision. Again, the Minister also provided me with a listing of all the communities that had arenas built and some of them have contributed quite a substantial amount. It is not as if there is a difficulty for the communities not to pay their own way. It seems to me that they have done pretty good. I don't know why the sudden change to change the policy in 1993, but I am suspicious of why they would decide to do that. If the Minister doesn't mind -- he did provide me with a copy of all the capital recreation projects that happened and the amount that the communities have contributed -- could you also provide me with a copy of what the forecast is for capital allocations and to which communities in the next year or two?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would have no difficulty with the request made by the Member. In fact, the information should be in his hands already under the Five Year Capital Plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to ask the Minister, before we conclude this department, what is the forecast for recreation in the north right now? Since there is a financial situation that we should continue the Arctic Winter Games, has there been a review done on this at all? I understand that the next one is in Alaska. Again, it still means that we have to sponsor many athletes to fly there. Just as they would to Lesser Slave Lake. Does the Minister have any kind of figures with regard to how much it is costing us to have the Arctic Winter Games held in Lesser Slave Lake? What are the directions that the department is going with regard to the Arctic Winter Games in general? Should we be continuing this program if...