Mr. Premier, did you want to add to what Mr. Todd had stated?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last Fall, you elected a Cabinet and you elected myself as Premier. You put the trust in us to manage the day-to-day government operations. This capital budget represents approximately $150 million of a billion dollar budget. We manage this to the best of our capability. Whenever a Minister of this government brings forward, through FMB which I am a member of, a project or a change in project and especially if it has to do with his riding, it doubly scrutinized. We have to make sure that it is not seen, what I am hearing, as pork barrelling. I am hearing that in the undercurrents out there. We make darn sure that it is not that. You have to have the justification for that project. It has to be highest priority in your departmental priority list, and it has to have the reasons to go ahead.

The specific project Mr. Miltenberger is talking about in the Transportation budget, I remember it quite well because it was given extra scrutiny because it involved a Minister of this government. One thing nobody has said is that in that riding, the money that was taken from another project in that riding moved to another project in the same riding, plus more of the money was moved out of their riding to another riding. So the project is justified, the Minister can defend it and we can defend it as a government. We have to do things to manage the day-to-day affairs of this government. It is as simple as that. I had money taken out of my riding as the Premier and Government of the Northwest Territories and moved way up into the Arctic to build a seniors' facility for people that need it. I knew the need there was more so I did not mind losing it. Just like Mr. O'Brien. He had money taken out of his riding because it was less of a priority. The priority was to build a seniors' facility. You have to find the money somewhere and that is how it was done. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you. Mr. Todd.

The point I am trying to make here -- obviously, I am not making it well enough -- is that may be exceptions around the rules. You cannot say that this has happened right across the board. If there is a specific project that the Member would like to discuss, ask a specific question of a Minister and the Minister will defend the decision, but you cannot generalize. That is the only point I am trying to make here about some of these concerns. If a Member has a concern about whatever project it is -- I know Mr. O'Brien's concern is with the health centre which we have talked about -- then be specific and we will try to endeavour to answer it. Of course, you do have an opportunity during the budget, which will be in January, to give the recommendations, et cetera, on the budget. That is all I am trying to say. I am a bit concerned about generalizations, that is all. We have all had to make adjustment in our thinking when it comes to capital budgets. Everybody has tried to do it in as fair and reasonable way a possible. I understand if a Member or a Minister has had some project moved out of their riding and they are not going to be happy about it. I understand that. But the reality is that there is less money, and somebody has to prioritize these things. That is what we do and we have to defend those decisions. That is what we are here to do. I want to keep this thing specific rather than general. That is what I am saying in this discussion. If there are some specific issues, then I think -- I know -- Ministers are prepared to discuss it.

Thank you. On the list of speakers, we have Mr. Picco, Mr. Krutko and Mr. Henry. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just going back to earlier statements by Minister Todd about the rules of engagement having been changed and he can show me and the rest of the MLAs the capital projects and the budgets for the last 10 years for Mr. ???, but I think the first statement that he made that the rules have changed negates his capital budgets for the last 10 years. Because 10 years ago, nine years ago, eight years ago, one year ago, you are in a different situation. It was the glory days and the Stu Hodgson days when someone could come in and put things where they wanted to. You cannot compare apples and oranges by talking about the rules of engagement. I do not think anyone is questioning the management plan, the management scheme, the management style of the government. I think the questioning here is on specific program.

The capital budget is $150 million and it is a small part of the billion dollar budget, but the reality is that the total budget of the Northwest Territories is not discretionary dollars. Those dollars have to go into salaries and so on and so forth. One of the few things an MLA has an opportunity to influence is the capital spending in his riding. That is the point.

A specific question then to the Minister of Transportation on the project that appeared in the infrastructure committee of which I am chair of was that the $1055 million for the alternate island access in Fort Simpson was deferred from the original project budget and seemed to be a priority of the Minister. We had no problem with that. All of a sudden I end up looking at my capital plan last week and I see that in actuality it was deferred and cancelled and the money went into a recreation centre. I do not care if it went from a million dollars down to $600,000. It is the principle and the point of this. It is not the dollar value. I do not care if it was $100,000. The point being that the amount was changed and it went into a project. Now, Mr. Todd talked about the justification of expenditures and primary facilities. Well, when I see a recreation centre, for example, I cut my million dollar recreation centre last year. I did not jump up and down this year and say, "Put it back on the capital plan." If it was $600,000 or $500,000, maybe the Minister can justify why the recreation complex or whatever was done with that "X" number of dollars because all we can go by is what is on the capital budget and the alterations to such. I do not want this big song and dance and history lessons from people over here about what was done in the past and the rules of engagement have changed, and it is based on this capital budget.

I was not here last year and I was not here 10 years ago. I do not care how much money you have spent. My question and direct question Mr. Todd keeps asking, I will question the Minister of Transportation, why was this project deferred? Why was that re-allocated to new project which was not a primary facility and maybe the Chairman of FMBS can tell us why it was such a need to go ahead.

Thank you, I believe Mr. Todd. Minister for MACA, Madame Thompson. Yes, Mr. Todd, go ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I will go look to Ms. Thompson for response to this specific question I want to remind my honourable colleague you never dwell on history you just learn from it. And I would be only to happy to debate when we talk about fairness where capital dollars have been spent over a long period of time. That was the point I was trying to make here.

I would be only too happy to debate fairness of capital expenditures. Infrastructure that has been required across the territories. That was the point I was trying to make. Ms. Thompson would probably be able to answer that question because her constituency or her department.

Thank you. On the Recreation Centre for Fort Smith to Fort Simpson, Madame Thompson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was a comment made earlier that I want to talk about, a few comments that have made. I will respond to the specific area of concern in a few seconds. One of the MLAs said that Mayor came in to one of the Ministers offices and requested to take capital dollars one of the MLAs budget and that happened. I do not know which Mayor that was. I think it would be a good idea, since I deal with all the Mayors, to know which Mayor this was. And there is a process already in place. We do not just move capital dollars to here and there just like, you know, without any process. There are some skills in the department to deal with those issues.

Another comment that was made I know it was in regards to me when I was talking about the water sewage problems. There was a comment I had made earlier in the spring about that each community should, if it is a community and because they are human beings, we should give them a water sewage facility to have a healthy environment. That did not mean that if it is a small community of 60 people or 100 people that community should get a high school or a hospital.

I was just talking in regards to water and sewage when I said that small communities should have these too. So that is a statement I wanted to clear up.

In regards to the funds in Fort Simpson, funds were voted in the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs capital plan for the Fort Simpson alternate island access project. It started back in 1995/96. They were voted in. And because of local disagreement over the project this caused the village to reexamine its priorities.

Because I am the Minister of Community Empowerment, one of my priorities is that local bodies in the communities learn to work together and if they can learn to work together, for instance, in this community the Band Council, the Metis Nation and the village Council had to get a body together and tell me what their priorities were.

The village had to reexamine the issue for the alternate island access project because when they started to talk about this if you have been to Fort Simpson they are on an island. There is a road going into the island.

The community felt at that time, if there was an emergency or if there was a flood, they would not be able to go through the only road out to the mainland. So they thought there should be an access road on the other side of the island. Because the Metis and the Band Council were not involved in that discussion, there was local disagreement into that, like that was really the priority of the community.

So, that was started in 1995 before I was Minister of this department. When I came into the picture, I had to try to get the community to work together. So I told them that if they can become one body, the Metis Association, the Band Council and the village, try to work together and tell me what they wanted to do with this money that voted in 1995 and I would give it to them.

Because I felt since I am the Minister of Community Empowerment one of the issues is that I want a well community. And that people should learn to work together. So they came together and became a tripartite working group and told me that the access road to the mainland that the village had wanted was no longer a priority. But that because they had started developing towards on the mainland instead called the Wild Rose subdivision. They said that, because they wanted to have a community so that they can get together more often because there is three different groups and have a bigger centre. And that the village would contribute towards this project and operation and maintenance costs associated with the facility.

I agreed to that since they were working together as a group for the benefit of the community, that they should use this money for the recreation centre which was a community centre. And that is where that was. I think it was a good decision on my part. Because with community empowerment we have to get the band councils, the village councils, the Metis councils together to form a group and we have to be willing to work with them. And that was their priority for the community to have a wellness centre. And this is what happened.

This was already voted in 1995/96. It was not something that just happened out of the blue because the MLA came to me. It is because I was working with the community for community wellness and community empowerment.

In the west as you know it is more complex than in the east. We do not have band councils in the east. We do not have Metis so it is a lot easier to get the community to work together. But we still have to get the housing associations and the different department to work together in our communities. And in the east the departments can get together in the community and tell me this is their priority. To promote community empowerment and community wellness in that community I will do my best to meet their needs.

One of my priorities in the west is that these groups will have to work together and tell me what their priorities are and I will do the best I can to meet that need. I did not take that money from somebody's riding to put it into this riding or to that community. It was voted in before I was the Minister. Thank you.

Thank you. My list is growing. We have Mr. Picco, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Henry, Mr. Roland, Mr. Barnabas, Mr. Enuaraq and Mr. Antoine.

I would like to remind any of the members to try to be specific in order to make any of the Ministers to understand and answer the questions try to be specific as possible.

Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate getting the history of the project. I understand there is an arena and a community complex already in Simpson. I just could not understand how a priority access road could be converted to a community centre. I guess my question still stands so I will see how it happens and I will defer it to one of my other colleagues to ask some questions.

Thank you Mr. Picco. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. I have to remind the ordinary Members to be specific as possible. Now I would like to remind the Ministers to try and refrain from long history, and try to be direct as possible. Mr. Todd.

Yes. I should clarify my comments on fairness. I was mainly addressing that to Mr. Picco, and questioning the fairness, not suggesting that it was. So I think that is important to say that. I think it would be fair to say that in some of the work that we have done, that some communities have benefited more than others. It would be fair to say that under the old system, the one prior to this time, that where there was ample moneys, that perhaps that old saying, the squeaky wheel may have got the grease.

But under the previous regime, where Ms. Cournoyea was the Premier, she instituted a system which I believed and the new Premier followed up with it, was more fair than it was before. And that was discussions with the communities to determine the priorities, to bring them forward, this is under the old previous government, to bring them forward to cabinet. Some effort was made to have an organized plan to do certain things.

Under the new system, which was brought in this year, with this Assembly, the committee structure was brought forward, and I believe there was a genuine, and is a genuine attempt to involve more of the MLAs in the process of trying to allocate capital dollars.

In any situation like this, I am going to say again, that the reality is that with less dollars, we can do less. And by doing less in a time of restraint, not everybody is going to be happy all the time. I guess that is the only way I can answer this.

Mr. Krutko's comments about trying to put a mechanism in place that protects, if you want, where capital dollars are allocated, and reduces the flexibility, if you want, of Ministers right now, I am prepared to look at that. I cannot answer that today. Certainly, we would be prepared to look at that. Again, I am a little concerned that we need to ensure that Ministers have got maximum flexibility to meet the targets that we have set for the coming year, and have a plan in place for the following year. Because I want to remind everybody, it is 30 months away from Division. Whatever we do now will more than likely be inherited by the two new governments. I will take Mr. Krutko's comments under consideration. I will have to talk to the department, I will have to talk to my colleagues in the FMB and the cabinet, and see what, if anything we can do to address some of the issues he has raised. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. We have Mr. Krutko, are you okay for now? I have Mr. Henry. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I was of the understanding that this part of the agenda was for opening comments. I believe when the Members came to this House eleven months ago, there was much talk about things being different, and a new way of doing business. I believe what the government are hearing today, is a disappointment on the ordinary Member's point of view, of how a couple of items have been handled.

I think it is fair to say that, for clarification purposes, that we are talking about a couple of items, and if Mr. Todd needs that assurances that it is not widespread, I would suggest to him, at this particular instance, discussion is centred around two particular topics.

I believe that there was an explanation given earlier to Members that moving of capital in projects and in communities in the past, was a standard, run of the mill situation. I think, along with other Members, felt there was going to be new things done, and a new way of doing business. I think that is where much of the frustration is coming from. I accept Minister Todd's comments that potentially, things could have been done a little different in the community.

Much as I congratulate him for those comments, I do believe that we do need some additional formalization as he as alluded to. I believe I would certainly be very disappointed and offended if there was projects allocated to my community, and they were approved in a budget. Certainly I believed without a doubt, that thing was finished with. We talk about managers being allowed to manage. I also believe that that is very important.

But I would remind the government that they are a body of politicians, and I would be hoping that they would be taking advice from their managers, the people with the expertise. I would be kind of disappointed, Mr. Chairman, if managers within this government recommended to the politicians and the cabinet that a project that was not even on the five-year capital plan, notably, the project in Fort Simpson, if they recommended that something like that should go ahead. I believe this was a political decision, and I believe the Minister should be given an opportunity to respond to that.

On the question of the paving of some roads, we have listened to the Premier of this government, on a number of occasions, talking about being open for business, and so forth. There was anticipation, and there still is, that there will be much use of the highway from the Alberta border north to development such as BHP project. I believe that one of the main criteria used by the department in looking at road construction or road resurfacing, or refurbishing, would be the amount of use. Now, if this government is saying that we are open for business, and we are supporting these projects as long as the benefits stay in the north, I would say that was kind of short-sighted. If we are fixing roads that at this particular time will not bring as much financial benefit and jobs to the north that are needed. I believe there has been some explanations given, and I would suggest that something to move this along would be if Ministers were given additional time to respond to the comments made here today, it may clarify many additional things. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. I would like to recognize Mr. Antoine. You are on the list here. I am wondering if you want to speak about your constituency, or do you want to speak as a Minister. You have the microphone, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak as the Minister of Transportation, and I really want to speak as a MLA for Nahendeh, but I protect my constituency like everybody else does. I want to speak as the Minister of Transportation.

Listening to the debate here, the concern here is that there was $650,000, a new project to the Fort Simpson access, paving. That is what the Member is having a problem with in the Department of Transportation. So let us address it. The Department of Transportation in the other parts of this document here, Changes to the Capital Plan, aside from this, I will speak on the $650,000 later on.

Aside from that, all the other changes are normal practice. I think I hear what the Members are saying. This is a new process that we all started on about ten months ago. I agree. Yes, we are doing something different. On this side, it is something different, we have to learn as we go along. The process here is still evolving. And I agree that, yes, there should be some sort of way, that whenever changes are made, that the ordinary Members get notified. I agree that perhaps like the Finance Minister said, there is a fault in this whole process. I think that is what it is. We have to communicate more. I think that if the changes were made, if you understand them, if you get it explained very carefully, then you would understand the reasoning behind all these things. As Ministers we are busy doing a lot of other things too. We are not only concentrating on shifting money. We are concentrating on doing a heck of a lot more.

As the Department of Transportation, we are responsible for about 2,200 kilometres of road, 52 airports, we are doing access roads, we are doing wharfs, we are doing a heck of a lot more. This is just a very small part of the whole operation. The way money got shifted around from one project to another, the experts are telling me that it is a normal practice of doing business. There are some business people that are here. They know that sometimes you have to make decisions. If you have to check with every person in the whole system, before you make a move, sometimes you have to make a move. But I agree that the MLAs should be informed that whenever there are changes made, then they should be notified. Perhaps that is the faultiness in this whole system.

I think there was a specific question asked by Mr. Ootes, in regards to the Tembind process that was going on into Cambridge Bay. There was a small amount that was moved into that area. I just want to say that this $135,000 that is there identified as a new project. Ninety of it came from the Kugluktuk airport upgrading, and 45 came from the Resolute Bay airport terminal building. This particular Tembind is a chemical that has a binding property in there that binds the material on the gravel surface airstrip. These loose stones, if they are not combined, cause a lot of damage to the aircraft's undercarriage and engines. As a result of that, this application of Tembind is a pilot project for the product at the Cambridge Bay airport where they have scheduled jet service. This application will allow the department to evaluate the product's dust suppression characteristics and its ability to enhance the binding characteristics of the crushed material.

I just wanted to further add that our original plan was to apply this Tembind to the Kugluktuk air side surfaces as part of the rehabilitation work that is currently underway. With NWT Air cancelling their jet service to Kugluktuk, effective May 31, 1993, the department would like to move this Tembind product to Cambridge Bay. The reasons we would like to change side is that we can test this product at an airport which is currently receiving jet service, to see if it is feasible here. We have a test site of the Tembind at the airport serviced by the turbo prop aircraft at Arviat as well. I think this answers the specific question that Mr. Ootes was asking, is that, the airport upgrading in Kugluktuk lost $90,000. We moved it to Cambridge Bay, and we put in some $45,000 from the Resolute airport terminal building, to make it $135,000. This is to test this chemical where there is jet service. Originally, we were going to do it in Kugluktuk, but they cancelled the jet service there, so we are doing it in Cambridge Bay. So that is the explanation for that one.

Like I said, if we go through this whole process, you will understand the reasoning behind it. I think that I have met with Mr. Barnabas on this airport terminal building in Resolute. I think we have come to a good understanding of the reasoning behind it. And we could do that right down the line here.

As for the Fort Simpson access paving, this $650,000 came from Highway 1, that was supposed to have been second stage paving, but we took the money from there, we also put some more money in the major culvert replacement from that money that we took from that paving and yes it is a new, looks new on the new project, but it has been in the plans for some time here but it was not on the five year capital plan.

I just want to say, as well, specifically, that this one here is the project where the community of Fort Simpson had written to the Department expressing concerns regarding the safety of vehicles and pedestrians on this three kilometres long gravel section. The traffic volume on this section is high compared to other highways in the Northwest Territories and there is also a very high volume of pedestrians and bicycle traffic on this area here. This road is very narrow, and gravel surface, and the dust control is applied on this section, but it demands a very high maintenance due to the traffic and the nature of the material that is in it, and I just want to add that there are a lot of people that have been living in that area.

Over 235 units are in that area and this section of the community is growing and the justification for approving this access paving is for safety reasons and the plan for this current year was to do this three kilometres to this, Wildrose Acres, that is the name of the residential subdivision outside the built up area of Fort Simpson and like I said the main reasoning behind this is for safety reasons and I just also want to add that the Department allocates this capital funding for programs based generally on the level of base funding transferred from the federal government for these programs and there is an order of priorities and the priorities are first the rehabilitational replacing of existing facilities, upgrading of existing infrastructure to standard, and of course, constructing new facilities.

Within this highway program the priorities are based on the analysis conducted, the objectives set out and the number of strategies that we have been able to update through the years.

Mr. Chairman, in the overall general discussion that is going on here I agree that there are some things that jump out at you and I do not blame the different members for zeroing in on this and it is a concern, and the process, if that is the case then perhaps we should deal with it somehow and if there is some real specific problems of any of these things that come out, I will try to explain the reasoning behind it, but if it is a general discussion, and general displeasure on how this thing happened I also said earlier that maybe we should look at the process and see a place in this whole process where the different members could be notified, or consulted, whenever a major shift in the capital funding is going to take place. Thank you.

Thank you. My list is growing. We are going around the third time. We have Mr. Henry, Mr. Roland, Mr. Barnabas, Mr. Enuaraq, Mrs. Groenewegen...Mr. Henry?

Mr. Chairman, I think you were going to take me off the list there.