Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday there was a considerable discussion around the changes made to the 1996/97 budget. Members expressed concern with several specific projects. In particular, the paving of the Fort Simpson access road, and funding for the support of the Fort Simpson recreation project. Since yesterday's discussions, I have reviewed the Hansard and the circumstances surrounding both of these projects.
Based on my review, I am confident that the Financial Management Board decision regarding the paving of the Fort Simpson Access Road was a correct decision to make, because of the safety considerations involved. This paving need has been a long standing issue that had reached a critical stage. The community itself, at first flagged the safety concerns about this stretch of road through a June 1993 petition. In 1995, the government provided $525,000 for the first phase of that project, and made its commitment to priorize finding funding to complete the job they started.
For the Member's information, this project is one of the highest traffic areas in any gravel road in the Northwest Territories. I believe it has over 200 vehicles per day, and it is to a residential area. It was a high priority for the department, and moved ahead. Savings were achieved from a down-grading of another project, a bridge in the same riding. A portion of that money was moved outside of that riding as well. As far as I am concerned, FMB made the proper decision when it moved ahead on that paving project.
In reviewing the Fort Simpson recreation centre project, I would like to note that this initiative came in direct response to community priorities. The community itself identified this as a need, and the village band and Metis locals were also contributing dollars, funding to this project. As we move forward with community empowerment, we are trying to be more and more responsive to community priorities.
However, I now realize that at the Legislative Assembly, we have not yet come to terms with all the implications of what exactly that will mean to us as a government. After that discussion yesterday, I now realize that we must not get ahead of ourselves, in our eagerness to bring about the necessary changes associated with this kind of initiative. Because we may not fully understand what is meant by community empowerment, Members have a legitimate concern.
Community empowerment and that whole initiative we are working on, Members have expressed a concern of the five year capital plan. They have expressed concern about how that capital plan will weigh on the decisions that we make as a government. Let me assure Members that the five year capital plan is what drives the capital budget of this government. And we look, and we consider what the communities are recommending to us on a yearly basis, and update on their capital plan yearly. We try to accommodate and take in their priorities as much as we can.
Later on, as we move down to community empowerment, where communities are going to be allowed to make the decisions of not only capital spending in their communities, but O & M dollars. Less and less decisions will be made in this Legislative Assembly. We will be voting on money specifically for communities at a later date. But, that is what community empowerment is all about. And that is the direction we all agreed to move into. But, I guess, we, as a government, and as FMB, moved a little bit too quick on the community empowerment initiative. With our want to respond to community initiatives and priorities, we may have pulled the trigger a little bit too quick. For that reason, I am suggesting that the funding for the Fort Simpson recreation centre project be put on hold and that we submit the request back through the budgeting process to allow Members to have input into the project, and to form their own conclusions, as to whether community priorities should prevail.
So basically, what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Fort Simpson recreation centre project be put back through the loop of the committees, and be taken a second look at.
In general, I would like to add that there was any misunderstanding in this area. I am glad that this discussion came up and the issue was raised by Members. Beyond the specifics of this particular project, is a much broader issue. What yesterday's discussion told me is that we cannot start adopting and practising new initiatives, outlining our agenda for change, without taking the time to ensure Members understand all of the implications of what we are doing.
It stresses to me, yet again, the importance of communication between all Members of this House, especially at a time when we are introducing change and new ways of operating as a government. Yesterday's discussion was healthy, and is a sign of an effective government. It offered a lesson for all of us, that, as we move ahead with our agenda for change, we must take the time to ensure that full implications of our discussions are understood.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add also that when changes are made in a capital budget, and when changes are made that affect Member's riding, including my own, when those type of changes are made, I will make sure that Minister's communicate to Members. Members should not hear of changes or things in their riding on the street. Members should hear it from Ministers, so that they can respond to their constituents. With that, Mr. Chairman, that is our point of view on this whole issue, and I think the discussion is good, and I look forward to any other concerns that you may have, or advice. Thank you.