Thank you. Tabling of documents, Mr. Kakfwi.

Thank you, Mr. Kakfwi. Tabling of documents, Mr. Antoine.

Mahsi Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Tabled Document 78-13(3), a motion from the Deh Cho First Nations, Resolution Number 3, at the Fourth Annual General Assembly at Kakisa Lake, in Denendeh, July 8-13, 1996.

It states that whereas on April 1st, 1999, the Northwest Territories will be divided to establish a western arctic territory and Nunavut.

Therefore be it resolved that the western arctic territory be named Denendeh.

Mr. Speaker, this motion has two names on it. However, it represents a lot of people in the communities that these First Nations represent. Thank you.

Thank you. Tabling of documents. Notice of motion for reading of first bill. Motions. First reading of bills. Second reading of bills. Consideration in committee of the whole of bills and other matters. Tabled Document 1-13(3), Tabled Document 68-13(3), Minister's Statement 82-13(3), and Minister's Statement 86-13(3) with Mr. Steen in the chair.

Agreed.

----Agreed.

If the members agree, we will take a fifteen minute break.

---SHORT RECESS

Agreed.

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.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a comment and ask questions. It is my understanding that the Resolute Bay airport has transferred from the Government of Canada to the GNWT. It was and is a Class A airport, and includes a flight service station. I have also been told that the new private company, NAV Canada will take over the operation of the FSS at Resolute Bay, on or about November 1st, of this year. As of that date, they will operate the FSS, and they have no immediate plans to change their operations to CARS. My question is, does the Minister's department have to downgrade the FSS to CARS, in their plan for the new terminal building, when this government will not even be operating the FSS?

Mr. Antoine, Minister of Transportation.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on the Resolute Bay air terminal building. Just for the information of the Members in the House, when the Arctic A airport was transferred last summer, there was quite a bit of dollars that were transferred. There was a $2,500,000 that was transferred from the federal government for the replacement of the Resolute Bay air terminal building. This was a one-time funding, rather than base funding, and was added to the grant from Canada, to the Department's budget over two years, for 1996/97, and 1997/98. An additional 1.6 million dollars would be recovered from the federal government, if it was decided to incorporate a flight service station into the air terminal building.

This is the 1.6, it is an additional one. If the federal government decided to go with the flight service station. In the 1996/97 to the year 2001 capital plan, the department assumed that the project would include the flight service station. We put it in our plans at first, and profiled the project over four years to a total project of $4,520,000. This was in our original plan, when we thought the flight service station would be in it.

When we were implementing the project for 1996/97, there was a delay. Because of the inability to get confirmation of the requirement of the flight service station from the federal government, we do not know if the federal government is going to go with the flight service station or not. They have not said yes or no. So it is hard to determine at this point in time. If they said no, and we build it, the big one, then it will be difficult for us to recover the 1.6 million dollars. Because of the need to undertake the planning for the site of the entire airport property, as a result less work will be done this year, than was originally planned.

In addition, the department has decided to proceed without the inclusion of the flight service station, thereby reducing the overall cost of the project. This is what went into the decision, whether to have the flight service station in, or not. The honourable Member is right, the federal government is responsible for the flight service station. They have not told us whether they want it in there or not. If they say yes, they want to have it in there, then we will have an opportunity to recover the 1.6 million dollars that was in the budget. But at this point in time, this new corporation is going to take over, and they have not determined whether they want a flight service station or not. So we cannot put in our plan at this point in time. I am told by the department that the flight service station, if it is determined at a later date, that they would require that, then the federal government and this new corporation would have to plan and build it on their own. When the original plan was to put the airport terminal building, and to have provision in there to have a flight service station, we thought this was going to go ahead, and the federal government was going to approve it. But at this point in time, this has not happened. So we had to change our plans to accommodate for that. Thank you.

(translation) Mr. Chairman. Has the Minister's department discussed this downsizing with the air carriers that use the Resolute Bay airport?

The Department has a section that deals with airports. I cannot really answer the Ordinary Member's question, whether they sat down with the air carriers. I will ask the department what specifically they did in terms of their consultation in regards to the flight service station. I am assuming that they have done a considerable amount of consultation, to come to this decision. I will get a clear, definite answer for the honourable Member, as soon as I can. Thank you.