To give the communities more responsibility and the ability to generate revenue from the funding they get from government, either by investing or putting it into short-term investments, 30-day or 90-day bonds or whatever, this doesn't give them that opportunity, because you are giving them on a monthly basis. Eventually, do you see that there's a possibility, like you said for Fort Smith, that there's a three-year agreement. One way that the communities can look at being more financially accountable and also find new ways of generating revenues is to be able to use that extra interest it may be able to generate by having it sit in the bank for two or three months. But with the process that you are saying, based on a monthly pay schedule, they wouldn't have that ability. Would you look at the possibility of allowing them to do that in the future?
David Krutko on Committee Report 2-13(3): Standing Committee On Infrastructure Report On The Review Of The 1996-97 Main Estimates
In the Legislative Assembly on May 22nd, 1996. See this statement in context.
Committee Report 2-13(3): Standing Committee On Infrastructure Report On The Review Of The 1996-97 Main Estimates
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
May 22nd, 1996
Page 578
See context to find out what was said next.