Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would like a little clarification on a statement made about block-funded agreements. The Minister said that block funding agreements could be entered into that would address capital works for MACA. However, when I look in the back of the book, on page 10-35 -- I don't wish to advance that far at this time, Mr. Chairman, it's just an example -- it refers there to block funding transfer payments. It says $5.627 million but it's specifically for some communities. I wonder where MACA is going to find the money if the communities want to enter block funding at this time.

No, Mr. Chairman. What I would like to know is, since there's only X number of dollars identified for block funding, could communities, for instance, at this point in time, enter block funding agreements with MACA?

Mr. Chairman, I understand from the Minister that block funding would include capital and that communities have the option of forwarding these capital projects one or two years. However, I wonder where they're going to get the money for this. Is it going to be included in the original block funding agreement?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday, we heard from the witnesses that block funding is unconditional. I believe the Minister said that as well, but now I hear it's conditional. It's conditional on the government having approved the capital for the next year. So, in fact, it is conditional.

The other question I would have is that the Minister suggested that communities have the opportunity to play around with their capital projects -- advance them one or two years; whatever -- based on formula funding. But formula funding for capital is for one year at a time. So how do communities get the opportunity to play around with these capital projects if they're only funded for one year at a time? I think that we are getting conflicting information somehow. It's not coming in clear to me that community empowerment, in fact, does give communities authority over their projects for more than one year. I am getting mixed messages here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to go with the understanding that it is conditional, because she just said it

is conditional. It is conditional on this Legislative Assembly approving the capital for next year. So it is conditional.

Mr. Chairman, my other comment or question is related to this particular Assembly dealing with previous year's business plans, and that's frustrating. But I think some of us understand that X number of commitments were made in the last couple of years which basically tie our hands to those business plans. The statement by this government that we are going to operate brand-new, we'll have a whole new business plan here, we'll have a whole now way of doing business is, I think, not quite a true statement because many of the projects in this budget's capital plan were, in fact, approved one and two years ago, and we are just following along, continuing what somebody else decided to do. That's frustrating, and I can understand the frustration of my colleague from the Mackenzie Delta.

Mr. Chairman, I have also been involved on both sides of the table with community capital plans. I recall sitting on the other side of the table from Mr. Christensen in past years when I was a mayor or a secretary-manager, and we, as a community, were defending our capital plans. Now I find him defending his capital plan, so it gets kind of frustrating, so to speak. You know, I can understand the whole thing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At one point earlier, about an hour or so ago, we had approved up to page 10-22, and, as you indicated, you've been very lenient. We are now back, I think, to page 10-18. 1 don't want to preclude discussion and free-ranging expression of concerns and such, but, personally, I would like to, like you've been trying to do, Mr. Chairman, get agreement on specific regions. If there are no more questions, then let's move on to the region where people have concerns. Thank you.