Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the comment that it's a growing community and they need more land; in the case of Fort McPherson, for instance, we don't have any more lots within the community for residential areas. We're now moving out towards the airport, to look at developing a subdivision there. In our capital for that subdivision, in 1998-99, we're getting $8,000; in 1999, $39,000. 1 don't see anything in the range of $1 million. We're talking slow projects and another $20,000 to develop that, with a total of $143,000 for a community of over 1,000 people.

The balance isn't there. They are stuck in the same boat as Rankin, with regard to finding new areas to look at developing residential lots. It seems like there is a real discrepancy; everybody is probably stuck in that scenario today because the communities are growing, we have growing populations, we have a need for infrastructure. The communities are expanding, but for my community of Fort McPherson, we get $143,000; and in the case of Rankin, you get $12 million. Isn't there a balance here to justify residential development? It costs $500 a cubic yard in Rankin and it costs $1 in McPherson. Is there that much of a difference? Something isn't jibing here.

At the appropriate time, I would like to look at tabling a motion on this item.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. It wasn't really a question. Do you have any comments, in response, Madam Minister?

--- Interjection

Thank you. Mr. Ootes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to make some comments on this. My understanding is that Rankin Inlet is a general taxation area; yet with a population of 2,400 people, there are other communities in the Territories that are tax-based. I understand that the community is evolving and growing and so forth. I have not been there for several years, but I do understand that the business community is growing there. I wonder if the department shouldn't, at this point, start looking at -- and I don't know the process -- seriously making this a tax-based community.

Dealing with the lots, I've been told that they're leased to the residents and it's up to the community to set the lease rates. If I understood correctly, MACA will require this money to be paid back. I guess that's my first question. Is this money going to be paid back by the community?

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. Madam Minister.

Mr. Ootes.

I'm making an assumption here, that this community cannot pay back $12 million in a short period of time for these lots. I don't need an answer to that, I'll make the comment. I know enough about finances to say to you that that would be pressing things.

There is a demand in other communities. Even though that isn't identified in this particular part of the budget, I'm sure there's a demand elsewhere. Also, I'm sure there's a demand for other programs. I personally find this a blatantly large amount of money to be spent on this particular project; especially considering the many needs that we have elsewhere in the Territories. 1, personally, think that if we include it in this budget, that $6 million will have been spent and $6 million more will be spent in the future. I also understand that there will be apartment buildings on this particular site. I understand people need houses and residences and places to live. We're all sympathetic to that. But this kind of money is extremely heavy. 1, personally, feel this requires a lot of scrutinizing and a lot of consideration.

I think if all we're doing it for is a future investment, we're out of future investments. I don't think we can afford to make future investments of this nature. That has to be put on the back burner. We're here fighting fires, I hear Mr. Krutko talk about his water problem, at cetera, et cetera. The communities need housing; $6 million will go a long way towards housing over the next couple of years.

This is an anomaly and I think we should recognize it as such. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Ootes. There was no question that I heard. Did you want to respond, Mrs. Thompson?

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. Mr. Enuaraq.

Thank you, Mr. Enuaraq. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. I will refer to page 10-31. Building and works, Keewatin, total region, $2.172 million. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I understand from the Minister that part of the cost associated with this project is in relation to a utilidor system. A utilidor system is almost like a special benefit to most communities in the North. It's not something you find in the average community. I think only the larger centres can actually boast of having utilidor systems.

Bearing in mind the financial restraints of this government and the number of sacrifices we're all being asked to make, I wonder if this community really needs this utilidor system at this point in time. It seems to be driving the cost of the lots up. Obviously, it's associated with development costs.

I'm also wondering if phone lines and power lines are all included in these costs, because I recall in some of my communities where MACA developed the land and then we had to fight to find money for the power lines. It wasn't all tied in at the same time. We had to find money for power lines. Then all those people wanted phone lines. That was something else again. I had to get the government to cover the cost from NorthwesTel separately. I am wondering if all these costs are tied into this project. Perhaps the Minister could tell me if it would be a big problem to develop these lots without the utilidor system.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mrs. Thompson. Mr. Steen.

Could the Minister give us an example of what those lot prices are? She said trucked service lots in Repulse are $38,000. What are utilidor service lots in Rankin Inlet?

Thank you, Mr. Steen.