Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as Members we have to raise issues that come to our attention. Sometimes they come to us indirectly or directly. Over the past 14 months, starting off with the test of Cape Dorset on community empowerment, we have had a chance to evaluate it. Fourteen months ago this liability issue was there and I know it has come forward. The department is working on it and I thank them for that. I think it points out that once we get into this process of transferring programs and services, income support, to communities, we still have to make sure that the communities have the needed logistic information, so they can make the decisions to take on or not take on the programs. I wonder if the Minister or the departmental officials could tell us, has there been further updates to this information being distributed to the communities?

Thank you. Madam Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have staff that visit the communities in all the regions on an individual basis and if there is a problem, we hear about it first hand from our superintendents. Unless the issue has not been raised through the municipal governments, then it is raised through the Member, I guess. We have not had any serious concerns from the communities themselves. We have staff travelling to those communities all the time and ongoing visits with the mayors and also the counsellors. I will get my deputy minister to answer the specifics of that question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mrs. Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in response to the concerns that were raised in the House earlier this session, the department has been reviewing the community transfer agreements that have been completed to-date, to try to identify whether there inadvertently have been any liabilities transferred that should not have been transferred. So far, we have not uncovered any. We are not through the review. The Minister did make a commitment in the House earlier that if we did discover that something had been transferred that should not have been, then we would take steps to correct that. The department has, with the community empowerment initiative, tried to make the point that we are not looking to inappropriately off-load any liabilities to communities that should more properly be retained by the GNWT. We are taking the concerns seriously and that review should be completed soon. It will provide a full update to Members. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Picco, are you indicating that you have a second supplementary? No. Members who have not spoken, Mr. Roland, Mr. Krutko, and Mr. Ootes. Mr. Roland, you have not spoken yet, so it is your turn.

Thank you. Madam Minister. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The criteria for the contribution, if that is the question, that a community would make to a particular project as described in our municipal capital assistance policy. I have it handy here somewhere, if I could just have a minute. In the case of Inuvik, using it as an example, Inuvik is now covered by a block funding agreement. In the case of Inuvik, it has a block of funding which it can choose to allocate some or all of the contribution it receives to a community centre project, if that is what they choose to do. Had that agreement not been in place, Inuvik would have been considered a most ability to contribute community. Its contribution to a project would be based on a formula as follows: for the first $100,000 for the project, they would contribute 30 percent of the cost. For the next $900,000 of the project, they would contribute 20 percent of the cost and for anything over a million dollars, its contribution would be 10 percent of the cost. Those costs would be calculated based on a Yellowknife based cost that would be determined for the particular project. An office building would be considered a basic project and then those would be the contributions it would make. If the project was an additional project, which is another category of projects under the policy, its contribution would be greater. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The honourable Member for Inuvik, Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

The difference between basic and additional are laid out in our standards and criteria. If you take recreation facilities, for example, an arena is considered in the

basic category, whereas a curling rink is considered additional. There is a distinction made between what is considered basic municipal infrastructure and what is considered additional to what would be the basic complement of municipal facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For additional projects, the community is required to contribute 100 percent of the first $100,000, 75 percent of the next $900,000, and 75 percent for any amount over that. Any amount over $100,000 the community would contribute 75 percent.

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I mentioned previously, the area of ability to contribute is subject to our municipal financing review. The policy lays out contribution requirements based on medium ability to contribute and least ability to contribute. Because of concerns of some communities in the medium ability to contribute category, until we complete our municipal financing review, we have included all of the communities, the remaining communities, in the least ability to contribute grouping. For basic infrastructure, the amount that the community would contribute would be 5 percent on the first $100,000 and there would be no contribution on anything over that. If the project, though, was an additional project, the contribution on the first $100,000 would be 50 percent and the contribution on the next $900,000 or anything over the first $100,000 would be a 25 percent contribution that would be required.

Thank you. Community development. Final supplementary, Mr. Roland.

Thank you. Madam Minister.