I always like a sober second thought when Mr. Steen asks me a question. I think I understand the question. Sometimes I worry about this. Thank you, Madam Chair. It will increase our expenditure side, obviously, because that is where supplementary appropriation is. On this particular one, we will show it as a repayable loan. It will have no overall impact on the bottom line.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is new legislation that came in the last time round. It is in its infancy and is not going to be without some growing pains. Some concerns were raised by Mr. Henry and Mr. Ootes about the ability of these communities. I remember the debate, it was quite fiery, about the ability of these communities to repay, et cetera.

There will be an increased uptake on this program, assuming communities wish to do it, one, and two, that they can demonstrate the ability to repay. We have to find and plan for the fiscal requirements, whether it is in land development in Tuktoyaktuk or land development in Grise Fiord. I could not tell you today, quite frankly, Mr. Steen, what the uptake is going to be because this policy only came into place a few months ago. It is a change, a significant change, because this government no longer has the capacity to continue to pay for land use and land development like water and sewer and land development, in the communities as we have in the past. In the past it was all paid for by the government. In the future it has to be repayable. So I am not sure what the overall uptake is at this early stage of the game because we are early into it. I would remind everybody there is a requirement to repay it, which is a significant shift from the way in which we did business before. That is all I am saying.

If you look at Rankin Inlet, let us use that one as an example. We had $15 million in a five year budget, we had $6.9 million put in, in the ground at no cost to the constituency. We paid for that. That was the policy of the government at the time. I am using it as an example. The policy changed. The community of Rankin Inlet now has to contribute, through a repayable loan, if they wish to continue with this. They need an additional $7.9 million but they recognize they do not have the capability at this time to pay for that. They need to complete the loop. I am not a technician but a loop has to be done - that is going to cost $1.5 million. They have the capability to do that. That is how we are approaching this thing in the communities. The degree of spending, I think you are asking about where it is going to cap out. I really could not tell you at this stage of the game. We do not know how much demand will be placed on it. MACA will be now asking the communities, as part of the overall budgetary strategy, for what their requirements will be in lending for land use development each year. We will be getting a better picture in the coming months, because this policy only took place the last February/March, as Mr. Voytilla says.

I would like to be a little more definitive with you, but I just cannot do it at this time. Thank you.

I would suggest to my honourable colleague that is a policy question and I am here to discuss the budget. I am not trying to avoid it, but I do not have the answer for that as the Minister of Finance and that may be an appropriate question to ask in the House tomorrow from the Minister of MACA. It is a policy question and I do not have the policy before me at this time. That is an important one, do not

misunderstand me, and I have said several times while I am sitting here that this is a new policy that does have serious implications, no question my colleague is correct. The reality is, it was put in place for a variety of reasons and one was fiscal. So I would suggest that tomorrow in question period or later on this week, you may wish to ask the Minister of MACA and she can probably answer that during question period. Thank you.

I can answer in terms of the overall fiscal framework which I think Mr. Krutko is talking about. We are managing the budget and are going to meet as I have said frequently, hopefully meet our targets that were set by this House in relationship to our Deficit Elimination Strategy. A policy question really should be asked to the Minister in question period or privately, but in terms of the overall fiscal health of this constituency and this policy, how it will impact on it, it will be managed overall through the FMBS and as part and parcel of our targets, we will keep a watchful eye on this issue. Thank you.

There are a million examples that Mr. Steen is talking about out there as we move forward on division. It will be part and parcel of the assets and liabilities exercise that we undertake, whether it is in a debenture for the city of Yellowknife, whether it is in a repayable contribution for the town of Rankin Inlet, whether it is in a variety of things we have out there. It will have to be part and parcel of the assets and liabilities discussions and negotiations that we get underway. Thank you.

I guess what Mr. Steen is saying is we do nothing for the next 20 months because that is what he is suggesting, I think. The reality is, we are working out a protocol with the interim commissioner on a variety of issues and this is a very small one and when that protocol is worked out, we will share that with the House. But the reality is, we still have to run the business of government. This is one tiny, small part of it and ultimately, whether it is a debt in the west or a debt in the east, it will be determined through some negotiations on the assets and liabilities. So I should suggest then that we do not enter into any debt in the west because the way I see it, it is the dividing of two territories not one. The current budget is all of our budget. I do not wish today to debate this if it is going to be a division issue, Madam Chair. I want to debate the merits of the investment here and move on.