Thank you. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe most of the liabilities would typically be covered under the insurance that is carried by the municipality. In the instance of the Iqaluit sewage lagoon, it became a rather complicated legal case in which the timing of the transfer of the asset and the holder of the water licence became an issue. In that process there was liability placed on the Government of the Northwest Territories. I would think that would not be a typical case. In the more typical situation, the municipality would be properly insured and if the liability fell to the municipality, they would be financially covered and it would not be causing an onerous, financial issue for the community. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The department has made a contribution to the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk in this fiscal year of $350,000 towards this project of shoreline erosion protection. If there are special costs, extraordinary costs associated with the hamlet making application and representation to the environmental authorities that would need to be satisfied before such a project would occur, we would consider those to be legitimate costs against the project, against getting the project passed to the design stage for construction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Steen.

Thank you. Mr. Christensen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The way this is typically handled for a project is by having projects implemented over a period of time where you have one year in which you do the planning for a project and the next year you enter into the detail design and then the following year you begin construction. That kind of a typical implementation schedule allows you to have better information as the project progresses.

Certainly in the planning stage for a project and the design stage it gives you the opportunity to make sure that you do have the project properly reviewed and all of the permitting in place before construction actually proceeds. If costs arising out of that become much higher than anticipated, you still have the opportunity to review whether or not the project should proceed at all. Along the way it may mean variances in the costs for the projects, but through our financial review process that we do have, we have some flexibility to make adjustments to project budgets as the work develops.

Hopefully, we strive for minimum variances in project costs, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Steen, your time is up. I have Mr. Picco, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Erasmus. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to follow up on some of my questions on the Keewatin pilot project. Twice now this House has endorsed the Footprints 2 model, which proposes two forms of government in Nunavut. One is community government and the other is the territorial government of Nunavut. So I wonder how that could be rationalized in light of Footprints 2, the Keewatin pilot project.

Indeed, if you are going to transfer all the operations and maintenance funding and the capital funding to a regional body, and you are setting up a bureaucracy to manage that transfer, is that not, indeed, regional government? That is my question, how do we rationalize that within the outlay of Footprints 2?

Thank you. Madam Minister.

(Translation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to Footprints 2, I have read the report of NIC and my officials have also reviewed it. According to their recommendations, this Keewatin pilot project was initiated by the infrastructure department. This is exactly the same as the infrastructure projects that were recommended by NIC.

I understand where the Member is coming from, where he is saying there would be two levels of government, regional and territorial. The Member indicated there would be two levels of government. He indicated which level the regions are at. This Keewatin pilot project will be a project just so that we will see how much money we will have to spend on it. They will not be legislators that will be putting out this project because we will be monitoring this project. We have reviewed the whole report of NIC and I figured this would be a good recommendation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Translation ends).

Thank you. I should have recognized Mr. O'Brien before I recognized Mr. Picco because Mr. Picco indeed had spoken once before but I will allow Mr. Picco to carry on.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I guess the department still means that, indeed, there is no conflict between the Footprints model as outlined in 1 and 2, which has been accepted by this Assembly, the Keewatin transfer? So I will follow on with a second question and that would be how would such a transfer impact on the 1998/1999 budget? Could the region decide on different priorities for the 1998/1999 year? So as an example, Mr. Chairman, just to clarify my question for the department to the Minister, right now we are approving projects in the main estimates by project name. For example, a new school if it is going to be in Rankin or a tank farm in Arviat or whatever the specific project is, that has been approved in main estimates as specifically for that project. So how would that work then if the Keewatin leadership took on the proposal? Would they receive those monies in a block fund or could they change that priority after it has been passed?

That goes back to my earlier question on the legislation. Again, Mr. Chairman, the Keewatin pilot project may be a good project. I am not saying I am against it, but I am just asking some questions for clarification purposes so maybe the Minister could explain how that could happen, and if the projects are approved today in 1998-1999 capital budget, what happens then with those amounts when they are transferred to the Keewatin mayors. How can that work when they pick different priorities?

Thank you. Madam Minister.

(Translation) Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to Mr. Picco's concerns that he is raising, they have already been dealt with. This has been going on for a couple of years now. Regarding his specific questions, he was asking if we would be breaking that legislation that the government has put into force. I can honestly say that we will not be breaking any kind of legislation or any kind of policy if we were to go ahead with this project in Keewatin.

My deputy minister Penny Ballantyne will elaborate a little bit more on this issue in regard to our business plans from 1998 to 2001. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.(Translation ends)

Thank you. Deputy minister Ballantyne.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, in response to the Member's question as to whether the Keewatin pilot project would have any impact on the approved 1998-99 capital budget., no, it is not intended that the budget that is approved by this House would be changed in any way by the Keewatin project. As Members can appreciate many of these projects need to proceed very quickly upon approval early in the new fiscal year. Communities in the Keewatin certainly would not want to see any hold-up in those projects or any delays in those projects.

What we are really talking about is being able to have a proposal which would be handed off to the new government of Nunavut which could be implemented in 1999/2000. That would be the first time in which we could be recommending a capital budget that would reflect the input from the Keewatin communities as per the proposal.

The short answer is no. It is not anticipated at this point because you have the detail of capital in front of you today which certainly does reflect community input through our own internal process. So no, it is not anticipated that would change. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Picco.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I believe going back about eight or nine years ago a similar proposal was presented in the Beaufort Delta region in Inuvik. I believe it was the Inuvik Regional Government Plan. There was a name on it, I forget the name on it, and I had a copy of that report in my office in Iqaluit and had read it over. It was very similar to what is being proposed in the Keewatin region right now which had been approved again on April 2, 1997.

Cabinet directed MACA to investigate the potential for comprehensive community empowerment transfer in that region. I guess it begs the question what has happened to the Beaufort region which has been looking at this for about seven years?

I would follow up with a specific question on the proposal itself and that is, when will a comprehensive proposal outline the Keewatin pilot project be put forward by the department for review so that the Members of this House can see it and we can have some proper debate. That is what we are trying to do, ask questions on the project. It is very hard to ask questions if you have only seen a motion and you have not really seen anything official from the department at all. When can that comprehensive proposal be put forward by the department for evaluation? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.