Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is correct, Mr. Chairman, the hamlet sewage lagoon is located on private lands and this particular road extends to the sewage lagoon across, I would guess, about a kilometre of private lands.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, this road is not considered an access road. It is an important portion of the municipal road infrastructure. It is a requirement that the community has to have a road to reach the sewage lagoon. The community at one point had a lease and a right of way with the land owners to build that road and to use the sewage lagoon. They still are in existence. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, I will answer the last part of the question first. None of this road is Transportation's responsibility. These roads are municipal roads, and the municipality maintains them all. The portion of the road that is on private lands is under a right of way agreement with the land owners, but it is considered a municipal road and the municipality maintains it.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. The chair will recognize Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern with regard to the way this money came about is that I would like to know from the Minister, we have different avenues of accessing dollars through the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs and other programs we have within government. We have a program called extraordinary funding for emergencies which is used in case of emergencies. I know that the hamlet of Fort McPherson accessed those dollars through extraordinary funds with respect to the problems with regard to their water and sewage program.

We also have a program with regard to infrastructure funding. We have a community access road program. We have all these programs in place. I would like to ask the Minister why was the community of Tuktoyaktuk not encouraged to apply to those programs to access those dollars instead of having it come forth through a supplementary appropriation from the department?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Member is correct, there is an extraordinary funding program. However, the maximum is $200,000 and it would never have been adequate for this particular project. It would have cleaned out the budget totally, which would have eliminated other communities from having access to that program. Secondly, road repairs for this particular project are within the municipal boundaries and they do not qualify under Transportation's access road program. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the decision to go forth, you mentioned that supplementary appropriations are used when there is a major emergency. We know that there is an infrastructure which may have been destroyed in a fire. Basically we know that there has been a major natural emergency such as a forest fire and yet the whole idea of using special warrants for this type of activity, because I believe that we have the capital planning process in place to ensure we have a fair system so all communities could have an opportunity to develop community infrastructure and improve the community facilities.

We have just approved a program, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs has restructured the agreements we have with municipalities in ensuring that it is fair that the resources that you do get are there to ensure that you have adequate funding to run your programs and services.

By setting this precedent, what does that tell the other communities who are trying to maintain their programs and services with those dollars to improve or upkeep or look at maintaining the community infrastructure such as roads or buildings and utilidors and yet a particular community can bypass the whole planning process, budgets, looking at internal expenditures.

For years we were told that communities have been saying they need more dollars in the Granular Revolving Fund. We need more money to improve the infrastructure in communities, especially roads, and now we find out that we have 26 small communities that need to improve their roads. They have also been affected or damaged by development or infrastructure and traffic moving back and forth. Yet they are told that they have to make do with what they have, that there are not any dollars for new initiatives.

Here we go. We find a new initiative taking place through a supplementary appropriation which was not part of the planning process.

I would like to ask the Minister, what are we doing to ensure communities have the comfort and also have the support of the department to ensure that they do not have to follow the rules? That there are ways of getting around, breaking the rules, spend as many dollars as you want and we will take care of you. What is there to ensure that the communities have the ability to spend the amount of money that they get without finding new ways for certain communities to get extra funding that other communities do not have access to?

I would like to ask the Minister, why is it that there is special emphasis put here for the community of Tuktoyaktuk? Why have other communities not had that same opportunity where they may have a similar problem with their infrastructure?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, every community has an equal right to seek financial assistance to maintain their existing infrastructure as was used in this case. In this case it was looked at as being a situation that was urgent. It was urgent in the sense that the road could not take another year of traffic without completely breaking down.

It is certainly in the public interest in terms of this being the most cost-effective way of resolving this situation. The department clearly did not have the appropriation to do it. This situation is no different for Tuktoyaktuk than it would have been for another community. This is not an enhancement of their capital infrastructure, it is simply protecting what they have from probably a complete breakdown if we let it go again. This right is here for every community to be able to do it. If there is an emergency or an urgency and it makes sense financially to do it now, not wait another year, then any community can apply.

Mr. Steen would like to add to what I have just said. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just to reply to the last part of the Member's question, the department did work with the community to put in place restrictions on access to these roads by heavy industry in the form of a by-law so that the municipality would have something that they could fall back on to prevent this from happening again. When it happened they did not have the ability to stop the traffic.

That traffic was heavy truck traffic with chains. They did not have the ability under legislation to stop the traffic. They are now working on legislation to put in place that legislation to ensure that this does not happen again.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Chairman, we all have bad roads in our communities. They are not up to par, they are full of potholes and we do have problems with our community infrastructure such as drainage and what not.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, an emergency for me is a thing of protecting communities and the health and well-being of our communities. The community of Tsiigehtchic has been under orders, they have been told that they are going to get infrastructure in their community for a water treatment program, which is a public health issue which is an emergency as far as I see it. They have not even seen a blueprint of the facility or what they are looking at and they have been waiting for two years. As far as I am concerned, that is an emergency. That should have been dealt with like the maintenance of this road.

So why is it that the determination of a so-called emergency is different when it comes to Ministers' ridings?