Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I will refer the question to Mr. Murray.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Murray.

Thank you, Mr. Murray. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I still want to voice that there is still a concern with the new formula financing and the way minor capital projects are dealt with. It is a complete change of how it was dealt with in the past. It is a concern and I will continue to pursue that.

The other issue regarding formula financing is some communities, especially the community of Kakisa, has raised an issue that the formula was not calculated properly when it came to their community. I just wanted to know if it was brought to the Minister's attention at all, or has that situation been rectified?

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Steen.

Mr. Chairman, I do know that in the past, we have had some concerns expressed by different communities, depending on whether they were receiving more funding or whether they were receiving less. There were some questions as to how we arrived at the formula. The information I have is that the consultants that put together this formula used certain factors that are applicable to each community. Every community was explained to them what the formula breakdown is and how it affects them. This is the first year where we actually put the formula funding program in place, so we are now hoping to get feedback from the communities, in particular through the NWTAM meeting that is coming up, as to how we can make changes, whether or not communities see it as a fair system or not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to hear that there will be a review process. I know there will be some comments from the communities in my riding. I would hope that the Minister could follow up on the issue with Kakisa. I think it was a calculation for garbage disposal that was not included in the overall calculations. They indicated to me that they were going to follow up through the regional office. I have not heard, so maybe the Minister could undertake to take a look at that.

There are a couple of other issues I want to raise. I am still, even though I have raised this issue in the House a number of times, the issue regarding swimming pools being included as part of the capital planning process now for consideration is not clear to me.

I am hearing, and have heard for many years when I dealt through the capital planning process as a former mayor, that swimming pools could not be included as an item in the capital plans. We had some dollars earmarked for a curling rink and we wanted to use those dollars and the surplus that the Town of Fort Providence had to build a swimming pool. We asked many times if we could do so. We were refused. We also asked, after I was elected, in this House to the former Minister about funding swimming pools. We were told very clearly that it did not fall into the capital planning process.

I was very surprised to see that in fact, some communities are getting funding. I wanted to ask the Minister again, for clarity, how do you qualify to get funding to build swimming pools? If there is a process, I would like to know. If it is like he indicated in this House earlier a couple of days ago, that some monies were shifted, well, I did not realize that was possible either, so what has changed in the last year? Is it because we have a new Minister? Is there a new policy? I would like to know.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, the swimming pools were moved, as I said in the House, at a time when the cutbacks were in place. That would have been in 1995-1996. Since then, curling rinks stayed in the capital plan. Communities seem to have had the opportunity, and I am referring now to previous governments or previous Ministers, where they had the option of prioritizing their own infrastructure in the communities. If they chose at that time to take the funding that was identified for a curling rink and use it for a swimming pool like Fort Liard did, then I believe they had that option.

From the information I have been given, I believe this information was made available to Fort Providence. However, the funding that was left for Fort Providence to work with after they made the renovations to the existing curling rink was only in the area of $50,000. It was not really enough to go with, and I believe the replacement value that the community was looking for, for a curling rink was in the nature of $800,000, so there was nowhere near enough. However, it was indicated to them that if they chose not to use the $50,000 towards continuing or finishing off the renovations to the curling rink, they could use it towards a swimming pool.

The only other thing I can add to that, Mr. Chairman, is that at the present time, swimming pools and curling rinks are all offered as capital. They are way down on the list of priorities. As a matter of fact, they are at zero from what I have seen in the books as far as the priority goes. The way the communities have been approaching the department now is through extraordinary funding requests, and that is how we have been responding. Like I pointed out to the Member in the House, that is not really a consistent way of doing this, so the department is looking at putting recreation facilities again to the FMBS to see if we can get a higher rating on the priority list for capital funding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, one of the concerns that comes from a lot of our small communities is the lack of infrastructure in our communities or the lack of capacity to be able to do the things you have to do to run a municipality. An example is the garage space in communities for the storage of equipment or vehicles, or even to have infrastructure in place that meets the needs of the community.

One of the items of community infrastructure that has been talked about and raised in Caucus and meetings we have held was the whole area of trying to look at a project to deal with the air quality question in communities, to deal with dust and mud.

The road systems we have in our communities, in most cases, people say that if you can come up with a sidewalk project, you will probably be elected for life, because in most communities in this day and age, you walk down the middle of the road because there is no other place to walk. There is no need for that. This government has denied communities the opportunity to develop over a period of time.

You talk about cutbacks, you talk about priorities put in place by government and you are saying FMBS this and FMBS that, but I think that is what it is, it is BS.

I think it is important that we as a government have to start allowing those decisions to be made by the people that have to live with those decisions. Sooner or later, as a government we will have to set those examples. When we have health issues, you talk about infrastructure in our communities. We cannot continue to play this game of pick and choose unless you have an inventory or means of checking from one location to another to see exactly where it is going. You cannot really tell me that one issue is different from one community to another. Most communities have the same problems and concerns.

I touched on one, the community infrastructure when it comes to garage and road maintenance, but when you look at the budgets for communities, you might get $30,000 for residential development. That is nothing.

I think if we want to do anything with infrastructure in our communities, it should be based on a formula that is acceptable to communities, instead of being told from Yellowknife and people in the higher-ups that the criteria is based on numbers, on population and on a formula that we determined and you do not fall into that formula. There has to be a system in place. Those formulas that we have are outdated. They are obsolete. We have to start putting more resources into communities to develop the minimum of infrastructure.

When you start talking about dust control and improving our road and infrastructure in our communities, this government has to put those resources into those types of projects so that it benefits all communities. You do not just play one community off against the others.

I would like to ask the Minister, where is he with regard to this issue about improving roads in communities to deal with the dust and mud, to allow for communities to improve the quality of life, for the benefit of people in those small communities?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as the Member pointed out there is a need for infrastructure in all communities. That is not just the capital infrastructure, it is the O and M funding that is needed as well.

MACA does not have a program whereby we can pave the streets in the small communities. We have tried to resolve this problem through dust control, calcium. Each community has some funding in its formula funding for dust control, but nevertheless, as the Member points out, there is no way near enough to consider hard-topping the streets.

However, in the short term, the department has been looking at some of the shortfalls by approaching the problems on an individual basis. For instance, in the past, the Member has raised the problem of the ability of the disabled to get around in small communities. MACA is responding by looking into putting a bussing service into communities. Communities would be supplied with a bus that would allow for the transportation of disabled people. We just do not have the money, Mr. Chairman, to pave streets. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I find it ironic that you do not have money for paving streets, but a couple of years ago, I had a big debate in this House with the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services with regard to the paving that has taken place in the large regional centres, yet there are no initiatives to improve the streets in rural and small communities. If there is a will, there is a way. I think there is no will.

As a government, we have a responsibility to ensure we have infrastructure in our communities, so it is not only safe for people to walk or be able to operate equipment on, but also to ensure the public health is considered, with regard to the dust and what not that people are breathing in day in and day out. It is a health hazard in most cases. I think we should list these types of things as a priority of this government. There is the public health and public safety, yet it seems like there is an imbalance. You can come to Yellowknife, walk up and down the streets, even here around the Legislature, it is all paved.

Is there a third world aspect here that if you live in regional centres or the city of Yellowknife, you have a certain standard and people who live in small communities will have dust and potholes, because that is what makes us unique, I guess?

I think the day and age has come where the government has to do something, and I think that is a good place to start. As a government, there are initiatives that are being undertaken by Transportation to start accessing roads into communities to connect them to highways. It is over a million-dollar project. Why, as a government, is this project such a major headache that they cannot really look at it?

We brought this up when we first got here, in our meetings in Fort Providence and places like that, going on over two years ago, yet it does not seem to fit with the agenda of the government. What will it take to convince this government to do something?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as a Member from a small community, I support the Member's request for paving in the small communities. As a Minister, I am aware of the expenditures that would be involved in this. I have already heard other Members asking for capital funding for swimming pools and curling rinks. Again, it is a matter of priorities. I can take the suggestion from the Member to other departments and we can come up with a cost analysis of what it would cost to consider paving community streets. I can assure the Member that the hard part is deciding with the rest of my colleagues in Cabinet as to what the priorities are of this government, whether they are education or health comparable to infrastructure. I am sure the Member is well aware that there is competition for all of that funding from all departments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, just following up on comments we had with the Executive, the Executive Offices and FMBS, and the concern about the appropriate locations for activities.

I would have to say that I think the idea behind a youth corps is interesting and certainly deserving of some consideration. I am surprised to see it and I notice the standing committee had commented on this, established in MACA. It is not because it is not an operating department. Clearly MACA is an operating department and that is not my concern. It leaves open, I think, too much of an opportunity for overlap and duplication.

For instance, if we are talking about skills improvement for young people, I would say that clearly those dollars should be coordinated through Education, Culture and Employment. My concern is that we are going to be setting up a bureaucracy to administer a youth corps when, if part of their mandate is to deliver skills improvement, we already have a delivery mechanism. We spend millions of dollars on that mechanism. It is called Education, Culture and Employment.

When we talk about work assignments, for instance, we have that under the Executive with the graduates program. Education, Culture and Employment has a program that assists young people who may not be graduates to find jobs and subsidizes employers so that more young people can find jobs. It appears to me that we are setting up an opportunity here for duplication and overlap.

I am also surprised that the Minister for Youth does not appear to have any involvement in the oversight of this program. Just looking at this, is the Minister not concerned that we might not actually maximize our dollars if his department has to spend moneys on administration instead of using the administration that is already set up in other areas, and therefore creating more government jobs, instead of getting more young people to get into public service?

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I may go back a little way here, the funding that was established for the youth was essentially put into MACA because the same Minister that was responsible for youth was also the Minister of MACA. It showed a coordination between the two. However, when there was a change in portfolios, the funding did not follow the Minister back to his portfolio, so it is still with MACA. However, the programs that he had designed and he had in mind for the youth funding were created by the Minister of Youth.

As the Minister, I still intend to follow up on what his programs and plans were, at the same time keeping in mind, as the Member said, that there is going to be a tendency to overlap with Education, and possibly Health, as to what programs we can come up with that benefit youth. The only connection I could see myself as the department in this is youth in the sense of sport and recreation. That would be my mandate as far as youth is concerned, but I will certainly work with the other departments, including the Minister responsible for Youth, so as to take the best advantage of this funding without duplication.