Mr. Murray, could you restate your statement?

Thank you. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For road infrastructure in communities, how does that break down for support from the government in tax-based communities? Again, I am speaking of Inuvik. Thank you.

Mr. Murray.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Formula funding, to my understanding, was formulated a number of years ago. I know, for example, that initially when block funding came out, it was based on historical expenditures. If in that time period, when they looked at block funding for the next number of years, if you had little or no capital infrastructure being put in place, it just rolled all together. If another community had large capital projects being replaced in that year that they looked at block funding, that block funding stayed at a high level for a number of years. We are just starting to see the changes to that.

I guess that is why I asked the question. When you refer to block funding, my understanding is that a lot of that initial block funding is O and M, and there was, initially at least, some capital criteria in that. I understand that the formulas have changed significantly now since those days and there was some work done on it by the department to try and simplify what the formula was in the past. I guess that is why I asked the question. If in the community of Inuvik, where right now we have paved roads, but I understand that in the past that was funded by ratepayers as well. My question is, are there existing programs within this government that would help with infrastructure like that in communities?

Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Murray could respond to that.

The deputy minister, Mr. Murray.

Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all of my questions in this area.

Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to resume my line of questioning I had yesterday, and I was certainly not satisfied with the Minister's response when I asked about the swimming pools in the communities being included as part of the capital program. In his response, he stated that it was not in the capital program and that, in fact, curling rinks were low priority. When I look at the capital plan and I see recreation projects, such as a curling rink for Aklavik that was not in the capital plan over the last five years, is now scheduled to be constructed next year, that indicates to me that it is in fact a priority. It has been put in, included and fast-tracked, so in one year it has come up for construction. Lutselk'e is getting an arena and the Hay River Reserve is scheduled for an arena, so I do not understand what he means by capital projects not being a priority any more. MACA has also provided $300,000 to Fort Liard to use towards a swimming pool.

To me, that indicates there has been a change in policy and that is what I am trying to get from the Minister; if there is in fact a change in policy. If the policy allows a community to change their preference from accepting an arena or a curling rink to a swimming pool, then I would assume that a swimming pool is an acceptable item under the capital plan.

I want to know from the Minister, if he can tell me in simple terms whether or not swimming pools are now allowable as part of the capital plan, as an item in the capital plan.

Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I will try to respond to all the concerns expressed by the Member.

My comments yesterday referred to what the policy of the department is now and that is there are no swimming pools in the capital plan. I said this in committee of the whole yesterday, that what the department had allowed was for a community to put the funding towards the priority of their choice. In this case, the Fort Liard swimming pool was $302,000. That was less than the cost of the curling rink. There is no curling rink there now, but there is a swimming pool. What the department allowed in the past was the community to switch priorities if they wish.

However, we still do not have a policy in place whereby we fund swimming pools through the capital planning process. As I stated yesterday, the priorities, as far as the new corporate capital planning process, identifies recreation facilities way down the list.

What has happened with the Aklavik situation is that this was a result of the Hay River meeting, where all the communities were asked if they had some priorities that they want to fast track, some projects, then they could come forward and identify them. This becomes political priorities rather than corporate planning priority system, and that is what happened. Aklavik came forward with a request. There was a certain amount of money that the government was willing to spend towards capital projects and communities. MLAs were asked to identify what those projects were. That is what happened with the Aklavik project.

I repeat again, this department does not have any program in place to fund swimming pools out right. Thank you.

Mr. McLeod.

The Member is making a motion. We will wait until we hand it out. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those against? The motion is carried. Mr. Nitah.

The honourable Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as we just finished responding to the other Member there, we identified what capital funding is available to tax-based communities from the department. The only funding available to tax-based communities is through the water and sewage programs.

If a community such as Yellowknife, for instance, includes paving as part of their water and sewage program, that is how it is done. Other than that, it is paid for by the city through taxes. Thank you.