Thank you, Madam Chair. Sport North has been an active participant in the discussions and, as I said, the partners at the last meeting generated four or five different options for structure of a new board, but all of the options do accommodate the existing organizations and so the board of Sport North would certainly be an active part of Sport North. Their structure might change and their administration might change, depending on how the partners decide to recommend to the Minister that we move forward. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I did mention at the meeting in October, the partners did agree to some evaluation criteria for a new board. They are very aware that they do not want to create another layer. They are also very aware that they don't want to take any of the funding that's available for sport and recreation activities away and siphon it into administration. So some of their evaluation criteria for deciding on how to move forward include the fact that they would not increase the layers of decision-making or the layers of administration. As I say, there were several options developed but certainly the common goal of everybody is to move towards this new structure without creating any extra layers. Thank you.

The Member is correct. The agreement does expire March 31st. We are in the process of extending that agreement for a one-year period. We are also in the process of undergoing some consultation with Sport North and the other partners on the current lottery regulations to see what issues might be addressed as we update them. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Actually, the tax-based municipalities are eligible to apply to the department for assistance with funding of up to one half of their water/sewer capital costs or infrastructure costs and that is an ongoing line item in our budget. The water/sewer subsidy policy program is to help fund operating costs and that is also available to tax-based municipalities. Any increased funding that might go to communities with special needs would not be taken away from other communities. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some more concerns, I just didn't have time to complete them all at the first crack at it. The other concern I have is in how MACA is dealing with the water and sewer program in Rae-Edzo and in some of the other three communities that have agreements with Public Works and Services.

The agreements, I think, should not be with Public Works and Services, but with MACA because MACA funds these communities. So if there is going to be any kind of agreement with Public Works and Services, it should be a contract agreement between them and the hamlet where Public Works can do services for the hamlet. It should be the hamlet making agreement to take over the water from DPW. DPW doesn't know that system, MACA does. We are working backwards here when we are doing things. I have seen it in this government so many times now where we are doing things backwards. DPW is just an answering machine to most of the contractors in the Territories. You go to Rae-Edzo. If you have a problem there, you have DPW. They will go check on the program, whatever is wrong in the community, they will make a phone call and get the contractor to do the job. Rae-Edzo can do that themselves. They don't need to go through another party to make a phone call. That's another long distance call they have to make. We could save that dollar. MACA and the hamlet can make a deal between themselves for the water and sewer takeover. They don't have to make a deal with Public Works and Services. If the hamlet wants to use Public Works and Services for some of the plumbing or some of the services they do offer, manual labour or mechanical or technical labour, then that's up to the hamlet to choose them. If the hamlet wants to choose some other engineering company or some other energy outfit, then it's up to the hamlet. They can do that. They shouldn't have to be forced to sign an agreement with DPW. As far as I am concerned, DPW is just another contractor out there. They don't do anything different from anybody else out there.

I don't want to get into specifics, but we identify projects, we put the dollars out there and then we see projects going over budget, $20,000, $25,000. A lot of it has to do with the charges to these communities. The percentage they charge is the overrun. It's not the contractors who are doing the work themselves, it's the charges DPW gives to the community. For example, the hamlet of Rae-Edzo was in a debt recovery program. They were just above the debt. They were getting out of it and then DPW comes back in and starts taking over the services. Now they are in debt again. They are going into another new year in debt all because of Public Works and Services. The hamlet used to run the whole system on a monthly basis for $63,000. Now they are paying DPW over $130,000. It's twice the amount they used to run it with and the services are not any better, but they continue to do that .This government gives you money with one hand and takes it away with another hand. The communities are looking bad because of this. It's not only Rae-Edzo, but McPherson is like that and other communities are like that.

So I am telling you right now if there is going to be an agreement done, and I think the House should look at it even more closely. It's not only my concern, but everybody's concern here, if you are going to have an agreement for water and sewer, it should be with MACA and the hamlets, not with Public Works. Public Works is just another contractor out there. They want to make an agreement with Public Works, then it should be up to the hamlet. The government shouldn't force them to do this. Maybe that policy was there and it's time to be changed.

Also, we are building airstrips for communities. Well, why don't we build a winter road from Rae to Edzo so they can have easier access? It's within the municipality. MACA is in charge of that. They should give them the extra funding so they can have a winter road going across the lake, so they can have easier access. We do it for Detah. Detah gets a beautiful road every year and they have a nice chipseal road all the way to their door from the Ingraham Trail. A beautiful road, but they still get a winter road. What's the difference between Detah and Rae-Edzo? Maybe MACA can look at giving them more funding so they can build their winter road.

I know Transportation is going to be called on this and they don't have responsibility and it used to be the federal government. I know all the excuses that are going to be out there, but it's time to just quit giving excuses and start doing things.

There's one more thing I wanted to talk about. Earlier I talked about assessments, upgrading and drainage, which all comes with chipsealing. It never happened in Rae-Edzo. The Transportation department came into town and slapped down a coat of chipseal and went home on a rainy day. Now where's the profiling? Where's the drainage? Where's the assessment? None of it happened. Why is Rae-Edzo different from Tuktoyaktuk? Why is it different from Fort Good Hope? Why did they just come in and slap chipseal down and go home? No profiling, no drainage. Why? There are too many questions here.

The other thing, you said that the $300,000 is not done. But in your own document it says it's done. Monitoring will be undertaken. You say the money is spent, it's done. Rae-Edzo is two communities. Maybe you slapped a little chipseal in Rae, but what about Edzo? Edzo has its own main street. It's on the highway system. The Transportation department is in Edzo. There's a main street that you totally forgot. Maybe you need to put more money into Rae-Edzo. Why did you only think of Rae?

Somebody might say the chipseal was done because I live in Rae and I don't live in Edzo, so I don't want that going around. Politics. So that's about all I have until we get into detail, and then maybe I will have a few more. Thank you.