Mr. Krutko.

With regard to capital asset investment, they knew this was going to come into service in 2002-2003. Why was this not part of the capital planning process with regard to the main estimates?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Chair recognizes Minister Handley.

Thank you. This is an adjustment that is made as the capital items come into service. It doesn't happen at the beginning of a year, so it's difficult to plan it into our capital. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Aboriginal affairs not previously authorized, $20,000.

Total department, $26,000.

Page 9, Municipal and Community Affairs operations expenditures, regional operations, not previously authorized, $1.603 million.

The Chair recognizes Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the infrastructure and the shoreline erosion project, this government has spent in excess of $1.9 million, almost $2 million on this project. Knowing this is a problem, why is it showing up through a supplementary appropriation? Why wasn't this part of the budget? You can't do any work with regard to the shoreline. There have been expenditures made almost back to 1970 on this. Why is there not better planning for this? Why wasn't this part of the capital planning process? It's not previously authorized, but this problem has been there for some time and there have been ongoing work and expenditures all the way back to 1991. Why was this not put into the main estimates, knowing this was an ongoing cost and it continues to show up and there have been previous expenditures in this area? I would like to know from the Minister.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Minister.

Madam Chair, the Member is right. This has been a continuing problem in Tuk for the last 30 years and we have spent close to $2 million on it so far. MACA and the hamlet are working on a long-range plan for the issue, but because the erosion problem continues at a rate that varies from half a metre to over two metres a year and in some case up to 13 metres in the case of a storm, this happens inconsistently. There is a need to take some action immediately to protect the graveyard area, as well as some other areas that have been built up. There is money that was identified originally for the solid waste site that isn't being used and instead of doing this at $100,000 a year for the next four years, it was felt to be a better investment to spend the $378,000 this year and then agree to not provide the community with the $100,000 from the operating fund that they were given in the past. Get the work done earlier and stop as much of the erosion as possible. When the long-range plan is done, then it could

Thank you. Mr. Krutko.

Madam Chair, one of the comments I've heard is, are we simply throwing this money into the Arctic Ocean? We've spent almost $2 million on this and we know that through global warming, there is going to be increased erosion and melting permafrost. They are talking about the ocean levels rising. Is this a trend where we are going to see major expenditures of having to continue this effort? I know the community of Aklavik, for instance, has had a similar program in the past and they still have the problem. Is that community going to see similar funding? We are seeing the coastlines slowly disappearing because of global warming and the melting of permafrost. As a government, do we have a grasp on this? Are we going to allow these expenditures to blow out proportion? Is this $300,000 just a Band-aid that you are putting on a major wound, or is there going to be ongoing funding for the next number of years?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Handley.

Madam Chair, we are getting into some of the technical details. I think the Minister of MACA will be in a better position to answer than I will, so I will ask Mr. Steen to respond.

Thank you, Minister Handley. The chair recognizes Minister Steen.

Thank you. Madam Chair, the Member is correct in that efforts of the community and the government in the past were not always successful in controlling the erosion. It has been more like a trial and error process. Over the past 10 or 15 years, in particular, the communities have tried sand bagging, cement blocks and all different remedies suggested by the engineers. However, the particular solution they've come up with right now and is proving to be successful is hauling rocks from Inuvik, and that idea originally came from the same process being used in Nome, Alaska. Some of the council members had an opportunity to go over there and see firsthand the effectiveness of solid rock on the shorelines. So they started using this over the last two or three years and it's very effective. It increases the build-up by the ocean on the rock and it protects the shoreline from further erosion, in particular due to exposure when global warming takes its effect.

However, this past summer, it was pretty evident to the community that, with the influence of global warming now, the erosion is proceeding faster than the community had experienced in the past. In the past, they had an arrangement with government that they would receive $100,000 a year in O and M funding. They would keep using that to brace rock, however, the community is very concerned that they don't have much time and they have the opportunity now that they have capital funding that was originally designed and earmarked for another project in town, a solid waste site. They have the opportunity now. They didn't do the work this year and they suggest the priority would be more to put that funding towards the shoreline, do it in one year, rather than four years and save the cost of further erosion. That is what is justifying the continuation of support in the erosion control program.

I note, Madam Chair, that we are not just throwing rocks into the ocean, as the Member suggests. I note that the community of Aklavik, even though it was predicted to disappear a long time ago, is still there too. People have a tendency to want to protect their communities, so government is trying to allow them the opportunity of making their own decisions. In this regard, MACA did support the suggestion that we take capital and use it for O and M.

Thank you, Minister Steen. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you. There was an engineering study done. When was that study done and who did it? What was the cost of that study?

Thank you. Minister Steen.