Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe it was $23,000.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you. Minister Steen.

Madam Chair, I think the Member is referring to a study on the shoreline erosion. The one I just responded to was the study on the solid waste site and that was completed in December. The study the Member is referring to, I believe, was done on behalf of MACA, but it may have been directed to an engineering consulting firm. I am not 100 percent sure. I have to check that.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you. Minister Steen.

Madam Chair, I believe the study consisted of the engineering firm, consulting firm... I believe it's EBA, but I could be wrong... I think I recall EBA having done the study. It required them to go in and I think it was twice that they went in and spent time actually reviewing the solid waste site and what would be necessary to extend the life of that site. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you. Minister Steen.

Madam Chair, I don't have the exact number of engineering studies that were done on the Tuk shoreline. This thing goes back 30 years to when the federal government first did it through Public Works Canada. There were a number of different approaches used to control the shoreline erosion. They were not all successful, mostly because of a shortage of funding in the community or the government's inability to do a large enough project that it would stop the erosion completely. It was sort of a small scale operation where the hamlet was allowed, through the funding process, to have $100,000 a year, extraordinary funding, included in their funding on an annual basis. This was what they used to try to control the erosion. I can't respond, Madam Chair, to exactly how many different studies that were done, but there were a number of them.

Thank you, Minister Steen. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Minister Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I believe I mentioned earlier that the hamlet did consider that option and it's not the preferred option. As a matter of fact, it had a fairly high cost figure applied to it. I recall some estimates of relocating the graveyard, for instance in the nature of $8 million. So it's not a cheap thing to do and it's not their preference to relocate the graveyard. As a matter of fact, just recently they were still putting people in there, so they don't have many plans to relocate. The Member may want to suggest it directly to the community, but right now it's not the preferred way to go. The engineers have told them that if they don't take certain steps, the whole community then becomes a place in jeopardy. If the outside shoreline does disappear, then it threatens the community and the historical aspects of the community. It threatens the government buildings and the whole community. I think the community is well aware of this, and they would prefer it if we could move faster on shoreline erosion funding to stop the erosion that is presently threatening more than just the graveyard. Thank you.

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

I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance, what is the process that's used to determine when something falls within the criteria of emergency repairs. Today I made reference in the House to the study that was done on the Sittichinli recreation complex where they have been cited for violation of the fire code and the roof of the facility leaks. Yet, we also heard during the budget process from Ministers of ridings where they needed infrastructure because of building and fire code violations that they have to have these buildings replaced or they will be condemned. What is the process used to determine which projects go and which ones don't?

Thank you. Minister Handley.

First of all, we have the business planning process, both for capital projects and for programs and services, that normally will catch these if we have enough advance warning that there is an urgent situation developing. During the year, it may happen that a building will be condemned for some reason or some other issue arises. Then we have to look at each of those cases. If it's a matter of life being endangered or a major asset being endangered or inability to deliver programs, we have to look at it and assess whether it is something we want to deal with as an emergency. If it is, we make that decision and we bring it back here through a supp process. Other than that, anything we have enough warning on, we are able to put into business plans.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Krutko.

I believe we went through a supplementary, previously where there was extraordinary funding identified through a special warrant for work for $800,000, and some for a strip of road in Tuktoyaktuk which came through again through a special warrant. The excuse was the road was bad. It was beaten up. We have other communities in the Territories that also have bad roads and they are rough also. Special warrants seem to be showing up consistently in certain areas, but when there is an emergency or crisis in other communities, you have to pull teeth to get anything into the capital budget. You are always told sorry, it has to go through the capital planning process and that's where you get it. How come some communities are able to use avenues to access funding, yet other communities don't have access to it? We are told that a few years ago, we did a whole revamping of budgetary allocations to communities to ensure that we had a fair distribution of cooperation dollars and dollars to run our municipalities. There was about $100,000 for these types of projects. You say there was a surplus in the budget for a particular community, so they can carry over that surplus to use for a different project. My understanding is there were other dollars being used through special warrants, through extraordinary funding, especially for this community time and time again. I am getting frustrated. I bring up issues that I feel are essential such as community infrastructure and public facilities that are not being taken into consideration or don't have the same weight because I am a regular Member and I am not a Minister. That's what it looks like to me. How much money has been spent through supplementary appropriations and extraordinary funding for the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk?

Thank you. Minister Handley.