Madam Chair, the policy hasn't changed, nor has the implementation of the policy changed. Each time one of these situations is brought to our attention, we have to do an assessment of the degree of urgency or emergency in dealing with the issue and make a decision. I don't recall the specific details of the Hay River one, but I assume at that point it was determined that this wasn't an urgent matter that couldn't be dealt with through the capital planning business planning process. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Minister Handley.

Madam Chair, in terms of urgency, we have to make assessments whether or not a particular project that's brought to our attention is urgent. I don't know if there've been rollovers on the piece of road that Mr. Lafferty refers to or if that would be justification for jumping in and widening the road. There was a rollover on Monday morning, a B-train upside down on Ingraham Trail. I am not going to go and put a bunch of money into the road because one truck drove off the road. We have to assess these situations and decide which ones we are going to deal with. The second part of Mr. Lafferty's question...I am sorry, I have to ask him to repeat the final question he had. I think it was protecting the graveyard and why don't we do that and would this complete the project, I believe. If that's the case, this isn't going to complete the whole project. This is going to help save another piece of it or parts of it, but there is a long-term plan being prepared and this will fill that intervening space until we have the long-term plan in place. Mr. Steen may be able to provide more detail to the extent to which this is going to save that shoreline. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Minister Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. In relation to the Member's question as to whether or not this particular funding will resolve the problem for good, no doubt the community would like to believe that but it's only going to be a matter of the community having the engineering firm continue to monitor the shoreline erosion problem and evaluate the effects of whatever prevention measures are taken. I think the community's overall engineering plan calls for this type of monitoring process over an extended period of time and is going to be only after they place the rip-rap for this year that they will see how much is going to be required. For one thing, they've almost reached both ends of the shoreline that they are trying to protect, so there isn't much left. It's going to depend on what effects this actually has and there's not going to be a decision made on the effects of it in one year. It's going to take a couple of summers to see how effective the measures are that they are using now. The community definitely feels the faster they put the rip-rap in the better in the long run, so that we don't have that shoreline erosion while we are waiting for funding. Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Madam Chair, I would like to move a motion.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Please, proceed.

I move that $378,000 not previously authorized under Municipal and Community Affairs in Supplementary Appropriation, No. 3, 2002-2003, be removed from regional operations.

Mr. Krutko, we will have to get a copy of the motion and we will take a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

We'll call the committee back to order. We have a motion. Mr. Krutko, for the record, can I get you to read the motion again, please?

Madam Chair, I move that $378,000 be deleted from Bill 11, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2002-2003, under the Department of Municipal and Community affairs, operations expenditures, regional operations.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Krutko.

Madam Chair, we talk about fairness and that communities have a certain budget and we told municipalities a number of years ago that we are going to adjust their budgets and allow them to have $100,000 to do certain things with. They, at the time, had to manage within that. Now we find out there's a new system in place that you can exceed your budget, but also find more money to carry out your activities.

I, for one, don't favour that we have a system that's really fair to communities who we told we are going to adjust their budget. Among the communities I represent, in the case of Aklavik, their budget went down. McPherson went up because they were under utilized with regard to their budget for years and now we find out that there is a new system in place that you can get that $100,000 which is part of your budget in one lump sum for a period of time. I don't think that's fair to other communities. If that's the case, why don't we just tell the other communities, if you need a project, go to the FMBS, request that you get a $400,000 project to classify as "not previously authorized," and get these increases put away through a supplementary appropriation. You don't have to go through the planning process.

We just went through the budgetary process. Again, there are certain projects in our communities that have to follow certain criteria being used by this government. Here we find a system that's been reincarnated and reinvented, so that a community can figure out a way to get more money into their communities for a special project which exceeds the $100,000 that you get in your budget estimates for municipalities for a particular year. I feel that this process is not treating all communities fairly. Yes, I take offence where we have certain processes in mind where communities have to wait. I mentioned earlier today there's a project in my riding and it's stated if it's $100,000, you have to spend the $100,000 out of your budget, but if it's over $100,000, MACA and Public Works will look after it.

Too many times we've seen supplementary appropriations come forward for special pet projects in certain areas. I don't think that's fair to all communities. This is a perfect example of how to get three years of funding in one year. That does not cut it. I ask my other colleagues to support the motion and at the appropriate time, I will ask for a recorded vote.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to confirm a couple of things here. One is that this is already funding that the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk had already been...the appropriation had already been approved. What we are doing here in a wordy and complex way is to give authorization to move it from what had been previously authorized as capital into O and M. Do I have that right? This is just a long complex round-about way of authorizing a change from a capital to an O and M expenditure. Is that accurate? Can someone help me there, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. There can be no questions. This is only to speak to the motion. If the Minister speaks to the motion, perhaps the Minister will answer some of the questions that might be raised in the debate. Mr. Braden, continue.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am looking at the explanation in the information attached to the supp which says the net effect to the government operations is nil because there is an offsetting reduction to the department's capital investment funding. I guess I don't see where there is a way that a community has been able to scoop some extraordinary funding. I hope I have the interpretation correct here. If my understanding of this request is right then, I will be voting against the motion. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Madam Chair. While we can't have a question and answer session on motions, I have some questions as well. At this point, I am inclined to support the motion based on the letter that was sent by Minister Handley to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development. I believe that letter said the capital project from which this money is being transferred was for the relocation of the solid waste site in Tuk. So this Legislative Assembly approved money for the relocation of the solid waste site in Tuk. I believe that it was presented as something that was important to see...I have just been corrected. The letter came from the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. In the letter, we were told that the capital project was done because of a proposed development of an Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk highway which would have made it feasible for a new site. We've since found out that there was no urgency to this. This project appears to have been planned simply because it was feasible. It sounds like the community wanted the landfill site to be moved farther away from the community than what it currently is, but there wasn't a safety reason, there doesn't appear to be a capacity reason. Apparently the capacity is such that they have more than 10 years left in the current site. So if it's not safety or protection of asset, how does that project in the first place fit into the corporate capital planning process?

We've been told that all the capital projects that this government approves will be ranked according to certain specific criteria. Many of us have wondered whether or not that is the case and whether or not there isn't some politics still being played in allocations. The fact that this is now seen as no longer urgent, it doesn't have to be done and we are told it doesn't have to be done because there is no need to relocate the landfill site. The letter says the reason for doing it was simply because it was feasible. Now that it's not needed, we are in a situation where we have capital dollars, money that's been approved for the capital project, that's no longer necessary.

If we are following the corporate capital planning process, then my understanding is that those capital dollars should go back into the pot to be reallocated according to the existing criteria that we use in the corporate capital planning process. If the project in Tuk ranks highest in the pot after that money has been put back in there, then we should be told that and that's where this money should go. Instead, we've been told that this is being done at the community's request. There has been no reference in any of the information that's been provided to Regular Members about there being an assessment done on this project according to the established criteria for corporate capital planning. These are capital dollars and I don't think it makes sense to say we are moving money from capital into O and M so we don't have to go through that process. I think that if we started out in capital, if it's going back into the pot, it has to be looked at in terms of the process that we have established.

At this point, that's my concern and it has always been my concern about the way this project has been handled. Nobody in government has ever said the project has been ranked for importance. It's always been told to me that the reason for doing it is the community requested it. So based on what I know now, unless I hear some arguments from the other side to counter what we have been told so far in writing, I am inclined to support this motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The Chair recognizes the Member for North Slave, Mr. Lafferty.