Madam Chair, I would just like to provide some clarification. Fist of all, this is not a new or unusual way of dealing with these kind of issues at all. This is the standard way of doing it. It's the way every community would approach or be dealt with if they had a similar situation. Essentially what has happened is the money for the solid waste site over a number of years, that project was moved ahead a few years because of the amount of industrial use that's being made of the site and what's anticipated. It was moved ahead in the capital planning process. The money was identified as capital money. That was done through the process.

The community had a study done. That study reported back in December. The community has not yet decided whether they will follow the consultant's recommendations that they continue to use the site and try to find some fill to cover the waste in the site and deal with those problems or what route they will follow. In the meantime, the shoreline erosion situation was deemed to be an emergency and was brought forward to us to deal with as an urgency.

I want to remind Members, Mr. Dent in particular, we are not creating something new here. If you turn to page 19 in your book, you will see that we are giving back the $378,000 as capital money, which is the correct procedure. Then on page 9, we are asking for the money back as O and M. So the way we deal with capital and O and M is not an issue. It's the proper way of doing it. Any community that has an urgency or something that should be done in the public interest could follow the same procedure, make their case before us and we would have to assess whether or not it should be dealt with urgently. Each time we have someone bring forward a matter of urgency, we don't go out and call for proposals of anybody else who might have something like that. That's done during the business planning process, but if it's urgent, we deal with it as a one-time issue. This was brought to us. We have to look at the merits of the case that's presented to FMB and make a decision. It's decided on, on its own. If Aklavik or somewhere else had brought an emergency like this to us we would use exactly the same process. So, Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here is giving back the capital, asking for it as O and M and, as Mr. Steen has said, we will then spend the $378,000 this year and advise the community they are no longer eligible for the $100,000 a year special operating fund that could contribute towards this project.

Procedurally, it's being done correctly. I would hope the decision on whether or not this should go ahead is based on your understanding of getting on with and protecting the shoreline before we have an even more expensive problem on our hands, not as a way of saying he didn't quite follow the right procedure because we did follow the correct procedure. We need to look at this case as a matter of whether or not it's something we should do and makes good business sense to do right now. I believe it does, but we are better to spend $400,000 now than we are to put $100,000 a year for four years and meanwhile have the shoreline continuing to erode. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. The chair recognizes the Member for Nunakput, Mr. Steen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just for clarification, from the department's perspective, as we indicated in the letter to the standing committee, this was a request by the hamlet that they be allowed to use capital funding that they would have had the opportunity to spend on one project and direct it to another project under O and M. As I indicated earlier, they would have received the funding through O and M over the next four years anyway through extraordinary funding because of the planning process that was in place for that particular shoreline erosion. Really all we are doing is responding to a request from them to be able to spend the $400,000 in one year rather than four years.

In relation to whether MACA treats some communities better than others, in this very same appropriation, supplementary, there is a request for $265,000 for water haul for Fort McPherson. So we don't treat some communities better than others. We respond to community needs as they are identified to us. That same request for the water haul comes under my department and I don't feel that one community is being treated any better than the other. I treat them all the same and I take all their concerns to the management board and it's a joint decision. It's not a decision on the part of the Minister. It's a joint decision. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Steen. The chair recognizes the Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am a bit torn on this one. The process was raised and the questions were raised as we first reviewed the supplementary and concerns about how this project came into being, and the Minister responded to questions put to him with a letter, and it's been referenced. The intention initially was relocation because of a potential road and the Minister stated here, again for the record, that it was a request of the community. When the Minister of Finance spoke to it, he also spoke to the request. In here, it talks about emergency repairs. As well, I am familiar with Tuktoyaktuk and I know it's been a problem they've had to deal with. I must agree with my colleague from Tu Nedhe that instead of putting small amounts there, we need to deal with it as best we can.

At the same time, I have reservations, as a couple of other Members have put it, about the planning process and how things fall into place. I understand that in one part of this supplementary it's going back into the coffers so to speak, and then being asked for at another point, and I guess we should say that at least they didn't come in with a special warrant here as we have seen some other things just pop in here without time lines. So they've at least followed that process and heard some concerns from committees.

I guess the big thing is the community has made a request, substantiated it with the erosion problem that seems to have picked up in the last year. I guess they're waiting to hear if the government has accepted that it is an emergency and needs to be done. The letter from the Minister didn't state the emergency and we've been hearing so far on speaking to this motion, we haven't heard of the emergency situation. Knowing and being familiar with it, it is a situation that needs to be dealt with. I guess I would urge the government to start putting some long-term plans together as to what might actually happen. Is there a possibility that we can hold the ocean back and try to keep something going or, as Mr., Nitah, said, maybe look at some engineering to come up with something that might build up the land, and there are examples of that throughout the world? I am not suggesting the Minister and his staff start travelling to these other places to get that. I am sure that information can be easily had through the systems we have in place now. So hopefully we won't see something in the near future where there is a requirement for more funding to take some community members and staff to Holland or Japan or some place like that.

To be more realistic, initially my concern is on the planning, how it unfolded, being unclear as to whether it was a request or an emergency. I was initially leaning towards the motion and supporting it, but knowing the situation of that community and knowing it has come back to us and it is a request from us at this point, I am tending to go with not supporting the motion at this time because even if we say no to it or if we take the money away, there is going to have to be substantial money found to either relocate the community further inland or something like that, which is going to cost more than a few hundred thousand dollars. There is a commitment being made now that the community will not be able to get the $100,000 a year that was committed to them, so based on those commitments made here in the House, then I cannot support the motion and I would suggest that we follow up in a proper way from this point on.

I think it should be noted that this has been an ongoing problem. Even in the letter it states the federal government was involved as far back as 1971. So Members have stated that we are throwing rocks in the ocean or rubber bags in the ocean. Well, there were a few trial-and-errors and hopefully it's getting to the point where it's going to work and the rock will stay put and build up some of the shore around it.

There are a few communities around the NWT close to river systems and large water bodies that have been helped by some of these actions that have been taken. Based on that, although a part of me says I want to follow more closely the capital planning process which committee members have highlighted time and time again, at the same time I understand the urgency here and not wanting to cut our nose off to spite our face, sort of thing. Hopefully they will move forward in a respectful manner from this point on. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The Chair recognizes the Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will not be supporting the motion. I think there's enough valid reason for doing this, taking remedial action before the situation becomes much worse. I don't accept the arguments put forward by members with respect to Ministers' ridings. This is a small territory, we're all from someplace and work needs to be done everywhere. So I just want to put it on the record that I won't be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. The Chair recognizes Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's pretty clear from the Minister's letter that this thing has been going on for the last two years. There has been work with MACA and the community with regard to trying to look at the development of a management plan. Apparently from the letter the Minister wrote, it's not complete. Then you find out that the project has been identified through the regular capital planning process for several years, then all of a sudden it's no longer there. Also with regard to the hamlet operations assistance policy, they did carry out the shoreline erosion work. In 2001-2002 the department implemented the new approach for funding to communities. At that point, the whole idea was to allow the communities to have $100,000 in their budget to carry out what they were going to do. But what we find out is that in the year 2002-2003 the hamlet was also accessing extraordinary funding to support this project from the department, so it was getting funding for this work through a process.

I think it's important to realize that the whole reason of the capital planning process is to have a system so that the public and we, as Members, know where these expenditures are taking place. But the way I see it, basically because there is no process in place to ensure fairness to all the other communities, this is a perfect example of how a community or a department can undermine the whole process of capital allocation and look at the community municipal policies that we have in place to keep the communities accountable. I feel that this process has been going on too long, that the Cabinet and the process of using supplementary appropriations has been abused. Again we're finding out that that's what is happening.

The Department of Municipal and Community Affairs knew two years ago that this was a problem and they were working on it. Why was this not continued through the capital planning process? Yet we find out that there's a new way of investing capital, through a process called supplementary appropriations. That's not the intent of supplementary appropriations. The whole idea of a capital planning process is that's what it is. Some communities up and down the valley don't have capital projects in their riding because they're being told sorry, we have rules, you have to meet these criteria. But in this case, you reinvent the wheel, you find new ways of getting around the whole idea of accountability and also ensuring that there's fairness in the way money is distributed to municipalities and communities up and down the valley.

With that, I know that it's probably a losing battle. I don't know what it's going to take, maybe a motion of non-confidence against this government, because that's where I think we have to go with this one because it doesn't seem like anybody is listening on that side of the House and they can do whatever they want. So that's it.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. To the motion.

Question is being called and a recorded vote has been requested. Are members ready to vote? All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

Recorded Vote

All those opposed to the motion, please rise.

All those abstaining, please rise. The results of the vote on the motion: two in favour, 10 opposed, zero abstentions. The motion is defeated.

---Defeated

Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move we report progress.

The motion is in order and it is not debatable. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

Thank you very much and I will rise and report progress. I thank the Minister and the witness, and thank you for letting me sit here today. It's a beautiful view from here.

The House will now come back to order. May I have the report of Committee of the Whole? The Chair recognizes the honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Do we have a seconder for the motion? The honourable Member for Nunakput. Thank you. We have a motion. The motion is in order. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? The motion is carried.

---Carried

The Chair was watching Committee of the Whole and must say that you look good in the chair; it suits you, Ms. Lee. Item 21, third reading of bills. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Handley.

Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that Bill 3, Appropriation Act, 2003-2004, be read for the third time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.