Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Next for general comments, I have Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I just wanted to let you know that it has been a pleasure to deal with MACA over the past number of months on various objectives and to deal with it in GED as well. Some of the priorities that I know that we should be heading into are in terms of recreational facilities. I know that, at one point, it used to be a priority of our government that recreation facilities be an important part of all the...I don't know...at least a base line in all the communities. I am kind of in favour of making a move with MACA to make an initiative, to make it part of their goals and objectives and to be part of their mission

statement. Just with that respect, I think it is important because one of the biggest issues that I have been faced with or challenged with is to build or implement or create a recreational facility in the small community of Nahanni Butte. It has been a challenge. There is a small area that was supposed to be designated as a gymnasium, but it is very small, Madam Chair. It is a square room. It has sinks in there so it is not really a play area. I don't know what the thinking was at that time. But if the thinking is that each community should have at least this baseline facility, then it will certainly be in all the plans or be in place today. I was just wondering if the Minister could comment on that. Do we have to get government, by way of mission statements or by way of objectives, to make recreation facilities a priority in all of our communities? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, it has always been a part of our department's mandate to include and look at capital projects that were designed for recreation. Over the last few years, our budget has not reflected a lot of capital projects as it was difficult due to our fiscal situation. Capital projects for recreation had to compete with capital projects for water treatment plants and sewer lagoons. There is still a lot of need in the area of water treatment plants and sewer lagoons and infrastructure of that nature. However, this year, and I have indicated in my opening remarks, we have seen a huge increase in our capital funding, 87 percent compared to last year. We know and we have very good indication of what we will be receiving in the future in terms of MRIF funding or gas tax funding and ongoing funding. Under the new deal, we have also seen a new program. I guess you can call it a new program. We have carved off a portion of the capital budget for communities that would be community-owned infrastructure. This has really given us a lot of flexibility.

We now can start looking again at recreation requirements in the communities for the long term. We have fairly stable funding. Those decisions are still being worked on. The criteria for projects that are going to be moved forward out of the 20-year plan are still being looked at. We are still having discussions with the NWT Association of Communities. Of course, we still have to sign a couple of these agreements. We certainly have a lot more flexibility than we had in previous years, but we haven't come up with a really solid plan as where things are going to be spent in the next...We should have those decisions hopefully by the end of March or early April.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Indeed, in terms of recreational facilities, in particular, the gymnasium for Nahanni Butte, I can just assure the Minister that it was my pleasure to deal with the department on that issue. I know that we are making some headway on that. I appreciate that fact. As well, I was talking to Fort Liard with the gas tax. Apparently, the agreement there is that it is based on collections. The Minister can correct me here, but I think it is 50 percent. The government will fund 50 percent of the gas tax as well as in the hamlets and settlements, but it is based on collections, so it is not actually based on the taxation roll that is there. Actually, it is what is collected. Apparently, that is the case for the community of Fort Liard. They are in a similar boat to Fort Resolution where, because of claimant issues and the band, there is no effort in trying to collect taxes. So that community cannot depend on the newfound bonus of the gas tax to subsidize or take care of its infrastructure deficit that they also have as long as we do. I am just wondering if the department was looking at that. Is there a way to maximize some benefit for communities like Fort Liard or Fort Resolution, Madam Chair?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I want to point out to the Member that I certainly appreciate the time and effort the Member, along with a couple of the other Members, have taken to point out that there is a need and there are requirements in small communities for recreation projects. We have taken that under advisement. The Member can be assured that we will roll out and he can see what projects have been moved forward. I personally am not in a position to pick and choose projects. The end of March or early April, he will know what projects are going into which communities or at least what the criteria will be.

As to the gas tax, the gas tax is not tied to any particular methodology or whether it is consumption or any other form. Initially, that is what the government was looking at. The federal government was looking at tying it to public transit use or gas consumption. There was a lot of concern over that from my part, of course, because it would not leave us in a very good situation. The federal government has moved away from that. They are now referring to the federal gas tax as the federal gas tax equivalent, for the most part. We know now what the amount is going to be for the NWT. That was announced in the budget speech. It is $37.5 million starting this year, providing we can get an agreement this year. This is as much information as we have up to now. We know how much the total amounts are going to be, and we know how much it is going to be for every year over the next five years. It is going to be $4.5 million this year, $4.5 million next year, $6 million the year after, $7.5 million the year after, and then $15 million on a continual basis. So there is really no decision. We haven't signed an agreement with the federal government. We haven't really had a chance to negotiate what the criteria is and how it is going to be devolved to the communities. We wanted to have that discussion also with the NWT Association of Communities so that we have some consensus on how we are going to move forward and what we are going to negotiate.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Menicoche.

I am glad that the Minister brought that up because that was the initial reading that I got from Fort Liard. Hey, here is an opportunity and we are going to miss it. That was a concern. I just wanted to make sure that they are not going to miss an opportunity that, in the small community, they are not collecting taxes just based on the political climate, that they are not penalized for it and, as a result, their infrastructure and subway system doesn't get affected.

I think I will switch gears here a little bit. As well, I want to talk about funding of the community with MRIF in

particular, Fort Simpson with the one-third/one-third/one-third sharing arrangement. Here, again, because of the funding problems in the village of Fort Simpson, they are not going to have the ability to come up with a one-third share as an opportunity to improve our local infrastructure with the biggest need that the community was saying at our roundtable discussion on Friday. They said recreation facilities are a priority for us and we can't do anything with the money that is coming. All our funding is being used for O and M, and we cannot get into funding or sponsoring capital projects. I was just wondering if the Minister is looking at that and looking at new creative ways in which the village of Fort Simpson can invest in infrastructure, in capital projects and just like any other community, Fort Simpson, there again too, is missing one unique baseline. It is a swimming pool for a community of that size. They certainly could use a nice new modern swimming pool, but they don't have the cash to match the GNWT or the federal government in order to build a building like that. I was just wondering if the department is looking at that and taking into consideration how best they can help in a situation like that, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.

Madam Chair, there has been no formula agreed to at this point with the tax-based communities, which includes Fort Simpson. The SAOs are sitting down and trying to work out a formula that would be acceptable to all of the communities. We are expecting that over the next while. I am not sure of the financial situation Fort Simpson is in. My understanding is that Fort Simpson has a surplus. If that is not the case, then we stand to be corrected. We would have to take a look and have a discussion over the actual fiscal situation of Fort Simpson. We are having some discussion within our department. Regarding the $3 million that is slated in our budget for capital projects, that is part of the community infrastructure program to see if we can allow some flexibility with that money to possibly use as part of the communities' contribution. We haven't arrived there yet. We need to do some more work on that. There are a couple of options. But, first of all, we have to see and sit down with the town, as the Member indicated, Fort Simpson, in this case, to see what their actual fiscal situation is. If there is a serious deficit, then we would have to work with that.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. General comments. Would you please direct your attention to page 4-10 in your main estimates binder? Information item, revenue summary. Agreed?

Thank you. Page 4-13, activity summary, directorate, operations expenditure summary, $4.512 million. Agreed?

Page 4-15, activity summary, directorate, grants and contributions, total grants, $225,000. Total contributions, $390,000, and total grants and contributions of $615,000. Agreed?

Something is burning. Anyway. Thank you. I smell a fire drill coming on. Okay. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just with regard to extraordinary funding, it is a very necessary line item. I was just wondering why the estimate would be low, if consistently we are coming in high. Can the Minister address that?

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. Mr. McLeod.

Madam Chair, the submission had gone into FMB for more money. However, the direction we were provided was to come back on a case-by-case basis as needs arise in communities. That is the process that we use.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am fine.