Mr. Chairman, just regarding the upgrades to the water treatment plants in both my communities of Ulukhaktok and Tuktoyaktuk, could the Minister get back to me with a timeline?

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My recollection is that they’re all scheduled for March 2010.

That is all.

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. Are there any further general comments? Is the committee agreed there are no further general comments?

Does the committee agree to proceed to detail?

Okay. We’ll now stand down the totals and begin on page 5. Page 5, 2008–2009 Supplementary Appropriation No. 2, Municipal and Community Affairs, Operations Expenditures, Community Operations, Not Previously Authorized: $1 million.

Department of Municipal and Community

Affairs, Operations Expenditures, Community Operations, Not Previously Authorized: $1 million, approved.

Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: $3.264 million.

Department of Municipal and Community

Affairs, Operations Expenditures, Regional Operations, Not Previously Authorized: $3.264 million, approved.

Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $4.264 million.

Department of Municipal and Community

Affairs, Operations Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $4.264 million, approved.

We’ll move on to page 6, Justice, Operations Expenditures, Legal Aid Services, Not Previously Authorized: $100,000.

Department of Justice, Operations

Expenditures, Legal Aid Services, Not Previously Authorized: $100,000, approved.

Community Justice and Corrections, Not Previously Authorized: $654,000.

Department of Justice, Operations

Expenditures, Community Justice and Corrections, Not Previously Authorized: $654,000, approved.

Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $754,000.

Department of Justice, Operations

Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $754,000, approved.

We’ll move along to page 7, Education, Culture and Employment,

Operations Expenditures, Advanced Education, Not Previously Authorized: $597,000.

Department of Education, Culture and

Employment, Operations Expenditures, Advanced Education, Not Previously Authorized: $597,000, approved.

Education and Culture Not Previously Authorized: $3.052 million.

Department of Education, Culture and

Employment, Operations Expenditures, Education and Culture, Not Previously Authorized: $3.052 million, approved.

Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $3.649 million.

Department of Education, Culture and

Employment, Operations Expenditures, Total Department, Not Previously Authorized: $3.649 million, approved.

We’ll move along to page 8, Environment and Natural Resources, Operations Expenditures. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve cited a number of times under forest management that the department should take the initiative and start creating some type of revolving fund, knowing that quite often we go over budget in this area and we keep coming back to the Assembly and topping that up. I realize we’re paying what one could describe as actuals, but I’d certainly like to see the department investigate a process or that we start funding forest management properly so they don’t have to keep coming back each year.

I say that with the proviso that it’s reasonable to understand that some years are worse than others. I’m sure they’d be able to find a balance there so the Assembly doesn’t have to put money continually under the supplementary appropriation process for this. This should be an expense they should be able to estimate over a number of years and then use the appropriation process for, I should sadly call it, bad years.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my understanding of a revolving fund, it implies that there’s money moving in and money moving out. With forest fires generally the money moves out as we fight fires. The budget that has been set by the Assembly has been over a number of years set to be what we think is, based on a basic average, what we could make do with, with the understanding that if there is a bad fire season — hot weather or something happens that’s untoward — we will come back and ask for more

money as opposed to…. My understanding is that in previous times they would have a fairly large fire budget, sometimes with a surplus at the end of the year that things would be done with. This way we have what we think we need to operate and hope for the best in terms of weather.

So the issue of a revolving fund is not clear to me in terms of the Member’s comment, but we have a budget that we think gives us a pretty good core of funding for a normal fire year.

Sorry. The terminology of “revolving fund” might not be exactly correct. I guess I mean put a fund in place that, for example, we funded to the tune of $5 million. They draw down on that $5 million. A good year means they only drew down $3 million. Then, of course, the normal appropriation process tops it up back to that fund and they draw down to it. The surplus wouldn’t be lost for the intent. It would almost be doing the same thing that we’re doing now. We’re just funding it after the fact, which often causes me to wonder why we bother even budgeting anything under the fire suppression point if we are just going to go to a process.

I guess I’m asking the Minister if he’s looking to examine another way of funding this process so we don’t have to go back to either special warrants or supp appropriations each season.

Mr. Chairman, there is over $5 million in the suppression budget, which we’ve taken basically as an average over the years that has been demonstrated to be enough for your normal year. We’ve proceeded on that basis. This year was an exceptionally hot, dry year. There were a number of major fires, some of them close to high values — at-risk communities, power stations and that type of thing — so it required additional funding. We are very sensitive to and very aware of the concern about special warrants. While we have to act with great dispatch, we’re very careful and make sure we come only when we’ve spent all the money we do have.

If the Member has any specific suggestions, we’d be happy to consider them. At this point this fire operation has been in play now for decades, and we’ve been working on what’s an adequate way to finance it. It’s the current process that’s there. If there are suggestions for change, we’d be happy to consider those.