Thank you,

Mr. Krutko. To the amendment. Question has been called.

Amendment carried.

To the motion as amended, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion definitely has merit. The issue of main streets in small communities — non-taxed-based municipalities that are not paved or chipsealed — is a pressing issue in communities. However, it is somewhat complicated by the fact that the money for this type of work was given to communities. It was pulled out of the normal funding and given to communities in the New Deal funding as capital so that communities would have the prerogative to decide if this was a priority or something else within their community was a priority.

In general, I support the concept of helping communities deal with this issue of main street; however, if it would involve taking money back out

of New Deal funding and removing that discretionary prioritizing of capital projects in communities, then I think it’s something we just need to further discuss and debate. I think there are a number of amendments on this department, and possibly we will not be closing this department off today. I would like a chance to consider the consequences and alternative options.

Having said that, I do believe it is an issue. I just want to make sure we are not asking for something that may in fact be good for some communities and not for others. To the motion, I would abstain on the grounds that I would like more time to come up with something we have a chance to work through and talk to the Minister about.

Thank you,

Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion as amended, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I thought the amendment would kind of speak to the fact that we’re not going to tell communities what to do. I think it still does this, and I’m not really comfortable with it.

Communities have worked very hard, Mr. Chair, to get that autonomy, to self-direct their own interests and put their priorities where they lie. That was the whole focus behind the New Deal. Communities did speak about the lack of capacity and expertise in dealing with their projects, be it building water plants or anything else. It kind of touches on that, but in terms of chipsealing we can’t really force a community to do chipsealing if they’ve got other priorities. That’s what this motion kind of does.

If there was another way of talking to the department to say, “Look; communities need assistance in planning their projects, whatever they may be,” then that would be a more effective use of the department’s resources.

Thank you,

Mr.

Menicoche. To the motion as amended,

Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support main street chipsealing to help communities control things like their dust as well as to improve their lives. But I’m afraid, without knowing more about this.… It looks to me as if it takes away money from the communities — sort of New Deal money. And, ultimately, that choice will be taken away.

It was just mentioned about autonomy. I mean, I’ve never heard a community want to look the other direction by saying: I want MACA to run our stuff. I think communities feel they’ve learned and earned that respect and authority to plan their own projects and their own priorities. If it turns into a situation where they’ve been given money under the New Deal and it’s got to be taken away, because now it’s got to be worked in some relationship with

MACA…. I can’t speak for MACA or how they’re going to do their finance calculations, but I suspect they’re just going to take a formula piece out of everybody in these communities that normally would be focused in on, and I think, as a whole, they’ll suffer.

I’m a little uncomfortable with the way it’s sort of walked on our table this afternoon: you know, sort of like: This is how it’s got to be and whatnot. I would prefer more time to go through this and understand the impact of potentially taking away funding that rightly belongs to the ambition and the priority of every community.

Again, I recognize the problem. I support the issue in principle. The concept makes sense. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. But, Mr. Chairman, I can’t support the motion like this without knowing what the impacts are.

It’s easy to say: Here; this motion means there’s going to be chipsealing in every community. I’m okay with that. It’s the question of: what does it mean about who’s going to pay and where’s the money going to come from and how do we figure this out in the plan? It’s the negatives that cause me concern at this time.

Thank you,

Mr.

Hawkins. To the motion as amended,

Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, for years communities have been saying: We want the ability and the power to make our own decisions, decide what’s best for our community. I think the New Deal has given them that power, and if they want to use it for main street paving, chipsealing their main street, then, you know, that’d be their decision.

By putting it back in here, I’m not sure where we’re going with this. I’m willing to support any of the Members bringing motions forward, but there are times when you just have to say, “Maybe this might not be the best for communities. Is this what the community wants?” I’m just afraid if we go there, then — I think it’s been mentioned a couple of times — money may have to be pulled back.

I’m sure there’s the expertise within MACA if the communities decide to take advantage of it, to get some input and just get some help from MACA in deciding how to go about it. But at the end of the day, the decision should be the community’s as to whether they want their main streets chipsealed or not.

I’m just not sure where we’re going with this. We seemed to have spent a lot of time on this one particular motion and the amendment. I’m saying let’s just let the communities decide for themselves if that’s what they want to do and not just put it all

back on MACA again. They have been trying to give the power to the community. I’m a big supporter of that.

Thank you,

Mr.

Hawkins. To the motion as amended,

Mr. Beaulieu.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t see any indication here that there would be a decrease in the capital for the communities as a result of this motion. I see the motion indicating that they will work with the communities to establish a main street chipsealing program. As far as my communities go, one community’s done; one community is not done.

I support the motion because I feel it would increase the funding to a small community to get additional money to do some work on at least covering up some of the dust. I think that’s an issue…. It sounds to me like the dust-control program has also been delegated to the communities. I’m not seeing this as a motion that indicates that money will be shuffled or reduced at the community level.

My assumption is that this motion is to decrease the amount of money that’s being decreased in MACA overall and not roll it into the $28 million that goes in communities at this time.

Thank you,

Mr.

Beaulieu. To the motion as amended,

Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m having great difficulty with this motion. I support the concept of the New Deal and know that communities are happy to have their own autonomy and to use their funds as they see fit. I don’t know where the funding for this program would come from. I sense there’s a feeling on the part of the mover of the motion that there’s an unfairness here, that some communities got done and some did not.

Perhaps MACA could provide a bit of extra funding over the next several years to communities who are not done and earmark those funds only for a main street chipsealing program, in order to make it equal, so it wouldn’t be felt that the communities that got done while the program was in place got something and the other guys got nothing.

But you know, if this was intended to only apply to non-tax-based communities, I’m not from one of those so, for many reasons, I don’t feel I can vote on this motion, and I will abstain.

Thank you,

Ms.

Bisaro. To the motion as amended.

Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate what I see as part of the intent of my colleague’s motion here, which is that, even though we have a new deal and we’ve transferred a lot of responsibilities to communities, there still is an important role for Municipal and Community Affairs in providing expertise and so on. I think they’re aware of that. This is an attempt to engage some of that expertise in a way that helps communities achieve their goals.

I think there have been important issues raised by the Minister, that there is funding available for this. That’s the extent of my remarks. I just wanted to recognize part of the intent there.

There’s one thing I would assume this motion to include, which I would really support, and that’s a report from MACA that looks at the communities where this has been done and reports on the success of that program and the gains or the difficulties that have been encountered in that program to date.

Thank you,

Mr.

Bromley. To the motion as amended.

Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make an amendment to the amended motion, if I could. Right after the words “chipsealing program” it would read “outside of existing funding levels to communities” and in its entirety would read: “I move that this committee strongly recommend that the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs take immediate action to work with communities to establish a main street chipsealing program outside of existing funding levels to communities.”

Thank you,

Mr.

Ramsay. Any Member can make an

amendment to a motion. We will need it in writing. We will have to take a short break in order to get the amendment prepared in writing.

The Committee of the Whole took a short

recess.

I’d like to call the Committee of the Whole back to order.

We’re on an amendment to amend the amended motion. Mr. Ramsay, if we could please get you to read your amendment to the amended motion into the record.

I move that Committee Motion 50-16(2) be further amended by inserting the words “outside of existing funding to communities” after the words “chipsealing program.”

Thank you,

Mr. Ramsay. On the amendment to the amended motion. Mr. Hawkins.

I appreciate why the mover made this. My question — really out there — is, although I know it won’t be answered in this forum…. The fact is, it now looks like we’re funding. The motion here says we should fund this twice. We give them New Deal money. The money inside there, at the authority of that municipality, exists. They have funding if they choose to chipseal or choose not to chipseal. That’s their choice. We’ve empowered them with that ability. Now this sends the message to MACA that they now have to find more money, assuming they don’t draw back that funding. Saying “outside of existing funding to communities” further muddies the water, because now, truthfully, it looks like a suggestion that we fund them twice.

If chipsealing isn’t funded properly, I want to know. If chipsealing isn’t getting done, I think we should have that discussion. I don’t believe any community should not have chipsealing. I think every community should have it where they need it.

I know that the original person who made the first motion probably is only going to think I’m against small communities. Whether he’s grimacing or not over there, in his own chuckling way, you’ve got to get the message that I’m not against small communities.

I’m concerned about the design of this motion and its outcome. I try to support motions, whether I agree or disagree with them, if they help small communities or help my colleagues here. To me this clearly says: funded twice. It puts it as a real challenge; all of a sudden we’ve got a Finance Minister who says our finance cupboards are bare, and now we have a motion to fund it twice. We are funding it already, I think, and I have nothing that tells me otherwise. I have no other position to assume than that’s the case.

Thank you,

Mr. Hawkins. To the amendment of the amended motion, Mr. Ramsay.

The reason I moved the amendment — I think there’s some concern out there, and Mr. Hawkins raised a bit of it — is that communities would be impacted by their New Deal money. That’s the issue we have to get over and we have to tackle.

I don’t want to see that New Deal money getting impacted. I don’t want to see a chipsealing program take from the existing funding communities get. What I want to see — this is why I’m supporting my colleague Mr. Krutko, from Mackenzie Delta, on this — is because it is a health issue. It’s an important issue in small communities, the dust issue. We’ve talked about that for a number of years in this Legislative Assembly. It should be something we concern ourselves with. I don’t believe that it

necessarily has to come out of existing funding that flows through to communities.

I think we can, if we make it a priority of the government, get some money and earmark it for a chipsealing program. It has nothing to do with the New Deal money. It should have nothing to do with the New Deal money; I don’t want Members to get confused about that. We’re going to be going through strategic initiatives. We’re going to be sitting down with the Ministers. We’re going to be talking to them about what’s important in our communities. If chipsealing main streets in our communities is important to us, then we better find some money to address it. It doesn’t necessarily have to come out of the New Deal money and the capital money that’s flowing through to communities.

I just want Members to understand that. I think this amendment to the motion, outside of existing funding levels to communities, addresses that. It’s a recommendation that the government take a look at it. It’s not going to impact the funding that goes to communities. And if it does, then we’ve got a serious problem and we’re going to have a good look at that. In my estimation, this speaks to the issue, and it also speaks to the fact that communities are not going to be impacted.

It's hard to believe that in today's day and age, every community in the Northwest Territories doesn’t have main street chipseal. That is a goal this government should set, and we should try to attain that goal. We should be setting some money aside each and every year, outside of the existing funding, to address that issue. Do a couple of communities a year. It wouldn’t take us very long before each and every community in the Northwest Territories has its main street chipsealed. I think that’s the intent of the mover of the motion’s idea on this. I support that, and I hope Members do support the amendment. Mahsi.