Total department, $996,000.

Page 13. Environment and Natural Resources, operations expenditures, forest management, not previously authorized, $386,000.

Total department, $386,000.

Page 14, Health and Social Services, capital investment expenditures, health services programs, not previously authorized, $250,000.

Community health programs, $2.750 million.

Total department, $3 million.

Does the committee agree that consideration of Tabled Document 17-16(3) is concluded? Thank you, committee, for keeping us on our toes. We’ll go to page 15. Transportation, capital investment expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $3 million.

Total department, $3 million. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are opportunities over the life of the fund for communities to apply for assistance in a number of project areas. Thank you.

That’s exactly my point. I believe the program before, we were looking at seven years. Now I believe it’s been shrunk down to two or three years. That’s why I’m asking. Is it now possible for those communities who are now in the planning stage and basically having to come forward with an engineered building design of a road system being able to access this Building Canada Fund under the same premise as to their the gravel sources?

I will refer the question to Minister Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. May I have Mr. Michael McLeod respond.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Building Canada Fund was set up to run over the course of seven years. We have put in three budget years of submissions. There are still four years. The Member is correct, of course, that the federal government has indicated their desire to fast-track the programs. There has been no agreement reached yet. That is still something we are looking at in terms of additional funding or

funding at the end of fast-track in two years. There is some concern that fast-tracking with the amount of money we have, given the resources we have, would really be a challenge. We expect we can do it, but it would make things very difficult. So we would like the opportunity to discuss with them if there’s going to be a new source of funding at the end of two years or would we be better off to look at dealing with a three-year or a four-year budget to make it more accommodating. The decisions are still far from being made and the discussion is ongoing. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, knowing that we had seven years and I think that four years is probably more reasonable than the two years the federal government are asking for. For me, that’s the issue, is that we have to ensure that those communities that are working on a similar project which basically we are expending money by way of engineering design, that we should try and find a way that we allow for those projects to be treated in a similar manner as this project. I’d just like to get some assurances that the project, especially the one in Aklavik, will be coming forward by way of some capital expenditures, hopefully by this fall. I know they are developing a report and I think they’re hoping to have it ready by April. I’d just like to know exactly when will those other potential projects be seeing the light of day by way of the capital for these different departments.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, we have submitted year three for consideration by the federal government. We have not submitted anything...We have and had submitted a tentative plan outlining what we would do to fast-track, however, that has not been agreed to yet. There are still a number of communities that have indicated they want to come forward and MACA has been dealing with those along with the NWT Association of Communities. So there is some discussion ongoing regarding community projects. Thank you.