Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In my answers to the Member for

Mackenzie Delta before, I did say that there was no official appeal process right now, which is true. We are in the process of developing an appeals process for both those that have been turned down for the Housing Choices Program and those that are in public housing. We are developing an appeals process and we are just in the process of finalizing that. We will probably share that with the Members, and it will go out there and we will have a communication plan to make sure that all the clients, tenants and the regions have an opportunity to know that this is coming into play and they have an appeal process. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, that is what the constituents are looking for. They are looking for a fair independent review process for their issues of arrears, long-term arrears, et cetera, and refusals of the Housing Corporation for accessing programs. I would like to ask the Minister again. I thought the setup of this independent appeal system was imminent, and last spring and during the summer I am hearing again that it is imminent. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the appeal system is to have it established as soon as possible. Will the Minister do that? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I understand how important it is for those out there to realize they do have an independent appeal process and then that is the beauty of this. It would be an independent appeal process. I can follow up, but we are hoping to have this roll out right away. We are obviously through this particular application stage for Housing Choices Program and then we will be hearing some of the concerns that residents have had. We will have this in place. We are looking to have this in place by the next application cycle. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that when clients get a refusal letter from income support, at the bottom it says contact this person for an appeal if you are not comfortable with the decision. Our Housing Corporation letters say nothing of the sort. It doesn’t even say if you have a mechanism of appeal. That is what the people want. I believe this appeal system should be in place as soon as possible. Once again, is the Minister saying we are looking at April 1st? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I will follow up with the corporation. I know from the notes that I have, that the actual layout of the process is pretty well complete and it is just a matter of timeline. I will follow up with the corporation. I will communicate that to the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister responsible for dust control. I’m not too sure where he’ll take it, but I think that this issue has been around this House for some time. A number of years ago, we had a pilot project that they put forward to look at main street chipseal. We had different programs in regards to dust control. This issue is real in our small communities. It is a health issue. I think that we do have to find a way to facilitate those communities that are dealing with dust control. I would like to ask the Minister, who is responsible for this department, what is the government doing to work with communities?

I know we have infrastructure funding. We have money that is allocated to communities. Again, there was a core program that was developed in regards to main street chipseal. I would like to know, is the government finding ways to implement that program so that we can be able to accomplish that in communities that are looking at dust control?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Minister responsible for Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The chipseal program that was out a few years ago was part of the capital process when the transfer or the implementation of the New Deal, the money that went to the communities and then they determined their priorities and if dust control was one of the priorities, they identified and put the money towards it. We have seen lately in some of the plans that we are getting back from communities, a lot of them are starting to identify dust control as a priority and they are starting to put the funds towards it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The problem that I see with that suggestion is community gas tax dollars don’t cover a $600,000 or $700,000 capital project. We have to work with those communities to share costs, work with the Department of Transportation, the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs, to find a workable project, a pilot project or whatever, to assist those communities to deliver dust control in their communities. That’s the issue. What are we doing as a government, and Association of Communities, and the communities, to find the solution to dust controls in communities? Thank you.

The communities are continuing to do what they can to do control dust in

their communities. The problem is we’ve transferred all the capital dollars to the communities, so they have the ability to make their own decisions. As a department, we have no infrastructure dollars left.

It’s a fairly new process. Communities are starting to buy into it. A lot of communities are identifying dust control as a priority and they are starting to put some of their funds towards it. We continue to work with the communities, with their infrastructure plans and identifying some of their priorities and even helping them to identify their funding sources and going through that process with them. A lot of them are doing very well at it and continue to do so. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I believe we are talking about a different level of communities. I know that the majority of the main paving projects that are taking place in the infrastructure funding and the capital dollars are in large, municipal centres. I’m talking about small communities such as Tsiigehtchic or Aklavik or Wrigley. Communities like that have a problem. I know I’ve heard my colleague from Nahendeh say this is an issue in his riding. It’s an issue in Fort McPherson. We’re trying to deal with it. Is there a way that they can develop a program similar to the main street chipseal program to work in conjunction with small communities that don’t have the infrastructure capacity, don’t have the equipment, to take on this type of a project? Again, I’d like to ask, will this government consider looking at that alternative to deal with dust control in our communities?

A lot of the larger communities that do have paving have identified or used some of their Building Canada money and some other funding, infrastructure stimulus funding, some have used that and they have identified paving as one of their priorities and put their money towards that. Some of the smaller communities had different priorities when this money rolled out, but are starting to see now that they are starting to identify chipseal as one of their priorities, dust control as one of their priorities and they are taking steps to address that. However, we will continue to work with the communities in identifying solutions and identifying how they can go about that. At the end of the day, the actual funding and the request will come from communities. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the reason I raise this question is the community of Wrigley had $250,000 down for dust control for their community. They were refused because they weren’t able to match the $250,000. They don’t have the capacity to match $250,000. So how are we expecting the other communities to make this a priority if they can’t afford to implement it? Again, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister,

can they look at this issue regardless of whether it’s a special project or pilot project or fly on the wall to find a way to solve this issue. Can the Minister commit to look at this issue with his colleagues and Members from small communities to try to find a workable solution to this problem?

We’ll always continue to work with NWTAC, which represents all communities across the Territories, and LGANT, the local government administrators. We’ll continue with them. The way the process is laid out now -- and I’ve responded in some of my answers to some of the other Members’ questions that we try to spread everything around -- we want to give communities the opportunity to make these decisions themselves. If there is money available and it’s cost-shared, then they would be responsible for matching those dollars. If we start doing one-offs again, then we’ll get into a situation where everybody can say you did it for that community, you have to do it for us, and then we’re back to having a corporate capital plan that takes a lot of the authority-making decisions out of the communities. But we will continue to work with communities.

I have to say again, I have seen a great improvement and a great willingness on the communities that have taken on this new money and all the authority that’s coming with it. They are really starting to come up with some excellent projects and something as a community they don’t have to wait forever for. It’s like my answer right now is kind of taking forever, so I’ll leave it at that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to pick up from where Member Groenewegen had taken issue today with some of the Power Corporation’s rate review. One of the issues of interest of mine is, is the NWT Power Corporation going to be considered -- in its restructuring of rates, that is -- potentially a new department for the Northwest Territories government. I have spoken on that issue a couple of times and said I think, in the long run, that will give us better accountability, perhaps it will even create efficiencies. My question is directly to the Premier, who is the Minister responsible for the Power Corporation. Is the NWT Power Corporation in a situation where we’re contemplating rolling it into the territorial government as a full department rather than an independent business corporation as it’s being run today?

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Power Corporation itself is established under our legislation, the Government of the Northwest Territories. So through any initiative, any change of that nature would have to be the work of this level of government. The NTPC board, NTPC structure is all put into place. They have not had discussions in this area. They will be getting the work of the review that was done specifically on the Power Corp and be working through that scenario. They go on with the business established under our legislation. Thank you.

I appreciate the answer from the Premier, but the point is you don’t ask the board if they want to dissolve themselves. That would be a political decision by the review team looking at rate review, and one of the analyses out of this process could be when they do rate review, we could probably provide more efficiencies and accountability in the rate review process if one of the recommendations was to roll it into a territorial department per se. Is that one of the issues being contemplated at the political level by someone in charge of the legislation such as the Premier and the Cabinet? Thank you.

We set up a process to undergo a look at rate regulations, distribution of power in the Northwest Territories. We underwent a review process on the Power Corporation itself and we are nowhere close to looking at making that decision. That was brought up earlier, about is there any part of the review that would look at structure and so on. The rate of return is part of the system. The report also suggested the cost to service should be looked at through a number of the zones. So there are initiatives in that report that would allow us to look at overall function of the Power Corporation.

But let’s be careful here. There’s a lot of our folks delivering energy today, keeping the lights on today in the Northwest Territories and providing a service. Let’s not just put questions out there that suddenly the rumour is we are going to go and do something. There are no recommendations at that level that talk about that, but that’s an initiative that could always be taken by the Legislative Assembly. In fact, it’s not the board that would make that decision; it’s this Legislative Assembly that have the acts that establish the Power Corp, the PUB and so on and so forth. So it is this floor, this table that would make any recommendations in that area. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I’m reminded of the old adage that the definition of insanity is you keep doing something over and over and expect different results. Mr. Speaker, the issue here really is one of consideration. I didn’t say was that the final

outcome of the report, is that the driving force of the report. I’d just like to know if it’s a real consideration, Mr. Speaker. So, in essence, the how would we achieve efficiencies if these types of measures weren’t considered. If it was rolled into the territorial government, we all know that it wouldn’t require a general rate application process or a PUB process; it would require accountability directly to this House, unlike it has now.

So, Mr. Speaker, I’m asking, is it a fundamental consideration. Because otherwise all we’re doing is pushing costs around as opposed to achieving efficiencies. Thank you.