Michael McLeod

Mr. Speaker, as indicated earlier, we had an excellent partnership arrangement with Lutselk’e on this facility. The community had wanted to see this facility a lot bigger than what we had initially targeted to build in the community. They came up with some of their own funding from their own sources to increase the size, increase the footprint of this facility.

We haven’t worked directly with them to attract new dollars. We have worked with other communities such as Nahanni Butte to spend money on their gym, but in the community of Lutselk’e we haven’t. Not as a specific community but through...

I have to inform the Member that we haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this policy recommendation to any degree at all. We do, however, incorporate some consideration when we deal with committees in terms of cultural setting and cultural enhancements. I will, however — I said earlier — undertake to have that discussion with my colleagues.

That’s an easy response. I believe we’ve already agreed that municipalities should be receiving some of this money. We’re having some early discussions with the local government association, and also we’re talking to associations in the communities about how can we distribute this money and what kind of dollars are we talking about.

We need to set some criteria, and we need to be able to decide how that money will flow. So those things are ongoing. I can assure the Member that it will get serious consideration from this new line of funding from the government.

Our government takes a multi-barrier approach to dealing with water and water quality in communities. It’s a real area of concern, as Members would agree. We have a number of different departments working on water supply to communities. We have the ENR, which works on the source of water. We have MACA, which has testing of water treatment plant and also does the training. We have the Department of Health which does the testing for health purposes, and Public Works which works on some of the infrastructure projects.

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of different departments and a number of...

The decision will be made by the Department of Education whether to bring it forward. Mr. Speaker, the time frame will be revolving around the capital planning process and when the decisions are made there. That’s the process we have to follow.

The Member is correct that there is a significant amount of upgrading and retrofit that's required in the school. Our report — I believe we're looking at the same report — confirms that. That information has been provided to the Department of Health.

In this case, we've had a situation where some material fell off the heating pipes. We haven't confirmed if it is asbestos as of yet. However, we have taken the precaution of having air quality testing done. We've taken the material and sent it south, and we're waiting for those results. We suspect that the material may contain some asbestos, but...

The Member has pointed out an excellent point that needs to be considered by all planning departments that deal with Public Works and Services. In the case of Fort Simpson, there’s an additional cost of $80,000. That’s $80,000 more than the department that the community would need to come up with.

So, Mr. Speaker, it’s not a decision I can make in isolation. I have made the commitments to have that discussion.

The Public Works and Services standards for building construction usually focus on safety and design efficiencies, and not so much on artwork. It’s something that we still haven't adopted as part of our government to include in our infrastructure. Adding an art component to our infrastructure sometimes doesn't make sense, as in the case of water treatment plants or sewer treatment facilities. It adds to the cost overall, and it really starts to complicate things when we start designing facilities and buildings and try to accommodate the artwork.

This is something we have to have further...

Mr. Speaker, the question is beyond my responsibility as MACA’s mandate and jurisdiction. It should be directed towards Health and Social Services.

Mr. Speaker, I would expect that all departments are paying close attention to the survey and the evaluation that’s going on in Aklavik and will respond accordingly.

I trust that question was posed to me.

There are a number of sources of funding that have been flowing to the communities up to now that deal with water quality, water supply and things of that nature.

The Member is right. We are discussing and negotiating a new source of funding with the Government of Canada called the Building Canada Fund. We’re also talking about an extension to the gas tax. Mr. Speaker, both these sources can be utilized for community infrastructure. At this time it’s really difficult to see how much of it will be earmarked for communities, but a portion, we believe, will...