Mr. Chairman, I agree with the motion and one of the reasons is that Members should take the time to do a bit of lobbying, a bit of research, a bit if, looking at the options of how to maybe get the support of the Members on certain projects. I have been for the last three years lobbying the Ministers, lobbying this Assembly, individual Members, and we have come up with a cost of about $160,000. The government has come up with $25,000. That means that there is a shortfall of at least $130,000 that is still required. But it is not in the Capital Estimates. There is nothing in there for Fort Providence as far as the church goes. There was a one-time contribution of $25,000 and I appreciate that. But, at the same time, we do have new or historical buildings that are being identified for restoration and renovations and for visitors' centres. I am disappointed that is all Providence will be getting and I accept the Standing Committee's recommendation that, yes, the government should develop a policy. We do not have anything in place right now and I am sure even though there is not anything this year for the old church in Fort Providence, I could live with having a delay. I mean there is nothing in there for me to delay anyway, for Providence, but I do believe there should be a policy in place so that, if there was a policy then I would think the committee would be able to jump to the opportunity to maybe access some money for historical buildings or churches. Thank you.
Samuel Gargan on Committee Motion 24-12(3): To Adopt Recommendation No. 25
In the Legislative Assembly on November 26th, 1992. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 24-12(3): To Adopt Recommendation No. 25
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
November 25th, 1992
Page 162
Samuel Gargan Deh Cho
See context to find out what was said next.