Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few comments before we get into page by page on the information and data that is presented in the Strength at Two Levels report. Much of the data or information which refers to activities or tasks in Inuvik in many cases is not correct, and in discussing why with representatives of the organizations and groups in Inuvik, there seemed to be a lack of consultation by whoever was on this task group with the organization representatives in Inuvik, and as such, much of the data is skewed or misrepresented. Also, when we were in the ABC committee talking about some of the aspects that the committee was looking at -- the health boards and Arctic College -- in both cases representatives of these groups in Inuvik stated point-blank that they were not consulted and that the information in the reports was wrong. My point, I guess, is that I have a little bit of a problem taking the information that is presented in this report at face value, and seemingly every time I refer to something, I have to question myself whether it is true or not. In many cases where information was misrepresented, I have been able to get true facts; we will talk to those when we go into the detail. That is basically my point: that the credibility of some of the information in these reports may not be there. Mahsi.
Fred Koe on Tabled Document 9-12(2): "strength At Two Levels"
In the Legislative Assembly on February 25th, 1992. See this statement in context.
Tabled Document 9-12(2): "strength At Two Levels"
Item 18: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
February 24th, 1992
Page 135
Fred Koe Inuvik
See context to find out what was said next.