I would like to respond if I could, and request some clarification. I believe the Minister said that it is her understanding that in these four months, they will not require any additional money for forced growth, so that is why it was not put in. My understanding from committee briefings was that they were told they did not have to put forced growth into the interim projections. Although it would factor in here, they had not been able to do it in time. It is not a question, I guess, but a point. There seems to be some discrepancy, but I am glad the Minister has cleared this up.
As far as the functional review of capital projects, I am still concerned about what seems to be "just in case" planning and design money. It does not seem like this fits the category of an expenditure that is urgently required within the interim period. I do have some concerns. DCN has been addressed. It was mentioned that 384 kilobytes are needed for Telehealth to operate and work. I am wondering if it was known at the outset, when we started to pump money into this project, that this would be the case and there would be a downfall in this area as far as providing it to all of the communities. It seems that if we can only provide it to a few of the communities then it is not really doing what we need it to do.
The Minister mentioned that it was conceived with good intentions. That is fine, but as one of my colleagues mentioned here, some roads are paved with good intentions, and I would say that Highway No. 3 fits the bill there, Mr. Krutko, considering it is not paved. Just a comment. Thank you.