Thank you, Madam Chair. While we can't have a question and answer session on motions, I have some questions as well. At this point, I am inclined to support the motion based on the letter that was sent by Minister Handley to the Standing Committee on Governance and Economic Development. I believe that letter said the capital project from which this money is being transferred was for the relocation of the solid waste site in Tuk. So this Legislative Assembly approved money for the relocation of the solid waste site in Tuk. I believe that it was presented as something that was important to see...I have just been corrected. The letter came from the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. In the letter, we were told that the capital project was done because of a proposed development of an Inuvik-Tuktoyaktuk highway which would have made it feasible for a new site. We've since found out that there was no urgency to this. This project appears to have been planned simply because it was feasible. It sounds like the community wanted the landfill site to be moved farther away from the community than what it currently is, but there wasn't a safety reason, there doesn't appear to be a capacity reason. Apparently the capacity is such that they have more than 10 years left in the current site. So if it's not safety or protection of asset, how does that project in the first place fit into the corporate capital planning process?
We've been told that all the capital projects that this government approves will be ranked according to certain specific criteria. Many of us have wondered whether or not that is the case and whether or not there isn't some politics still being played in allocations. The fact that this is now seen as no longer urgent, it doesn't have to be done and we are told it doesn't have to be done because there is no need to relocate the landfill site. The letter says the reason for doing it was simply because it was feasible. Now that it's not needed, we are in a situation where we have capital dollars, money that's been approved for the capital project, that's no longer necessary.
If we are following the corporate capital planning process, then my understanding is that those capital dollars should go back into the pot to be reallocated according to the existing criteria that we use in the corporate capital planning process. If the project in Tuk ranks highest in the pot after that money has been put back in there, then we should be told that and that's where this money should go. Instead, we've been told that this is being done at the community's request. There has been no reference in any of the information that's been provided to Regular Members about there being an assessment done on this project according to the established criteria for corporate capital planning. These are capital dollars and I don't think it makes sense to say we are moving money from capital into O and M so we don't have to go through that process. I think that if we started out in capital, if it's going back into the pot, it has to be looked at in terms of the process that we have established.
At this point, that's my concern and it has always been my concern about the way this project has been handled. Nobody in government has ever said the project has been ranked for importance. It's always been told to me that the reason for doing it is the community requested it. So based on what I know now, unless I hear some arguments from the other side to counter what we have been told so far in writing, I am inclined to support this motion. Thank you.