Thank you, Madam Chair. With regard to the infrastructure and the shoreline erosion project, this government has spent in excess of $1.9 million, almost $2 million on this project. Knowing this is a problem, why is it showing up through a supplementary appropriation? Why wasn't this part of the budget? You can't do any work with regard to the shoreline. There have been expenditures made almost back to 1970 on this. Why is there not better planning for this? Why wasn't this part of the capital planning process? It's not previously authorized, but this problem has been there for some time and there have been ongoing work and expenditures all the way back to 1991. Why was this not put into the main estimates, knowing this was an ongoing cost and it continues to show up and there have been previous expenditures in this area? I would like to know from the Minister.
David Krutko on Bill 11: Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2002-2003
In the Legislative Assembly on March 12th, 2003. See this statement in context.
Bill 11: Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 3, 2002-2003
Item 19: Consideration In Committee Of The Whole Of Bills And Other Matters
March 12th, 2003
Page 735
See context to find out what was said next.