Madam Chair, I would just like to provide some clarification. Fist of all, this is not a new or unusual way of dealing with these kind of issues at all. This is the standard way of doing it. It's the way every community would approach or be dealt with if they had a similar situation. Essentially what has happened is the money for the solid waste site over a number of years, that project was moved ahead a few years because of the amount of industrial use that's being made of the site and what's anticipated. It was moved ahead in the capital planning process. The money was identified as capital money. That was done through the process.

The community had a study done. That study reported back in December. The community has not yet decided whether they will follow the consultant's recommendations that they continue to use the site and try to find some fill to cover the waste in the site and deal with those problems or what route they will follow. In the meantime, the shoreline erosion situation was deemed to be an emergency and was brought forward to us to deal with as an urgency.

I want to remind Members, Mr. Dent in particular, we are not creating something new here. If you turn to page 19 in your book, you will see that we are giving back the $378,000 as capital money, which is the correct procedure. Then on page 9, we are asking for the money back as O and M. So the way we deal with capital and O and M is not an issue. It's the proper way of doing it. Any community that has an urgency or something that should be done in the public interest could follow the same procedure, make their case before us and we would have to assess whether or not it should be dealt with urgently. Each time we have someone bring forward a matter of urgency, we don't go out and call for proposals of anybody else who might have something like that. That's done during the business planning process, but if it's urgent, we deal with it as a one-time issue. This was brought to us. We have to look at the merits of the case that's presented to FMB and make a decision. It's decided on, on its own. If Aklavik or somewhere else had brought an emergency like this to us we would use exactly the same process. So, Mr. Chairman, what we are doing here is giving back the capital, asking for it as O and M and, as Mr. Steen has said, we will then spend the $378,000 this year and advise the community they are no longer eligible for the $100,000 a year special operating fund that could contribute towards this project.

Procedurally, it's being done correctly. I would hope the decision on whether or not this should go ahead is based on your understanding of getting on with and protecting the shoreline before we have an even more expensive problem on our hands, not as a way of saying he didn't quite follow the right procedure because we did follow the correct procedure. We need to look at this case as a matter of whether or not it's something we should do and makes good business sense to do right now. I believe it does, but we are better to spend $400,000 now than we are to put $100,000 a year for four years and meanwhile have the shoreline continuing to erode. Thank you.