Inaction and omission is also inaction. The Minister is getting around this rule by saying well we're coming to you now and we're saying we want to do it in another place. I don't think that is what the spirit of what this rule is.

I've always thought that myself, as a Member of this Assembly, comes here and we review our budgets, we debate our budgets, and we vote on that. I have to have comfort when I'm leaving this place that the money that I voted on will be spent the way it was voted on. The government should not be allowed to just hold off and not even have to bring to us any explanation as to why they could not spend that money. I could understand if now the Minister comes up and says we tried to renovate the Yellowknife TTC and we found that it's not worth renovating or that it would cost twice more than what it is, or whatever. If there's a construction, structural or rational reasons as to why they cannot spend this money and they had to lapse it, I could understand how then they would have to come and ask us for permission. But surely the spirit of us voting for projects here couldn't be that we're just giving them blanket authority. You know, you could come and ask us for $2.5 million or $5 million, whatever, to build a specific project, but we don't really care whether you build it or not. We don't care if you lapse it for the whole year. Surely that's not what we're saying.

In November, after we have approved this, you can't be saying we just found this money; this money for this building that didn't get spent. I think we'll just move it around. All we have to do is just go back and ask for the Assembly to approve the same money all over again. Surely that's not an ethical thing to do. That can't be what was meant here, and the Minister should appreciate that we have every reason to interpret this rule in that way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.