Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The equipment was airport's, I guess, and whatever airports fell under at that time. But wouldn't it be prudent or smart of this government, instead of going into other remote communities, spending more money than the equipment is worth to get the equipment out of there, to just leave it in the community and negotiate with the community, the contractor, whoever's taking over the contract, to say we'll give it to you for a dollar. Or if we're going to spend $10,000 to get a truck out of Colville Lake that's worth $500, why doesn't the government just get rid of that whole headache of public tendering and however they dispose of equipment and just allow the community the option, the first right of refusal even, to say whether they want that equipment? Is that a possibility? Thank you.
Robert Villeneuve on Question 447-15(5): Surplus Equipment In Remote Communities
In the Legislative Assembly on March 7th, 2007. See this statement in context.
Supplementary To Question 447-15(5): Surplus Equipment In Remote Communities
Question 447-15(5): Surplus Equipment In Remote Communities
Item 6: Oral Questions
March 6th, 2007
Page 1287
See context to find out what was said next.