Thank you. Pretty much in line with the comments we’ve heard to date, Madam Chair, or to this moment. So I’ll just say that certainly the big item here, the Inuvik-Tuk highway proposed expenditure of $2.5 million, the big thing for me here is process. Although I have other fundamental concerns, which I’ll get into in the detail, this is clearly fundamental work that needs to be done, and we must have known about it for some time now and to be brought forward at the last minute and expect it to take priority when we have, in our current fiscal situation, so many priorities that are already being shelved without debate is unacceptable to me. So that’s a major process flaw here. But regardless of that, there are many, many fundamental issues that I have with this proposed expenditure for this fiscal year of which we have six weeks remaining and I will get to those in the detail. Mahsi.
Bob Bromley on Committee Motion 6-17(2) Concurrence Of Td 3-17(2), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012, Carried
In the Legislative Assembly on February 14th, 2012. See this statement in context.
Committee Motion 6-17(2) Concurrence Of Td 3-17(2), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2011-2012, Carried
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
February 13th, 2012
See context to find out what was said next.