Thanks. Again, speaking about the process here – and that’s what I’ve been concerned about all along – yes, I asked for a plain language document in the House repeatedly last week to the Minister. Of course, he avoided answering the question the best he could, but what the public saw and what they responded to me was the fact that we needed a plain language document out there in the public, no matter how funny it seems to the Minister, so we can get these types of input and value on these projects, because some of the issues, I have to tell you, I’m not fully experienced in these areas. So I would have liked to have seen inside, but we get this after the fact. So this document has slithered onto my table while we do this and, quite frankly, I’m disappointed by how late it is. I asked for this last week before we’d make this. So we get this after the fact. This is like rear-view consultation. How many times do we hear about, well, you didn’t consult with us? Now we get a chance that we get the consultation document after the fact, and it’s quite offensive, to be honest.

If you compare the two documents, which we haven’t been given a chance to compare, you’ll notice the new document on the risk matrix has 42 items as a problem, but the document we were even handed at lunchtime, if I may go so far as saying, has 41 items. So I haven’t been able to compare the two documents to find out what’s been added or what’s been changed or what’s missing.

The department knew that this question was coming a week ago. What stopped them from providing this particular information in advance so we could table this in a proper way? They knew this

decision was coming on the highway and the fact is the public should not make a mistake. This is not against the highway. This is against the process and against the fact that this is an issue with the process. Thank you.