Thank you, Madam Chairperson. I guess I will take back what I said about setting precedent, because I guess every time you look around we are having to bail out somebody or other, so this shouldn’t really set a precedent then because it’s just another bail out, Madam Chairperson.

The other thing I wanted to mention; I am little bit confused about how this is playing out. On one hand you have the Minister of FMB saying that most of the deficit goes back to the fact that they weren’t funded for ambulance services. Yet because they have run up deficits in the past five out of seven years, we...

Thank you, Mr. Dent. The motion is in order. To the motion. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Zoe. Mr. Minister.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. If the DCSB has been running up accumulated deficits since 1999, why are we just dealing with that in 2005? Thank you, Madam Chairperson.

Clause 5.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m not debating the expenditure. Given the fact that it is going to extend the highway two more weeks, I think it is probably money well spent. I would just like to see it maybe being more of a permanent fixture and the fact that maybe the Department of Transportation budgets for it and tries to get the road extended until April 1st next year and the years going forward because of all the activity that is happening in the region. That would be my suggestion. Thank you.

Does the committee agree to go back to clause 1?

Thank you, Madam Chairperson. According to the numbers that I have and other Members have, the ambulance services debt would account for $178,000 out of the $2 million. I am wondering if the Minister can clarify those numbers for me. Thank you.

Clause 3.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just wondering if the Minister could perhaps give us a bit of a better breakdown of what the additional $311,000 is for. All that it states here is the Mackenzie Valley winter road; it doesn’t have any detail of what the expenditure is for.