Mr. Chairman, on this particular circumstance, we had a project that was in place. As well as the housing needs study, there was also an aged and handicapped program study done, subsequently. The need was never taken away, or else a need was never determined as not to be a need any longer. What happened is that we went in there and talked to people because we didn't have as much money as we would have liked to have had, due to the fact that the federal government had cut back on housing. This was one area where the discussion took place with the Gjoa Haven people who were there, they were convinced that perhaps they could live with a home care program; maybe not fully realizing that in accepting a home care program, we took that to mean that perhaps this is one project that we can delay, put aside or take out because we didn't have as much money in the housing area as we had before the $40 million cut.
So there wasn't anything to taking it out other than allowing us a better bottom line on our expenditures, but at the same time trying to give them something which was a home care program. Subsequently, they changed their mind and said they really didn't know when they had accepted the home care program, that inadvertently they were also agreeing to take the capital project out. So it could be termed as miscommunication or as not making sure that the right people were there at the meeting in the community.