Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think there are various viewpoints on this issue, and while there may be certainly some truth to the fact that Cabinet had a responsibility to inform the Members and to inform the committee, I think if I look at this historically, these projects were approved last year. The youth facility was approved by Cabinet last year. We approved in the budget the renovation costs of $4 million. To me it is just good governance to have Cabinet be conscientious about what they are doing, and if it looks like there is an ability to do it better, then sometimes you have to take that step. In my opinion there is a certain amount to be gained by the process that Cabinet is following here. We are told that the option is there to save $5 million if the project is speeded up to four years over seven years. They could have taken the other avenue of saying, we really do need a new facility, but we will take seven years. The money does not change then. Nothing changes, other than the name. The name becomes new versus renovation.

With respect to the project itself, there should not be an argument. There is an argument as to the process that was used, but Cabinet repeatedly have issued a note to us, they have apologized, and I think in the interests of the project, we should proceed. I am not sure what it will accomplish if we go back to the drawing board on this and do all sorts of consultations, et cetera. I am of the opinion that the youth facility, as I say, was approved last year. I think there is rationale for putting it where it is, and I will go with that. I will be voting against this motion.