Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I too am somewhat torn when looking at this motion. I certainly heard the frustration from the Member for Mackenzie Delta and from the Member for North Slave.

I face another problem. I am not a lawyer, or perhaps even a linguist, to know exactly how to define the word "project". It really does appear to come down to a difference of opinion as to how to do that.

All that I can do is look at the letter from Minister Steen to the Member about the projects, as they were termed in that. Then I can look at the FAM and see how the word project is used there and listen to the case put by the Member for Mackenzie Delta and the responses by Mr. Steen and Mr. Handley.

I find myself torn because, in many cases, it does seem that the Member may have a case here. What it really comes down to, as Minister Handley said earlier today, a situation where we are splitting hairs.

I was somewhat disturbed a few minutes ago when Mr. Steen was talking about how Ministers respond to Members when talking about moving money around in their budgets and MLA notification. He talked about doing things as a matter of courtesy. He may not have intended it this way, but it almost sounded like this was over and above the call of what was necessary.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that notification should be done as a matter of course. I think the guidelines set out in the Financial Administration Act and the Financial Administration Manual, in our style of government, should be seen as an absolute bare minimum. I think there should not be a ten percent level. If we are talking about a $5 million project, ten percent is half a million dollars. That represents a huge contract in some of our constituencies.

I think it should be looked at on a case-by-case basis, and perhaps in some instances, the Minister should be prepared to contact Members when changes in the scope of projects are as small as $5,000 or $10,000. I would say that, if nothing else, I would hope Cabinet recognizes this is in fact a wake-up call. We are not satisfied with just hearing from Ministers when the absolute minimum requirements are met. We want to hear when projects in our constituencies are going to be significantly affected, whether that is $5,000 or $500,000.

Given our style of government, which is consensus, we have made a commitment to do business differently. We have made it a commitment to be more involved, of all Members, when we are making decisions about government in the Northwest Territories. One of the difficulties for Ministers is that means it takes a lot more time to do the job -- a lot more time.

It means that you have to spend a lot more time talking to Regular Members with changes in policies and plans, about making sure they are involved in the reasons for the change, and doing your best to get support for those changes rather than just going ahead and doing them. It is a very time-consuming job. To build a true consensus is very difficult. It is slow. One of the things many people have often said about the consensus government is that it is tremendously inefficient. In that way, it may be. However, when you build that consensus, then you know you have the will of the majority behind you. Spending the time to do that is absolutely important.

What I find really unfortunate is that this situation, with a motion coming forward like this, we have to take a look at the words and try and come up with what the definitions are. Really, I am not technically capable of deciding whether or not I can split the hairs finely enough to know exactly how a project is defined.

I can tell you that, morally, I feel I could support this motion. I think the Minister has failed to keep the Member adequately informed of changes that have affected a project in his constituency. As I understand it, the dollars that would have likely gone to a company in his constituency are now going to another constituency. That is an important change in our small economy.

Morally, I can see a reason to support this motion. I am having trouble deciding at this point whether technically, the merit is there. Mr. Speaker, I am hoping in the next few minutes as other Members speak, they will be able to bring some more clarity on the technical side to this issue. I have to have some more information to have my vote totally swayed. If it was a moral issue, I could say yes right now. I have to look at the technical way this motion is worded. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.