Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is definitely a very serious issue that is before us. Mr. Speaker, I am aware of frustration levels of Members on this side of the House, who have tried to work and do the work of the people of the Northwest Territories.

The specific motion that is before us refers to the Financial Administration Act, directive 302. The complaint is that project dollars were moved from one riding to another. Mr. Speaker, the project of the Campbell Creek bridge happens to fall within my constituency, which is news to me. I thought it was Inuvik proper, but I guess the boundaries of Inuvik go beyond that. I also know that it falls in the area of land claims as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that has been building. Things have happened since we started the 14th Assembly. No matter what happens, we are all aware of the results of that.

Mr. Speaker, specifically, I want to refer to a copy of the letter Mr. Krutko received from the Minister. It talks about the second year of the reconstruction project at Campbell Creek, which is located on the Dempster Highway, which is approximately 20 kilometres from Inuvik. It says the project is funded under the department's highway reconstruction budget, and it identifies $5 million for 2001-02. It talks later on about:

"It was therefore necessary to defer the work on other projects within the budget. Two projects were deferred, culvert replacement and embankment widening."

Mr. Speaker, another area that has been discussed earlier in the House today was within the guidelines of the Financial Administration Act, I believe it is directive 302, guideline 4.3(b):

When a department makes any adjustment to a capital project which significantly affects the scope, $100,000 or 20 percent of the project budget, whichever is greater, or timing, for example a year or more delay of the project, the responsible Minister will advise the appropriate MLA and standing committee.

Again, it seems like we are going to go down to splitting hairs here. In the directive, we speak to the fact of the capital project, any change in the capital project. In the letter to Mr. Krutko, it refers to the Campbell River reconstruction project specifically. It refers to two projects that were deferred, culvert replacement at kilometre zero to kilometre 20, and embankment widening from kilometre 127.6 to kilometre 130.6 on the Dempster Highway.

Mr. Speaker, we get down to the splitting of hairs here because one can determine in the definition, or the letter -- and the gist of the letter refers to projects, and specifically identifies the Campbell Creek reconstruction project. It specifically identifies two other projects. I had the opportunity while this discussion was going on to look at the main estimates. Under the main estimates document, it speaks of a $5 million capital project, Dempster Highway, the whole length of it, Mr. Speaker.

I feel the same frustrations as Members on this side of the House. In fact, for a number of times in questions trying to seek out further information, we have had to try and put pieces together. We have had to approve things after the fact. Some things seem to have changed mid-stream, and that is why there is a discussion on living documents, Mr. Speaker.

Here is a concern that has come up and has triggered this. As I have heard other Members, when you pull the trigger, it is pretty hard to stop the bullet from coming out the end of the barrel.

It is a difficult situation, Mr. Speaker. Difficult because technically, one can argue the fact that we approved a $5 million figure in the main estimates documents, then we would have to lean towards what Minister Steen just stated, that it is one project.

In his letter, he does speak of a project funded under the Dempster Highway reconstruction budget of $5 million. How fine do we want to split hairs? Is this going to be a wake-up call to Cabinet to start providing more information or reacting in a more timely manner to Members on this side of the House? I am not sure. As well, I do not want to make a move on this motion without being very clear as to what the issue is.

I have other reasons why I could support this, Mr. Speaker. I have raised a number of critical issues in this Assembly and they have not been addressed to date. This motion is very specific, Mr. Speaker, very specific.

Right now, I am having difficulty supporting the motion as it sits. I understand where the Member is coming from, I understand the issue. If I wanted to split hairs very finely, Mr. Speaker, I could agree that the projects that are referred to are different projects than the main one that is identified in the main estimates, for the simple reason, Mr. Speaker, that in committee review of the main estimates, the numbers are broken down into further detail and specific numbers to projects are identified. But that document is not the one before us, Mr. Speaker. The main estimates document is the one we have to look at.

On one hand, I could say from the information I know of, each project had an identified figure that has been changed. However, to the letter of the law, Mr. Speaker, I would have difficulty supporting this at this time because this is a very specific motion to the moving of dollars on one project.

I must say to Cabinet that if I were to go to the other, as I see infractions or slip-and-sliding or dipping-and-diving, that I could easily support a motion of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, to the specific one here, with the transportation dollars being changed, it is very specific. We could get into legal definitions broken down. However, at this time, although I support where the Member is coming from on the issue -- all Members have that option and the right to raise issues in the House and make these motions -- I do not believe the Member has done it lightly.

I support his initiative but, at this time, because of the nature of the motion and the specific nature and having to follow the law, what we approved in this House, I unfortunately find myself in a position where I cannot support the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.