Mr. Speaker, I would like to proceed to speak to the motion. Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of things in here. I think one of the "Whereas", that says "Whereas directive 302 of the Financial Administration Manual requires the Minister responsible to advise MLAs" and so on.

That is correct with regard to a project. A project, though, is as they are laid out in the capital plan. We cannot mix a project and a contract up. There is nothing that refers to a contract.

What Mr. Krutko and Mr. Lafferty are referring to, is really a contract within a project. The project is still the same size. It is still the same scope. It is still the same timing. The only thing that has moved around is the contract. There is nothing in the Financial Administration Act or the Financial Administration Manual that refers to moving contracts around.

This is more than a technicality, Mr. Speaker. This is important because it is the way we build our main estimates and the way we describe our projects. It has to be standardized because we cannot begin to use interpretations that Members may choose to put on it. We have to use what is conventionally described as a project.

I am of the view, after reviewing this matter, that the Minister responsible for Transportation has not violated the Financial Administration Act or the Financial Administration Manual. There is no evidence at all of that. As far as I can tell, the project is still the same size. What he has done is move money from one contract to another contract, but all within the same project.

Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the Members is that this is serious. This is not something we should treat lightly. In this case, there has been no violation of the Financial Administration Act. We have to use the standard definition of a project. This motion is serious in censuring the actions of the Executive Council, but there has been no violation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Members to look very carefully at this and consider the definitions that we have to work by. We have to have rules that are standard and that we can all agree to. They cannot simply be based on a Member's interpretation of what a contract is and what a project is. It is a standard definition.

Mr. Speaker, as I say, this is a serious matter and I ask the Members to treat it seriously. Has a project been changed? The answer is no. Has there been violation of the FAA or the FAM? The answer is no. Therefore, this motion of censure is invalid. Thank you.