Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, very clearly this motion, titled Censuring the Actions of the Executive Council, to me is indicative of the level of frustration on this side of the House. I think this particular issue referred to in the motion is what would be seen to be the straw that broke the camel's back.

It speaks to a very specific issue. My own sense is that the level of frustration has been building for some time and there have been a lot of issues out there, in my case, that need me to look at this motion and what it is suggesting we do.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate and unacceptable that the Cabinet chose to deliberately ignore the Public Service Act. I think it is very unacceptable that they would engage in political patronage.

Committees have repeatedly been bypassed on issues. We have written letters. We have begged and pleaded to be involved, but yet it continues to happen. There seems to be an unfortunate focus of the government, in many cases, on form over substance.

The issue of movement of monies; how it is moved, where it is moved. We are dealing with one of the biggest supps in legislative history. A lot of that money could have been and should have been in the business plans.

Mr. Speaker, in a lot of cases, the perception of Cabinet has been that some are very high-handed, dismissive and arrogant. Is this a violation of the FAA? I do not know.

The Member has made a good case. He has been very passionate about it, but very clearly this motion is a wake-up call to Cabinet that all is not well in the House the people of the Northwest Territories built. There are issues that are out there. Do not look at this as a simple matter, that it is indicative and symptomatic of other issues.

This is consensus government. We have very few tools at our disposal to actually get the attention of Cabinet. They say they "take stuff under advisement." they will "give it the consideration it deserves, we will think about it."

The reality is this is a lever that we have, and for whatever reasons Members have around this House, it has come to the point where there is a motion of censure on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it is something I think we have to look at. Whether this motion is defeated or passed, the reality is we have some work to do to keep things together. This is symptomatic. It leads to the broader question that with this motion of censure, given the time of our term, that the issue of a mid-term review be put on the table. This is a very serious matter.

I think it is a time for people to listen to this, for other Members to take note that this is, while very specific in the content, Mr. Speaker, symptomatic of some of the broader problems. There are issues here that have to be dealt with. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Nitah.

Thank you, Mr. Nitah. To the motion. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. To the motion. The honourable Member for the Deh Cho, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make a couple of comments on this motion. Many of my colleagues have expressed that there is a high level of frustration. I will have to agree with that.

However, I have to clarify. I think that a lot of the frustration is coming from one department and having to live with plans that were set by the 13th Assembly. Many of us have been pounding the table on this issue and trying to get the plans adjusted, really to no avail.

Yet we see and hear from colleagues that there are changes and monies being transferred. I have to say that the current practice is really unacceptable. I have been in positions where Ministers have gone into my riding, into my communities, and had meetings without notifying me. I do not think that is proper practice.

I have had Ministers go into my communities and make deals and sign agreements without notifying me, putting me in a position where I was very uncomfortable.

However, I think it is going to come down to what is really the definition of a project. That is something that is going to make my decision. I have not had the opportunity to research and look this whole issue up. It is something that has come up quite unexpectedly.

I do not believe that I can see a technical violation under the Financial Administration Act as explained by the Members of this House.

I am going to be voting against it on that basis. However, I wanted to state that all of this could have been avoided if some of the Ministers would have provided common courtesy to Members on this side of the House. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the motion. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Mr. Dent.

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.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Braden.

Mr. Speaker, when issues of this nature come before us, we are asked to, as my colleagues have already stated very well, look not only at the particulars of it but the underlying or overriding message that a given issue or proposal might send. Then we take our stand and we live or die on the consequences.

I try to pick my hills, Mr. Speaker. Which are the ones worth battling for and which may be putting one's political arm at risk? My colleagues have already gone over a number of areas here. I guess on the specific issue here, I tried to see where it is that the overall project is being threatened or dramatically altered up to its completion. I do not see anything here that says that something has been eliminated or changed that dramatically. It seems that essentially this is, because of the way tenders and contracts and things have come about, it seems more expedient for the department to have managed them in a certain way, that meant moving the resources at this time for part of the project somewhere else.

It would seem, and it is even indicated in the motion, that it is a matter of one year on a specific project. It is not as if something is going to be left idling year after year. I do not see where mortal harm has been done to the completion of a major transportation initiative in that region.

Like my colleagues, I do see the signal that underlies this, that Ministers and the Executive need to be ever mindful of the fact that the authority that they carry today was given to them by all of us when we first met at the start of our business early in the year 2000. That authority was not given lightly. It was given with a degree of trust that they would honour the mandate of communicating, consulting and moving forward with us on what would seem to be relatively routine matters.

In some areas, we have been disappointed. There has been some discussion, Mr. Speaker, about that whole realm of consensus government and the style with which we treat it, and with which a number of other Canadians look at us with some envy at the freedoms we have. Along with that freedom comes responsibility to acknowledge the relationship that we must care for, nurture and protect.

I see in this motion an underlying message that the more effort the Executive puts into nurturing and strengthening this relationship, the less we will be inclined or required to do this kind of thing, and the more defence our system will build against such things as party politics, which some people see as an alternative. I do not. I would rather see us protect the system of government that we have now. This is one way we can do it.

As I said when I started out, Mr. Speaker, I pick my hills. This is not one I wish to advance on, and I will not be supporting it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. To the motion. The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are several questions here, but I think in the end this boils down to one very fundamental question, and I guess that is whether or not the government violated the FAA. I think if you look at the letter of the legislation, Mr. Speaker, you can clearly make a case that they did not violate, technically, the letter of the law; but I certainly feel that they violated the intent.

I think the intent is there to protect Members' constituencies and the people in those constituencies that we serve. I certainly understand Mr. Krutko's frustration.

I think one thing is clear for me, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we never needed to get to this point. I think that when Mr. Krutko raised the issue at the beginning of this session, initially he was told, "Well, you were wrong. Nothing moved from any constituency to another, so essentially, you are out of line here." Then the Minister went back and checked and, in fact, Mr. Krutko was correct and a project had been deferred in one constituency and did take place in another.

Further to that, he was then told, "Well, in any case, there was no violation of the Financial Administration Act, so we did not have to tell you, but we have sent you a letter."

I think the attitude here was more the thing that irked the Member. I probably think the Financial Administration Act was not violated, but I think principles of good judgement and courtesy to Members were violated by the department. I certainly understand why Mr. Krutko has raised this issue.

I think we have to be very careful here with the consensus process that we hold dear, because I think it has the possibility of being on its last legs if we see more of these kinds of things.

That would be unfortunate, because I think it really comes down to the amount of effort that Ministers are willing to put into the job that they do. It would not have taken much for Mr. Steen to contact Mr. Krutko's office and clear this up, give him some heads-up so that he would be able to inform his constituents. I think that would have been the courteous and the correct thing to do. I am disappointed that it was not done in this case.

Unfortunately, since I do not technically think the Financial Administration Act was violated, I cannot support the motion. However, I do believe the government violated principles of good judgement and courtesy to Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. To the motion. The honourable Member for Hay River North, Mr. Delorey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this motion. As it stands right now, I was hoping somebody could give some definition as to what we are really talking about here, this project and how much violation there is.

From the understanding that I have right now, I do not think I will be supporting this motion. In saying that, I do agree with many of the comments that have been made on this side of the House.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, shortly after I became a Member and there was a huge project going on in Hay River with the construction of the West Channel bridge. That project did come under budget and there was $400,000 taken from that budgeted project and moved north. The first thing that came to my mind was why was I not given a chance to use that money somewhere? It was already budgeted for the riding. It sure would have been nice to have had some input as to where that money could be used. There was none. That probably was not a violation. It did not change the scope of the project, but when money is budgeted for a riding, it would certainly be nice to be able to use all of that money.

I know we would all like to have more capital dollars to spend in our ridings and stuff to come by. One of the most frustrating things I find in dealing with Cabinet or this government is to sit in a committee meeting and to have a department come before us with an expenditure of any amount -- $500,000, $1,000, $1 million -- and they have all the project work done on it, they have all the consultation work done on it, they throw figures before us and in a matter of a half an hour, we have to try and justify it and try and say yes, it is a good expenditure. They did it all right. We have to prove that.

It is extremely frustrating when we try to get a project in our ridings addressed and get money for it, there is never any money anywhere.

I can appreciate the frustrations that are on this side of the House. I felt the same thing. As far as is the act truly violated? Are we splitting hairs? I do not think I could support the motion on splitting hairs, but like most Members, I do feel the intent behind this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Delorey. To the motion. Mr. Krutko, you have the final word.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish the Members would have more of an open heart and understanding of the whole process that we go through from the planning process, business plans, where a department comes in and presents the facts. There is $5 million for a highway project and these are the projects. There are 23 projects. There is going to be a bridge project, there is going to be a culvert project, there is a widening project, there is a crushing project, every one of those projects is known within a committee.

We are aware of those projects. If those projects are acknowledged to ourselves as Members on this side of the House through the public review process, the business planning process, we are aware that there were supposed to be 23 projects and now there are 21.

If that can happen to me, any of the other ridings that are affected by highways, Highway No. 3, Highway No. 8, Highway No. 1, a similar process could be going on right now where we are not even involved. We agreed to the main estimates based on the dollar item, but the dollar item is based on a number of projects within that dollar item.

In the case of the $5 million for the Dempster Highway, there were 23 projects. There was a list given and presented to Members through the business planning process. We are all aware of it, so for us to say that we were not aware of it is not true. For a department to stand there and say, "Well, sorry, it is $5 million I am going to put into a highway system and I can do whatever I like with that $5 million. If I want to build a bridge over the Peel River, go for it, because I will support it any day, but that is a $5 million project."

In that case, the department can go ahead and do it without telling the Member for Inuvik or any other Member who may be affected that a capital project was moved from one area to the other. It is clear from the Minister's letter. He specifically states projects in his letter four times. One referring to the reconstruction project on the Campbell Creek bridge, and those projects that were funded on the Dempster Highway. It says "these projects". It does not say the project. It says "these projects".

I think it is clear that they are trying to fluff the issue by saying any adjustment to a capital project which significantly affects the scope of the work, and it says "any adjustment to a capital project which significantly affects the scope of the work." It has affected the scope of the work. There are two projects where the Minister stated that $950,000 has been moved from the area on the Dempster Highway from the south side of the Dempster to the north side of the Dempster, $950,000.

The majority of that work is in my riding and it has now been moved to the Inuvik area. I think that for us to state that we are not aware of projects in general, we are aware. Using Highway No. 3 for instance, there is a widening project going on at one end of the thing. There is a bunch of work planned for the Ingraham Trail. There are all these projects which we debated, discussed and spoke on in the business planning process.

If we can state, going out of the planning process, approving an amount of money, regardless if it is $5 million or $55 million, those dollars were earmarked for specific projects within the scope of those moneys.

Again, I would like to ask my colleagues to support me on this motion because I believe a violation has taken place. If we do not stand up for this now...This was a major issue in the 13th Assembly. There was a motion passed with regard to the whole area of budget adjustments. Again, we are back in the 14th Assembly, debating the same thing where that side of the House is expending monies anyway they wish without informing any Members on this side of the House. With that, I ask for your support, colleagues, because if this can happen to me, it can happen to you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Is the House ready for the question? All those in favour, please signify. Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Item 16, motions. Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Bill 6 has had first reading. Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Minister responsible for Justice, Mr. Antoine.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Bill 7 has had first reading. Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Steen.

Mr. Speaker,

I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that Bill 8, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you. The motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? Thank you. All those opposed? Thank you. The motion is carried. Bill 8 has had first reading. Item 17, first reading of bills. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Steen.