Well, I believe there definitely is a difference in regard to an access road in the community of Tsiigehtchic because of public safety and also a road upgrade in regard to enhancement of an existing road by adding another lane. For me, it is the development of infrastructure in the community to the benefit of a Minister and his riding.

So again, I would like to ask the Minister, under the Financial Administration Act, is there a process that you follow when it comes to allowing for supplementary appropriations in Ministers' ridings?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, let me say again that the Financial Administration Act, the provisions for special warrants, supplementary funding does not speak to Ministers' ridings versus other people's ridings and so on. They are all treated the same way. If the situation in Tsiigehtchic is an emergency or there is a danger to the public, then I would like to know more about that and we will deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is amazing the basic resemblance of a similar supp, a dollar amount that was in a previous supp, for the construction of the winter road from Inuvik to Tuktoyaktuk in regard to a similar arrangement of using the argument that it was to access a gravel source, build a road to the gravel site. Again, here we are talking about the hauling of gravel from a particular pit in regards to a similar arrangement.

I would like to ask the Minister, is this a way that the community can eventually develop infrastructure out of their communities, such as roads to their gravel sources?

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, the project was undertaken because there was an emergency, an urgency to repair that road, the existing infrastructure. If we did not do it, there is a possibility that the community would be denied use of its sewage lagoon and its solid waste facility and so on. The part of the special warrant was to replace the gravel that MACA had borrowed from Transportation. The commitment was made when this project was undertaken to replace that gravel. So it was treated as one project. We did not pull out little pieces and say okay, let's do this differently.

In any case, we would have had to have had, even if we did break it out, which would be an unusual practice, we would have had to have a supp or some means of financing at this fiscal year, because we could not wait until after April 1st, when next year's budget is approved in order to haul the gravel. It would have been too late. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, if this had gone through the regular process, then the next appropriation for the 2003-04 year does not begin until April 1st. The absolute earliest you could begin the work would have been in April. It is quite possible we would not have been able to replace the gravel as was required, so the work was done this year, since the commitment had already been made in any case. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Lafferty.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lafferty is losing me on some of his rationale and which months he is talking about, but we did not know the condition of the road, as Mr. Steen has said, until after the engineers had looked at it and issued their report. The engineers were in the community in June, and issued their report some time after that. Then following that we have gone through and done some of the work already. The intention here is to go to public tender in December for the gravel haul. It will not take until the end of March to get that tender out. I would expect that that gravel haul is going to happen in January, February or March, somewhere in there, but it will certainly happen during the winter months. Thank you

Thank you, Mr. Handley. Mr. Lafferty.

Mr. Lafferty, are you moving a motion? Is that your intention?

There has been a motion circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Handley.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to get some clarification on what this motion means. It says to defer further consideration at this time. I don't know what the intention is here. Defer it until when?

The motion on the floor is strictly to defer it. There is no time limit on it. If it is deferred it will be deferred until the House is ready to reintroduce it. To the motion. Mr. Braden.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to seek some clarification. I had understood that we had already covered this item yesterday. We had voted on it. I do not have Hansard in front of me, but I believe we are on record as having approved this particular item, so I do not know -- does our practice allow us to take something like that and put it aside? Is there some other part of the approval process for the supplementary where the motion could come in? I am not arguing against it, at least not yet, Mr. Chairman, but I am looking for process and procedure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Braden, we did follow proper procedure. The Member requested to go back to this item and it was granted, so we are on this item as we speak so the motion is in order. To the motion. Question has been called. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is defeated. We are on page 11, Municipal and Community Affairs, operations expenditure, regional operations, special warrants. Mr. Krutko.