No.

Your motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

At one time it was agreed by Members of the standing committee on finance that we were going to deal with the capital estimates first and then the O and M secondly. Because of the commitment made by Members to go through that exercise based on that commitment, I find it very hard to look at a motion like this that suggests that the O and M of a

building should be introduced. It used to be that way that we deal with the O and M first and then before the conclusion we usually deal with the capital. But that is no longer the case.

What the motion suggests is that we are pre-empting what is supposed to be spent and reviewed in May or June. So I have problems with it. I cannot support it. It is suggesting to Members that the government or the Minister of Finance come up with the interim O and M before we approve the O and M for this year. I have difficulty because we agreed on the process already and on the one hand we are looking at reversing that process.

To the motion. Mr. Zoe.

Thank you. To the motion. Mr. Gargan.

Mr. Chairman, the motion is suggesting that we already have the building and there is a cost factor relating to the building itself. If the motion read that the surtax on expenditure of an estimated expenditure, then we might be able to get something, but the motion, as read, suggests that the building is already there and the cost is in black and white. I think the intent is to look at what the forecast would be for the expenditure once the building comes. But that is not what it is saying.

To the motion.

Question.

Question has been called. All those in favour of the motion? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

--- Carried

Legislative Assembly, buildings and works, headquarters, total region. Mr. Arngna'naaq.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Earlier, the Minister stated that the addition will not be 50,000 square feet to the building. I would like to know if he knows how many square feet it will be.

Thank you. Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the building was built at that size assuming that there would be division. That building is not designed to handle the whole of the Legislative Assembly for all of the time. If division does not occur, there would have to be some additions to that building. If division occurs and no extra space is required, we believe what would happen is that there would be some renovations inside to allow the support staff of the Executive to move into there. The Executive would move in on a full-time basis. It was built taking into consideration that division does occur, spacewise, on the understanding that if division did not occur, there would have to be some addition to the building. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Legislative Assembly, buildings and works. Mr. Lewis.

I have some difficulty accepting this explanation as to exactly what we are building. If that is the case, then for about six years we are going to be living in digs or just will not do the job. In other words, if division does not take place until the year 2000 or around about that time, then in five or six years we will be in bad shape. This is the message I am getting from what the Minister has just indicated.

It is my understanding that when we decided to build this thing, we were building something that was going to be there for 100 years. If division takes place, we would not have to worry about expansion if it is already there. We may be underoccupying it for a while, but over a hundred-year period it is going to be okay. The message I got when we discussed this is completely different from the one I have just heard. I am wondering if this is documented anywhere, because I have certainly watched the progress toward getting our own Legislative Assembly for a long, long time now. I have followed every little step. I am wondering if there is any written documentation that I could refer to, because I am very interested in the whole project and how it started and developed, et cetera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will be glad to provide the information to Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, cabinet has not decided if the Executive would move into the building permanently. It has been suggested to us, as we all know. What I was referring to is the support staff for the Executive moving into that building. If there is division -- and let me back this up -- there is room right now for 25 Members and some support staff to all of those 25 Members. If there is division of the Northwest Territories, then we assume that the Executive would move in there permanently. By saying permanently, I mean that would be their offices year round, as opposed to the suggestion right now which is that during session we would be resident in the building. Outside of session, we would be back, at the Laing Building. If division occurs, the Executive would move into the building permanently and there would be some changes made to the inside of the building to accommodate the support staff, most of whom presently reside in the Laing Building. This would not mean that there would be an increase in space. It would be a utilization of the space that is inside the building at the present time.

If there is no division, and the Legislative Assembly grows and the support staff in that Legislative Assembly grows there will be a need for phase two. I car hear Mr. Todd asking me,

what the phase two square footage is. We do not know, Mr. Chairman. We do not know what the increase would be.

Buildings And Works, Total Capital,

Agreed

Agreed.

--- Agreed

Legislative Assembly, Total Capital,

Agreed