Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Members will remember that when I brought forward the submission or when the supplementary came forward in June, there was money in there for the operations and maintenance of a separate legal aid clinic, but there was no money to actually fit up the clinic. All it was was the O and M costs. So had we not agreed to do a special warrant, we would be waiting until this session right now to be considering this money before we could even advertise for space for the clinic. So there would be no possible way that we could get the clinic working this fall. We would be talking about January or February. So there would have been no point to having the $266,000 that I got to run it because we wouldn't be able to run it anywhere.

So I don't know what the expectation was, but if we didn't approve the tenant improvements in June, if we didn't go ahead with a special warrant, then it couldn't possibly be done until this session right now. Since we haven't finished the supp, that means that we wouldn't be able to go out with the process to find space for this clinic until probably sometime next week. For another 18 days on top of that, we're talking about moving in at the earliest in January or February. I'm still hoping that we're going to beat that timetable. We had been aiming for October 1st. We've obviously missed that date now, but I still am hopeful that we will have the clinic open before Christmas and that we will, in fact, be able to start to deal with the backlog in legal aid clients. So there really is no other way to handle the expenditure other than through special warrant if you want to meet the timetable that was set when I came forward with the O and M monies.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess again thinking through, the Minister said June and I guess it is kind of perplexing. Whereas we approved money for bodies in order to put new legal aid personnel out there, then at that time, why did we not approve a particular chunk of money for the office? It seems like we did one element while not foreseeing that the other element would be required; seeing that chances are we'd have to go out and do this process. So I think -- and the Minister I have no doubt will correct me -- the Minister did mention that the original submission went out in June, he had said earlier and I would like to see him correct me or whatnot or confirm the date in June that they had originally approached FMB for the money for the fit-up, not for the money for the people, the fit-up portion. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Dent.

Mr. Chairman, in May, at the same time and the same submission that I asked for the O and M money, I asked for the fit-up money. FMB would not accept that submission at that time. They accepted the bodies, but not the cost for fitting up the space and asked that there be further work done with Public Works to make sure that the estimates were in fact accurate. That work was done and then the revised submission went to FMB either late July or the first week in August. I'm not sure exactly what the date was, but it would be in that two-week period. That's the timetable that I had to work to because there was a two-week deadline. So if you have one FMB meeting and something gets kicked out, you have to put together another submission. By that time you are past the deadline for the next meeting. So you are talking about four weeks, at the earliest, the next submission can be considered. We were past session, so we had finished the June session before there was any hope of getting the FMB submission in. So there was always an expectation that if we were going to live to meet the fall, we were going to have to have a special warrant to approve the capital expenditure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you. I guess from a Member's point of view, it certainly would have been nice to deal with this issue in the May-June session. I can appreciate that FMBS may have screened it out, but this is a decision before the House and I would have thought that hearing some of the timelines of the organization in May, how we were able to get our numbers together for the bodies portion, the workers portion for the May session. I find that almost kind of strange not to have been brought to us in May. I'm sure there is a reason why it wouldn't have been brought to Members for a full discussion during the House in May.

I'm sure there are steps that FMBS must have the final say before it sees all Regular Members, but I'm a little surprised that things couldn't have come directly to us in that particular case, noting the time windows. I would challenge the Minister by saying that I thought he said September it would be open, not October. So there were tight timelines at the time. I'm just a little surprised and I think I go back to what I in my earlier comment in that I think we're dealing with a special warrant issue and the fact that it seems to fly very low under the radar of Regular Members and it just seems to pop up long after the money has been spent. The fact is, in this particular case we don't have that space -- we may through a contract have that space -- but we don't have that space as of today and that money isn't being spent as of today on a fit-up at this moment. Potentially on a fit-up, I should say as well, because it's not really clear whether we're paying for this space or not. When it comes to the fit-up, that still has to flush itself out. Mostly a comment, but I have no doubt our loyal Minister will have some comments to provide back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Dent.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, when that submission initially came forward in May, the FMBS was inclined to reject it because they said it wasn't complete enough particularly on the capital side. So I was able to convince my colleagues that at the very least we should be able to approve the money for the operations, and that I would come back and I sought their approval to be able to come back with a separate submission on the cost of tenant improvements because I explained to them the timelines. If it wasn't approved at that meeting, it wouldn't make it into the supplementaries in June and we wouldn't be looking at it until now and there would probably be no way that we would have the office in operation for more than one month in this current fiscal year. So my colleagues agreed that I could have the money in the supplementary for the operations, but I was directed to come back with a more detailed estimate of what it was going to cost for the tenant improvements. So I'm not sure if it was mentioned in the June session that there was going to be a further submission for tenant improvements. It may have been mentioned. It probably wasn't outlined that it would have to come forward as a special warrant in any case. But with the government moving ahead with only the operations and maintenance costs, there was clearly only one thing that was outstanding; that was the cost of tenant improvements. I had been, at that point in time, directed to come back with another submission for tenant improvements. Based on that, that's where the $115,000 comes from and that's why it was approved prior to the close of the RFP process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't speak with 100 percent certainty, but I don't recall the words in the May/June session noting somewhere in the middle that thank you for approving this money and, by the way, we're going to be asking for more money very quickly to make this happen. Maybe that was just foolishness on our part that we did not foresee that there would be additional costs or whatnot, but again, as I've said before, I could be mistaken on this particular part, but I don't recall the Minister or anyone saying that a further submission specifically related to Legal Aid would come forward. So I can't say for certain, but it doesn't sound familiar. I think that's all for now, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a final thought here. When you consider $266,000 approved in the last supplementary appropriation and $115,000 this time -- granted it's capital budget -- one could only wonder what we could do with that kind of money if we were to give it to private lawyers to take on files. I used to have Legal Aid files when I used to practice and many cases are approved for $1,000, $1,500 and $2,000 for these sorts of cases. Most lawyers in town are willing to take on files at a real discounted rate. Actually, it's way too low now for them, to the point where they've determined that they're not going to take as many as they could had the tariff been able to go up a little. I understand the Minister's argument that there is a sense of urgency here, because we need to have the second clinic in order to serve the needs of these clients, but I have to argue that it's not like there aren't other ways until this gets sorted in a regular budgetary session where we could argue the points and debate about whether or not the second clinic is more desirable to raising the tariff of the money that government is paying to private lawyers to take on some of these files and what's the offsetting advantage in not having to have our own government office open, a second Legal Aid office open. But where there are conflicts, private lawyers could take on cases and give them more. It could have been $20 an hour more or something and that could have settled this problem. With the way this has been introduced in a supplementary budget on a piecemeal basis, and Mr. Hawkins and I and lots of others sit on the Social Programs committee and I don't recall that we had a debate about whether the direction the government is taking is the one that we had full knowledge of. We sort of approved the extra lawyers because how would you say no to that? I mean, we've been arguing for extra legal services for years. It's just that we didn't have the full picture to really argue about how to support it, to what extent and with full information. Now we are where we are.

The second point is what Mr. Pokiak was raising, Mr. Chairman, what you were raising on this side is important because the information that Mr. Roland gave us -- and I understand he's not able to be here -- but it's the government's information to us that said there were concerns raised by the client; the client being the Legal Services Board, I'm sure, or Justice, or whoever the client is. There were concerns raised about the layout of the office and privacy of the clients. It's our understanding that the landlord was able to resolve this. I'm reading almost verbatim from the information that Mr. Roland gave us, that the landlord agreed to on the space configuration and application of a window treatment. Those are extra deals that the landlord gave. More importantly, the landlord agreed to pay for the majority of the costs for tenant improvements and that this deal that the government got is much lower than market value for that sort of space. Why is that important?

I know Mr. Dent is saying well, we asked for $115,000 because that's what we thought it would be and we had to ask for it under special warrant because it was an emergency, but we don't know if we're going to spend it or not. Okay, well, if we get a deal with the landlord we're going to spend less. What kind of budgeting process is that? We're sitting here saying okay. What we're arguing is this is a lot of money to spend. With $115,000 you could buy a mobile home in my riding with that. You could hire a brand-new lawyer with that. Now you're saying okay, we needed $115,000 to renovate. Renovate, okay. Just to renovate. We could get 5,000 files approved with $110,000. So we're going to renovate and now all the information we got from Mr. Roland is don't worry, we got a really good deal. It wasn't our idea that because I made a big fuss about government going and renting a shoe store to turn it into an office. So the government tells me, well, actually it wasn't our idea, it was their idea. They wanted to turn, they really thought they had this plan, the landlord had a plan to change the shoe store into a retail store and we're not going to cover any costs. They're going to do that. It's their idea and they're going to give us a deal on how to frost the windows; clear, beautiful, retail store windows. We're just going to frost it up. But you know, we're not going to pay for it, the landlord is going pay for it. I'm saying that's great, you got the deal, but what's the deal? How much are they paying for it? Because it matters if we're approving $115,000 for renovations or $90,000 for renovations or $50,000 for

renovations. What the Minister here is saying is well, it's just a ballpark figure of $115,000. That's what it's going to cost to renovate 1,800 square feet and just give it to us. Actually, he's not even asking to give it to us because it's already been given. We just have to rubber stamp this thing. So we're not questioning whether you knew this when you went to FMBS, but now that we know and we've been given the information from Mr. Roland that the landlord made all sorts of deals with the government to get this deal, I want to know what kind of deal we're getting.

Lastly, I don't understand why the Minister, Mr. Dent, indicated that when he appeared before us in the Social Programs committee he said to us that he was hoping this facility would be opening by October 1st. It's October 25th now and that store is still in place. What happened there? Shouldn't there be any questions raised as to whether or not that space is even available? Was there any information? Did Public Works and Services go down and say what's happening with this? I certainly would not want to be in the position of approving the government going in somewhere and offering or working out a deal with the landlord to say, hey, we're looking for this place for five, 10, or 15 years and the landlord just kicking out a store. Because who could blame them? Everybody wants to get a deal with the government, but government should be in the position of promoting small businesses, not be a party to anywhere where we're somehow inducing a store being removed or something. I don't have any evidence to suggest that, but I don't understand what's going on because the Minister is suggesting that...Well, he stated he was hoping to be there by October 1st. Now he wants to be there by November 1st, by December 1st. As far as I know, anybody who passes by that the store in that mall, the store is there in full operation. So what's going on? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Just a couple of things here for order. Ms. Lee, I understand that Mr. Roland is not in attendance here, so could you just refer to the Minister at the table? Also, with regard to some of the comments you made, specific references to what was said in in-camera committee meetings is not allowed. Members should refrain from doing so. So at this time, Mr. Dent, do you have a response? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, the government will take possession of the space on November 1st, as things stand. I can only reiterate that the government did not go and say we want that space. It was proposed by the landlord. The issue of whether or not that's proper, if the landlord comes forward and says this is what we want to do with our space and the space is suitable for the use, then the government is interested in it. The Legal Services Board had asked that Public Works and Services find space that was storefront, that was accessible, and we were also looking for space that was within the range of what is normally paid. The estimate in terms of what it would cost us to fit up was around $60 a square foot, which is, I'm told, quite standard for tenant improvements in Yellowknife. It's not at the high end and it's not at the low end. It's about medium quality tenant improvements for that space. So you've got space that's downtown, which was a requirement of the Legal Services Board. They wanted to be close to the courthouse. It's accessible and it's storefront; obviously it's storefront.

In terms of what the costs are, I've been a little surprised by the Member quoting some prices because I had been advised that actual prices in leases and what is negotiated in the final terms of the lease can't be talked about publicly because it's proprietary information. So that information may be available in camera to the committee, but I can't in this format get into any more detail than I have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. We are now on page 18. We're looking at public legal services, special warrants, $115,000. Ms. Lee.

Just to clarify, I don't know if I should do it in a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would leave that up to you. I am very mindful of how we use information. I was only going with what Mr. Dent said earlier. He said earlier, if you'll check the transcript, that he was expecting this office to be open by October 1st. It's his words, not mine and I'm not quoting from what we said in committee.

The second thing is the price of the lease -- $395 per square metre -- was information given by Mr. Roland last Friday. So it's in the transcript. I was not exposing any information from private or confidential information. It's not my problem if two Ministers have a different willingness to open up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Ms. Lee, can you just clarify one point here? Were you talking about when Mr. Roland was in committee or was it Committee of the Whole? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you that Mr. Roland confirmed that figure, the lease price per square metre, in Committee of the Whole in the House last Friday.

Thank you. For the information of the Members here, there is no point of order. Mr. Dent, would you like to respond? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, if I look at Friday's, what I was talking about was the amount per square metre, which I believe is proprietary information in a lease and that is not normally released. Earlier today Ms. Lee quoted a number. I was careful not to use that number, I believe, myself, but did say that the amount that we had signed for was within a few dollars of what the estimate had been per square metre that it would cost. When I look at Friday's Hansard, it appears to me that Ms. Lee is the one again that used the number. Mr. Roland didn't appear to. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that I have a briefing note in front of me that says that I'm not allowed to give this information out because it's proprietary information. So I am just trying to follow the direction that I have been given when it comes to the amounts.

The same thing would be true though of an amount that was negotiated between a landlord and the government for tenant improvements in terms of the dollar amount. It's unlikely that we would normally discuss that in a public setting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Page 18, public legal services, special warrants, $115,000.