No. The issue first went to Cabinet. A Cabinet decision was made, and that record of decision was signed off by Premier Handley.

Was there a document that went from the FMB to the Cabinet, and who was that signed by?

The initiating approval for the negotiated contract was made by Cabinet, and that ROD was signed off by the Premier of the day, Premier Handley.

Again, I’m just not sure exactly of the processes. There is something that goes to the Cabinet — it’s called the pink — and it’s usually the FMB’s analysis of a particular project that’s before Cabinet. So there wouldn’t have been any other record of decision signed off other than the one signed by Mr. Handley and voted on by the Cabinet, correct?

Mr. Chairman, the decision to enter into a negotiated contract went to Cabinet and was agreed to in Cabinet, and that record of decision was signed off by Premier Handley.

Was there any other decision made by the Financial Management Board that was signed off?

As the process proceeded, there was sign-off for some additional funds that went to FMB, and that was signed off through the FMBS.

Thank you. Who was the signatory to that sign-off by FMB?

The chairman of FMB at that time was Minister Roland.

Okay. Thank you. The past week in the House we heard that when a Member of the Cabinet chooses to provide endorsement or a letter of support for a negotiated contract for a capital project in their riding, they will declare a conflict and not participate at the Cabinet or Financial Management Board table on that particular project. That’s what I think we heard. Is that correct?

What I can speak to is what I understand the process to be, which is that should a Member, an MLA who is the Minister, write a letter of support, in this case for a negotiated contract, when that decision comes before Cabinet for approval, the Minister who wrote that letter of support would declare conflict and leave the room through the full course of the proceedings up to the vote and a decision being made.

So just to be clear, then, it wouldn’t be normal for that same MLA to be signing in their capacity, whatever role they play in Cabinet, on that same contract. That would not be within keeping of the policy that Mr. Miltenberger has outlined.

Mr. Chairman, the issue is of the letter of support for the negotiated contract being either agreed to or not by Cabinet. Once that decision is made, the issue of conflict, as far as I understand from what our system tells us, is no longer an issue. In this case Premier Roland — Minister Roland at the time — had written a letter of support. He declared conflict when the issue came before Cabinet and was not in the room when the decision was made that already was signed off, as we just discussed, by Premier Handley. After that, this goes into the capital process. The negotiated contract process takes place, and it then becomes just a matter of other business that the government is doing and is not a matter of further potential conflict.

Mr. Chairman, this particular project was first presented to Members in terms of correspondent communication with Cabinet at a certain dollar value. It has changed quite substantially with the passing of time with the work that’s gone into identifying pricing through subcontractors, with the scope probably having been examined and re-examined. So the initial project dollar value as presented that was approved and signed off by Minister Handley…. Well, first of all, I should ask the question rather than make a statement. When there is a record of decision signed off by Cabinet that enters into a negotiated contract, is there is dollar value associated with that record of decision?

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. When the price of the project changed, was there a subsequent approval process or signing off of any record of decision required?

Mr. Chairman, the issue of if the negotiations…. Where the negotiated contract exceeds the mandate that has been given, then there is requirement to come back to FMB for further approval.

Thank you. Would the Member that would have provided a letter of support, then, when it comes back to FMB, still be back in the same position? Because, really, the project didn’t double, but it definitely increased by at least 30 to 40 per cent. So does the same rule, I guess, of excusing oneself from those kinds of discussions apply, and do they put it on the original record of decision and proceed with the negotiated contract?

Mr. Chairman, MLA Roland provided a letter of support for the issue supporting the negotiated contract. That was the only letter of support that was given by the MLA for Inuvik Boot Lake. Any further business following that was just a matter of taking care of business in his capacity as the Chair of the FMB. There were no further letters of support of any kind for anything further, so the issue of potential conflict occurred when the negotiated contract was brought forward and there were letters of support from all the MLAs from the region as well as all the aboriginal governments as well as the town.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Next on my list is Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back to the school in Hay River, Diamond Jenness school, which has had its major work postponed by two years. I understand there is some deferred maintenance work to be aimed at this school in the interim. I am also aware that there was a considerable amount of work done to assess the situation with the school starting at least in 2003 with reports in 2006 and later. Originally the substantial amount of work was to be scheduled for 2009–2010. That was what we’d sort of agreed on last year. I’m wondering what work is being planned for making sure that that school is safe and sufficiently maintained in the interim, at least for this year.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Aumond.

Thank you for those comments. Given that major work was scheduled for this coming fiscal year, as short a time ago was this year or less than a year ago, I assume that considerable planning has been done for that work. Given that, should money be available for ’09–10, I’m assuming that a substantive amount of money could be productively spent in ’09–10 on that school. Is that correct?