Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The thinking was that the fund, we’re creating an instrument that at this point is only that. It’s a tool that’s an instrument that’s there to be invested in. We have work to do. We have not decided if there’s going to be money put into it. We anticipated for the first 10 years to get the fund up and running it would be best done through the Financial Management Board through the policies and procedures that are currently in place. The main concern being not wanting to generate expenses when we have no revenues in which to cover those if we have to create a board and an arm’s length operation. Clause 10 of this bill at the review period lays out very clearly that that would be one of the things that could be considered at that time, whether such a board may be necessary or called for at that particular point.

Page 4, clause 4. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that I fully concur with the Minister’s answer and completely disagree with Mr. Bromley’s ascertain to what should be done in this particular

case. Wasting money by administering something that doesn’t make any money at that time seems to be a bit of a pointless, fruitless argument at this time. I think the 10-year review and every 10-year review after that will address those types of questions as need be.

That was more of a general comment. We’re on page 4, clause 4.

---Clauses 4 through 9 inclusive approved

Clause 10. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to now move a motion.

I move that subclause 10(2) of Bill 10 is amended by:

(a) striking out “and” at the end of paragraph

(c);

(b) deleting paragraph (d); and

(c) adding the following paragraph after (c):

(d) recommendations respecting whether the

act should be amended to include a provision requiring a special majority to make further amendments to the act or to authorize transfers from the Heritage Fund; and

(e) recommendations respecting any other

amendments that should be made to the act.

A motion is on the floor. The motion is in order. The motion is being circulated. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a particular issue that may not have been fully supported in committee but the spirit intended in this particular one is, as I’ve stated a few times, which is we want to make sure that the fund is protected and the act is protected so that people at a whim don’t decide that they’re going to spend the money without any due thought and support. The original concept didn’t get the support in committee and certainly by the Minister, but it was presented as a suggestion to put it in the review and allow the review to take that time and give it due consideration if it seems it’s warranted to go forward as an amendment to the act.

Just simply, this protects the act from political fettering, in my view, and it ensures that no whim drives how the act will be spent or even changed. This will help protect the act while it grows and goes forward for future generations. It’s just a

protection mechanism, I believe, that will ensure the true principles of why the act is in existence, which is to provide opportunities for people in future generations. I don’t think it does anything more than that, and as I pointed out, it’s to be added in the review clause as an item for consideration. I certainly hope Cabinet has seen the light of the suggestion and will vote in favour of this suggestion, but we will have to see how the outcome rolls.

To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my colleague Mr. Hawkins did a good job describing what this is about. This is simply a motion to get the future government in 10 years to conduct a review of the concept of a special majority. It was brought forward by committee and it wasn’t fully supported by Cabinet. There is some merit to looking into it and exploring it and doing some research. It definitely requires some additional research and I think 10 years from now when this comes forward for review is a good time for us to review the concept of a special majority. There might actually be some rulings in the next 10 years to that effect, so why don’t we leave it in there so that we can put it as part of our official review of this act, because my colleague is right that we don’t want political interference to occur with this money. We want it to be aboveboard. I think having these discussions at that time is both appropriate and prudent.

To the motion.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Clause 10 as amended.

Clause 11.

---Clauses 11 through 12 inclusive approved

To the bill as a whole as amended.

Does committee agree that Bill 10 as amended is ready for third reading?

---Bill 10 as a whole as amended approved for third reading

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Thank you, witnesses. Sergeant-at-Arms, escort the witnesses out.

Does committee agree that we will now move on to Bill 22, An Act to Amend the Territorial Court Act?

Can I have the Minister responsible for the bill to make his opening comments? Mr. Lafferty.