Actually, I’m happy to just accept the Minister’s. I had forgotten some of those things, and he reminded of some of those things. So I think that’s fine. I’m happy to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up quickly regarding the matter Member Dolynny had brought out. I’m just trying to understand perhaps the context of the bill of goods that we were sold by taking this particular option of returning the $135 million, or $134 million, it doesn’t really matter. Potatoes, potatoes at this particular case because it’s all gone. But what was the bill of goods sold to us, that this was in our benefit that we had money that cost us a 1.45 interest rate versus now we’re using a market rate of 3.5. I mean, there must have been some reasoning why turning it back was better for the territorial government. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Madam Chair. There was a debate about where the Opportunities Fund would be accounted for, under our borrowing limit or not. That was an issue that was ongoing. At the same time we initiated the requests initially as a territory and then with all the

other two territories and got the Minister of Finance to agree to a review of the territorial borrowing limits of all three territories. Our particular circumstances were such that the Opportunities Fund that we have, Yukon – and I don’t think Nunavut had it – was being perceived by the federal government in their opinion should have been under our borrowing limit, which would have clearly exceeded that ability in that level. So as we had the discussion, they indicated in their negotiations with us that they would not be increasing the borrowing limit to accommodate the additional $125 million. So it would be we had a choice, and the choice was wrap up the Opportunities Fund and deal strictly with the negotiations for the borrowing limit, recognizing that, yes, there was a cost, as Mr. Dolynny indicated from Range Lake, that we lost access to lend ourselves money at a very cheap rate. The longer-term benefit was, as we move down the road to devolution and as we move down the road to having to deal with these fiscal constraints that we’ve been dealing with now, that the borrowing limit will give us more flexibility in dealing with the infrastructure issues and some of the other anticipated expenses that we didn’t currently have prior to the borrowing limit being increased.

I appreciate the answer. A couple of things, though, that popped out of that. The Minister pointed out a debate that was ongoing and you kept referring to a discussion, we had a discussion. I wouldn’t mind knowing who the debate was with and who the ongoing discussion was with. I’m not sure my memory serves me correct and I, of course, look for guidance from the Minister if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that this wasn’t brought to Regular Members as a particular option. What I’m going to do is bundle this with one other question. Where is the debate, with whom was it going on, was there or is there reasoning why there was no discussion, and I guess if the discussion was only with the feds and Cabinet, were they not offering a corresponding deduction? In other words, their existing borrowing limit minus the $135 million. Were they negotiating or was it a term of dictating, where they just said give us the $135 million and we’ll do the other?

When I say “we” the government, it was done through the very capable people in Finance negotiating with Finance Canada. It went through all the due processes with Cabinet and FMB. There were, and I recollect sitting at a number of briefings with committee about the borrowing limit, about what was underway, how things were going, what we were looking at. We’ve also had a number of briefings on the Opportunities Fund and I’m sure we could fill shoeboxes with paper of all that work that was done. That was the deal. The bottom line was the federal government was not prepared to offer us an

offset in our borrowing limit to allow us to include the Opportunities Fund.

What actually has worked to our advantage, in this particular case, for turning back the Opportunities Fund? I thought it was actually working quite well as a vehicle for lending money at a rate of 10 percent. I’m not going to question the context or phraseology of our good Finance folks, but I’m just wondering where the political discussion or the emphasis on the investment vehicle. At 10 percent return I thought that would be considered a good one. Maybe if the Minister could help me understand that particular thing, because it seemed to be an excellent vehicle for making cash for this government.

If my memory serves me correct, as well on another point, I think we’re in the range of about $8.22 million left over from that fund we got to keep. It seems as if it could generate money. Any thoughts from the Minister on that particular problem?

The number that was used is there was $7 million residual in that fund that we kept in accrued interest and such and we’re putting into the planning process is slated towards economic issues. This is talking about history that can be changed. The harsh reality for me was we hadn’t lent this money out. We were lending it to ourselves. We had $125 million in the bank that, according to how the federal government did their accounting, was considered a debt. So for most people if you think you have $125 million cash, they had given it to us through their Immigrant Investor Fund. It was cash in the bank.

We weren’t lending it out after the Discovery loan because of the debate over where it was going to be accounted for and would we have to roll it up. We had to deal with that reality that even though it didn’t make sense and, yes, we had a stack of applications that the Minister of ITI had, of potential business ventures that we would have gotten a good return on our dollar for, in the broad scheme of things, the choice was we had to turn it back because we weren’t going to get that bump up in our borrowing limit to allow for that and our bigger goal was the deal with the issue of the borrowing limit because of all the other pressures we had, due to the stopping of the stimulus money and the using of all our free capital to make sure that we took full advantage of the stimulus program that was happening in the last three years of the last Assembly.

I guess my last question, and I’ll say with respect, of course, that I recognize the Minister’s last response. I mean, we really are talking about that kind of horse that’s since been gone for years as if it mattered on today’s debate. It’s well out of the barn, down the pasture, not even worth talking about. I appreciate that point.

I guess my last question in this particular regard, I suspect the Minister will answer it fine, but I suspect my last question will really be built around, was part of this a trade-off so we could get the extra access capital so we could get potential to use that as the Inuvik-Tuk highway? As our contribution? I mean, I’m just trying to get a sense of, don’t take shell game as a negative context, that’s not what I mean by it, but was there a bit of a shell by trading one for another and did we trade this Opportunities Fund over for the extra limit so it could be targeted at that particular initiative? Again, noting our percentage that we’re required according to the agreement, I’m just trying to get a sense, was that part of the structured reason why we did this.

When the federal government put $150 million on the table towards the Tuk-Inuvik highway, we indicated to them that we were in no position, with their existing financial arrangements and borrowing limit, to even be able to contemplate partaking in that project in addition to all the other cost pressures we had. Was it a factor in the discussion when we talked about the borrowing limit? Absolutely. We’ve laid out all the conditions, all the checks and balances that have since arisen and been committed to in this House through myself, through the Minister of ITI, through the Premier, but yes, that was a factor in that discussion.

I figured the Minister was going to answer yes in some capacity, so I’m fine with his answer.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Page 5-9, Finance, department summary, information item, revenue summary.

Page 5-10, Finance, department summary, information item, active position summary.

Page 5-13, Finance, activity summary, deputy minister’s office, operations expenditure summary, $85.991 million.

Page 5-14, Finance, activity summary, deputy minister’s office, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $81.058 million. Mr. Bromley.

Madam Chair, I had a question on page 5-13.

We have agreed to that page, Mr. Bromley. We’re on page 5-14. Did you have a question on page 5-14? Mr. Bromley, does your question refer to the Housing Corporation?

Yes, it does.

We will be looking at the Housing Corporation on page 5-14. We are on page 5-14. Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess maybe I can just get a quick explanation of that contribution to the Housing Corporation.