Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here to present Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014. This document outlines an increase of $24.290 million in operations expenditures for the 2013-2014 fiscal year.

The major items included in the supplementary estimates are:

1. $8.7 million for the Department of Executive for

funding for costs associated with the implementation of the final Devolution Agreement. The net impact on government operations is nil as these costs will be offset with funding to be received from the federal government.

2. $1.6 million for the Department of Finance for

costs associated with an increase in the contribution to the NWT Housing Corporation to address increased costs for heating fuel and electricity in the delivery of the Public Housing Program.

3. A total of $13.9 million for the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources to fund fire suppression costs that were approved in two special warrants in July and August.

4. $650,000 for the Department of Transportation

to fund emergency repairs to the Inuvik Airport runway.

I am prepared to review the details of the supplementary estimates document. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Would the Minister like to bring witnesses into the House?

Yes, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, committee. I will get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber.

Would the Minister like to introduce his witnesses?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have Mr. Michael Aumond and Mr. Olin Lovely from Finance.

Thank you. We will open up the floor for general comments on Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014. Does committee agree there are no further general comments? Does committee agree we go to detail?

Thank you. We will go to page 3, Legislative Assembly, operations expenditures, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $100,000. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to continue my questions from the infrastructure supp regarding the $100,000 component here under the operations side. If the Minister can give us a breakdown as to what that will entail under that $100,000 expenditure. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Approximately $50,000 is for the public event in the Great Hall. This includes entertainment, photograph displays of the history of the Legislature, a time capsule and production of video of the event, which will be available to the people across the NWT. Approximately $40,000 is for travel and accommodations to bring in former Speakers, Premiers, Commissioners and Clerks. One of the events associated with the celebration is the unveiling of portraits of former Speakers and Premiers, which will feature prominently in the building. It is customary to invite the subject of portraits to be present for their unveiling. Therefore, we would consider this part of the expense of

having the portraits done. Approximately $10,000 is budgeted for a private dinner for former and current MLAs, Commissioners, Clerks and the Legislative Assembly Building Society, just over 100 confirmed guests. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, given some of the numbers that we just heard here, about 40 percent of this $100,000 allocation will be for travel, and he talked about a private function that is occurring here. I didn’t hear a dollar figure that was set aside for that function. Would the Minister like to share that number, please?

Mr. Chairman, I will restate for the record, approximately $10,000 is budgeted for a private dinner for former and current MLAs, Commissioners, Clerks and the Legislative Assembly Building Society, just over 100 confirmed guests. Thank you.

Really, if we start adding up the numbers, about 50 percent of this $100,000 is set aside for, basically, travel, accommodations and a function. I’m trying to see how this fits in the original bylaws of the Legislative Building Society. I have a hard time fitting that in.

There are really muddy lines in the water when it looks at legacy and I think the public has shared their concern about this a number of times as well. Let’s be clear. I’m all for having a nice time to commemorate the building. I don’t want people to think I’m a party pooper here. I’m not. Far from it. But this is now public money. I have to do my job and ask those right questions.

I don’t have any further questions on this one here, but it raises some big question marks, really, in the true intent of what was originally earmarked 20 years ago. I am not sure that the Building Society had a party in mind. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the Building Society decided to cut the cheque because they wanted to wind up the affairs. They have been in business for 20 years. If they would have had to set up a trust, they would have to continue on as a legal body until the trust monies were all spent, which would have meant more meetings next year and they wanted to be finished now.

I think we should recognize the fact that they did a yeoman’s job, a fine job minding the public purse for us, helped us get this building. Now their role is finished and they made that determination and handed over the funds to us. Now they are before this House, having been through the Board of Management and working within the spirit and intent of the former Legislative Assembly Building Society’s bylaws. While I appreciate the Member’s concern, I think this money can, has and will stand any scrutiny folks want to bring to bear upon it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m glad to hear we have Mr. Dolynny on board with this particular matter and I’m happy to welcome anybody else who wants to join this side the of perspective.

Quite frankly, I’m concerned on how we’re proceeding. This is not directed to the stewardship or the mentorship of the Minister who has to carry this through, shepherd it through, this requirement and spending bill, which is, of course, the way we do business, which is, in essence, law; but the reality here I’m suffering from is the full appreciation when I hear the spirit and intent and a legal opinion and all is good.

Quite frankly, when I hear that this was rushed through, a cheque was cut, dropped off and, like Pontius Pilate, they sort of clapped their hands and sort of walked away like it’s not their problem, I find it a bit of misinterpretation or a missed opportunity for some type of due diligence.

I would like to be surprised by this next question with a clear answer, which seems to be not the obvious, which is: Was there a letter ever sent to the government in any form under the Building Society’s letterhead or stewardship that basically says that this is how they envision the money to be spent? We keep hearing about the spirit and the intent. Did they put pen to paper, other than to sign a cheque? Did they provide some direction and has anyone consulted with them? It feels like, sure, they may have rushed the cheque out the door to close the society’s door and I’m sure I don’t begrudge them of that. After 20 years, that’s great, but after 20 years they could have waited 20 more days to do this. I understand they may not want to be the stewards of a scholarship. No problem there. That makes sense. But, quite frankly, a little instruction from them would have gone a long way.

Here we are sitting here, debating what was prescribed 20 years ago as the mandate of this organization and sitting here wondering. When I hear it was left for the building, to me it sounds like it is left for the building. I would certainly welcome any clarification or guidance the Minister could provide, because that would certainly take some concern away that I have at this moment. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The correspondence I am aware of was the Legislative Building Society wrote a letter to the Speaker, indicating they wanted to wrap things up and that they accounted fully for all the work they’ve done, that they had met their mandate and that there was a residual amount of money,

$400,000, which they were turning over to the Speaker to use on behalf of the Legislative Assembly building and here we are today. I’m not aware that they wrote a list of things that they wanted to see done. I think, in keeping with the information we have, that they wanted to wrap it up and they did not want to set up a separate trust and they did not want to have to keep in existence for another year to expend the funds, that they were more than happy to turn over that responsibility to the Speaker and the Board of Management of the Legislative Assembly. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t disagree with the description or the common sense brought forward on this issue by the Finance Minister, which talks about the administration and the trust, the headaches of carrying on a society that probably isn’t necessary. I’m not arguing that. The issue I’m trying to lay before the House, quite simply, is did they provide a letter or any type of guidance to the House on is a $100,000 party okay. As far as I’m concerned, that’s 25 percent of this money. If you add the $25,000 on top of that, we’re talking one-third of this surplus money is not left for the building and what sounds like to me is the prescribed mandate of the society. I think we are doing ourselves a disservice in some way. I’m not suggesting it’s evil or bad intent or evil intent or nefarious or anything. I just don’t think we are following the mandate and wishes of the bylaw as prescribed and I think we are making a serious mistake.

This money should all be committed to the Legislature, whether it’s to signage, walkways or parkways, something that is designed to enhance the public’s access and the public’s benefit, be it fixing the Chamber doors, for goodness sakes, or carving them. It doesn’t really matter. As we keep repeating over and over again, it talks about it’s intended for the building.

Can the Minister of Finance explain to me why flying in former Premiers and whoever, MLAs or whatever the case may be, solves that problem or meets that test? How does that help the building? Thank you.

I would suggest that explicitly, maybe not explicitly but at least implicitly, the Legislative Assembly Building Society regarded that the Legislative Assembly would make the right decisions. In fact, as I pointed out, they are going to come to the dinner and they are going to join, with the rest of us, the mortgage burning, the fact that we have this lovely building paid for and it was all under their watch that they accomplished this and they did a fine job.

Everything has been accounted for. Lawyers have looked at it. I appreciate that there are some concerns by Mr. Hawkins in the joy of this democratic forum that we’re in, in this House,

where we represent the people, that it’s now paid for, thanks to the oversight of the Legislative Assembly Building Society. We will have a vote that will prove or disprove of this money and I can’t give the Member any more information than that. I look forward to the direction of the House. Thank you.

The Finance Minister is the one who has to carry this file and it’s unfortunate that he has to carry this file, which really isn’t his file to carry. It should have been handled, rightly so, by the Building Society. If they had provided a letter saying they supported this or not…They weren’t kept in the dark. To suggest that they are coming to the dinner is almost like the spider saying to the fly, come to dinner. I’m sorry, making them culpable by saying they will be there by dinner, don’t worry, we’re all one, doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t think it’s doing our job.

I shame all the MLAs who are going to vote for this because it sounds like it’s not for the Building Fund. I will leave it at that. I think the argument has been made. We could go back and forth another two minutes or three minutes or whatnot, but I’ve stated my grievance repeatedly and I encourage all my colleagues in this Assembly to vote against this portion and we redirect it to some type of capital legacy infrastructure commitment that is so rightly intended by the mandate of this board. It’s not a question, but I do appreciate the Finance Minister taking the full breadth of my grievance on this issue. As guided by the Speaker today, I guess I have to talk to Cabinet nicely, so I will leave it at that.