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.