Total department, not previously authorized, $275,000. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to continue on some of the questioning that was brought forward by Mr. Hawkins, so I can get a complete understanding about the allocation of this money, its original intent, and whether we are following within the spirit of that intent.

Now, this money or this whole framework was the Legislative Building Society. They created a framework, basically a program to which there was money invested and there could have been potential surplus at the end of that 20-year cycle. I want to get just a general sense. What were the original bylaws or what was the original intent, because many Members here felt that with correspondence that these were supposed to be designed for a legacy project for the building, whether it was infrastructure or not. But can we get the Minister to clarify what was the original spirit and intent of any surplus funds as a result of the Legislative Building Society at the end of its term?

Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I laid out what the bylaws say and the money is to be used for the benefit of the Legislative Assembly, so there is a significant amount of discretion. The Board of Management looked at what was in the best interests of the Legislature, both in terms of $275,000 that’s going towards infrastructure improvements, and then, since this is a building of the people, you have a celebration of the fact that we have paid off the mortgage. We had some surplus left, and we have a good reason to celebrate, and so they combined the two. It’s been checked through by the Law Clerks and everybody is agreed that what is being put forward and what is before this House is within the spirit and intent of the bylaws.

I think the interpretation of what would be considered legacy for the building could have various meanings here. I guess my other question is that if there was indeed a surplus that was generated by the Legislative Building Society, why is it that they did not imitate the purchase of or the completion of their intent? Why was a cheque written over to this government now? Why that process? I just don’t quite understand that?

My

understanding is that the body in question did the job that they were tasked to do over two decades. That they had helped come up with a financing arrangement for the building of this singularly stunning edifice that we work in, and now their work is done. The mortgage is paid off. Not only was the mortgage paid off but they managed to accrue a small surplus which they have turned over to the Board of Management, to the Legislative Assembly to do with as they will under their bylaws, which is do something for the benefit of the Legislative Assembly, which is what is being done here today.

What was supposed to be fairly clear has now become a little bit muddy. The spirit and intent sounds like it was clearly laid out by the members of the Legislative Building Society. That they were to carry out their own bylaws to spend the overage, but then, in turn, wrote a cheque to the GNWT here, to the government here, to say now spend it in the intent that we originally designed.

Every antenna that I have goes off, going, why would they do that. I think they’re doing that because this topic became a political hot button. They are aware that some of that spending wasn’t going into the true nature of what its original intention was and I think they got, I’m assuming, maybe a little bit of cold feet. Now, they came to remove themselves from the political decision-making and that’s why we find ourselves here today.

I guess I’m a bit at odds and really at the mercy of the Minister here and at his convenience in terms of trying to get to the bottom of this. But I guess what I’m trying to say here, in so many words, is that I’m not sure that the Building Society would have earmarked a bit of a lavish celebration in terms of bringing Premiers to an event and stuff like that would constitute in the true nature what their original intent was. With that in mind, if we can get maybe a bit of a breakdown so I know that some of that $100,000, which I know is designed for an event here later on this week, which I think is a good idea, but I just want to make sure now that this is public money, it’s very critical that we talk about it in a public sense. Maybe if I can just get a breakdown of what some of the costs are attributing to this $100,000 gala.

That number, we can discuss now, but it’s actually part of the O and M supp that’s going to come following this particular deliberation on these two very specific capital items. If it’s the wish of the Chair to blend the two together, we can have that discussion.

Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. I will remind Mr. Dolynny we are talking about the capital plan here. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Chair. I am very much familiar that we are talking about capital. I’m talking about the $100,000 to fund a public commemorative event. If I can get a breakdown of what that commemorative event will entail within the $100,000.

Mr. Dolynny, The item before us is the capital, not the operations side of it, and that’s the next supplementary appropriations we will be looking at. Mr. Dolynny.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’ll reserve my question until we get to that other supp.

Anyone else for general comments? On the details. Sorry. Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $275,000.

Total department, not previously authorized, $275,000.

Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 134-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014?

We’ll go to Ms. Bisaro.

The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order.

Question has been called.

---Carried

Does committee agree to consider Tabled Document 135-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014?