I guess now begs the question are we not breaking the bylaws or the spirit and the intent as prescribed that the whole surplus money, if there was money, was to be spent on infrastructure? I can appreciate maybe some is spent into the concept of packaging the infrastructure, organizing and launching it et cetera, but it sounds like more than 25 percent of it is being allocated to O and M, which, if I heard the Minister correctly, the intent was to be directed at infrastructure. Maybe he could explain that. Thank you.
The Legislative Assembly Building Society’s bylaws state that any surplus is to be used for the benefit of the Legislative Assembly building and the Legislative Assembly did receive legal advice from its Law Clerk that the wording of the society’s bylaws was broad enough to include all the planned projects for the surplus, including the celebration events. Thank you.
I will just say that I do not agree with that interpretation and that I hear the Minister that the legal opinion may say that, but it’s my interpretation that when the money is to benefit the building, it is intended to benefit the building, not to be a celebration, party, travel fees, whatever. So I would like to register my concern and certainly grievance on this issue. Members in this building will know this is not new, this is consistent from my earlier opinion on this and I think the additional $125,000 should not be wrapped up in plane tickets or parties or whatnot, and what the whatnot is should go to the benefit of the citizens through some type of legacy infrastructure. Thank you.
I note the Member’s concern and, of course, we’re here before this Assembly to seek approval for these expenditures. I look forward to the decision of the Assembly, but the Member has made his comments noted for the record and I’ll let it stand at that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Any other general comments? Does committee agree to go into detail?
Agreed.
Legislative Assembly, capital infrastructure, Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $275,000.
Agreed.
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.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $275,000.
Agreed.
Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 134-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014?
Agreed.
We’ll go to Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 134-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014, be now concluded, and that Tabled Document 134-17(4) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill.
The motion is on the floor. The motion is in order.
Question.
Question has been called.
---Carried
Does committee agree to consider Tabled Document 135-17(4), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 3, 2013-2014?
Agreed.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible, the honourable Mr. Miltenberger, to make opening comments.
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:
$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.
$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.
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.
$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.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
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?
Agreed.
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.
