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.
I just wanted to note, for the record, that the Member referenced the culpability of the Legislative Assembly Building Society members and I wanted to point out clearly, unequivocally, with no ambiguity, that culpability implies some kind of wrongdoing, some kind of guilt for something that’s happened.
I think we should all be collectively thanking the Legislative Assembly Building Society members for the work that they’ve done, the honour that they’ve carried out the responsibility with and the thoroughness and long-lasting dedication.
For the record, there is no culpability. That word shouldn’t even be used in this Legislature on this issue, where we’re supposed to be celebrating a relatively unique, historic achievement. I just wanted to make that clear that we owe a great debt of gratitude and debt to those members. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Office of the Clerk, not previously authorized, $100,000.
Agreed.
Office of the Speaker, not previously authorized, $25,000.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $125,000.
Agreed.
Executive, operations expenditures, directorate, not previously authorized, $706,000.
Agreed.
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to confirm that these dollars are part of the 23 or 25 million that the federal government is providing for our costs of implementing devolution. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For the record, I would like to clarify the number is $8.706 million. I missed the $8 million. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The amount we’re getting is $26.5 million and, yes, this $8.706 million is part of that fund. Thank you.
I thank the Minister for that information. Is this the first $8 million or have we expended additional funds to this and how are the projections looking relative to that absolute amount of $26-something million?
This $8.706 million will have us fully subscribing to the $26.5 million.
So just to confirm, will this take us to the end of the fiscal year, the implementation date of April 1st, or are we spending more than the $26-something million to do this work. Thank you.
Yes, this particular supplementary appropriation will allow us to be able to conclude all the activities for which the money was dedicated, the transition costs. Thank you.
Directorate, not previously authorized, $8.706 million.
Agreed.
Total department, not previously authorized, $8.706 million.
Agreed.
Department of Finance, operations expenditures, deputy minister’s office, not previously authorized, $1.645 million. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I believe these are primarily for the utility costs, heating and electricity, which we know are going up steadily. At the same time, I know the Housing Corporation are doing work to improve their efficiency of facilities both on the heating and electricity side of the equation. So I’m wondering if there’s an explanation… Are we still not saving enough to account for these additional costs or is there something else going on here? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Lovely.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The reason for the increased amount of money required is for the natural gas conversion to diesel in Norman Wells and incremental costs associated with the provision of synthetic natural gas in Inuvik. It also relates to the increasing electricity rates approved by the Public Utilities Board. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Lovely. Mr. Bromley.
Okay, and thanks for that information. There are a couple of big costs there, for sure. Now, we’re just starting this, I guess, with the liquid natural gas. Can we expect that these total energy costs will remain higher like this and we can expect additional requests or that our budgets will be bigger for Housing Corporation utilities in those areas? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The infrastructure costs, the conversion costs are going to be one time for the synthetic natural gas. There has, in fact, been a modest decrease in overall consumption. So as the energy issues both in Norman Wells and Inuvik play out, we’ll see where we end up, finally, when it comes to an ongoing energy source.
There also has been, not so much in the Housing Corporation, but there’s been a migration by a lot of individuals to biomass and other forms of heating energy that they control on their own just because of the uncertainty. But we anticipate that the costs, those start-up costs won’t be ongoing. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. My last question on this, given the higher costs for these utilities, and particularly in the two problem areas mentioned by Mr. Lovely, can we expect the Minister will ensure, as we go forward, that will be brought into the full-cost accounting? In consideration of alternative sources it might be less costly and provide other benefits. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. We pride ourselves on trying to do that full-cost accounting in all its aspects and we’ll, in this case, note the Member’s concerns and we’ll do that. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just before we leave this area here, just so we get an understanding of the full-cost accounting, this $1.645 million that is considered not previously authorized, what percentage of this number is in relationship to the overall costs of heating fuel and electricity for public housing? What percentage does this represent? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Lovely.
I would have to get back to the Member with that information.
Thank you, Mr. Lovely. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The purpose for my question with that is it has to do with just some facts that we do know. The fact that, number one, our inventory of public housing has not changed in the last year, so we were led to believe that we were dealing with same inventory issues. We’ve also been told in this House and other forums that we have seen roughly about an 8 percent savings in retrofits and in doing more energy-smart initiatives to make our public infrastructure that much more economic. So right away we should see savings in design. We know there’s been roughly about a 7 percent increase in electrical costs during that same given year. So if you start adding up all the numbers, Mr. Chair, that’s why I want to know whether or not that percent increase is within what I consider the norm. Not to mention the fact that we heard earlier today that some of the costs were due to conversion of oil to LNG, which really begs the question, is that operational costs or is that a small capital infrastructure changeover for equipment. So really I’m personally thinking maybe that’s not the right category that we should be looking at as an operational cost.
So without knowing that variable of whether or not that percent increase is the norm, given what I just stated as facts that we’ve had here in the House, I have a hard time with that number. So unless you’re able to provide it, I have a hard time accepting that number today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The universal number is there. So the Member wants to know the breakdown. We’ve got heating costs, we’ve got electricity costs, we’ve got conversion costs for synthetic natural gas, power rates have gone up, as the Member has indicated, the price of synthetic natural gas is high. So at one point the Member is saying there’s a problem with the $1.6 million, or is he wanting to know the breakdown in a tighter, clarified way that would allow us to put percentages on what does the heating fuel cost of 7 percent for electricity, as he’s indicated, the conversion costs account for 30 percent, 40 percent of the $1.6 million? I’m not quite sure what the Member is taking exception to in terms of not being able to support this number. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Miltenberger. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My intention is not to belittle the question. It’s just that the fact remains that we’ve got some consistent facts or variables that I consider baseline and without knowing what this number means in relationship to the overall costs of heating and electricity for our public housing, there’s nothing to gauge whether or not $1.645 million is reasonable, given the facts we know today. So unless we’re able to baseline this number in relationship to what is considered a fair increase, that has yet to be seen and we don’t have that information today.
So again, I’m at the Minister’s mercy to agree to something to which we’re not prepared to discuss here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Lovely.
