Daryl Dolynny

Education, Culture and Employment, operations expenditures, advanced education, not previously authorized, $6,000.

Environment and Natural Resources, operations expenditures, land and water, not previously authorized, $21,000.

Madam Chair, if we can get maybe a little bit more information as to what type of confidence was put into that estimate. As, typically, market escalators are used from an original estimate and I guess brought into the future in terms of what that number could be today, can we get some insight as to what tools, what actuaries or any type of assessments were used to come up with a prediction of what this demolition would be in today’s dollars?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Part of our role as Regular Members is public accounts in terms of looking at cash flow and where money is coming from. This is another classic example where government, you know, you have to be very diligent on where monies are being taken from one area and put into another. I think this is another one of those negative supplementaries which is taking out of operations and now putting into capital expenditures for infrastructure.

I have a series of questions here pertaining to this amount of money. The first one is: When was the initial estimate established for the...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I have great faith in the Auditor General of Canada. Again, we are asking for some public input in terms of the audit and information shared with the public.

On the subject of governance, will the Minister responsible for the WSCC commit to facilitate a full review of governance on how the GNWT is being assessed by the WSCC employer industry classification and assessment rates? Will the Minister commit to tabling all findings and correspondence from the department and the WSCC to this House? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to split hairs on math, but I believe 13 cents on 79 cents is more of a 16 percent, not 20 percent. Given we heard from the Minister of Human Resources, health and safety claims both for GNWT showed significant increases for the Department of Health, Justice and also Transportation, if we were to compare these departments with job descriptions and classifications in the current 2013 WSCC Rate Guide, the comparable private industry fields would find the following: for Health, $1.61; for Justice, $2.58; and Transportation, $5.85.

Given the law of averages, can the...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my two-part miniseries on the GNWT’s poor performance of its WSCC Safe Advantage program, its last year’s doubling of penalties totalling over $500,000, and its continued skyrocketing claims cost, it is only befitting that yet again we ask the question: Is NWT business subsidizing our government’s poor ratings and costs to WSCC?

What started yesterday as a hypothesis in design, slowly unfolded into a series of blundering questions and replies surrounding the GNWT’s recent WSCC double penalties and out-of-control claims costs experience. In fact, since yesterday I have...

The rationale for the question is that for probably one thing it shows is that the Members actually look at the numbers. Number two, when you have a delta or a quantum of that magnitude, it begs to ask the question as to why. I think that’s why we’re in Committee of the Whole. I do have some concerns that if a topic of discussion is being discussed in preparation for this type of venue, I’m a bit concerned that we are talking about a delta here and I really don’t have much more to say, other than the fact that I’m a bit disappointed that I’m seeing a number here today and discussions that...

Madam Chair, I guess the question is, we put it to tender and we let the market decide what it is. That is one of the methodologies used. The concern I have is that this demolition amount and the taking from one pot of money and moving it to another pot of money and using it for another project, some of the substantiation sheets that we went through as Ministers and as well as Members, some differ in the amount that we see here today. Again, I am not at liberty to say what that lesser number was, but it was a lesser number than what we see here today in the supplementary appropriation bill.

Is...

It will make the next couple questions that much more difficult, but I guess in my assessment and from getting background information, this original estimate was some time ago. It was not something that just happened overnight. They would have had an assessment.

What was used as a determining point as to what this amount of demolition would have been from the original estimate? Is there a market escalator that was used to determine that amount of money?