Daryl Dolynny

Transportation, operations expenditures, highways, not previously authorized, $95,000.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. We will wait for the motion to be circulated. The motion is in order. To the motion.

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?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be tabling a standard WSCC 2013 employer assessment rate notice that was mailed out to all businesses in the NWT.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister’s response. Will the Minister commit to facilitate an independent oversight review of the WSCC of all employer industry classifications and assessment rates as it pertains to proper claims experience? Would the Minister commit to facilitate a full public audit of accounting in relationship to written claims made by the WSCC in terms of the depletion of the Workers’ Protection Fund due to rising costs of health care services and continued downward trend in investment markets? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will follow up on my two-day review of the WSCC federal penalty and our Safe Advantage program assessments. There is over $750,000 in two years of penalties and our escalating claims cost experience, and I thought we should address the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Compensation and Safety Commission with some of the following questions.

Given the dismal performance in the past few years of the GNWT in our safety performance, many would find it odd that the GNWT as a whole has only had a modest increase of 13 cents to our new assessment rate of 79 cents per $100...

Madam Chair, the ballpark is roughly $600,000. Thank you.

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?