Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. I’ve waited until today to raise the point of order because I wanted to review the previous day’s Hansard. During an exchange with the Premier regarding the courthouse, I made note that on Friday, February 22, 2013, on page 26 of the Hansard, Premier McLeod makes the following statement: “We did, as the government put it, have that project, called the NWT Law Courts Project, and we put $40 million in the capital budget in 2005-2006. Committee took it out of the budget.” There lays the point of order issue.

So I draw all Members’ attention to...

I’m terribly sorry to say this. I actually couldn’t hear the answer. Could the Minister repeat a quick summary of that? Thank you.

Okay. Then earlier I had asked a question to expand on what it actually represented, and I think I understood it was, unless we were talking about two different areas, I got a $1.4 million figure and then the rest was travel and some of it was office supplies. Are we talking about all the same thing or are we talking about two different items here? I just want to first make sure we’re talking about the same item, and I’m speaking to health and social services authority administration, and then, of course, if you read the detail, it includes the funding for HSS authorities for activities...

Sorry; calling it activity 500 doesn’t mean anything to me and I would be surprised if it means anything to anybody else, except unless you’re an accountant. I think it is important to say, on the record, as Members we don’t get allocations broke out by activity listed as their unit block, although I know from a coding point of view, when you implement it into the accounting systems, you would implement it 500 slash whatever. Just to let the Minister and the staff know, 500 doesn’t mean anything unless it’s money. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to come back to something that I was thinking about when I asked questions about the health and social services authorities’ administration money. I think it was mentioned that $1.4 million, I assume we are still talking about the same pot of money of $15.5 million but $1.4 million is allocated to staffing, sort of, compensation and benefits. If that’s the case, why wouldn’t this be further labeled or better labelled as a travel fund, and maybe if they could talk specifically around who accesses this funding.

Alright. Now, does this medical travel benefit here, adding all those numbers up, is that only reflective of what’s transferred over to Stanton or is that also in consideration to what’s farmed out to the authorities? When an individual authority needs to charge something to the medical travel budget before it gets on to the Stanton Territorial travel budget, would that be the global budget or is there a separate budget line item for all the authorities?

What was the reallocation? Would we find that corresponding difference somewhere else? Thank you.

Thank you. So is the whole sum total paid out for the staff, or are there other activities associated with the management and administration?

I appreciate the reminder of where that money comes into the system and then add it to the $16 million, which brings us to the rough total of the whole program of being about $29 million. I’m, I guess, really talking about the question of for what we’re responsible. Are we within the normal budget threshold of what we’re responsible for as a government? I’m going to ask, can we separate the third-party responsibility for a second, because it seems as if that is an actual cost, and I do have a separate question for that one.

If a little kid is out playing, trips, breaks his leg and has to fly to...

Just trying to understand, why would in-house respite be treated as a program delivery under grants and contributions? To me I think in-house respite services would be, if it’s a grant under grants and contributions, something we’d supply to some association or organization that does that. So why would we refer to it as in-house? Thank you.