Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to recognize one of my constituents in the gallery, Mr. James Wilson, a well-known carver. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, titled “Government of the Northwest Territories Response to Healing Voices: The Report of the Minister’s Forum on Addictions and Community Wellness.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, titled “Northwest Territories Law Foundation 31st Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Colleagues, pursuant to Section 99 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I hereby table the 2012 Annual Report of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for the Northwest Territories.
Pursuant to Section 68 of the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, I hereby table the 2012-2013 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories.
I’d like to draw Members’ attention to the presence in the gallery today of Ms. Elaine Keenan Bengts, Information and Privacy Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. I welcome her to the House.
---Applause
Mr. Dolynny.
TABLED DOCUMENT 33-17(5):
NORTHERN PUBLIC AFFAIRS BLOG, NOVEMBER 6, 2013: “IT LOOKS LIKE THE DECISIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, WHAT TO DO WITH NWT RESOURCE REVENUES,” BY STEPHANIE IRLBACHER-FOX
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a document found in the Northern Public Affairs Journal authored by Dr. Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox, titled “It looks like the decisions have already been made. What to Do with NWT Resource Revenues.” Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, February 13, 2014, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on February 13, 2014, it shall be adjourned until Monday, February 17, 2014;
And further, at any time prior to February 17, 2014, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Item 17, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 18, motions. Item 19, first reading of bills. Item 20, second reading of bills. Item 21, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, with Mr. Dolynny in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. We have three items here before committee: Bill 6, Tabled Document 4-17(5) and Tabled Document 22-17(5). What is the wish of committee? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to consider Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act; and Tabled Document 22-17(5), Northwest Territories Main Estimates, with conclusion of general comments. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. We’ll commence after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. We have agreed to consider Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act.
I will ask the Minister responsible to introduce the bill. Minister Abernethy.
I am pleased to be here today to address Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act.
The Medical Care Act establishes that “medically necessary” services provided by a doctor are insured services.
The act also defines who is eligible for insured services and expressly excludes some residents from coverage under the act. For example, members of the Canadian Armed Forces are not eligible for payments of insured services under the Medical Care Act. This is because members receive similar benefits under relevant federal legislation.
Until recently, the Medical Care Act was consistent with the definition of insured persons under the Canada Health Act. In June 2012 the federal government amended their legislation so that RCMP members are no longer excluded from being an insured person.
The amendments being proposed to the Medical Care Act will ensure that the act is once again consistent with the Canada Health Act.
It should be noted that federal legislation is paramount and even if we did not make this change, RCMP members stationed in the Northwest Territories are eligible for coverage under the NWT Health Care Plan.
Changes to the federal act were implemented in the NWT on April 1, 2013, so members have been eligible for NWT health care coverage since then. This change to the Medical Care Act is being proposed for consistency and to avoid any confusion.
That concludes my opening remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. I will turn to the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs that considered the bill for opening comments. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 5, An Act to Amend the Medical Care Act, on January 20, 2014.
A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting this bill.
The bill amends the Medical Care Act to reflect a recent amendment to the Canada Health Act. It deems that a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who is a resident of the Northwest Territories as of April 1, 2013, was eligible for insured services in accordance with this act.
Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 6 to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 6. Individual Members may have questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Minister, would you like to bring witnesses into the House?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you, committee. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses into the Chamber.
Please introduce your witnesses, Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me today are Debbie DeLancey, my deputy minister; as well as Natasha Brotherston, the manager of policy and legislation, Department of Health and Social Services, and Mr. Thomas Druyan, the legislative drafter.
Thank you, Mr. Minister. I’ll open the floor to general comments on Bill 6. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’d like to welcome the Minister and team here this afternoon. As we’ve seen in the opening comments from the Minister, we’re talking about insured services, we’re talking about the adjudication of shared services or insured services and there is a very close parallel to what the Canadian Armed Forces personnel receive as well as RCMP. There’s a definite link there. So my concern is, as the Minister said, there’s relevant federal legislation, which deems this as a difference between DND employees and RCMP employees, but I’m a bit concerned that this could set some precedent in costs and liability for this government.
What reassurance do we have that we’re not seeing a potential move by our federal counterparts to, I guess, pawn off insured services from DND on to provincial jurisdictions or territorial jurisdictions? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The federal government has the authority to make amendments to the Canada Health Act as they see fit. They did make changes to exclude the RCMP, which have put the RCMP under our responsibility, hence the changes to the Medical Care Act. At this time I’m not aware that the federal government is making any moves to do the same thing with the military.
Thank you. I appreciate the Minister’s comments. I guess the concern I have as a Member is that this does set a fairly unique precedent that could follow because of the uniqueness and similarity between both DND insured services as well as RCMP. So I put caution to the wind that, although I do appreciate and I understand and I concur with what we’ve seen here in the act and the amendment of the act, I’m a bit concerned that this could be a future set-up.
I guess my other question has to do with there are always costs associated with such an implementation or a change for insured services in terms of providing those services and funding the services for these Members.
Do we have any preliminary numbers of what this means to taxpayers in terms of future costs for us? Thank you.
With the changes, there were around 256 positions employed by the RCMP that were affected and, on average, that works out for us and the coverage we have to provide and pay for now to about $228,000 a year.
With that number and, again, with perceived forced growth, what’s the number that the department is using as a go-forward number in terms of costs for future budgets? Thank you.
No new funds were coming from the federal government to cover this difference. We were hoping to get some additional dollars, but recognizing the fiscal restraint and fiscal policy that we are utilizing, we will fund these from within.
I guess I’ll clarify my question. I was looking for a future outlook here in terms of future budgets, but if the Minister wants to comment on this current budget, that’s fine as well. It appears that we’re funding within. These new dollars aren’t being represented in the upcoming main estimates, which it sounds like that answer has already been done, but I’m looking for the future budgets.
What is the department prepared to provide in terms of forced growth in this area in terms of potential future costs? Thank you.
It would obviously depend on the degree that the RCMP expands or increases their services in the Northwest Territories if they choose to do so. We provide these services to all residents of the Northwest Territories and as the population of the Northwest Territories changes we’ll have to amend our budgets accordingly to address increases and/or decreases in the population.
I guess my final question has to do with the planned monitoring that potentially could have some changes.
Are there any foreseeable changes for the insurers out there that are providing these services, both in government and private industry? Is there going to be a seamless transition for all providers that deal with adjudication billings with this plan? Thank you.
Businesses, organizations would maintain their third party insurance provider as they currently do. It should not affect them.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m glad to see this act come forward. I’m wondering: where do the families fit in? Were the families covered by GNWT before, and if not, are they also part of the 256? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Abernethy.
Families were covered by RCMP before and they’re covered by us now.
I understood the Minister to say that families were not covered by us before, but they are now. So I’m assuming that 256 doesn’t include the families there.
I’m wondering, since this is retroactive actually, we’ll be needing to come into force on the 1st of April of last year, what planning has been done in the way they have been handled to date, then, as actual residents, or are we talking reimbursements? I can just imagine there’s a bit of an administrative nightmare potentially. What have we done to ensure that that is dealt with efficiently? Partly I’m thinking of the families here to make sure that those that are having health issues are not encountering unnecessary difficulties in being reimbursed. Mahsi.
