I’m not sure if the Member expects me to change my answer, but I just responded to that very same question a few minutes ago. It’s a result of timing. When we had information on the change of design concluded far enough, we did have engagement with our previous contractor. Those didn’t result. We recognized that we were not going to be able to conclude those discussions and, therefore, terminated our relationship and entered into discussions with a company that was familiar with the project and that was willing to move forward with this whole project and provide budgets and figures that we would be able to explore. We felt comfortable and confident that we’d be able to conclude it with this company.
I apologize if it sounds the same. March 1st is the key date that I wanted to put out there. If the government and the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation knew the problems before March 1st, like I said, it would take 30 days to go to the marketplace, get some pricing for the superstructure. That didn’t happen and now our backs are against the wall. We’re going to negotiate a contract that we obviously won’t be able to get out of. We won’t have any latitude. There’s nobody else bidding on this work. It’s one company. Again, I think given what’s happened with this project and the history of it, at the very least we should have gone out to the marketplace and tried to get the best price we could have. That obviously didn’t happen. Considering we’ve done a wholesale changeup on the project management team, it would only make sense that we would go to the marketplace. I want to ask the Minister, if we changed out the project management team, how come the decision wasn’t made to go to tender, which would have got us within that March 1st timeline?
The pieces that the Member is referring to in terms of deciding to move forward with the actual negotiations with a different firm was decided upon prior to having the decision made to remove the project management team and have a new team put in place. The project management team change was as a result of this cost overrun, that triggered the discussion. It was decided at that point that we had to make changes. There are a lot of other things that have to be factored into this decision. We have a company that’s been able to identify the steel production, the places and slots that we’ve had to reserve in terms of guaranteeing that we’re going to hit the November 2011 time frame that’s been set out to avoid further cost to this. There are a number of things that have to be taken into consideration. Of course there are a lot of other companies that are out there. We did go out to, I’d like to remind the Member as he goes back and relives history here, that we did go to a public tender at one point. We had one company come forward and they had prices that were not acceptable to us. We have a company that’s experienced, we have a company that’s familiar with the community and the project, they have identified the ability to do all the different pieces and parts that need to be accomplished to make this move forward, and we’re quite satisfied that they’ll be able to do it.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That company is also familiar with the fact that the Government of the Northwest Territories today is up against the wall. They know we’re in trouble with this project. We’re negotiating from a bad, bad position. Again, I’ve talked to people. This is unprecedented for a government in Canada to go to a sole-sourced contract on a bridge like this. Unprecedented. I’d like to ask the Minister who exactly makes up this new project management team. I’d like to know that.
I’m not able to provide that publicly at this juncture. There is a company that we have decided to use. I’m not sure if all the agreements have been signed. I’d like to confirm that prior to providing that information. I can provide that to him today in confidence, if he’d like. Along with this company we will be utilizing at least one person from our own sources that has already been working for us for some time and is quite familiar with the project. I can provide the information, I’m just reluctant to give out information that hasn’t been finalized and put out in the public yet.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ll continue on with these questions. This is obviously, for all intents and purposes, a government project now. We’ve taken it on lock, stock, and barrel by the looks of things. I’d like to ask the Minister, when he talks about contracts that are outstanding, what are we waiting to sign? Are we signing this project management team up to a contract? If that contract hasn’t been signed when is it going to be signed and who is it going to be signed with? I think this is a public government and we’re talking about public funds. The Minister should be able to stand up and tell us who exactly that is.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely. I agree with the Member 100 percent. Let’s be real here, though. We have a supp that we are bringing forward in the next couple of days and we will have to answer those questions. This is getting ahead of the game. We haven’t formally been in a position to put that in front of Members. We are discussing, I guess, the terms now, but there are a number of things that we need to sign, and we will sign once we know that we have an arrangement and we have the approval of this House. I’m sure the Members are not going to be very satisfied or very happy with me if I sign a contract for so many millions of dollars that locks us in while I don’t have the authority to spend the money. So first things first. Those things will be brought forward and we plan to have that information ready and inform the House of the different players that are involved. We haven’t formalized any agreements 100 percent, we haven’t signed off with the contractor, so there are a number of things that we are still working on and we made that clear. We still have to work out the transition agreements with the Deh Cho Bridge Corporation, for example. The supplementary appropriation for $15 million has not reached the floor of this House yet. We can commit to providing that, we intend to provide that, and that will come.
I’d like to ask the Minister, with all these things outstanding, how can the Minister with any certainty be sure that $15 million is enough to cover all the bases on this project?
The discussions are concluded, the signing off has not been done, and I’m quite reluctant to throw the names and company titles out into the public until we have that kind of discussion in house. We have looked at this project from every angle. We have had people that are outside of our government, outside of the bridge project itself look at our numbers. We are confident that we’ve captured all the different costs or pieces that are out there in terms of what it’s going to take to conclude this project. We’ve looked at the claims, we’ve looked at the interest, we’ve looked at everything that needs to be paid out before we move forward. It’s all captured in the $15 million that we will be bringing forward in terms of a supp. Is it 100 percent foolproof? Of course not. We don’t know and won’t know until we look back as we move forward, I guess.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. I guess the last question I’d have is whether or not the Minister understands that, as I said earlier, for a government project which -- let’s not fool ourselves; it has become a government project -- it’s unprecedented for work of this nature on a project like this in this country of Canada to be sole sourced, that this is completely unprecedented, Mr. Speaker, the way this project is moving forward. Unprecedented. Thank you.
Maybe I have to remind the Member this is not the only project that we’ve sole sourced. The school in Inuvik is sole source also.
Mr. Speaker, this project started off as a public process with a tendering portion that was built into it. It has led into a number of changes and we certainly have heard in this House the challenges that have concerned the Members. We’ve made every effort, I want to assure the Members, Mr. Speaker, that I’ve taken the opportunity to meet with our staff, with the Bridge Corporation, with everybody that I could to see if we could influence the project moving forward smoothly and the transition being able to happen without any extra costs. I was very confident that we were going to be able to achieve that as we looked at changing the design. Of course, it was of great concern to myself and to my Cabinet colleagues and I’m sure to the Members of this House, that we weren’t able to do that.
We have come in now with a project that’s 10 percent over budget, and that’s something we’ll have to debate and have approval from the Members of these Chambers to get the go-ahead. Failing that, we won’t be able to conclude this project. We would be in a very difficult situation. But I’m very reluctant to sign off on a contract until we have that discussion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to take this opportunity to take stock on where we are in our achievement of the principles of consensus government. Last summer we renewed our commitment to consensus government with the approval of the guiding principles for consensus government in the NWT. On Friday past, the Minister of Finance raised the principles as a foundational document of this government and reminded us of our agreement and dedication to them.
Mr. Speaker, we worked hard as a Caucus to develop these principles, because of serious concerns with the health and integrity of the practice of our consensus government. Some Members had serious concerns that the executive direction of government had descended into a despotic form without respect for including the views and concerns of Regular Members in the decision-making process.
I’d like to quote some of the guiding principles we committed to: “ consensus government is not defined by the absence of party politics. It is defined by the ability and willingness of all Members of the Legislative Assembly to work together with their respective roles for the collective good of the people of the Northwest Territories;” “Open and respectful communication between all Members is the most essential feature of consensus government; except under extraordinary circumstances, Members of the Legislative Assembly should be made aware of and have opportunity to discuss significant announcements, changes and consultations or initiatives before they are released to the public or introduced in the Legislative Assembly.” “Use of the element of surprise is inconsistent with consensus government. The role of the Caucus is fundamental in the effectiveness of consensus government. Caucus provides a venue for all Members to set broad, strategic direction for the Legislative Assembly;” Mr. Speaker, “to discuss matters of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories as they arise;” “the Premier and Cabinet are appointed by the Members of the Legislative Assembly to provide overall leadership and direction in accordance with a broad strategic direction set by the Caucus. Cabinet must have the ability to implement this strategic direction effectively and efficiently but in a way that reflects the concerns of Regular Members and maintains their support.”
I’ve often spoken about the track record of our Executive in consulting Members and seeking their mandate, albeit most frequently concentrating on failure to consult. I have pointed out instances of the leadership attending meetings with other governments and making deals with no mandate from this Assembly. The Premier’s comment two years ago at the northern leaders’ meeting saying a carbon tax would not be considered was an example. I have spoken in criticism of the failure of Ministers to report back on their activities at intergovernmental meetings. On this front, things have improved with the reports from the Ministers of Health and Industry, Tourism and Investment upon their returns from national meetings.
Last week I made a statement in this House on the vital importance of public transparency and the matter of this government’s reaction to the report of the Joint Review Panel on the Mackenzie Gas Project. I directed questions to the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources in his capacity as lead Minister for the project. I asked this Minister in two sets of oral questions whether this government intended to participate in the consult to modify process of the National Energy Board, which is a first procedural point in making responses to the recommendations of the panel. The Minister went to some length in not answering my question then said he would take the questions as notice.
On Thursday last week, I got an answer to my question when a constituent provided me with a copy of a letter filed to the public registry of the National Energy Board on behalf of the Government of the Northwest Territories that day under the consult to modify process. The day after, Mr. Speaker, the response was tendered, the lead Minister provided a copy of this document to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. As a Member of the Legislative Assembly, I must learn of my government’s position on critical matters like the JRP process by retrieving that information from the NEB’s public registry.
Mr. Speaker, on the 29th of January, according to Hansard for that day, I asked the Minister of ENR: “Does the GNWT intend to file a submission with the National Energy Board on or before February 11, 2010, the response to the Joint Review Panel report and recommendations and if so, how will we involve the MLAs and the public in the preparation of this submission?” That’s February 11th. Thank you. The response, Mr. Speaker, from the honourable Michael Miltenberger was: “Mr. Speaker, I’ll take that question as notice.”
Well, the Minister of ENR would not tell me in this House whether this government would take part in the consult to modify process and before he fulfilled this undertaking to respond to my question, this government filed the response to the consult to modify process two weeks later. On Thursday last, any of my constituents who had read the GNWT letter on the registry would have known more than me, as a Member of this House.
Mr. Speaker, I and some others are Members of both the Standing Committee on Social Programs and the Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure. Both the Minister of ITI and the Minister of ENR responsible for the JRP file are aware of these committees’ desire to have input into any response this government makes on the Joint Review Panel report before the response is given. Indeed, in response to my questioning on the 29th of January, the Minister replied, according to Hansard, “We have committed to work with committees.”
The February 11th response to the JRP report says that “the NEB should reject recommendation 8-6 from the JRP, which related to the establishment of the greenhouse gas emissions target or a series of targets in connection with the MGP facilities.” On January 29th, in response to questions about the process the government intended to follow in developing and submitting their responses, the Minister responded: “We know we want it to be clear, comprehensive and be able to stand scrutiny and be shown to have followed due process.”
Well, Mr. Speaker, the situation we have here today speaks to the government’s ability to fulfil its intent. The Minister of ENR is a member of the Special Committee on Climate Change. The committee was set up as a central clearing house for a coordinated government attack on the crucial issue of climate change. I spend a lot of time and effort participating in the work of the Climate Change committee. Greenhouse gas emission targets is the most important item on that committee’s agenda. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly highlighted the need to have input on issues in that committee relevant to their mandate. I consider the failure to do so in this instance clearly the mandate of this committee to be a major failure of this Cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, a couple of short months ago, this government spent in excess of $50,000 to attend the 15th conference of the parties in Copenhagen because of our concern about the change in climate and the cost of potential devastation it is causing or will cause both here in the North and globally. The Premier, the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources and three Regular MLAs, which I was one, returned espousing our commitment to take this on, to take the responsible lead given the ongoing absence of any federal leadership whatsoever. Indeed, we said sub-national governments like ours will save the day. Yet when I look at the government’s published response to such issues with respect to the Mackenzie Gas Project, we are recommending that we reject rather than strengthen the recommendation that attempts to ensure management of emissions. The government sweepingly rejects rather than strengthens attempts to manage future impacts resulting from the basin opening nature of this process, those aspects that ensure the project could go forward as sustainable development. This government has formally rejected a JRP recommendation on greenhouse gas targets and Regular Members have to read about it in a public registry.
Let me highlight those guiding principles for consensus government once more. “The opportunity for all Members to have meaningful input in important decisions is fundamental.” “Except under extraordinary circumstances, Members should be made aware of and have opportunity to discuss significant announcements.” “Caucus is fundamental to the effectiveness of consensus government discuss matters of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories as they arise.”
The honourable Member for Yellowknife South, Mr. Bob McLeod. What is your point of order?
Point of Order
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise on Section 23(i). The Member is suggesting that we are withholding information from him. I would like to point out that he is an intervener in the Joint Review Panel process. As such, by providing information to him, he would have unfair advantage over other interveners in the process. For that reason, I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. I take your point of order. I might allow a bit of discussion on this point of order. Do you want to speak more on the point of order, Mr. McLeod?
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Through the regulatory process, there is a process of intervening with the report. As far as I understand, the Member is listed as an intervener with the Joint Review Panel process. As such, it is to make sure that we have a fair process. We have to make sure that if we provide the Member with information, it has to go to all of the interveners in the Joint Review Panel process. As such, the Member, being an intervener, found out about the fact that we filed the statement with the National Energy Board like all the other interveners did. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. To the point of order. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At no point have I said that this information happened to go to me directly. I am seeking legal advice as an intervener. As it happens, I resigned from intervenership just last week, but if I get advice to step out of committee when this comes forward, I will do that. I have not spoken once about me getting this information directly. I have spoken about committee. I think due process as the Minister of Environment and Natural Resources committed to includes responding to the request from both of those committees for input and any response.
Speaker’s Ruling
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. I am taking this point of order under… In thinking about it, I understand that the Member for Weledeh was registered as an intervener. However, I don’t see any reason why that should prevent him from speaking in this House on the review JRP and I don’t think he is asking for any information. I am going to rule that there is no point of order and allow the Member to continue in his presentation. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If it is of any comfort, I have not been active as an intervener since I was elected. This process, as you know, started a number of years before I was elected.
Mr. Speaker, I believe I was going to remind people of these principles of consensus government. I just mentioned the last couple. “Caucus is fundamental to the effectiveness of consensus government to discuss matters of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories as they arise.” Number seven, “the Cabinet must act in a way that reflects the concerns of Regular Members.”
Mr. Speaker, what is going on here? My statements in the Assembly called for transparency, and the public sharing of information was an undertaking from the Minister to disclose his plans on the request to modify process. The lead Ministers know committees want input before any responses are made. I will repeat that. The lead Ministers know committees want input before any responses are made. We have a special committee reviewing exactly this issue and we have travelled the world drumming up support for aggressive action on climate change. And yet now we have a public government letter of response and I will quote some principles again, for what they are worth. A government response making a “significant announcement” on a “matter of widespread importance to the Northwest Territories” that in no way “reflects the concerns of the Regular Members”.
Mr. Speaker, the February 11th response was the first in a series of input points that will roll out to the final decision of the NEB. It will almost certainly approve the pipeline application. The government’s failure earlier to develop a realistic socio-economic agreement for this project doesn’t stand out well and this is our first step for this government has failed in its avowed commitment to our lofty consensus government principles. It has failed to make itself responsible or accountable to this House and it has, in so doing, given away our responsible positions and, in my mind, some potential new authority on some of the most crucial matters dealt with in the JRP report.
I will be asking the Minister of ENR why he does not consider it his first duty to respond in the Assembly on undertaking of notices or to include the views and concerns of the Members in his deliberations or to inform the committees of the positions he has concluded and why only those with sharp web research skills applied daily can keep abreast of this government’s biggest actions.
This Assembly began on a style of executive highhandedness. To save the practice and meaning of consensus government, Caucus gathered together yet again to lay out rules in the hope that this government would finally apply standards of ethical responsibility to its behaviour.
Mr. Speaker, this system of government is falling apart. We learned Friday of the latest disasters in the bridge construction. All this government can do is complain about Members telling the taxpayers their sensitive little secrets. Mr. Speaker, we are entering into a lengthy process of comment on the biggest capital works project ever to be undertaken in this Territory, possibly in Canada. We are going into it with a government that is apparently incapable of building a bridge across a mile of water. It has bungled this bridge project at every step, informing the Assembly only when the government is dragged into public light and only when it needs more money to fuel the latest rocket on the budget and only to the degree that they feel they must. Regular Members must continually probe until precisely the right question is asked in order to pull the most critical and meaningful facts out. Public confidence in this government simply does not exist.
There are other financial vulnerabilities that we are only just learning about. Our ability to borrow is paper thin. We will soon be at the point of deciding which critical human needs we will be unable to meet. Will it be the health of our citizens through a lack of adequate hospital facilities? Will we be cutting resources for our scattered programs dealing with the burden of poverty? How about child care, early childhood education, building schools, environmental protection and other core needs?
Now this government has embarked on fulfilling its public trust in relation to the Mackenzie Gas Project. This is the point where this government must say what it will, can, and can’t do in the face of the mammoth economic, social, and environmental impacts this project will create. It must state our positions recognizing our restricted authority and current and future vulnerabilities.
As the JRP report recommends, the project should not be going ahead unless the full range of measures needed to deal with its impacts are taken. These measures will be costly and this government is nearly broke.
If this government can claim one unblemished record, it is for low-balling, underestimating, failing to predict, and failing to plan for the consequences of its major undertakings. Without the intimate involvement of all Members, I do not trust this government to cost the essential measures and secure the funds necessary to prevent the MGP becoming another financial millstone. I will not permit this government to commit us to financial, social, and environmental tragedy.
This is the last time this government will say anything on this project without the knowledge, involvement, and consent of the Assembly. The rules of behaviour established and the principles for consensus demand -- they demand -- that this government work with these Members in matters of public policy.
I won’t read from these principles again. I expect the Ministers of this government to go away and read these principles. I am putting these Ministers on notice that each and every action on this file and every other file that crosses their desks will be rigorously studied for their fulfillment of these principles in every word.
I will be asking questions on these matters over the coming days. I will be asking the lead Minister for the Joint Review Panel report to explain these actions. I will be asking about his plans for including committees in the review and decision-making processes of the JRP. I will be asking him for his commitment that all statements and positions brought forward through these processes be made public so that all our citizens can be aware of their government’s actions. I will not be accepting the arguments for secrecy contained, for example, in the recent memo regarding JRP consultations with Members, noting that even the memo itself states that concerns about confidentiality do not preclude updates to Caucus on the process. I will be expecting a lot more than updates.
Depending on those answers I will be asking the Premier why he believes I should maintain my confidence in this government. With the dismal level of public confidence this government currently enjoys, mending these ways will be a matter of this government’s survival. I will no longer accept the violation of the principles we have agreed on and that are the foundation of this form of government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table a motion passed by the Hamlet of Fort McPherson supporting the elders care facility in Fort McPherson.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS elders make up 9 percent of the population of the Northwest Territories and this population segment is increasing faster than the remainder of the population;
AND WHEREAS the aging population has an obvious need for long-term care facilities;
AND WHEREAS many elders contribute to their communities, teaching traditional skills and knowledge and helping sustain aboriginal languages;
AND WHEREAS when elders remain in their respective home communities they continue to have the support and company of their family and friends;
AND WHEREAS there is evidence of community need for long-term care facilities as demonstrated by recent correspondence from the Tetlit Gwich’in Council that indicated there were 123 elders over the age of 60 in Fort McPherson, of which 25 elders are between 80 and 96 years of age;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Nahendeh, that the Government of the Northwest Territories develop a program for community long-term care facilities for elders and that funding for construction of such facilities be included in the 2011-2012 Capital Budget.
There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Mr. Speaker, I bring this motion forward at the request of the community of Fort McPherson, who has tabled in this Legislature a petition of almost 140 names and information that has been provided by way of the motion I have just presented from the Hamlet of Fort McPherson supporting this initiative.
To have 123 elders over the age of 60 shows that there is a very high percentage of elders in Fort McPherson. At the present time a lot of our elders have to leave their home communities to go into Aklavik, Inuvik, Yellowknife, and even Dawson City and Whitehorse. I think it’s about time that we as a government try to accommodate communities with high pockets of elders and provide this type of care for those elders so they can remain in their home communities and close to family members and friends.
Elders play an important role in the development of our communities by providing knowledge, guidance, and the support that a lot of elders give to the community leaders, schools, cultural groups, and youth groups. Fort McPherson has a very vibrant elders organization, the Elders Council of Fort McPherson, which is associated with the Youth Council of Fort McPherson. I think it’s critical that we start to find ways to work with the youth supported by the elders to direct our young people to making the right decisions and choices going forward. I think this is something this government has to seriously consider by looking at the whole area of health care. Not only health care, but housing in general. How do we house and sustain our healthy communities whether it’s a single family unit or how people age in our communities? I think often we simply look at elders as a segment of our population who eventually will find their way into our care facilities. But it seems like a lot of these facilities are designed and constructed in large urban centres like Fort Smith, Hay River, Yellowknife, and Inuvik. We have to facilitate those communities that show and demonstrate high pockets of elderly people in their communities and accommodate that segment of our population.
I would request support from my colleagues in the House. I think this is not unique to Fort McPherson and that elsewhere in the Northwest Territories we have to find programs and services to assist elders in our communities and provide them the care they need and show them the respect that they deserve.
With that, I look forward to the debate of other colleagues in the House and I would like to ask the Members to support this motion going forward.
The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the seconder of this motion I am a strong supporter of providing as many services as we can to our small and remote communities. This is one of the needs that is consistent in my riding.
The motion speaks for our support of Fort McPherson. At the same time, I still believe it’s a strategy that our government has to work towards for all our smaller communities.
Our people have asked me time and time again for long-term care facilities in their communities and I believe that our strategy has to work towards that. I know that we certainly do have it in our regional centres. I know that it doesn’t have to be cost prohibitive. They’re not asking for major facilities. At the same time it would still be the centre of the community where we have our elders, the keepers of our traditional knowledge who wouldn’t have to leave their smaller communities for the larger centres. I believe it has lots of value for our communities.
With that, I’d just like to say I will certainly, as the seconder, be a strong proponent of this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Speaker, I will be in support of this motion also. It’s something that in the Sahtu region we have long hoped for from this government here in terms of seeing improved services and other services that other communities have in facilities and good programs.
I know we’ve been asked by the Sahtu on many occasions to see if there are ways to bring elders home from Yellowknife, Fort Simpson, or Inuvik back to their region, back to their homes. I know there are many elders that are in various programs in the Northwest Territories that deserve our utmost attention and support to see if we can give them as much support as possible in taking care of them and looking after them.
These elders that we talk about are the ones that really had a hard life on the land. But they also said they had a good life. They are also in a place now where it is up to us as leaders to look after them with respect to their home care, health care, and paying any type of power bills or NorthwesTel bills. They really need help. I don’t think these elders would do that to us if we ever went in the bush with them, they wouldn’t leave us and say make it on your own. I think we have to really change things around. I really like this motion and I would like to thank the Member for bringing it forward to seek support from the Members here.
In saying that, I want to just say let’s do something right for the elders and give them what they deserve. Let’s help them out in this day and age.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add a few notes about the principles and policies behind the long-term care facility planning within the Department of Health and Social Services.
Persons currently placed in long-term care facilities in the NWT may be of any age. They may be placed in a facility specializing in a certain type of care. There are those who are severely disabled, cognitively impaired in early to advanced stages, frail and elderly and those who need respite care or palliative care in hospital settings or long-term care facilities.
As the Member has mentioned, our senior population is the fastest growing in comparison to enrolment in schools, for example, which we see is declining. There is no question that we need to work together to plan for this but we need to consider some options and the facts involved in this.
I believe most seniors and elders prefer choices that permit them to preserve their independence, quality of life, and personal dignity. Long-term care facilities, while an important service option for the most fragile, dependent, and ill, it’s not the first choice for most seniors. We currently admit individuals into long-term care based on their need. Their care needs, not their age. The need to institutionalize an individual is only an option when it is no longer possible for an individual to live independently in the community.
I’m 46 years old and in 14 short years I may be considered for an institutional setting, but I’m hoping that that’s not going to come. We shouldn’t be planning to keep too many people in institutional settings.
I have seen stats. Right now, we have about 10 percent of the population who are seniors, but in about 30 years we may have up to one-third of the population that’s over 60.
Mr. Speaker, long-term care facilities are designed to provide care for individuals with the highest level of care needs who cannot live independently even with assistance. The trend and delivery in long-term care is to increase community capacity and supports so that individuals can live in a non-institutional setting as long as possible. The department is working with the Department of Public Works and Services on a long-term care planning study. The intent is to develop a long-term care prototype and joint health centre for when current facilities need to be replaced. GNWT is developing facility design standards and prototype designs for long-term care facilities that will provide a basis for development of appropriate facilities in the future.
A prototype design will set the standard that will be used for all facilities to leverage the benefits of standardization and efficiency of building design, programming, staffing models and operational methods. Long-term care facilities will be designed with the flexibility to support aging in place once a person has been admitted to a facility. These new facilities will support implementation of client centre care and the supportive pathways approach which emphasizes providing a home-like approach, maximizing independence and quality of life.
Mr. Speaker, planning for long-term care facilities is aligned with the Foundation for Change directions of an integrative system in which residents of the NWT can access beds regardless of the region in which they live. By designing and building a prototype, the GNWT will not need to reinvent the wheel for every new facility but can redefine the prototype as experience is developed.
Integration of community-based services and...(inaudible)...links will be strengthened to enable persons with long-term care needs to move seamlessly from one service to another.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to leave with some of the stats about people who are admitted to long-term care facilities right now. Right now, the NWT admission criteria requires an applicant for long-term care to be 60 years of age or older, but the average age of admission is much, much older. For all long-term care admissions between 2005 and 2009, the average age of admission was 76.5 years. Of those, 47 percent of residents had some level of cognitive impairment and 72 percent of residents were classified as level 3 to 5. The remainder being level 1 and 2.
In 2004, the average age of admittance to a long-term care facility in southern jurisdictions was 85 years of age and the average length of stay was two years.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the motion that the government needs to plan for this, but I think we need to be careful about how we define the need for long-term care and that not everybody who turns 60 should be considered to be ready for this sort of setting. We will have to work together as a Legislature to make sure that we use our resources well, because each of these facilities will cost at least $12 million to $15 million. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. I will allow the mover of the motion to say some closing comments. Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I demonstrated, there’s 123 elders over the age of 60. Also in that statement, I also revealed that there is, from the ages of 80 to 96, 25 people. The elderly person is 96 years old.
Mr. Speaker, we realize that the fastest increasing population we have is the aged. At some point, we are going to have to deal with it. It is an issue that we are going to have to confront across Canada.
In the Northwest Territories, we are no different I believe we have to act now and find ways, as the Minister stated, to work together. This is a perfect opportunity. The community has illustrated a need. There are 123 individuals over the age of 60 and at some point in their life, they will need some form of care. I believe it’s those people, the 24 individuals over the age of 80, that can demonstrate a need in that community, so that we can accommodate, facilitate and, more importantly, deliver programs and services that are designed by a community for the community and has the support of the community. It has to have the ability to design a system we can use in other communities. Call it a pilot project. I think we have to get on with this issue, because it’s apparent we are being confronted with this issue whether it’s Fort McPherson, Fort Simpson or any other community up and down the valley.
I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am requesting a recorded vote. I request my colleagues to support me in this endeavour because on this issue, we have to deal with it head on and this is a good place to start. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The Member is requesting a recorded vote. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.
Recorded Vote
Mr. Bromley, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya.
All those opposed to the motion, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.
Mr. Lafferty; Ms. Lee; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. Roland; Mr. McLeod, Deh Cho; Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes; Mr. McLeod, Yellowknife South.
The results of the recorded vote: for, ten; against, zero; abstaining, seven. The motion is carried.
---Carried
I’ll call Committee of the Whole to order. Today we have under consideration Bills 2, 4, 7, Tabled Document 62-16(4); Minister’s Statement 47-16(4); and Committee Report, 5-16(4). What is the wish of the committee? Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. the committee would like to continue today with the departments of Municipal and Community Affairs and then Environment and Natural Resources, in that order and see what kind of progress we can make today. Thank you.
Committee agree?
