Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s why this motion is so important, because we have to reconnect what these things are doing. Rather than following along blindly of what’s being served up, we need to support this motion. Don’t be afraid, Cabinet. Don’t be afraid, Premier McLeod, or as Mr. Bouchard says, don’t be afraid, McLeod government, to release the shackles of Cabinet solidarity and vote with us. It’s true, because you want to deep down inside, and I can tell. I can see it right now. Be honest with yourselves. Don’t accept what the federal government’s had.
Mr. Bromley has presented an option for all residents. If we would give the chance for folks to recognize what’s really being fixed, I’m going to say nothing is being fixed by the federal government. Mr. Bromley is presenting an option here before all of us that can continue to do business in a good way. We will be in charge of the system. We can deal with appointments, as I said before. We can worry about the resourcing as we’ve had problems before. We can work together as dual Ministers, both territorial and federally, we’ll sign these things off together. We can do business the NWT way, the northern way about collaboration.
The last thing I’ll say is, in some manner or form, in my view, this is a setback by allowing what’s happening without a stance from our government. I mean our collective government. Premier McLeod came in and said I’m going to renew relations with Aboriginal governments in a new way. I’m going to bring those ties back. I’m going to strengthen the way we do business in the North, and in some ways he’s done that, but where is his voice on this one when the federal government divides us. This motion pulls us back together as a people, and to that I can only imagine, if people don’t know yet, I’ll be voting for it.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The motion is an interesting one, and certainly we heard from the Aboriginal governments at the Bill C-15 federal government public hearing at the Explorer Hotel. I concurred with my leader in the Sahtu, Ethel Blondin-Andrew, when she spoke to the bill. In 1993 the negotiators of the Sahtu Dene/Metis, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories completed their negotiations of a comprehensive land claim agreement, and we signed off and it became law in 1993-94. We were the second Aboriginal regional group to settle a land claim, the Gwich’in being the first in the Mackenzie Delta, but further than that it was the Inuvialuit that settled before any of us did in the southern portion of the North.
When we put our agreements together in the Sahtu, our agreement guarantees that the Sahtu Dene/Metis participation in land use planning, in the management of renewable resources, land and water and the Sahtu heritage resources, this participation will be through the membership on boards and through consultation.
Twenty years ago when we settled our land claim, we understood in the future, once all the other regions had come to a point of settling their own land claims, we would look at a territory-wide board. That’s what we understood. We said okay, but based on our elders’ guidance, we sought direction, we wanted decisions to be made as close to our communities as possible on our own lands, by our own members, with representatives from the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government. We had no issue, but we understood that we were going to change this once all the territories had a settled land claim, then we would come together. We’ve only done it halfway.
I say this because we didn’t know in 20 years, from 1993-94, what was going to happen. We only understood and we knew that these boards would not be forever, we knew that, but the way that it was brought down to our land and water boards wasn’t the way that we envisioned. We knew that we wanted control of our lands. We know that the government has done a lot of hard work and they totally agree with having a voice and making decisions on our own land and our water in the future. That’s a given.
So one of the questions we ask, can the land claim agreement be changed after it becomes law? They said yes, if necessary. Either the Sahtu Dene/Metis or the government can propose a change. If both parties agree in the proposed change, amendment to the agreement is made. Now, there’s the catch: if both parties agree in the consultation. The consultation was we were told this is going to happen. Members of the Sahtu Land and Water Board said, why is this happening? We’re okay. We’re doing okay. Mr. Hawkins raises some concerns and I also heard that from the Sahtu Land and Water Board. It’s not us, it’s what’s happening in Ottawa; it’s what’s happening down there. They’re having a hard time dealing with some of the issues here. We’re doing okay. We’ve got a structure, we have certainty, we have an institution.
So the consultation, to our understanding, was big brother to little brother, this is how you shall do it and we looked at the land claim, but somehow the spirit and intent wasn’t upheld. They found a way around it so they don’t have to open the land claim agreement. It’s constitutional law, they don’t have to open it. So we thought, my goodness, when we settled in ‘93-94, the spirit and intent of law of our land claim, this is a modern day treaty. History repeats itself again. We went in with a strong spirit, strong intent, this is how we want to work together, but we cannot operate with this type of attitude coming out of Ottawa. We agree that we want to work hard with the governments to own our own lands, have a say in our own lands, but we certainly still have an issue with the basics of consultation and them telling us how good our treaty is. That is totally not fair.
So, as our leaders have spoken, we have to deal with the reality. That’s the part of the reality that doesn’t taste very good in our mouths. It doesn’t smell good, but that’s what we have to deal with. If we want to get ownership of our lands and resources, this has to come into play. It’s not very good, but that’s the reality of it. That’s the signal to the people of Canada, people of the Northwest Territories about the attitude of government. They sure fooled me as a former negotiator of the Sahtu Dene/Metis Land Claim that our guaranteed participation, our constitutional rights, can be played within a modern treaty.
So that’s something that we need to wrestle otherwise they’ll maintain a stranglehold on us, but they use sweet words and tactics to get what they want. I know that through this Bill C-15 we are going to receive some additional powers and responsibilities, but we’re still not yet released and totally free as a nation of people in the Northwest Territories, especially with what we negotiated in the Sahtu Dene/Metis. How sacred are our constitutional rights as Aboriginal people? If this is how they can come about making changes by using tactics of, well, you want control, it says in the land claim you’re going to have a full board. Well, I was there and I negotiated with David Osborn on this chapter and we had lawyers and that wasn’t the spirit and intent or what we were told. We thought we were going to have the real discussion.
So it’s quite the discussion we’re going to have around the North. Whether it’s right or not, but the numbers are there in Ottawa, the numbers are there in the Senate and the thing about this is, this is what we have to deal with. It’s going to go through Parliament and we’ll have to deal with it.
In closing, this motion is how is our government now, with this new legislation coming forward, going to deal with our Aboriginal governments and partners. Are we going to maintain some of Ottawa’s attitudes towards people in the Northwest Territories, or are we going to continue to explore how we can have that government-to-government relationship with our Aboriginal governments? That’s what this motion is calling for, I believe.
I’ll be supporting the motion, giving some recommendations to our government in the future so that it’s on record that we will start making some changes. I’m very encouraged that in five years we’ll have a review of our legislation. It just says review, it doesn’t say change or approve or make any type of changes to the legislation where we want to have full control back into the regions into the management of our resources and that. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. To the motion. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I stand here today and I’ll be supporting this motion. I’ve heard throughout my region about the old way of doing things and the old way of doing things was about not having enough enforcement, not having monitoring in the regions, in the communities and a lot of those old days decisions were about things were missed. Users of the land, the trappers and the hunters and the chiefs that go out there see how the land has been in disrepair. So that’s why they’ve got such a big liability when it comes to liability issues that the feds recognize. I’m really pleased to see that they will continue to try to clean up those lands that they are responsible for. But the whole point was that there wasn’t enough monitoring and enforcement at that time, and we see those effects here today.
Also, Bill C-15 with a super-board is disempowerment for our northern territories, our land claimant groups and those that are negotiating. We want more autonomy over our lands, not less, and this bill does that.
Bill C-15 amalgamates our boards, but I think our government has always said we can do things better, and I’m sure we can. That’s all this motion is asking for. Yes, we can improve on it. I know that we’re getting it and it speaks about amalgamating the boards into a super-board. In all our regions, yes, we’re frustrated with the Bill C-15 hearings, but I think it’s about getting our guaranteed involvement back, guaranteed consultation and guaranteed accommodation for meaningful input. That’s what this motion calls for, is trying to restore some of that action. While, in fact, it asks us to restore it completely, I don’t know if we can go there. I think the key thing is we want enforcement, monitoring, community involvement. Once again, the users of the land feel it’s very shameful every time they are left behind for someone to clean up, and it impacts all governments because we’re the ones that end up paying.
With that, once again, I will be supporting this motion and it begins just by maintaining our regional offices. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the mover and seconder for bringing this motion forward, although I will not be supporting it on the basis that two of the signatories that signed on to devolution are within my riding. As anybody who is familiar with negotiations, those are binding agreements. This is before the federal government at the moment and it hasn’t passed yet, but I realize that this is one of the deal breakers. Anyone who is familiar with negotiations knows that there are deal breakers in any agreement, and this is one of them.
As we move closer to devolution, we have just over 40 days to go, I’m not sure if that is one of the tactics of this motion before this House. There’s a good chance that our Devolution Agreement will not go forward if this motion is passed here today.
As I said, two of the signatories to the Devolution Agreement have signed on, and for that reason I will not be supporting the motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. The honourable Premier, Mr. McLeod.
Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House contains a number of factual errors that I would like to correct. In the spirit of consensus government, I will, of course, acknowledge where the motion is in fact accurate.
The motion is correct in stating that the Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-15, An Act to replace the Northwest Territories Act, to implement certain provisions of the Northwest Territories Land and Resources Devolution Agreement. This motion does not, however, reference that Bill C-15 has passed third reading in the House of Commons and has been referred to the Senate. Changes to federal legislation are not within the purview of this government.
This Assembly voted 17 to 1 in support of devolution, which will take place on April 1, 2014. However, I welcome the opportunity to correct a number of factual errors in this motion and in other materials currently circulating so that the residents of the Northwest Territories are not left with erroneous and misleading information.
The motion states that Bill C-15 will eliminate our regional land and water boards and form a single Yellowknife-based land and water board with only one representative from each region. Bill C-15 does in fact provide for the amalgamation of current land and water boards.
The motion is correct, if not misleading, in that the administration of the board will be in Yellowknife, but board members will continue to be from across the Northwest Territories. In fact, regional land and water boards don’t belong to the Government of the Northwest Territories; whereas, the motion says our water boards. They are institutions of public government, just as the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board is now and will remain. The board will continue to review any applications that impacts more than one region. Their role will expand to encompass the entire Mackenzie Valley.
The current board members of the Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board have the full confidence of this government. Their decisions are measured, rational and comprehensive.
I want to take this opportunity to thank the board chair and the current and previous board members who have served and continue to serve the people of the Northwest Territories with distinction and integrity.
With respect to representation on the amalgamated board, there is a provision in Bill C-15 to allow three people to be appointed to review the application, including at least one member appointed from an Aboriginal government. This provides for representation similar in proportion to the current representation on regional boards.
There is also a provision to allow the chairperson to designate additional board members to deal with the application in addition to the three people designated. This provides continued real representation.
I would like to point out that the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board, MVEIRB, is a similar institution that functions without regional panels. Concerns have not been expressed that MVEIRB is not representative of the people of the Northwest Territories. It is unclear why this motion implies that an amalgamated board cannot function in the same way.
It is also important to recognize that board members, while nominated by parties, are not there to represent their region or government but are tasked with assessing projects in the best interests of the public. They must, and do, consider the views and concerns in the communities and regions affected along with the territorial interests. This won’t change. This framework is the basis of all board appointments.
I would like to point out and emphasize that the establishment of the Intergovernmental Council with our Aboriginal partners will provide a forum for important collaboration. In this way, the views of Aboriginal governments will continue to be articulated and heard by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The second clause of the motion states that our Aboriginal government partners and many Northwest Territories residents oppose this amalgamation. Aboriginal governments have expressed their concerns about the amalgamation. We respect and understand their positions. I do not, however, agree that many Northwest Territories residents oppose this amalgamation. The motion says “many.” There is nothing to substantiate that statement.
We can argue about the semantics, but at the end of the day our democracy provides the right of the federal government to make changes to federal legislation as long as it does not contravene other obligations such as land claim agreements. The current land claim agreements do provide for a single board.
The GNWT will continue to work with our Aboriginal government partners through existing processes and through the Intergovernmental Council as we assume the management of lands and resources in the Northwest Territories. This is a commitment in the Devolution Agreement and I look forward to evolving our land and resource management with our partners after devolution.
The motion then goes on to say that the intent of land claim settlements was to establish and maintain regional land and water boards as they currently exist so that decisions were made by people most familiar with regional issues. Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect.
All land claim agreements clearly provide for or contemplate the establishment of a single, larger board for the Mackenzie Valley. It is misleading to suggest that decisions will be made by people unfamiliar with regional issues. The environmental assessment process will continue to provide opportunities for input from residents, organizations and governments and regions. It is also important to note again that the chair can appoint three people to hear the application including a member from the region impacted. Additional members can also be added.
The fourth clause of the agreement states regional land and water boards have an excellent track record and evaluations show that they are effective and efficient. The land and water boards have improved their processes; however, Canada continues to strive for greater efficiency that would put the Northwest Territories on a level playing field with other jurisdictions. There is no reason to believe that a single larger board would not be effective and efficient as a series of smaller boards. It must also be recognized that a larger board is also already functioning.
The fifth clause states that amalgamating regional land and water boards does not address the core issues of unsettled claims, timing of ministerial decisions and findings of previous audits. Mr. Speaker, I can agree that there is always room for improvement. In fact, this government has consistently stated that a range of issues needed to be addressed to make the system effective and efficient. However, this motion seeks to fault board amalgamation for not fixing other concerns with the regulatory process, such as unsettled land claims and past delays in ministerial decisions. Lumping these issues together is a smokescreen for a separate partisan agenda.
It is worth noting that the other issues have been consistently raised by this government and we will work towards resolving them with Canada, the Government of the Northwest Territories and Aboriginal governments.
It is also important to remember that the whole premise behind devolution is to provide more decision-making authorities to the people of the Northwest Territories. This includes ministerial decision-making for Northwest Territories public lands. Northwest Territories Ministers will be more responsive and ensure timely decision-making.
Clause 6 states that the Government of the Northwest Territories will achieve substantial new designated and actual authorities to manage land and water on Northwest Territories territorial lands effective April 2, 2014. This is accurate.
I’m pleased to once again advise this House and the people of the Northwest Territories that through devolution the Government of the Northwest Territories will have new and very real legal authorities both delegated and under its own legislation. These authorities will operate within the integrated land and water management system negotiated in comprehensive land claim agreements. It is appropriate that Members recognize these as substantial and meaningful.
These new authorities achieved through devolution will help deal with some of the historical issues that have been problematic, including more timely decision-making by Ministers closer to home and directly accountable to this Legislative Assembly and Northwest Territories citizens.
Clause 7 states that a guiding principle of a draft Northwest Territories Land Use and Sustainability Framework is that communities and regions have the opportunity for meaningful engagement and input into land use decisions. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is correct. The LUSF speaks to how we will deal with the management of public lands in the Northwest Territories setting a standard of doing business consistent with GNWT practices. Whether there is an integrated board or regional boards will not affect the government’s commitment to the sustainable management of land. Communities and regions will continue to have the opportunity for meaningful engagement post-devolution through enhanced access to a more local, responsive government.
Clause 8 states that staffed regional offices would help maintain regional capacity and enable the accustomed regional input into the land, water and resource management monitoring and enforcement process. As mentioned previously, communities and regions will continue to have the opportunity for meaningful engagement no matter what form the board takes.
Mr. Speaker, let’s be clear. There’s a whole post-devolution system being set up that will ensure meaningful participation in the management of land, water and wildlife on public lands.
On April 1st the GNWT will increase its existing regional presence through its post-devolution organizational design. In addition to 27 AANDC regional positions, 25 new regional positions are being added. These included renewable resource officers, water resource officers, lands officers and land use advisors. We have also taken oil and gas functions currently located in Ottawa and placed them in Inuvik.
The Government of the Northwest Territories continues to press Canada to retain a regional administrative capacity in each region to ensure local access to board processes including applications for permits and information about processes. There are ongoing discussions with Canada on its implementation of Bill C-15 including the need to maintain regional capacity.
The Government of the Northwest Territories is committed to working with Aboriginal governments through the Intergovernmental Council. We expect the Intergovernmental Council will provide the opportunity for all parties to work together to monitor the implementation of Bill C-15 and to work through issues and concerns around the transition into an integrated Mackenzie Valley Land and Water Board.
As we devolve and then evolve, I for one am looking forward to witnessing the development of land and water authorities and I have full confidence that the people of the Northwest Territories will contribute in meaningful, intelligent and profound ways. I know we are up to the job, Mr. Speaker. We are ready to take on this authority despite what some might insinuate. We are capable and we are ready.
I want to encourage our youth in all communities to consider what devolution will mean for them and their families. They are the voices we will need to hear as our territory evolves. The federal government and the Government of the Northwest Territories are on schedule and on track for implementation of devolution on April 1, 2014. The people of the Northwest Territories deserve this authority. Through them, this House is the steward of our land, water, wildlife and natural resources. We have a responsibility to be leaders, leaders who find a way forward on a complex path. Providing accurate, factual information to the people of the Northwest Territories is a role of leadership. This government will continue to do that.
Cabinet will not be supporting this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Colleagues, now I’d like to recognize the mover of the motion, Mr. Bromley, to close debate.
MR. BROMLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much, colleagues throughout the House here, for your contributions. I think we had a very good debate today. In fact, probably the most important role is to listen to our public, listen to our people and respond to their desires. That’s what we’re on about here today.
I think a number of good points were raised, Mr. Speaker. It’s unfortunate that we have this situation because, as many people said, there’s much support for devolution.
We’ve talked about this. In the spirit of the peace and friendship treaty, there should have been accommodation and discussions between Aboriginal groups and the federal government. We heard that very strongly and we are left in a situation where the public trust, public interest, has been ignored.
So let’s build a relationship with Aboriginal governments by working collaboratively with them on this issue. That’s a very strong theme that’s come out and was repeatedly mentioned.
GNWT has a comprehensive regional approach. That was an interesting point. We certainly do, so there’s huge potential for working together. There’s a big overlap with these big regional governments and it was mentioned that this motion represents a positive approach.
Again, one Member respected Aboriginal governments and claims but referred to the Yukon. Again, that was a misconception, in my mind, that was well laid out by Mr. Hawkins.
It’s less efficient. Again, I think it was well addressed in the remarks we heard today. The efficiency was clear. Again, I think the mining industry and development industry is very nervous because they realize that this new structure is likely to slow things down.
Several Members mentioned listening very closely at the hearings. I believe the Premier missed a good part of that. He made his presentation, the first presentation at the hearings, and then left, which was unfortunate if that was the case. Clearly, our people’s voices have not been reaching him and he has not been speaking for our people.
The motion encourages government to confine what they were doing already, to continue what they’re doing already and to work collaboratively, again seeking ways to resolve issues that are arising as a result of this new structure being put in place against the will of our people.
The loss of technical capacity is a huge part of what this bill is meant to do. It’s meant to recognize all of the positive things that have developed as a result of regional boards and technical capacity in regional offices. Is there a way we can capture those benefits? I appreciate that point. Again, working with regional partners will strengthen their voices.
There is potential for integrating with new lands offices that are being planned again. This office could be taken by the Premier and is so much in line with so many of the things he is contemplating.
The suggestion that we have no jurisdiction in this because it’s federal legislation is simply not relevant here. This motion is not commenting on bills, it’s trying to deal with the results of the federal legislation that is about to be passed and implemented a year from now.
One Member had full confidence in the government to deal with the situation and that represents the diversity of opinion in the House.
Again, devolution, yes, but why should we have to pay for the other half of amendments to the MVRMA? That’s been repeatedly raised.
The regional boards clearly have a record of success and we want to capture their benefits.
An interesting couple of comments were the elucidation, really, of what the claims perspectives were by Mr. Yakeleya. Guaranteed positions on boards and so on, including territorial boards, but only after all land claims are settled and only then. Of course, this has not been achieved yet. One can’t help but wonder if this is going to postpone seriously getting down to work in our land claims in unsettled regions.
Aboriginal governments in claims areas where claims have been successfully put in place expected a strong opportunity for input in discussions with respect to the large board and they were prepared to have those discussions. I know they went to many meetings, but both parties didn’t agree, so again the spirit and intent of the agreements were not upheld, and there’s recognition that we have to deal, they have to deal with the reality, and I think we, as a government, have a responsibility to listen to them and work with them collaboratively.
It was mentioned that this is going back to the old ways, the colonial ways of doing things, and it represents a disempowerment rather than empowering of people to have a voice over their regions, and also about getting back constitutional rights and focused on successful oversight that regional authority brings.
The suggestion that this is part of devolution and not being able to support it because people have signed on and that’s a deal breaker, that again misses the mark here. That’s not an issue with this motion. I can assure Members of that. Because this bill before the House, Bill C-15, again, had nothing to do with that. This is a motion that directs us to prepare for when that bill is actually put into place and its consequences.
Again, Premier McLeod mentioned that there are a lot of accuracies and errors in the motion. I would suggest…
[Microphone turned off.] …to the motion. Closing remarks. I know you want to speak to the motion, not picking apart what everybody said, but your closing remarks, Mr. Bromley. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, I have to rebut some of his remarks, although I did in my introductory remarks so I won’t go into too much detail here. Again, he talked about Bill C-15 and so on. Again, some of his remarks, unfortunately, were not relevant. A number of half-truths; again, they’re interpretations, and I think I addressed those in my earlier remarks.
I think, just to get to the chase here, bringing forward the crystal clear voices of our public is what this motion is really all about. The issue is our residents have decried the loss of the regional boards and we are in a position to work with them to help mitigate the impacts. The motion proposes that this government sits down with our Aboriginal partners, and in a transparent way, to see if there are opportunities for collaborative action to capture the benefits that the regional boards have developed. We happen to have a focus on water, a focus on land, a focus on resources and on Aboriginal governments, so the opportunity is huge.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The Member has asked for a recorded vote. All those in favour, please stand.
Mr. Bromley, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Moses.
All those abstaining, please stand. All those opposed, please stand.
Mr. Blake, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Dolynny, Mr. Bouchard.
The results of the vote: seven in favour, 11 opposed. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 8, Write-off of Debts Act, 2013-14, be read for the second time.
This bill authorizes the write-off of debts in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried. Bill 8 has had second reading and is referred to the committee.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, that Bill 9, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2013-14, be read for the second time.
This bill authorizes the forgiveness of debts in accordance with the Financial Administration Act.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried. Bill 9 has had second reading and is referred to the committee.
----Carried
Item 20, consideration in Committee of the Whole of bills and other matters, with Mrs. Groenewegen in the chair.
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole to order. What is the wish of the committee today? Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. We would like to continue with Tabled Document 22-17(5), the Main Estimates for 2014-15, with the Department of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Is the committee agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. We will resume with that after a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I will call to order Committee of the Whole. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to recognize Ally MacInnis on the official record. She’s a Page from Yellowknife Centre and I missed her under recognitions of visitors in the gallery. It’s been my understanding she’s been here almost two weeks as a Page. This is her second round being a Page. I reminded her there are several Members who were Pages, such as Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Abernethy, Ms. Colette Langlois, who is our Clerk, and certainly ourselves, and we can’t forget Mr. Bromley. You never know, she may want to come back someday as an MLA. Thank you very much to Ms. MacInnis for helping us out.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Thank you, Pages, for all the hard work. If committee is agreed, we will go into detail on the Department of Health.
Agreed.
I will ask the Minister if he has witnesses to bring into the House.
I do, Mr. Chair.
Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Thank you. I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the witnesses into the Chamber, please.
Mr. Abernethy, I will get you to introduce your witnesses for the record, please.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With me today on my left is Jeannie Mathison, the director of finance; and on my right, Debbie DeLancey, the deputy minister of Health and Social Services.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. My understanding is you had just a few final comments for the general comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We ran out of time on the clock last night before I was able to respond to all of the Members’ opening comments. A number of the Members mentioned THSSI funding. I would just like to talk a little bit about the THSSI funding before we move on.
As I think everybody knows, THSSI was originally funded for five years in 2005 to 2010 and it was extended for two years for 2010 to 2012 and again for another two years, 2012 to 2014. The original intent and purpose of THSSI was to support health reform activities that addressed one or more of the following three broad goals: to reduce reliance, over time, on the health care system; strengthen community level services; and build self-reliant capacity to provide services in the Northwest Territories.
In 2013-14 we had about $7.53 million available through THSSI which we used for some core programs, things such as the physician staff in the amount of $1.4 million; Stanton Dialysis Program, $98,000; Physician Resident Support Program, $160,000; nursing resources in small communities, $222,000; nurse practitioners, $750,000. We put some money into shared services and system innovation division for $849,000; system initiatives for $854,000; and medical travel, which was a big one, at $3.2 million. Those are the THSSI-approved dollars in ‘13-14.
THSSI ends on March 31, 2014. In recognizing that we had used these dollars to do the types of initiatives that I have just listed, the three territories – Nunavut, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories – put together a business case trying to encourage the federal government to put more money into this particular area. In collaboration with these territories, we pursued a new territorial five-year funding arrangement.
In June 2013 the three territories submitted a business case to the federal government seeking new funding of $90 million over three years. The business case did not request continued funding for the existing THSSI expenditures other than some direct support for the medical travel costs. The business case outlined three proposed areas of funding to be shared by the three territories.
The first was health system improvements, which we are, as three territories, asking for $13 million a year. What we are hoping that we could use those dollars for were improved management of mental health and addictions and chronic disease in our northern context, to maximize efficiency and reduce risk, and develop aging in place strategies.
The second category, we were hoping to get $15 million a year for access to specialized and tertiary care and complex diagnostics, and the three territories are asking basically for $3 million for improved case management and administration of medical travel and $12 million per year to contribute to the cost of essential medical travel.
The third category was pan-territorial innovation, which we are asking for $2 million a year.
According to the federal government’s recent budget, the three territories will be allocated $70 million over three years for a time limited – and this is critical – fund to increase health services in the three territories in priority health areas and to reduce the reliance on outside health care system on medical travel. That’s $20 million short of what the three territories were looking for. I think it’s really important to note that the intent behind the $70 million is not the same intent as THSSI. It is different money.
We have not received any details confirming the federal government’s proposed territorial breakdown for the new funding or the specific priorities that will be funded, what we can use the money for. The budget address says $70 million over three years for new targeted and time limited funds to increase health services in the three territories in priority health areas and to reduce the reliance on outside health care systems and medical travel. We obviously are pleased that the federal government supports ongoing territorial efforts to improve health systems in northern Canada and look forward to hearing these details of the funding and what we will be able to spend it on. One thing we do know is, because it is time limited, they have been very clear that anything we use those dollars for must have an exit strategy. So we cannot put these into permanent programs because we will not have the money on a permanent basis.
As Members know, the 2014-15 Main Estimates that are in front of us today includes proposed funding of $7 million to allow some of the essential base activities to continue in the absence of THSSI funding, including funding for the Medical Travel Program at Stanton and direct service delivery by health care practitioners. Those dollars, as outlined in the budget for ‘14-15, are a one-time allotment to the Department of Health and Social Services. This isn’t ongoing funding, but we have, in this budget in front of us, $1.4 million for the physician staffing model, $116,000 for dialysis at Stanton, $160,000 for Physician Resident Support Program, $322,000 for nursing resources in small communities, $926,000 for nurse practitioners. We also have some money in there for shared services and system innovation division of $1.08 million. There is $3.2 million in there for medical travel. Once again, this is one-time funding this year only and it’s not in the base. The fiscal framework that we are presented with does not provide this funding beyond 2014-15, based on the assumption that we were going to get THSSI.
We have got a new pot which we may not be able to use in the same ways that we have in the past and I don’t believe we are going to be able to use that, so these dollars that we have put in this year, we are going to have to have continued discussions about how we continue to fund these things in the future. Right now future expenditures in this area are not built into the fiscal plan that the Minister of Finance has discussed on a regular basis, so these are additional costs. Should we choose to continue to put money in these areas, which I think is a good idea, it will have to be addressed in some capacity in future years.
So that’s THSSI. We know that we have to find $20 million this year to support the fiscal structure and $10 million more next year, so we know we have some fiscal challenges which are obviously going to be increased as time goes on.
So, that’s just in response to a number of Members who raised THSSI as a point of discussion yesterday.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Does committee agree that we concluded general comments for the Department of Health and Social Services? Should we go to detail?
Agreed.
We will go to detail. We will go to page 8-7, department summary, operations expenditure summary… Sorry. Deferred until activity detail or information items are considered. Page 8-8, information item, infrastructure investment summary. Are there any questions?
