Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a motion. I move that this committee strongly recommends that the government identify the necessary funding to accelerate the establishment of midwifery services in Hay River to commence in the 2013-2014 fiscal year.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. We’re just going to distribute this motion, so just give us a second.
A motion is on the floor. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I’ve indicated in statements today, I think it’s something very important that we implement sooner than later. I’m quite confident the department can implement this sooner than later. I’m very comfortable with the Minister. I made this motion so that we implement this sooner than later, and it moves everybody’s midwifery programs ahead by a year.
To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called.
---Carried
Page 8-17, Health and Social Services, activity summary, program delivery support, operations expenditure summary, $40.686 million.
Agreed.
Page 8-18, Health and Social Services, activity summary, program delivery support, grants and contributions. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under grants and contributions there, we have professional development recruitment and retention in the range of $2.7 million. I’m just wondering what exactly that is and if we can get some breakdown to help me understand it or appreciate where the money is going. It just seems like a lot of money that we continually book off almost $3 million for professional development. Why is it covered under this area, why wouldn’t it be a human resource queue of some sort? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. For that we’ll got to Ms. DeLancey.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is funding that goes to authorities for a number of professional development related initiatives. The breakdown is $40,000 for a casual relief pool, $25,000 is for specialty training, $400,000 is for community health nurse development, $640,000 is for the Graduate Nurse Placement Program, $240,000 is for the Social Work Graduate Placement and about $1 million is for the Professional Development Initiative. This is funding that provides support for any health professional or allied health professional in our system once a year to do the upgrading and training they need to remain certified. We have funding in there, as well, for a residency program. Thank you.
Thank you. Just for clarity’s sake, is that $1 million package that goes to allied health considered a normal part of the negotiation in their contract that they’re upgrading or, probably, yearly requirements of taking training? Is that normal to be negotiated in their contract?
I do not believe that this is part of the negotiated contract for our allied health professionals. It’s something that was put in place many years ago to go with the Recruitment and Retention Initiative. Thank you.
Thank you. Is this considered consistent with other places who hire nurses under this Allied Health Program? I’m just trying to get a sense here. Thank you.
Thank you. It is certainly common across the country. The level of support that we provide may vary, but it’s absolutely consistent. Most progressive employers will, of course, provide some support for training and professional development for all professionals, but particularly in the health and social services fields where there is so much competition across the country it’s considered almost an essential part of a recruitment and retention package. Thank you.
Thank you. Would this be similar for doctors that have to do yearly testing or upgrading or skill development per se? I know some dentists, I think every year, have to do some type of week or a day or two and there are other industries within health that require, obviously, a day or two seminar or whatnot to keep their credentials up to speed. Is this somewhat similar and do we pay for those as well? Thank you.
Thank you. Yes, it is similar and it’s part of our contract with physicians. We do provide funding for what’s called continuing medical education and it is very similar. Thank you.
Just one last question, I believe, on this particular area. Would we be considered part of the norm or would we be considered part of the generous group? So in other words, is this consistent amongst pretty much every other jurisdiction or is this considered maybe over and above services that we offer just to keep them coming to the North, which isn’t as common in other areas? Thank you.
Thank you. Based on the most recent research that we’ve done, I wouldn’t say that we are considered part of the norm, but probably not part of the most generous group. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. DeLancey. Moving on with questions I have Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just the last item on the page. I see we’re down about half a million bucks for health promotion and prevention activities by the authorities. I guess I’m wondering why the drop there from $715,000 to $221,000 there in this fiscal year. How’d we do with the $715,000 in terms of promotion and prevention activities in ‘12-13 and why the cut there by 70 percent? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. For that we’ll go to Ms. Mathison.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The line item is actually a reallocation. In ‘11-12 and ‘12-13 opening mains, the expenditures actually show up in activity 500, but we’ve done some reorganization at the department and this line was not restated to reflect the reorganization.
Thank you. An area I have no expertise. I have nowhere to lodge that answer, so I’ll have to just trust the director here, which is fine. If I can jump ahead just a little bit because they may be related here on the next page, I see that we’ve increased $360,000 for population health contributions in the area of tobacco, and healthy choices by about $360,000. Is that part of this shuffling?
Thank you. Yes, it’s the same explanation.
Thank you. Moving on with questions I have Mr. Moses.
Sorry, Mr. Chair, Mr. Bromley asked the questions that I was going to ask. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Last on my list I have Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just wondering if the Minister can provide a breakdown of the territorial health services contributions. It’s listed as $739,000. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I’ll just give the Minister a chance to find it in the briefing. Minister Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The breakdown is NWT Midwives Association, $8,000; NWT Seniors’ Society, $188,000; Canadian Institute for the Blind, $100,000; NWT Council for the Disabled, $183,000; Hay River Committee of Persons with Disabilities, $35,000; in-house respite contributions, $225,000.
Thank you. I notice there seems to be an absence of the description under this particular title. Is there a reason why in-house respite services at $225,000 isn’t listed in some type of detail, or furthermore, why isn’t it broken out on its own? Thank you.
There was no specific reason for it to be here. The only other option would be to break it out on its own, and if that’s the request of the House, then we would break it out on its own in the next cycle.
Just trying to understand, why would in-house respite be treated as a program delivery under grants and contributions? To me I think in-house respite services would be, if it’s a grant under grants and contributions, something we’d supply to some association or organization that does that. So why would we refer to it as in-house? Thank you.
Thank you. For that detail we would have to get back to committee.
Thank you. Sure, if you can have an answer by 6:30, that would be good.
---Laugher
That’s fine. I was only kidding on that one. I’d be happy if they could get back as soon as possible. That would be quite helpful. Furthermore, I would also hope that they would take the guidance of maybe profiling it under a different method. It seems strange that it’s parked there.
The only thing I would ask, then I think we could probably leave this page, is why was there such a jump between the ‘12-13 mains and the revised estimates. I mean, what actually changed in the game? We went from $473,000 to $739,000, so there was a significant change between the two of them, those two numbers between the mains and the revised. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. Mathison.
Mr. Chair, this was another reallocation from mental health and addictions in activity 500. The funding was moved over here to activity 200. Thank you.
What was the reallocation? Would we find that corresponding difference somewhere else? Thank you.
Mr. Chair, specifically it was the in-house respite contribution that was reallocated.
Then maybe, in case I missed it, where was it reallocated from?
It was reallocated from activity 500, mental health and addictions.
Sorry; calling it activity 500 doesn’t mean anything to me and I would be surprised if it means anything to anybody else, except unless you’re an accountant. I think it is important to say, on the record, as Members we don’t get allocations broke out by activity listed as their unit block, although I know from a coding point of view, when you implement it into the accounting systems, you would implement it 500 slash whatever. Just to let the Minister and the staff know, 500 doesn’t mean anything unless it’s money. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. I believe your comment was noted by that department. Thank you. Page 8-18, Health and Social Services, activity summary, program delivery support, grants and contributions, contributions. Are there any questions?
Agreed.
Health and Social Services, information item, program delivery support, grants and contributions, total contributions, $20.521 million.
Agreed.
Thank you. Page 8-20, Health and Social Services, information item, program delivery support, active positions. Any questions?
