Mr. Chairman, in fact it does cover to March 31, 2008, because that’s the end of the fiscal year for accumulated debt, and that’s the time we have to bring forward bills of this nature, looking at the expenditures of departments during the final supp of the government. This being Supp No. 4, it would be our final piece for looking at the previous year’s expenditures.
I’ll go to Ms. LeClair for looking at how this…. There has been much talk about the payroll piece. I’ll have Ms. LeClair give more detail.
Thank you, Minister. Ms. LeClair.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the issues the Department of Health and Social Services is dealing with is how Stanton will be able to manage within its budget this year, as well as pay back any outstanding debts it may have.
I’m certain the Minister of Health and Social Services can give more detail, but we are looking at — as the Minister of Finance did say earlier — getting the receivables that are owed, which would be in the neighbourhood of $12 million, and then there will have to be a plan on deficit management, going forward, for the department and for the authority.
So on top of what we’re paying off now, there is still some additional debt, and you’re hoping to get a fair portion of that back through collecting the receivables that the authorities have outstanding.
The authorities do have receivables from way back still outstanding. Does that $12 million include last year’s receivables, or is it also the accumulated receivables? I know, for instance, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, BeauDel, as an example, has invoices that are outstanding for years — not just one year but many, many years, which is a lot of money outstanding — that they should have collected years ago. Where does that stand? Is that part of the number you quoted to me, or is that just this year’s receivables?
In the case of Stanton that is the accumulated outstanding receivables up to March 31, 2008. In the case of Beaufort-Delta Health and Social Services Authority, it is the accumulated outstanding receivables.
Thank you, Ms. LeClair. Mr. Abernethy.
No, I’m good. Thanks.
Thank you. Mr. Hawkins, did you have a question?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have similar concerns as other Members do regarding this. I think it’s important, on record, to exercise my concern in this regard.
When I see issues like this come before us, I often think of them as bread and butter, and I couldn’t run my household like this in the sense of having unpaid bills.
For my clarity, Mr. Chairman — even if it’s been repeated earlier, but for my clarity — how long has that outstanding billing been in arrears with the Nunavut government? Can I get a sense as to what this government’s doing to recoup that money?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish I had a tape recorder. Maybe I could replay the message we’ve answered on this piece.
The fact is that it goes back a number of years. In this particular case, as far back as 1999–2000 we started looking at some of the receivables as the overall accumulated debt started to grow.
There is ongoing work for the Department of Health and Social Services. FMBS is now involved in that collection piece. As Ms. LeClair pointed out earlier, we are directly involved in sitting down with Nunavut and trying to clarify some of these areas.
I’d be prepared at some point to sit down with Members to get into a little more detail, but that wouldn’t be appropriate at this sitting.
I appreciate the fact that I was tied up with constituency matters, so I may have missed the earlier answers on this.
I needed a date for that. It causes me to wonder, and if no one’s raised it — I certainly hope they have, but I’ll ask it anyway — why do we continue to provide services that are outside of life and limb if we’re not being paid for these costs? Is there a reason why we continue to provide services for Nunavut if they’re not paying their costs? What does this represent as the greater amount of money, in the sense of business used with the Nunavut government?
I have not spoken with the Nunavut Minister of Health and Social Services or their Finance Minister regarding this particular occasion. I have in the past regarding their receivables. We continue to work with Nunavut on trying to clarify this. I don’t know their overall expenditure and how much of the portion is equal to the GNWT.
The fact is, though, we could use that same scenario with the money that is owed, as we consider it, to the Government of the Northwest Territories from the federal government on delivery of services to aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories. As we have made public, we continue to pay for service and service delivery to people in the Northwest Territories and continue to invoice the federal government but have not been paid portions and have been denied in some areas. Some of that can probably fall into this mix as well.
For Nunavut specifically, there is an amount identified. It pertains to a number of caseloads that we deliver, from something as simple as laboratory tests for clients who go to the facility from Nunavut, to as high as specific programs for individuals. They vary in nature as to the actual costs that are there.
As pointed out earlier, Ms. LeClair will be meeting with the representatives of Nunavut government to try to nail down an actual payment process of ensuring we have timely payments for services rendered.
I appreciate that the Minister is probably quite exhausted with these questions. I understand that.
What policy would Health and Social Services be operating under to allow them not to collect the fees or to fastforward the fees? Obviously, if we’ve got outstanding debts from 1999–2000, that’s a number of years ago — nine, as I read it. What policy creates that flexibility of not recouping these costs or putting them to some type of collection agency? Would the territorial government be charging a late fee of some sort, an interest charge on these past fees? As I see it, we are backstopping the Nunavut government when we’re having troubles of our own.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Ms. LeClair.
Mr. Chair, thank you. These amounts that are outstanding from Nunavut — we have not asked for interest payments on those as of yet. That decision has not been made. But we do have the authority under the Financial Administration Act to apply an interest amount to outstanding receivables. We are working on just over $4 million on outstanding receivables due to the GNWT and just over $6 million due to the Stanton hospital.
I just can’t imagine what the interest would be on that, even at a modest rate. As generous as we are, has anyone worked out what a normal rate of return on an average interest rate would be on that? What would be considered a fair and reasonable interest rate if we applied it on that money outstanding? Is there any sense of that, or was there any work done to assess that?
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have decided, at least at this stage, not to tack on an interest charge to the department or to the billing we’ve had for Nunavut. We have not put the energy into coming up with what it would have been that we might have collected, seeing that we have decided not to tack on an interest charge.
I guess, for my clarity, what would be considered a normal and fair interest rate charge on something like this? Furthermore, do we owe money to the Nunavut government in any way?
Our patients who come from the Northwest Territories go through our facilities in the Northwest Territories. If we can’t provide that level of service, then they go through to Alberta.
We remain current with our billing. There may be a lag time from time to time, but we realize, for the more serious nature of health care issues, we are staying current with the Capital Health Authority.
As Members are aware, from time to time we come back to this Assembly requesting supplementary appropriations — for example, in areas of physician services outside the NWT. There is a number of lists of areas that we have come back for in the past when the program has cost more than was originally budgeted for.
What would be considered a normal interest rate fee? Do we owe the Nunavut government any money?
No, we do not owe the Nunavut government any money. There are arrangements within the Financial Administration Act, depending on which department. If it’s actually with Finance, we have some prescribed amounts we could use. With FMBS I’d have to go to Ms. LeClair for it.
With respect to a reasonable interest rate, it would be prime plus 1 or 2 per cent. It varies, depending on what the outstanding receivable is.
What policy would be driving this, to allow this to continue? Also, what policy would finally have to come into play for us to implement some process for collection?
Mr. Chairman, the fact is that through the territorial health and social services act, we deliver health care services. There were prior arrangements with Nunavut — an arrangement made originally when Nunavut was created. That agreement has expired, and then it became a regular business relationship, month to month. So that’s the process we would operate. We were operating within the Financial Administration Act and continue to do so.
Of course, we’re getting directly involved in the collections side from FMBS and will be working with the Nunavut government to come up with some settlement, as well as to look to an agreement on future billings that would be accruing to Nunavut.
Is it foreseen in the near future that this will be addressed?
Mr. Chairman, a meeting is being set up, and we’re hoping to have that meeting within a matter of weeks. Whether it’s two or three weeks, we’re working with the Nunavut government to iron that down.
Will that be Health Minister to Health Minister? Will that be Finance Minister to Finance Minister, Premier to Premier? What are the expectations of this? Is this a meeting to introduce each other and sides or points of view, or is this a meeting to bring closure to this matter?
Mr. Chairman, I’m trying to be serious here, I guess, in responding appropriately to the Member.
The fact is, that as we’ve gone through this afternoon, a meeting is being held by the Secretary to the FMB with representatives in the Nunavut government. As well, we’re hosting the Northern Premiers’ meeting, with the three Territories coming up here soon. That will be another opportunity; I can have a side discussion with the Premier of Nunavut.
But the work has been ongoing; it’s not an introductory one. It is, in fact, to talk about establishing a new payment regime. That work was undertaken. Part of the previous government was looking at trying to come up with a new payment schedule and process. That is still being worked on.
Mr. Chairman, by no means am I trying to frustrate the Premier on this. The fact is I want to get a sense that this is being dealt with. I can appreciate there’s going to be a point where the two sides will want to discuss this. From his answer he’s basically tried to tell me this is a “talk turkey” situation to deal with this. I’m pleased to hear they’re going to be meeting. I just want to make sure this is going to be an opportunity to deal with this problem. We don’t have to look any further than the NIHB example for how long it takes for these things, in proportion, to get out of hand. All things are relative in the sense of comparison to operation.
That’s why I asked that question early on: why do we continue to provide services outside of what would be described as life and limb? I wouldn’t want to think of any person in this country — citizen, non-citizen, residents of the NWT or not — to be denied any health care service, especially if it were life or limb, over something as silly as administrative policy. The issue really is that I just want to make sure we’re capturing the gravity of this issue. I’m just trying to understand why it’s taken so long.
Our Premier — or I should say, our Finance Minister at this second — knows very well about our financial situation. I described it early on as being a breadandbutter situation. I can’t imagine being owed a lot of money like this without there being any interest charges in any way.
In the sense of the frustration…. I can appreciate the courtesy we would have, through an agreement with another government, and that some of these things have to be worked out. But if we go back as far as nine years, that creates a sense of frustration.
People want to know why this is as it is. I think people out there — as in constituents or residents or whatever way you want to describe it — want to get a sense of understanding, exactly and thoroughly, why we wouldn’t charge. I’ll tell you, if you owed money to the BDIC, they’d be kicking your door down if you owed money to them for a couple of years. If it was just a small amount or something, they’d be trying to take your business away, or they’d be putting liens against your house, your home, your business or whatever the scenario is. And that sends frustration.
Oddly enough, it always seems to be a situation in which the smaller you are, the harder they lean on you. It always seems to be the reverse, Mr. Chairman: if you’re a large business or it’s a large dollar value, of course, everyone takes as much time as possible to work these things out.
I’m certainly respectful and willing to see the diplomatic approach on this. I don’t have an issue with this. We deal with Nunavut, obviously, through our health system. It’s showed up here in these examples. We use them in our agreements, through our jails and through Justice agreements. We probably partner with them on a number of issues: probably through tourism, and the list will go on and on. I certainly wouldn’t want to see us pee in our cornflakes over something that could be worked out through some agreement.
Mr. Chairman, I get the sense from people that they're frustrated about this scenario. We have millions of dollars outstanding, and then we always have to sort of deal with the dollar value. It’s a sense of frustration, that’s all, and I just wanted to get those details on it. I know the Finance Minister’s working on it, but like I say, I wanted to get a sense of it.
Thank you. Was there a question there, Mr. Hawkins? I don’t believe there was.
Recognizing that our Speaker did not enable us with the capability to work after 6 p.m. today, I think I’ll assume there’s no question there. Thank you.
So we’re on page 6, Health and Social Services, Operations Expenditure, not previously authorized Health Services Programs: $17.32 million.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, Health and Social Services, not previously authorized: $17.32 million, approved.
Total Health and Social Services: $17.32 million.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, Total Health and Social Services, not previously authorized: $17.32 million, approved.
Next, committee, turning to page 3, Schedule of the Bill, Part 1, Vote 1, Operations Expenditures, Total Supplementary Appropriation for Operations Expenditures: $28.205 million.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, Total Supplementary Appropriation for Operations Expenditures, not previously authorized: $28.205 million, approved.
Total Supplementary Appropriation: $28.205 million.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, Total Supplementary Appropriation, not previously authorized: $28.205 million, approved.
Thank you very much. We’re going to now turn to the clause-by-clause on page 1 of Bill 9. Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, starting with clause 1.
Clauses 1 through 7 approved.
To the Preamble.
Preamble approved.
Thank you. committee, do we agree that the bill as a whole is concluded and ready for third reading?
Bill 9 as a whole approved.
Thank you.
Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008, approved for third reading.
Thank you very much. Thanks to the Minister and witnesses. You may excuse the witnesses, Mr. Sergeant-at-Arms.
Thank you very much, committee.
Recognizing the clock, does the committee agree that consideration of committee reports 4, 5, 6 and 7 is concluded?
Agreed.
Thank you. Committee reports 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concluded. What is the wish of the committee?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that we report progress.
Motion carried.
May I have the report of the Committee of the Whole, please, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Tabled Document 37-16(2), Main Estimates 2008–2009, Volumes 1 and 2; Bill 11, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act; Bill 9, Supplementary Appropriation Act, No. 4, 2007–2008; Committee Reports 4, 5, 6 and 7; and would like to report that Committee Reports 4, 5, 6 and 7 are concluded and that Bills 11 and 9 are ready for third reading.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
