We will be continuing to contribute to the school boards to establish this type of programming in the communities. As I stated in this House, I did commit that if it’s beyond 16 to 1 ratio on the teacher ratio basis, then obviously there will be a difference of a new funding formula towards those organizations and towards the school boards. These are the commitments that I have made in the House and I will continue to live up to it. It’s 16 to 1, and anything beyond that we will provide additional funding to the school boards.
Maybe the Minister didn’t hear me. The funding that’s being provided with the 16 to 1 ratio is not adequate.
Will the Minister ensure that that ratio be changed to at least 10 to 1?
When we talk about a 10 to 1, it could be upwards of $10 million to $20 million that we could be faced with our fiscal constraints at this point. The fiscal reality is that I don’t have access to $20 million available to me, so we have to be creative and innovative with our existing programming and our existing funding. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve reached out and this is an area that we feel that we can move forward on. We’re still under the PTR 16 to 1 ratio, and if it’s anything beyond that, I committed in the House that there will be funding provided to those individual school board authorities.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That’s almost like trying to tell the Minister, oh, take over Transportation and you do it within your funding. That’s basically what he’s telling the school boards.
Will the Minister ensure he works with the Beaufort-Delta Education Authority and other authorities throughout the NWT to ensure they have adequate resources?
In fact, we’ve been doing that since we started talking about the JK and other early childhood development areas. There has been some funding issues because of enrollment. It’s not just JK. We need to focus on how we can improve the enrollment issues and challenges that we’re facing within the communities. My department is committed, through the education renewal, that we need to talk about formula funding for the student enrollment in our education as part of a contribution, so this is an area that we will continue to push forward.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The time for question period has expired. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, petitions. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure is pleased to provide its report on the development of the Economic Opportunities and the Mineral Development strategies and commends it to the House.
The Standing Committee on Economic Development and Infrastructure sees the development of the Economic Opportunities and Mineral Development strategies as major initiatives of the 17th Legislative Assembly. The policy direction of these strategies and their implementation action plans will have significant bearing on the work of government departments and the economic success of the Northwest Territories over the next 10 to 20 years. The committee has gone to considerable length to provide meaningful input on these strategies from the beginning of the Assembly’s involvement in their development process.
From the outset, the committee has expressed considerable interest as well as concern with the development of both strategies, particularly with the lack of public interest in the approach to the Mineral Development Strategy. In the spirit of upholding the principles of consensus government and promoting the constructive, collaborative public processes in the post-devolution Northwest Territories, the committee would like to highlight these concerns and make a number of recommendations.
The Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment appointed two separate panels made up of highly qualified individuals to undertake consultation on the development of these strategies. In the case of the Economic Opportunities Strategy, the panelists were drawn from a range of backgrounds, public service experience and private business interests. Their work involved extensive public engagement and meetings that invited full public participation. Recommendations stemming from this consultation reflect the diversity of interests, resources, challenges and opportunities throughout all regions of the Northwest Territories.
The Mineral Development Stakeholder Engagement Panel was made up of individuals with extensive expertise in the mining industry and high level stakeholder engagement, but limited to informal involvement in other sectors. In Members’ views, the panel lacked the public interest and policy expertise represented in the panel appointed for the development of the Economic Opportunities Strategy. While the department solicited written feedback from the public, the panel met privately with an extensive yet select list of stakeholders.
The Minister argues that this consultation was broadly inclusive, but recommendations resulting from the panel’s work appear to reflect a strong industry bias.
The committee was provided a very limited time frame in which to comment on this stage of the Mineral Development Strategy. It made an effort to counterbalance this industry-centred approach by engaging the Pembina Institute to undertake an analysis of the Mineral Development Strategy and provide comments and recommendations to the committee to enhance the public interest responsibility we have as a government. The Pembina Institute’s report, “Responsible Extraction: An Analysis of the Northwest Territories Mineral Development Strategy Panel Report” was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on October 31, 2013.
The committee twice asked the Minister to respond to the Pembina Institute’s recommendations. The Minister refused to comment each time, stating that the recommendations were essentially addressed by the Mineral Development Strategy Stakeholder Engagement Panel, which had since been disbanded. The Minister did not make any effort to facilitate an opportunity for the former panelists to respond, nor make any evident effort to incorporate perspectives presented in the Pembina Institute report into the strategy’s implementation plan that did not already align with those of the Stakeholder Engagement Panel.
The implementation plans for both strategies are based on the recommendations of their respective public engagement panels. The committee observes that each action in the Mineral Development Strategy Implementation Plan is set out in direct response to the Stakeholder Engagement Panel’s recommendations, regardless of the fact that the Minister denied ownership of the recommendations when asked to respond to differing views presented by the committee.
In contrast, the implementation plan for the Economic Opportunities Strategy has embedded most of the recommended actions in the activities of Industry, Tourism and Investment and other government departments and agencies. The original public engagement panel is retained for ongoing oversight and implementation support. The committee expressed some concern with certain actions contemplated within the implementation plan, but believes that overall, the plan reflects diverse points of view, a range of priorities and strives to create an economic environment where all sectors are supported.
In spite of numerous commitments, the Minister failed to meet with the committee to discuss the implementation of both strategies. The implementation plans were sent to the committee the day after the conclusion of the February/March 2014 session of the Legislative Assembly, when it was no longer practical to hold a fulsome discussion. The committee provided written responses to both implementation plans as soon as reasonably possible. Members acknowledge the department’s timely response to the committee’s comments, but are disappointed that it refused to discuss or revisit actions.
The committee believes that the very short time frame for the development of the Economic Opportunities and Mineral Development strategies and their implementation plans placed unreasonable time constraints on Members, compromised quality work on the part of public servants, limited broad public involvement and reflects poorly on the work of government. The committee believes the public could be better served.
The Minister has committed to a review of the Mineral Development Strategy two years after implementation. The committee looks forward to this review as an opportunity to evaluate the success of certain actions and potentially broaden the scope of risks and opportunities for Northwest Territories residents in the mineral development sector.
To enhance representative and transparent processes in the work of government and this Legislature, the committee recommends that in the future, departments undertake public consultation in a thorough, transparent, meaningful public engagement process, free of perceived biases, with ample opportunity for public response and a reasonable time frame for dialogue between government departments and all Members of this House. Expertise in public interest policy should be part of the exercise.
The committee further recommends that when departments adopt third-party recommendations as the basis for public expenditure and policy direction, their responsible Ministers should be prepared to respond to feedback referred to them by committees.
The committee is still fully prepared to meet with the Minister and the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment for a cooperative, productive discussion on both the Economic Opportunities and Mineral Development strategies. As we enter a new chapter in the governance of the Northwest Territories, Members are keenly aware that the Legislative Assembly is at a pivotal, precedent-setting time in its history. We can choose now to forge a strong, cooperative, collaborative approach on issues that threaten to divide us, or remain forever at odds over challenges that may have united us as Northerners and assisted us in serving the public to the best of our ability.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. Motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called. Motion is carried.
---Carried
Committee Report 7-17(5) is received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Our Elders: Our Communities.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document, entitled “Agriculture Products Marketing Council 2013-2014 Annual Report.” Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Robert C. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following letters, plus attachments, from Mr. Robert Hawkins, MLA, Yellowknife Centre, dated February 24, 2014, and May 2, 2014, regarding the consumer affairs division. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on June 4, 2014, I will move the following motion: now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, that Members of this Legislative Assembly strongly urge our federal and territorial counterparts to support Bill C-583 and urge the Parliament of Canada to schedule full committee hearings with testimony of expert witnesses, including at least one hearing in the Northwest Territories; and further, that Members of this Legislative Assembly urge the Member of Parliament for the Western Arctic to support Bill C-583.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, I will move the following motion: now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Deh Cho, that in recognition of the clear public concern about fracking, the Government of the Northwest Territories immediately refrain from supporting any hydraulic fracturing proposals until a full and public assessment has been completed that demonstrates that the impacts of fracking and related development on the North are better understood and demonstrates that it can manage this technology in a way that ensures the integrity of our environment and communities; and further, that the Government of the Northwest Territories report back with the results of this public assessment within 12 months. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Item 16, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Mr. Abernethy.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, I will move that Bill 29, Human Tissue Donation Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Beaulieu.
Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Wednesday, June 4, 2014, I will move that Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Public Service Act, be read for the first time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
WHEREAS medical and non-medical travel escorts provide a crucial service to the NWT health care system by taking care of patients who require assistance when they travel for treatment;
AND WHEREAS medical and non-medical travel escorts are predominantly volunteers from communities who must leave behind their families and employment during their absence, often for extended periods of time;
AND WHEREAS extended absences by medical and non-medical travel escorts often tax personal and family resources and create hardships;
AND WHEREAS it is now difficult to find proper travel escorts in some communities for extended stays, to the detriment of patient safety;
AND WHEREAS the Department of Health and Social Services’ review of the Medical Travel Policy has been in progress for some time and has not yet produced results in this area;
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that this Legislative Assembly strongly recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services devise a system of compensating medical and non-medical travel escorts for their time, with the goal of implementing the system in fiscal year 2015-2016;
AND FURTHER, that the government provide a comprehensive response to this motion within 120 days. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The motion is in order. To the motion. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Blake, for seconding the motion. I want to leave this motion to my colleagues to give their views on. This motion deals with the compensation of people who travel as escorts financially, emotionally, socially. Travel into our small communities is quite stressful and hectic. Travelling out of our communities is also stressful, especially on medical travel.
So, I wanted to give support to people who take patients to the hospitals in this type of situation when they travel for medical treatment. From the time I’ve known these escorts who volunteer, family members, cousins, aunties, uncles, sometimes friends of the community, and they are volunteering their services. It’s a little bit different than when you have someone who is paid and who has some leave and they can take the patient out. I’m looking at people who go to the hospital for a week, two weeks, a month, two months, an extended time. They stay at the hospital, and the people who are working, their time from employment benefits is being used up. More importantly, when we have these volunteers coming that have no jobs, they are at the whim of the government and certainly they appreciate it.
I want to leave it at that and have other Members speak on this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d also like to thank Mr. Yakeleya for bringing this motion forward.
Many of our residents who do travel down as an escort from our communities, many of these communities are faced with 35 percent unemployment rates. So, many residents don’t have any part-time or full-time positions. There are many challenges, especially for long periods of time, two, three or four weeks at a time. More and more people are faced with many medical issues and they have to stay in Edmonton or other cities down south for long periods of time. As time goes on, they need toiletries and sometimes they get tired of the food in the hospital or other places. They need to have a different type of meal.
I see the challenges and I’ve also seen escorts and there are many challenges. Luckily, some communities can fundraise for people who are down there. This government needs to have something in place so people can access a little extra funds. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Blake. To the motion. Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be voting in favour of this motion. It does bode a lot of questions and brings up a lot of issues we have with medical travel. Obviously, there are a lot of financial pressures with medical travel. The budgets are growing on a steady basis and this would include some more pressure to that. One of the things I indicated on why I would support this is if it was done on a hardship basis. People would have to prove that there’s a need. There has to be a hardship. I wouldn’t want to see us doing this with every medical travel situation, but if families or people or escorts who require some sort of financial help, we do it on a case-by-case basis and we look at the hardship, this is something we may want to implement.
I look forward to hearing the government’s reply to this motion. Yes, I will support it. The concern I have is we are dealing with hardship cases and not every medical escort. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. To the motion. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say thank you to the mover and the seconder, Mr. Yakeleya and Mr. Blake, for bringing this forward. They bring up a very important topic. This is a topic that has been brought forward not only by us but the Auditor General of Canada has said, time and time again, get your ducks in order and figure this out. So I’m glad we are talking about it today.
This is a very complex animal, Mr. Speaker. It’s a pretty expensive part of our budget. As the motion we have before you, the spirit and intent is very noble and I do admire where we’re going with this, but I want to talk about some of the precedent setting this could create here for our government. I think we are on a little bit of a slippery slope should we continue in this vein. Let me explain for a second.
As it is right now, we know there are reasonable expenses, out-of-pocket expenses that are covered already within the plan. Could they be more robust? Absolutely. I think we can look at enhancing some of the current out-of-pocket expenses and make them a little bit more valid and value-added. As we heard from Mr. Bouchard, hardship, as it’s mentioned in one of the whereases, needs to be addressed and I think that is important. But I think we need to look at more patient-assisted travel scenarios, so that would come under that term of reference. If that’s the case, I would suggest that this would have to be almost income tested to make sure that that hardship is quantifiable here.
We have to look at some other areas, too, in order to address some of the issues within this motion. We would have to talk about those areas where it says in some communities where they have a hard time finding escorts, we have to actually make our programs themselves a bit more robust, especially in places at destination points such as in Edmonton. You know, by having better bonded medical placements there that are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As it is right now, we do have some dedicated nurses that are on government payroll to assist patients when they arrive; however, as I found out through unfortunate circumstances, some of these paid employees only work Monday to Friday. We know very well that when people land, it’s not only a Monday to Friday landing. You can be landing at night; you can be landing on the weekend. The Minister knows that. I know we’re trying to make great strides to make that work better, but I think it’s important that we address that.
The other thing, too, a lot of jurisdictions look at, is they look at these one-on-one they call it patient sky nurse. These are nurses that could be in the communities that can actually be escorted down with the patient; they stay with the patient until they’re through security, and then they return back to the community. This would also address those communities that are looking for nurses. Here’s an opportunity – and I hope the Minister is listening – where we could have these nurses, these sky nurses that are actually on call in communities, living and providing a duality of services.
So, really what this motion is asking is to compensate escorts for their time, which I translate, let’s compensate them for their wages. I believe this is hitting a precedent that I’m very, very… I’m a bit nervous. I’ll be totally honest; I’m a bit nervous with this motion.
Again, I agree with the spirit and intent. It identifies a need; it identifies something that we have to do. But given the way it’s formulated, the way we’re basically giving a direction to this government to take more away from a department, which we know clearly well does not have the funds and resources to do this at a large scale, we can barely keep the doors open. To ask this government to now top up wages and provide wages, I don’t know, Mr. Speaker. It’s precedent setting, to which I would have a hard time probably agreeing to this motion. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. To the motion, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to echo some comments which have already been stated by my colleagues. I, as well, appreciate the intent of the motion and the rationale for bringing it forward.
I can support the recommendation that we look at this issue. I am, as well, concerned by the fact that the motion is asking that we compensate medical and non-medical travel escorts for their time. If we were to compensate any escort for the wages that they are losing, we could be in, I think, very serious financial difficulty.
One of my colleagues has mentioned that perhaps we ought to be looking at evaluating on a hardship basis or evaluating income to a certain extent, and I think that’s something that has to be seriously considered when the department looks at this issue.
I think it’s not totally clear in here – it’s not in the operative clause anyway – but I think this should really only apply to extended absences or extended periods of time that a patient has to be out and a patient requires an escort for that extended period of time.
We have a system right now where many patients, if they go to Edmonton, for instance, do have a place to stay where there is some support for them. Both patients and escorts are pretty well compensated in terms of their day-to-day necessities. They have accommodation; they are compensated for meals or else their meals are provided; transportation is provided. So, you know, we’re really only talking about compensating people for their time, and I’m having a very difficult time believing that our programs should be doing that, that I should be compensated for my wage when I’m there as an escort.
I think one of the things that I am feeling quite good about is that the Minister has said in the last couple of days that we are definitely looking at the Medical Travel Policy, albeit it’s been a long time we’ve been looking at it. I hope we get some definitive recommendations soon. But I am somewhat heartened by the fact that the Minister has said that he will be looking particularly at the escort policy in the very near future, and that was the issue of the RFP that I queried him on the other day.
The only other sort of issue that isn’t covered here – and I guess this would be the non-medical escorts – but very often the patients require a translator when they go out. If we have someone who is unilingual and who has to be in Edmonton or Calgary or some other place outside of the NWT for a month at a time, they are going to need a translator. Perhaps we ought to have a system in place to cover translators.
Like some of my colleagues, I am considerably conflicted. There are a lot of ramifications for the theory of this recommendation. Again, I support the concept. I think perhaps I may have to abstain, but I will not vote against it. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. To the motion, Mr. Moses.
