Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This motion was one of really good discussion and debate in terms of whether or not we want to compensate non-medical escorts.
As you already know, we go through the budget session and we see the costs that are associated with medical travel, and they are very high and that’s one of the areas that we’re already exhausting a lot of our financial resources on medical travel and trying to find ways that we can mitigate that and still provide the services to residents of the Northwest Territories.
Aside from that, if you look at all the work that this government and committees have been working with the Department of Health and Social Services and the Anti-Poverty Strategy and acts that we’ve implemented, we’re putting a lot of work on the Department of Health and Social Services and this is another one that’s just going to add to the workload. In some cases, who knows if we have the adequate resources, human and financial, in the Department of Health to put another work caseload on to our already exhausted staff which do a lot of good work.
Other areas I thought why I would not support this motion are things such as how it’s going to affect income assistance. We had one Member who talked about the unemployment rates in the communities, so that means we might have people on income assistance. So if they get compensated, they’re going to have to record that. It’s going to affect the amount of income that they get on income assistance and it might also affect what they have to pay in housing rates, their monthly housing rates that they have to claim on their monthly reports.
We do have boarding homes here in Yellowknife and in Edmonton that do provide adequate services. They provide meals and transportation for these escorts to get in there.
As Ms. Bisaro mentioned, one concern was extended periods of time. If we have medical escorts that are going to be away for, say, a week or two weeks, then maybe we should look at something in that area.
However, I looked at things that might have convinced me not to support the motion, but in recent case files, recent concerns came to my constituency office from not only Inuvik but residents of the Northwest Territories. There are some big concerns on the Medical Travel Policy. I know that we’re reviewing that right now, and I think this motion is timely in that, if we are able to find something that might be adequate enough to give some type of compensation for our low-income families, maybe some of them aren’t on income support and some of them are living with elders, with their families at home. They don’t have the adequate finances to go down and buy the simple things, that I guess some of us might take for granted, while they are away from their home life. Some individuals might be a single sibling in the family and they’d have to take time off to escort a loved one down and, as a result, might have to take leave without pay and there’s no compensation there.
The big one that has recently come into my situation was an emergency trip in terms of a family member going down. The family felt that they needed to be there with the family member. They went down at their own costs. They even got a letter of recommendation that the client needed an escort under the medication and the surgical process that they went under, and yet even with the letter of recommendation for an escort the family still didn’t get compensation and didn’t get reimbursed for all the costs associated with them coming down, and even when the individual got released from the hospital, they had to pay for their own hotel and accommodations because they weren’t ready to fly. Under certain circumstances like that where it does become an emergency and families in Inuvik, for example, we just decreased the northern living allowance, we have high fuel costs, and when certain things like this happen and family members who are worried for the family member’s life have to go down to Edmonton because sometimes we don’t have the services up here to provide those surgical procedures. Even though some of these families do get physicians to write that letter of recommendation for an escort, sometimes that just doesn’t get reimbursed and they’re stuck paying thousands of dollars in bills.
With that said, I’d like to see some type of program in place to address this. I will be supporting the motion even though I do understand all the hardships and all the work that the department is going through. Plus, I understand that we are going through a review, and if we can get something done before we get that review in place then I think it will be perfect timing and something that we can incorporate into this policy review. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do thank all the Members that are supporting this and talking to the motion here.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising today and I will be supporting the motion. I think the intent of the motion is, look, we’ve got an issue here. We’d like to address some of it, and for me, it’s about long-term stays. It’s about emergencies, and often some of the emergencies that I see are that the escorts coming here with the medical client, they’re expected to be two days, but they find more health issues and they actually end up in Edmonton for weeks at a time and the escort is travelling with them ill prepared. It’s often the family member, a cousin, that the only reason he’s going is because he’s in between work and he’s got no income, and then he’s in Yellowknife and/or Edmonton for weeks at a time with little or no income at all.
I certainly do see a need. I don’t know if it’s paying them. I don’t believe it’s income, but I think we have, when you’re an employee for the government, you do have a little bit of incidentals that they use for travelling. I think it’s something like that that’s important for them, because when they’re down, they want to buy toothpaste, hair brushes, if there’s enough there. It’s just other personal items that they may need. For me, it’s not about paying them. For me, it’s about there’s an issue here. We’ve got people that travel long ways and they’re not ready for it. They don’t have enough income.
As well as I think it is a timely motion because we are reviewing medical travel and perhaps there can be a new category developed and I think that’s all the motion asked for, is let’s devise another system. There’s a gap here that’s being raised by Mr. Yakeleya and Mr. Blake with their motion and I see that gap too. I see it in my work as an MLA. A lot of our medical travel, as well, is from our employees and escorts, but that’s a totally different thing that I see from our elders and our people that are not a government employee that are travelling. Most often it’s cousins because they’re speaking the language and they’re travelling with them to explain what exactly is happening and they’re often stuck for weeks at a time. I see a gap there. With that, once again, I will be supporting the motion.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. To the motion. Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this whole issue really boils down to something very simple as saying this: We don’t want to cause any further strain to this family’s economic situation, and furthermore, we don’t want to provide any extensive financial hardships to the person who has volunteered or, in some cases, doesn’t really have a choice. They have to go as the medical escort. If you weigh and balance the great strain being a medical escort can cause – and I’m talking about the pocketbook or the financial hardship that can be created by this situation – it causes one to say, well, we don’t want to find ways to discourage them for being there in a time that they need to be there. In a short version, what type of ripple effects have we caused or difficult challenges have we created for these people who have made the choice to step in? When people need to be there for their family or loved ones or their friends in a time of circumstances, we don’t want to be thinking about the tough choices they need to make, which is do they have to quit their job, can they afford to go, will going for one day, two days, one week, one month, who knows what type of impact this will have on those families. If you happen to be the person who draws the short straw and has to go, do you have pay and benefits programming that will help and support you? If you’re in between jobs, what kind of circumstance does that put you in?
I think where I can support this is, I’m going to, well, before I say that, where I can support this, really, ultimately it has to balance out what is reasonable, what our government can afford and what makes sense. When MLA Dolynny talks about financial compensation, how far and where does it go, it does make sense to consider that, but by the same token, when I hear Member Yakeleya or Member Menicoche talk about this in the sense of the hardship that this creates, it causes me to be really concerned about the impact on the individual who is trying to do the right thing.
I will support a review of this. I will support an assessment of some recommendations brought forward to a committee and I want us to cost them out to understand what we are agreeing or not necessarily agreeing to. Before we make any step forward, I think the first important thing is to understand what problem are we grappling with, and I think that’s a reasonable expectation. The department has all the numbers of people who have gone out on medical travel. They know how long they’ve gone out, and we can do a simple assessment through that. Now, I don’t think that that’s 10 minutes worth of work. I know that. Actually, I probably think it’s an extensive amount of work to sit down and calculate this, but I think it’s time we have this conversation, because this is a conversation we’ve been having behind closed doors since I was elected in 2003. People have stepped up and they find it really hurts them. They say, geez, I shouldn’t have gone with my relative. I shouldn’t have been there because I can’t afford it. That’s the type of conversation I think we need to have. We need to have the right information and it’s timely.
I think this is a good step forward on the discussion, the conversation, and I certainly welcome the evaluation of what this really means. As such, I think it stands to say there’s no problem in supporting the motion the way it’s crafted, and once we have that review and evaluation and those recommendations, then we can take our next steps forward as they make sense for our financial ability, because we just can’t afford everything, but let’s at least know what we’re talking about with that detail.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. To the motion. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also appreciate the Members bringing this forward. I believe that, actually, for a relatively small number of people there should be some consideration for compensation here. Unfortunately, the ask as stated refers to all those who escort, and I think quite a number of Members and certainly I had reservations about it being that broad. Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly an issue here for those family members and especially the breadwinners that must take time off, as we’ve heard from others, for extended leave to escort and accompany family members or unilingual patients that need this particular support and, again, for a long period of time. I would mention that there are also sometimes benefits that escorts enjoy. An opportunity to visit family members at a distant place and opportunity for shopping and so on, so there is the opportunity for some benefits, but for those that are on extended leave, those benefits start to fade.
I recognize and emphasize that the dollars for actual medical care are probably the priority, and I support all those who have concerns that we don’t want significant dollars removed from providing medical care to be directed towards this, so that needs to be a consideration. I’m sure it will. We’re always talking about balance here. I do not support the removal of significant health care dollars, as I mentioned, to pay for medical escorts generally, but then there are, of course, exceptions. To the extent that this motion recognizes and accommodates these concerns, I support the intent here, but as it is written, “compensating medical and non-medical escorts for their time,” it is much too broad and the concerns I’ve noted are not captured. So, on that basis I will be abstaining. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. To the motion, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising to support the motion in terms of the intent and spirit. I realize that there are some details that need to be worked out, but I can imagine in terms of the intent and purpose of this motion is that the primary concern is our elders. If our elders are sick then they have to be brought to Yellowknife or Edmonton. Just the thought of them being alone, being unilingual, not able to communicate in another language. They have very specific dietary needs and preferences. Of course culture is always a big impediment in terms of understanding elders, especially First Nation elders.
The other spectrum is having children that have to be brought to either Yellowknife or Edmonton for their special needs. Again, circumstances, I think that’s when you have to have escorts accompanying the patients that have to go to Yellowknife or Edmonton.
The other point that I wanted to make, usually in these kind of circumstances, if someone falls ill within a family it’s usually direct family members or parents that deal with matters like this. But if it’s a special case and the patient has to be brought down to Edmonton, say, for cancer-related treatment, it takes a heavy toll on the family, especially if families don’t have the opportunity to be on a wage economy, have a full-time job and sometimes it becomes stressful for the family, it becomes divisive in terms of who is going to accompany their grandpa or their granddaughter to Edmonton. Sometimes those decisions can’t be made because people don’t have the monies and they don’t have the proper resources to go down there and be with their family.
Sometimes, because our relatives can’t help us, there are instances where families turn to communities. In particular in Fort Providence I understand there’s a compassionate fund that is there that people try to assist families, but in some instances that becomes a burden to the community organizations as well.
I think the intent of this motion is to try to support families that require it, at the same time trying to be considerate in terms of culturally appropriate care. I don’t think we want a system that’s very indifferent and very impersonal, a very tunnel vision system. I think we have to have a system of government that’s very understanding towards systems of people that are human and have real needs. I think this motion speaks to that, so I will be supporting this motion. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. To the motion, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the spirit and intent of the motion. It is interesting. Like Mr. Dolynny, I have some issues with the final now therefore. It talks about paying medical escorts, both medical and non-medical escorts, and it talks about paying people for their time and it sounds like paying for their time when they’re perhaps going to be away accompanying someone for a long period of time.
Right now I believe what we have for people who are medical escorts is we have travel, we have per diems for food, we have per diems for accommodation, we do have a lot of financial support out there for medical escorts. This is talking about medical escorts, but what I’ve heard Members talking about here today is something quite different. We’re talking about families, full families that want to go and support a loved one that’s ill or something and that’s quite different than a medical escort. So this whole discussion here, if you actually analyze it, is a little convoluted. It sounds like everybody is talking about something different. I’m being honest and the other thing we’re doing is we are, even by discussing this motion and bringing it forward – with all due respect to Mr. Yakeleya – we are raising an expectation in the public that we can actually afford to do this. We’re putting an expectation out there. We’re saying, oh well, let’s just look at it, let’s just study it. We probably, you know, in the end will determine we can’t afford to do it, but let’s do the right thing and let’s get the department to look at it. You know what, in all responsibility as legislators and all the demands that there are, we can ask the Department of Health to go and look at this, but I hope we aren’t creating the expectation out there in the public that this is actually doable on the level that’s been referred to here today.
Like I said, we do have monetary supports out there for medical escorts now, travel to get them there, a place to stay, we’ve got boarding homes, escorts can stay with the patient in the boarding home. I’m just listing off some of the supports we already have out there.
I just want to draw one other analogy here, which kind of puts this in perspective. I know people, Northerners, long-time Northerners who have been diagnosed with cancer who work for the Government of the Northwest Territories and can’t even get enough time off work. Like, their leave doesn’t even…and we’re talking about the escorts’ monetary compensation, what about the person that’s sick? What about the person in the hospital who doesn’t have insurance or some kind of insurance coverage? What about their wages and what about the fact that they no longer have an income when they become ill and they’re in a hospital for a short term or a long time and become incapacitated in some way? I mean the actual patient. Do you folks hear what I’m saying? The actual patient. I mean, some of the best paying jobs in the North don’t have enough coverage, insurance coverage to allow those people enough time off work to even get the treatment that they need for cancer, but we’re talking about compensating the person who’s going as a medical escort.
These are all demands. They all need to be put into perspective and if it makes people happy for us to look at this, then let’s look at that, but let’s surely inventory and articulate all the supports that are there because I don’t want this motion to create the illusion that we aren’t doing anything for people who do require an escort, medical or otherwise. So I’ll go along with this. To not go along with it would be seemingly now to be the Grinch, but I guess in time I think we all know sitting on this side of the House that are bringing forward this motion that this comes back with a big price tag on it. You’re going to look at forfeiting something else in order to do this. I mean, let’s be honest.
So I’ll support looking at it. I hope the department can come up with something, but like I said, they need to clearly articulate what we already do for people. If we need to accompany someone and this whole other issue of compassionate travel and whole families and all that kind of stuff and let’s also just look at the irony in fact that the person that’s sick, that they’re getting compensated for their wages. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the motion. Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the concerns that are raised with respect to the Medical Travel Policy and there’s no question that the Medical Travel Policy needs to be reviewed. In fact, we are currently doing that. One of the areas that we are looking at is the per diem rates that we provide to residents of the Northwest Territories who happen to be on medical travel. But there are many different situations when an individual may be eligible for per diem and may not be eligible for per diem. For instance, if an individual goes south for an extended stay, we try to get them into one of our government-approved boarding homes where the meals and the accommodation and transportation to and from the health facilities and all those types of things are fully paid for and compensated. But if there is no space available, we do provide our residents with a per diem rate. That per diem rate hasn’t changed in an extended period of time and that is one of the things that we clearly need to update and will be reviewed as part of the review of the Medical Travel Policy.
At the end of the day, I agree with what many Members have said, but at the same time we do have to be fiscally responsible. Money is an issue and when we look at the motion that’s provided to us today, it talks about devising a system of compensating medical and non-medical travel escorts for their time, which is basically compensating them for lost salaries and already we spend tens of millions of dollars on medical travel and I hear every day, find a way to control the cost of medical travel, find a way to control the costs of medical travel.
I have had an opportunity to travel to many communities to talk to residents both in the larger communities like Yellowknife and the smaller communities and hear their concern around medical travel and the administration of medical travel.
We will work with Members, we will work with residents of the Northwest Territories and we will work with stakeholders to make sure that we have the best Medical Travel Policy, but given the wording that is presented here in front of us today with respect to paying people for their time, we don’t have the financial resources to do that to support this motion. It would actually drive us deep, deep into a financial hole.
So we will not be able to support this motion at this time, but I will commit to doing the review of the per diem rates and I will commit to bringing the Medical Travel Policy back to committee and back to the residents of the Northwest Territories to continue the important dialogue around escorts, appeal processes and other important issues that have been raised, but we can’t support the motion as written. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Mr. Miltenberger.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like speak quickly to the motion and to our responsibility as legislators and our commitment and obligation to the broad, overall fiscal plan for the Government of the Northwest Territories.
The motion is clear, even though I’ve heard everyone who is supporting it has a different interpretation. It doesn’t mean paying people, it doesn’t mean giving money for toothbrushes, it will only be restricted to people who don’t have work and have to get compensated for their wages, but it doesn’t mean cousins, families and those people who aren’t working. There is a whole range of interpretation to this motion, but the motion is clear. The motion says compensate people for their time. I would suggest to you that this is indeed a slippery slope. If you are going to compensate person X and person Y is not working but they’re going to go, then it’s going to be what is it about me that is not worthy of getting the same compensation for my time? My time is worth something. It will be a door that once you open it, it will be open for everybody. It’s going to cost us a lot of money.
I think there is a review underway that we should look at and it makes good political discussion, but there is a real concern. People listening out there are going to think we are going to come up with a whole bunch of money we don’t have.
At the same time, we pass the budgets in here and we know that we are going to be trying to remove $30 million to try to balance our books as we move forward and pay for a whole agenda that we have already laid out before us. There was debate in this House, let’s drop the PTR back to 10 to 1, 20 million bucks. Let’s give the school board $50,000, two or three million dollars. At the same time, we know we’re going through forced growth exercises to maintain the budget, to maintain our fiscal standing, to keep ourselves in good fiscal condition.
So you can’t just look at this in isolation. You can’t look at this and forget about what we’ve asked for just in the previous questions about junior kindergarten or forget about some of the other demands that have been made upon the government, upon us, this Legislature, in previous sittings.
While it may be well intentioned, we always worry about program creep. In my mind, this would be more like program leap. It would be fiscally unsustainable. Further to the comments by my colleague from the ministry of Health, this has significant implications and we should just give the study its chance to do its work. There have been commitments made, but I don’t fully support this. So we won’t be voting in favour, as my colleague said.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. To the motion. I will allow the mover of the motion to have final say. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Certainly a good choice of words in the motion and interpretation of the motion.
I certainly appreciate it. It’s a crucial issue in our smaller communities and communities in the Northwest Territories. We are bringing motions to the floor, not for the sake of having a good debate and getting some air time. You bring motions because, as legislators, this is what we bring back from our communities, people we talk to. They say this is an issue in our community, how come you guys aren’t dealing with it? This is an issue when I go to Edmonton or Yellowknife. I am staying weeks at a time, months. I have family obligations at home. This is an issue that people felt we could do something about.
I agree with the comments. This motion talks about devising a system, looking at an expanded period of time. That’s why we wanted to give some highlight to this issue. It’s a sleeping issue on medical travel. Let’s face it, it’s happening.
In government, we pass infrastructure budgets, millions of dollars and we are looking at a new proposal that is looking at hundreds of millions of dollars. You know? So we do have the money. It’s just where we put our priorities and focus. It is there. We vote on it as legislators.
Mr. Speaker, you know, we change the direction of government. As legislators, that’s what they want us to do. This doesn’t say this is for emergency situations. Hopefully we can have this issue highlighted, raise it up as intentioned. There were some good questions around the House here. Let’s look at it. Emergency situations, number one. Maybe that’s where we can help.
I just found out that even with government employees, they use up their time. I am dealing with a situation right now, no more sick leave, no more special leave, no other leave. The person is here. What do they do? It’s leave without work. If you stay long enough, you are suspended. You know? There are circumstances like this. Not all the time, but you have people staying here from small communities. They phone me or maybe other MLAs. They are phoning for money to get things. They do appreciate some of the special circumstances.
Government employees, by the way, can’t stay at government Larga House. You know? So you have some special circumstances here. For us to have this discussion and raise it while people are here and hope we are looking at it seriously. There are a lot of good questions. I know we deal with a lot of emergencies here in the government here.
Mr. Speaker, I am asking the government to look at the hardship times, the intent of this motion. We had some good discussion on the income testing. The time is right that we have a review of the medical travel and have a discussion and bring it back to the floor.
I ask my colleagues to consider it. Hopefully within the months we have left with this government, we can look at some things. I don’t really know what the discussion will be once this whole issue is talked about and brought back to the table, but I’m hoping we would give a shred of light and hope to the people in Colville Lake and smaller communities. We don’t have a huge hospital or wellness centre. This could even go to the health centre. We don’t have that. We have to fly right from the communities, your families, your foods, your responsibilities as father and mother. We don’t have that luxury. We have to leave our communities for an extended period of time, so I’m asking to have that discussion.
I will also ask my colleagues to give it some thought. Hopefully the Minister will take this motion and work with it and say we have an issue.
I thank my colleagues for a really good discussion. I’m so glad it’s all coming out. We are in the business of setting precedents. We set precedents of being the first government to recognize residential reconciliation day in NWT and Canada. We have precedents set in student financial services and our health care. This is another area that we need to carefully look at, so I’m going to ask for a recorded vote on this one here.
I want to thank my colleagues and the Ministers for speaking. Let’s have a good run at this motion.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. I am going to close debate. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question has been called. All those in favour?
Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Blake, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Nadli, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Moses.
All those opposed?
Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Miltenberger, Mr. McLeod – Yellowknife South, Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. McLeod – Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. Dolynny.
All those abstaining?
Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Bromley.
The results are: in favour, eight; opposed, eight; abstentions, two. It is a tie vote. I must break the tie. In accordance with the convention, I will vote against the motion. The motion is defeated.
---Defeated
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2014-2015, be read for the first time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2014-2015, has had first reading.
---Carried
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, the Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Elections and Plebiscites Act, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, Bill 26 amends the Elections and Plebiscites Act to:
require the Minister of Justice to provide the Chief Electoral Officer with names and addresses of inmates who are eligible to vote;
authorize a returning officer to strike the name of a person no longer resident in a polling division from a preliminary list of electors, require the posting of names that may be struck and provide for review and appeal processes;
provide more time for a person to apply for an absentee ballot and specify when an absentee ballot may be provided to an applicant;
provide for voting at mobile polls;
revise criteria so that a person living in the same electoral district as an elector who lacks sufficient identification may vouch for the elector;
add candidate nomination papers to the list of public records that may be inspected;
create an offence of threatening a candidate or potential candidate and an offence of impersonating an election officer;
make amendments of a minor procedural nature and that improve clarity; and
make a consequential amendment to the Health Information Act.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 26 has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to waive Rule 69 (2) and have Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Elections and Plebiscites Act, moved into Committee of the Whole.
---Unanimous consent granted
Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Monfwi, that Bill 27, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2014, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill corrects inconsistencies and errors in the statutes of the Northwest Territories. The bill deals with another matter of a minor, non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the statutes and repeals provisions that have ceased to have effect. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 27 has had second reading.
---Carried
Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Kam Lake, that Bill 28, Supplementary Appropriation Act (Infrastructure Expenditures), No. 3, 2014-2015, be read for the second time.
This bill makes supplementary appropriations for infrastructure expenditures for the Government of the Northwest Territories for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The motion is in order. To the principle of the bill.
Question.
Question has been called. Bill 28 has had second reading.
---Carried
