Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement today I talked about a request for tender that went out to a local business. When you have a chance to read the documentation that went out for tender, there are 13 pages as the attachment of fine, detailed requests. But it’s all vague and it all points to a catalogue of a local competitor. In my Member’s statement I mentioned how I believe it’s fraught with bias and I think the only respectable thing to do today is the Minister say that she’ll withdraw this tender of goods that I’ve made aware to her and to issue a clean, clear, unbiased request. Would the Minister of Health and Social Services heed my request and withdraw this present tender and reissue a fair one that shows no bias whatsoever?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The information I have is that this RFP went up on the website as is the process. This is the normal process. It went up on May 7th to be closed on May 20th. There were half a dozen inquiries about the RFP. The Beaufort-Delta materials management section noticed that one large supplier in Yellowknife did not inquire about this RFP and, in fact, the Beaufort-Delta Health Authority took it on its own initiative to fax the information to this large supplier a few days later, which is when this business got the fax. The information we have is that the process has been followed and there is no need to cancel this process.
It’s interesting how the Minister paints the light as if it’s been fair and open. To say it went on the web page, she is correct, but the fact is that the Inuvik Health and Social Services was chasing down this… Obviously it’s clear that they were chasing down this business to participate in a public tender. But if you read the public tender, it says a specific company; we’re using their catalogue and references and numbers. How does the Department of Health and Social Services expect them to compete fairly and openly with what clearly looks like a sole-source contract dedicated to one business only? How does the Minister expect that without it being withdrawn and treated fairly?
The Member is correct that the detailed information on products were catalogue numbers. But we do have a situation where we’ve had a number of businesses responding to this RFP. It would be unfair to those businesses that are interested and have responded, to cancel the RFP now. The Beaufort-Delta Health Authority is aware that they need to do a better job of describing the products and they will do that.
We also have a situation where these are for medical supplies that need to go to communities of Tuktoyaktuk, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok and Sachs Harbour, and they have to meet the barge deadline. So it is important that we do this for the May 20th deadline. The businesses out there still have the opportunity to respond to supply these products.
I think this is where the Minister clearly misunderstands the situation. This looks like nothing other than a sole-source. Clearly it says one supplier’s name. Anybody who wants to compete has to call the local competitor and say, well, I need to understand what these local product numbers are. Are these catalogue numbers out of your book? Because they’re certainly not out of any of the national suppliers’ books, they’re out of a very specific company’s book. They also used the spreadsheet off this specific company where they have to go to to get pricing in order to compete. To pull this back and make sure that everyone’s aware that they all know what they are at least working against would be the only way to do this. If it’s anything but that, it seems wrong and unfair. Why won’t the Minister admit to that and see it and treat it fairly by pulling it back and saying let’s do this openly and honestly, make sure everyone has a fair chance?
As I have indicated, since the RFP went up on May 10th, the staff reviewed the inquiries. On May 14th they noticed that one major supplier did not respond. They took it upon themselves to contact this business, so they wanted to make sure that everybody who could supply these supplies were contacted. I don’t believe there is a situation of a sole-sourced contract. There has been time to respond to that.
I do take the Member’s point that the product description could have been done better and they will do that, but as I’ve indicated already, we do need to provide these supplies in time for the barge order. So we will improve the system, or the Beaufort-Delta knows to improve the system next time. They do need to go ahead with this tendering process.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Whenever I, in my 10 years of politics here, whenever I heard the phrase “I hear your point” or “I take your point,” that usually tells me that someone’s going to vote against me or speak against whatever I just said. It couldn’t be clearer here today. The Minister has clearly dug in and is protecting and reaffirming a bad decision. And let’s face it, that’s exactly what it is, because it’s a sole-source, no other way around it. Why do you think so many people were looking into how does this make sense?
The Minister wants to improve this situation. As she has made it very clear today, well, we’ll do it next time. To heck with next time. Let’s do it this time. Let’s show some initiative. Will the Minister show initiative by improving the situation by withdrawing this contract and reissuing it fairly so that everyone can compete fairly?
There is some public interest consideration here. We do need to supply, the Beaufort-Delta needs to supply the medical supplies to these four isolated or off-the-road communities. We need to meet the barge deadline. The tender was out for 20 days. The authority made sure that one major supplier that hadn’t responded was contacted with the information so that everybody had a chance to respond.
Like I stated already, there have been a half dozen inquiries onto the website. The authority did more and went above and beyond to make sure the competition was fair.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I want to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services as to when she thinks that the people in Tulita can receive a resident social worker in the community.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The residents of Tulita do have social services being provided there. I can’t recall all of the details, but I do believe the person had moved to Tulita, but because either that person was promoted or there were some personal reasons. I would have to take the question under advisement and get more information on where that issue is. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister and I did tour the Sahtu and one of our stops was in Tulita. We did have a talk with the grand chief and people of Tulita and we were advised of the number of excuses why we did not have today a social worker in the community of Tulita. One of the suggestions was how can we work out a solution that we can have a social worker. We have not had one in that community for over three years. We need a permanent social worker in the community. I want to ask the Minister if she’s willing to look at some options in terms of how do we get one within the next couple of weeks.
We did tour all of the Sahtu communities and there were a number of issues like this, because Sahtu Health Authority have combined duties of different positions and they’ve had to move positions around to make sure that they are able to use their existing human resource services to provide the services necessary. So I will undertake to take this question about the permanent social worker in Tulita and acquire more information on it and get back to the Member in short order. Thank you.
I certainly look forward to the Minister getting back to me in short order. Would the Minister look at possible time frames as to when we can expect a social worker to be in Tulita, having all the excuses being exhausted? When can the people in Tulita get a social worker in the community? How soon can the Minister get back to me?
I will look into that as soon as possible and get back to the Member in the next few days. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the community of Tulita has offered some solutions in terms of getting a social worker into the community. Will the Minister be open to those types of suggestions from the people of Tulita to get a social worker in there, in terms of the solutions of certainly that position, as soon as possible?
Yes, I will check my notes from that tour and I will review the situation again and I will look at all options to see what is available to us and the Sahtu authority, in consultation with the local leadership. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have questions about the proposed location for the new hospital in Hay River. I’m not sure if I should ask my questions to the Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Health and Social Services, but let’s go with the Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, we have, for many years, had a desire and a need for a new hospital in Hay River. This is something that, Mr. Speaker, yourself and myself over the years have worked on. We have had a little slippage. We haven’t stayed right on the front of the line for this capital project. It’s a very big project. It’s an expensive project. Now we’re down to starting to allocate the money for this. We’re very happy about this, but we’re not sure where it’s going to be located. I guess my concern, Mr. Speaker, is that the unresolved issue of the location of the hospital does not result in any slippage, in terms of the schedule for the planning and construction of the new hospital.
So I’ll ask the Minister of Public Works, does he know today where the new hospital in Hay River will be built? Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Public Works and Services, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hospital, as the Member has indicated, has been on the drawing board for a number of years. A lot of work and effort has been done by the community and by ourselves, as Public Works and the people at the Health department. A number of sites were looked at over the last while. There were a total of 29 sites that were proposed as potential properties that could be used to locate the new hospital. All these sites were looked at and reviewed and it was narrowed down to two sites: one at the current ENR facilities, or where the offices of ENR are currently located, and the other one was a new area called the Sundog site. A review was done. It was looked at and a team from… A number of people were put together to review. Some preliminary work was done, soil sampling and a cost analysis was done, and it was decided that the Sundog site was the preferred site for a number of reasons, and that was presented to the community of Hay River. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, from the information that the Minister of Public Works has been able to get from his officials and people who are looking into these proposed sites, can the Minister tell us today in the House that he is very confident that the Sundog Industrial Subdivision, as it’s called, will have proper drainage concluded by then and that the choice of this site will not result in any delay in the start of construction of this? Because when you look at that site today, Mr. Speaker, it doesn’t look very ready for construction. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Member and myself did look at a couple of options that were proposed. The Sundog site has some concern over drainage. We have done some real preliminary soil sampling and analysis. Some further work has to be done and that will determine whether it’s suitable. But we are fairly confident that this is going to be the site that will be able to accommodate the new facility. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the MLAs for Hay River were involved in a process with the then-CEO of the hospital, Mr. Al Woods, and the public administrator of the hospital, of also receiving a lot of information about prospective sites for the new hospital. At that time I believe it was determined that the ENR/ITI site was the most suitable site. However, I appreciate that Public Works has done their homework and that there may be a better alternative.
Mr. Speaker, how does the proposed site of the Sundog industrial area, how does that take into account the issue of it being on the west side of the railway tracks in Hay River? People may think we don’t get a lot of trains in Hay River, but we do get fairly regular train service in Hay River. How was that taken into account in the choice of that site? Thank you.
We certainly can share the report that has been compiled with the Member. It takes into account all of the issues that are being raised, including some of the work that was done on cost analysis, a cost/benefit analysis. The site on the river where ENR is currently located would cost roughly $4 million more to house the new hospital as we would not be able to co-locate, as the findings have told us, and we would have to move all the facilities off there and relocate and start anew with those facilities. But I’d be glad to provide that information in terms of what was taken into consideration with this new report. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Your final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, my main concern is there be no slippage in the timing and the schedule for the construction of the new hospital. I think that the site or the location is probably of a secondary nature to the timing, as far as I’m concerned. But, Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the proposed site that is the choice of the government, I guess, or the town -- I’m not sure who was mostly pushing that -- is an industrial area.
I’d like to ask: have the people of Hay River been consulted in any fashion in this, in terms of the public? A hospital is usually a place that’s quiet. You don’t think of it being right beside railway tracks and you don’t generally think of it as being in an industrial park. I understand the footprint may be large enough that you’d be far enough away from your neighbours that it won’t matter, but, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to know if the people of Hay River had any input into this. Also the fact that Woodland Manor, which is a seniors care facility, will be slated at some time to be retired and that that facility will also co-locate with the new hospital, if all those things are being taken into consideration, as well. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the municipality of Hay River was consulted. There were people from the hospital and people from the municipality that were involved. We do have a letter from the municipality that was signed off by the mayor, indicating that their preference for location would be the Sundog site. Our report looked at it on practicality terms, cost and other features that needed to be included in terms of what we needed to be part of this hospital and including further expansion. This was what the findings were. This is what was reported to us. Again, I will share that with the Member.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission. Jurisdictions have enacted workers’ compensation legislation to ensure every worker is protected when they suffer injury in the workplace, yet I can’t help feeling my constituent would have been wiser to have a car accident with instant free access to legal advice, medical examinations and other services through his insurance company. Why does it take months for WSCC to move files when all that is needed is the prompt advice of its medical and legal advisors? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case there were decisions that were made. The constituent had had appeals on the decision. They went through the review process and recommendations have been made. I am not sure if they have been communicated to the constituent yet. Until I know for certain that they are, I have no comment on it any further. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, yes, that was a general question rather than specific to this advice. I am not aware that my constituent has been advised as per the Minister’s question there. I want to preface my next question, Mr. Speaker, by saying that on the many occasions with this file I have had to contact the Minister I have received some assistance. It is just my point is I shouldn’t be having to go to the Minister so many times for help. The WSCC used to have its own legal services providing advice to claimants but has backed off this support to provide only a worker’s advisor. When its processes are so highly legalistic, why were claimants denied and why are they being denied the level playing field of legal services? Why did the Minister’s office have to tell the commission legal service funds are available, something the commission itself didn’t know and ask? These are typical sorts of things that I think should be done beforehand. Why is there not good communication on this? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, there is a worker’s advisor that works closely with the workers and gets some information on their case. They do try and get some legal opinions for the injured workers. Communication has improved. WSCC has gone a long way in trying to improve the services that they offer to clients. We have 86 percent of our injured workers that are paid within the first 20 days but there is still the other 14 percent that we need to be concerned about. We are taking steps to address that and improve how we offer services to clients. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, thanks for the Minister’s remarks there. We have a system where one agency polices the workplace, administers claims and makes the decisions, in this case, without knowing or admitting the discretion it has to vary recommendations of its advisors. What will this Minister do to actively, regularly and independently monitor the activities and judgements of the WSCC to put the injured on a more level playing field? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I did communicate and I get regular reports from the worker’s advisor on the number of claims that that office is dealing with, and any outstanding claims we also get information on those. If we find that there is something there that I need to ask about, then I will contact the Governance Council or the president and make some inquiries and attempt to get some answers. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to those reports. Many of the delays my constituent experiences in this case, sometimes lasting several months in duration, have been because the medical advisor simply was not available. Surely this can be resolved by having an alternate advisor for when the medical advisor is unavailable. Will the Minister recognize the dire straits of injured workers waiting for decisions and commit to putting in place a mechanism to deal with absent medical advisors to keep the process moving forward? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good concern. It is something I will commit to the Member that I will speak to the commission about trying to address and maybe have an alternate medical person that we can get medical advice from when a person is not there. That way, we won’t have a delay in processing some of the claims. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. I wanted to ask some questions about how the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs deals with communities in the Northwest Territories that find themselves in difficult situations. I want to ask the Minister, if a community is located in a settled land claim area where they have a community government act such as the Tlicho Community Government Act, does the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs treat that community any differently than they would a community outside a settled land claim area? Thank you.
