When this was first introduced for 2013, the increase of 16 percent, I did indicate to the president and the chair that they need to work closely with even the smallest contractor on what the implications would be. What kind of subsidy are we providing? Is it in replacement of a subsidy to increase the assessment rates? It was assured to me that it was in replacement. I told them that we need to have a long-term mechanism to highlight the implications and potential impacts. I will be sharing that information with the Members once it is available to me by WSCC.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today I pointed out the need for a long-term plan to mitigate the impact of flooding in the community of Nahanni Butte in view of the risks. My question is for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs. Will the Minister commit to developing a long-term plan for the community of Nahanni Butte that addresses future flooding?
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’d be glad to work with the community of Nahanni Butte to work on their long-term plan as far as the flooding goes. We do know that the federal government has come forward with a Disaster Mitigation Policy. We’re not sure of the details yet, but it’s for exactly the type of situation like this where they can mitigate potential floods in the future.
I think I spoke with the Minister in the House last week about coming to the community of Nahanni Butte, and while we’re there we will be discussing the option of relocating the community to the east side of the Liard River. If there’s enough community support, will the Minister and his department seriously consider that option?
Support from the community is the key word here. We would like to see the community committed to this through a formal motion or possible plebiscite, because moving a community will have an effect, especially on the elders who are used to living there and have lived there their entire lives. We would have to have community support to consider it.
When the idea was first brought up in the aftermath of the flood, initial reaction from government officials was that it’s going to cost millions to relocate a community. It’s also costing millions to repair the community and we don’t want to keep doing that. It has to be considered seriously.
I’d like to ask the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs if, with the community’s support, he is willing to dedicate resources in the 2013-2014 budget to address the needs of this community for planning such a move?
I look forward to my trip to Nahanni Butte and meeting with the leadership there. If it is the will of the community, then I will commit to the Member that we will work closely with the community to see what resources might be needed to work on a long-term plan as far as relocating the community goes. I will commit to the Member that I will work with him and the community.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It will take financial resources to do planning studies for planning a whole new town, et cetera. I just wanted to ask the Minister, if the community is willing, if the Minister will be prepared to put some small resources to beginning such a planning study. A planning for planning study, as it were. If the community asks for it, will the Minister do it during his visit to Nahanni Butte?
Again, it’s the will of the community. If the community is serious about potential relocation, then we would have to look at identifying some resources to start the planning and working with the community on a possible relocation.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are addressed to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I want to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask some questions on the Midwifery Program report and potential actions coming from that report. In the Minister’s responses to Mr. Bouchard last week there were some references to planning, though they were fairly vague references to planning and some references to expansion of the program. There were recommendations in the report to expand the program.
I’d like to know from the Minister if there is something happening now at the department. I would like to know from the Minister when a plan for expansion will be fully formulated, when it will be available to committee for comment.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department recognizes the value of the Midwifery Program. We’re interested in bringing the Midwifery Program back to more than just Fort Smith; across the Territories, actually. With that, we have allocated $75,000 of the Territorial Health System Sustainability Fund from the federal government in 2013-2014 to start the process.
I appreciate the Minister’s response that there’s some money being allocated. It has been allocated, as he’s said though, in 2013-2014. In my mind, that’s a problem. I don’t understand why, with the report that came out some four or five months ago now, we couldn’t start some planning in this budget year, 2012-2013, to do some implementation in 2013-2014. I’d ask the Minister to tell me why we can’t do planning this year for implementation in the next budget year.
I was referring to the money that we’re putting in for it. In 2012-2013 we’re doing community consultations. We’re going to review and update the NWT Midwifery Practice Framework and Midwife Regulations. In 2012-2013 we’re also going to do the preliminary health human resources planning for midwife recruitment and training options.
I’m a little confused by that response. So we are doing planning now, but we’re not going to be able to implement until 2014-2015. I think that’s what I heard the Minister say, and it confuses me.
I would like to ask the Minister, as well, about the money. He mentioned $75,000 and I understand that’s coming from the sustainability funding, which is federal funding which is not core funding, but it’s money that we get whenever the federal government decides we should get it.
I would like to ask the Minister whether or not any expansion to the Midwifery Program is going to be dependent on non-core funding, or is this going to be funding which will be ongoing and which will maintain the program from year to year.
The Midwifery Program is not going to be contingent on THSSI funding. THSSI funding will just be put in, the $75,000 for 2013-2014. However, the rest of the funding, which is planned for Hay River for $472,000 and Beaufort-Delta for $952,000 and expansion of the territorial Midwifery Program of $1.8 million, will be going through the House.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I’m a little confused. From what the Minister just told me, it sounds as though there is a plan, although I don’t think that I necessarily agree with it. If, as the Minister says, we’re going to go to Hay River and then we’re going to go to the Beaufort-Delta – and you mentioned another number of $1.8 million that I don’t know for what – if we know that already, why can we not get that before committee now? Why can we not take what we know and plan for implementation in 2013-2014?
Again, we recognize the importance of the Midwifery Program, however, there are a lot of competing priorities in the Department of Health and Social Services. This is how we’re planning on rolling it out. We have paid for a consultant to do a review of the Midwifery Program for the Northwest Territories and these numbers are what we’re looking at out of that plan. We’re going to be reviewing that, of course, but for now we have paid for the consultant. This is how the report indicates we should roll out the Midwifery Program. The expansion in Hay River will be contingent upon the completion of the health centre over there.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Over the last three years, WSCC claims cost experience for the GNWT has more than doubled. Let me repeat that word: doubled. In my Member’s statement today we talked about the GNWT’s Safe Advantage penalties, which is the second part of these claims costs and penalties. Those have risen from zero dollars in 2009-2010 to over $508,000 in 2011-2012. It’s for this reason we just talked about, hearing about no money for midwifery, I’d like to say it’s very difficult to look at the whites of the eyes of midwives across the Territories and give them 508,000 reasons why there are competing priorities.
My questions are for the Minister of the Department of Human Resources in relationship to the Safe Advantage penalties as to why they are so high and why are they growing yearly.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. The Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For the record, the Safe Advantage program is a program administered by the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission. The program is actually a fairly new program. It’s only been in place for, I think, five years.
The first couple of years were assessment years where they actually monitored what organizations were doing in order to set up the standards for the averaging to see who was above their average and below their average. The first couple of years there were no costs or penalties to anybody.
The GNWT has received some significant penalties in this area under the Safe Advantage program. The Department of Human Resources is working with the departments to make sure that they are continuing to put in occupational health and safety programs to ensure that people who work for the GNWT are safe and not getting injured.
Thanks to the Minister for that reply. As I indicated in my opening first question that claims experience has more than doubled for the GNWT, I guess the question I have for the Minister of HR is: Can he indicate which three departments are causing some of that claims growth that we’re seeing, especially in the last year?
There are certainly areas that have higher claims experience than others. In the GNWT the three areas that are experiencing high claims costs are the Department of Justice and the health and social services authorities.
I think the Minister mentioned three, but I think only two were given. That said, did the two departments that were given, in terms of Justice and Health, if one was to look at realistic comparison in these so-called rate sheets that are provided by WSCC, those areas, in terms of claims or what premiums are being paid by those related private sector industries are in the order of probably about, and in the case of health, about $1.61 per $100 of payroll, and in the issue of corrections, somewhere around the $2.58 mark per $100.
As I indicated earlier in my Member’s statement, the GNWT is paying about 79 cents per $100, much lower than a lot of these claims growths. My question to the Minister is: Why aren’t WSCC payroll premiums not broken down by department to reflect a more realistic comparison to industry rate classes and premiums that are being paid in the private sector?
I mentioned health authorities. The two highest claims areas in the Government of the Northwest Territories are the Stanton Territorial Health Authority and the Fort Smith Health Authority, followed closely by Justice. I indicated authorities and I should have said both.
With respect to claims, the claims change regularly. Every department is different. Some departments are higher; some departments are lower. By way of example, in 2011, HR had $3,400 in claims. So far, third quarter of this calendar year, 2012, they have $86. We do have a wide range of different fees per employment area.
With respect to the fee that we’re paying, the two of them don’t necessarily correlate the way I think the Member thinks they do. Rates are determined by the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission by the Board of Governors, as per the terms of the act. I don’t have the 2012 Rate Guide, but looking at the 2011 guide, there are eight classes, 83 subclasses, and they range anywhere from 48 cents per $100 all the way up to $4.98 per $100. The GNWT is Class 81, and in the old rate guide it’s 60 cents per $100.
The Safe Advantage program is actually assessed based on the total number of claims, not the fees that we pay under the rates. Last year the GNWT paid $2.3 million in rates, $1.1 million in claims were paid out, and then on top of that, under the Safe Advantage program, which is separate and apart, the GNWT received $600,000 in fines under the Safe Advantage. In total, the GNWT paid about $2.9 million and received about $1.1 million back in claims.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, thank you to the Minister for more detailed numbers.
I believe the Minister indicated that the rate class for the GNWT was 60 cents, but I believe it was 66 cents in last year’s rate guide.
My last question, really, has to do with a barometer reading. Where are we sitting at right now with the GNWT currently in 2012? Are we seeing our claims costs still on a continued rise? Could we be subject to higher penalties or double penalties with respect to the Safe Advantage program? Can the Minister give us an idea as to where we’re sitting right now for the remainder of 2012?
As I indicated previously, every department is different. We are seeing a significant number of ranges within the departments. I know, for a fact, some departments look like they’re going down, some departments are staying the same, and there are some departments that have moved up slightly. I can share that information with the Member, what we’ve got up to the third quarter in comparison to 2009, 2010, 2011. I’ll share that with the Member and with committee.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated in my Member’s statement, I’m glad to see the egg grading plant facility in Hay River open up on Friday. I have questions for the Minister of ITI concerning what the department is doing to encourage this kind of sustainable developing for putting northern products on northern tables.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. The Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Department of ITI certainly was happy to be a part of the success in Hay River with the opening of the egg grading facility. We have a long way to go.
Just last month we signed a new agreement with the federal government on the Growing Forward II money that will bring $6 million more to the Northwest Territories in the area of agricultural development. We’re hoping to continue the successes that we’ve seen there. That money will be put to good use in trying to get more products onto people’s tables around the Northwest Territories.
As the Minister knows well in the House, probably, that I’m strongly concerned about the fishing industry and the lack of the fact that we’re using this great resource we have, especially in the Great Slave Lake where we have a sustainable quota and that we’re not even using a good part of that quota. What is the department doing to help this industry to develop?
The domestic commercial fish market has the potential here in the Northwest Territories to be between half a million and 750,000 pounds of fish on an annual basis. Recently I met with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation here in Yellowknife. They were here. I share the Member’s concern. I think this is an area where, as a government, we have to be following it closely. There’s a great resource there and I think it’s underutilized.
To get to the Member’s question, we have a Fish Harvesters Support Program, Commercial Fish Harvesters Support Program, a Fish Harvesters Expansion Program, a Fish Harvesters New Entrance Support Program and some core funding to help offset administrative costs to the Fishermen’s Federation.
I know the fishers are appreciative of this type of funding. I have a question for the Minister.
I know that the fishers on the Great Slave Lake are busy doing their job of catching fish and don’t have time to look at the innovative ways that maybe are being done on the Great Lakes, being done in other areas, other countries.
What is the department doing to assist this industry in looking at new and innovative ways to put more northern product on northern tables?
As part of the Growing Forward money, we’ve had a commercial harvesting processing and marketing of fish and meat in the Northwest Territories, and I think that program has gone a long way to helping. We’ve got a new fish holding and processing facility in Kakisa for pickerel. We’ve also provided money for renovations to the building at Wool Bay that will provide for the processing of fish. We intend to get together with fishermen in the near term here in the fall and over the winter to discuss ways in which the government can help the fishing industry here in the Northwest Territories be successful. We want to see it be successful. We want to be a partner in seeing it be the success that we know it can be. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My final question is about the budget to this type of innovation and looking at different… Does the government and ITI have anything in their current budget to look at any of their innovative ways to increase the productivity of the Great Slave Lake for fishing? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we currently have $225,000 available under the initiatives that I spoke of earlier. Certainly, as we move forward, I am committed to seeing us work with the fishermen on Great Slave Lake to realize the potential of that resource for our territory. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
