Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Health and Social Services. Mr. Yakeleya.
Madam Chair, the question is to the Minister on this supp here. Couldn’t this be requested in the operation of this money? Why does it have to come into a supp? Are other facilities in the same situation as the Hay River Hospital in terms of the positions that are required? I know we have a unit, a wellness centre coming up in Norman Wells. Could they be in the same position? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Abernethy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The reason we have to do this now is because the health centre is nearing full completion and we anticipate that we’re going to be moving in during this fiscal year. In order to ensure that facility can operate properly when it opens, recognizing that it’s designed differently, its set up differently, it’s going to have a slightly different model of care. Not an expansion of programs but a slightly different model of care. There’s going to be an emergency unit, an acute care unit and an ambulatory unit. It does require a slight different make-up of staff. So, we need to do that now and be ready for the opening of that facility.
The same will be true of Norman Wells, depending on what the completion date is and when the opening date is. We’re in the process now of looking at what the requirement for positions for Norman Wells will be, and we know it will be a significant increase over what is there today because it will have a long-term care facility in that building, which does not currently exist. So we will be having to have some discussions, or rather, the future government will need to be having some discussions about the number of positions required to safely and effectively operate the Norman Wells Health Centre and long-term care facility.
Thank you, Minister, for the explanation. This request, in the previous discussions, could not have been foreseen that we’re going to be coming back to this Assembly to ask for a supp for the additional support that’s going to be needed for the opening of the Hay River health facility. So, hypothetically, the Norman Wells Health Centre could be in the same situation in regards to a supp because the planners didn’t sign this. If they would have, they would have put the money and it would have been done, already put in with the plan, the whole design here. But something happened that they said we need a few more dollars here to support the facility that’s going to be operated. I’m just trying to look at precedents being set, or has been set already and that the facility in Norman Wells could possibly, theoretically, be in the same type of situation where future government may have to look at a possible supp in regards to supporting that type of facility at the time that it opens. Thank you.
I would like to say that we won’t have to come forward for a supp for Norman Wells because I’m hoping that the department and FMB and the Department of Finance are able to finalize what is actually required and included in the business planning process so we don’t have to come forward for a supp. But, at the same time, I do recognize that some of this stuff is fluid and we are doing the planning but we don’t know the exact opening date of the Norman Wells facility so there are still a couple of ifs in the air. But I would like to say that hopefully we won’t have to come forward for a supp. Hopefully, we included it in the business planning process, but I am cautious because things may change as we’re getting closer.
Well, certainly I agree with the Minister that we surely hope that the Norman Wells facility would be staffed sufficiently when it opens. You know, we didn’t think this back a year ago with the Hay River centre; we didn’t know this. Now that we know that they’re asking for an extra million dollars to provide the facility with the support that’s going to be needed and with the planners that they had in FMBS that you weren’t asking for this additional dollars, and the Minister is correct because things do change over time and I just want to make sure that the facility, such as Norman Wells, will also have this type of flexibility when they open up in the 18th Assembly, other than to say sorry, missed the boat, can’t do it, do without, do with less. You know, have that type of openness in the 18th and I would support that operation and not revert to, well, we don’t have the money, whatever, whatever. I’ll leave it at that, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Miltenberger.
Just very quickly to provide reassurance to the long-time serving Member who knows we have a rigorous process here and we pride ourselves on trying to be fair and even-handed across the North. The requirements for Norman Wells, when those facilities proceed, will be given the same kind of consideration that all facilities are given to make sure that the qualities of service are there. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Anything further, Mr. Abernethy?
Thanks, Madam Chair. I was going to say basically the same thing. When the facility opens in Norman Wells, it will have the staff required to operate that facility. That number is still yet to be determined. Hopefully, it will be done through the business planning process.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. Page 7, Health and Social Services, administrative and support services, not previously authorized, $302,000. Community health programs, not previously authorized, $30,000. Nursing inpatient services, not previously authorized, $1.023 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $1.355 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Moving on to page 8, Department of Justice, corrections, not previously authorized, $111,000. Policing services, not previously authorized, $1.045 million. Total department, not previously authorized, $1.156 million. Agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you. Does committee agree that we have concluded consideration of Tabled Document 324-17(5)?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that consideration of Tabled Document 324-17(5), Supplementary Estimates (Operations Expenditures), No. 2, 2015-16, be now concluded and that Tabled Document 324-17(5) be reported and recommended as ready for further consideration in formal session through the form of an appropriation bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The motion is being distributed. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question is being called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
We should move on to Bill 56 now, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015, and I’ll ask Minister Ramsay if he has opening comments.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to be here today to discuss Bill 56, Miscellaneous State Law Amendment Act, 2015.
The purpose of Bill 56 is to amend various statutes of the Northwest Territories for which minor changes are proposed or errors or inconsistencies have been identified.
Each amendment included in the bill had to meet the following criteria:
It must not be controversial.
It must not involve the spending of public funds.
It must not prejudicially affect rights.
It must not create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence.
Departments responsible for the various statutes being amended have reviewed and approved the changes.
The amendments proposed in Bill 56 are minor or non-substantive, and many consist of technical corrections to a statute. The amendments are of such a nature that the preparation and legislative consideration of individual bills to correct each statute would be time consuming for the Government of the Legislative Assembly.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its review of Bill 56 and would be pleased to answer any questions Members may have regarding the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Does the chair of the standing committee have comments regarding the bill? Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its public review of Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, on September 15, 2015. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee thanks the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
Bill 56 corrects inconsistencies in various statutes of the Northwest Territories and deals with other matters of a minor non-controversial nature. Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 56. Individual Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. At this time I’ll ask the Minister if he would like to bring witnesses into the Chamber. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, I would.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort witnesses to the table.
Minister Ramsay, for the record, could you please introduce your official.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, to my right is Ms. Kelly McLaughlin, director of legal division.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. At this time I’ll ask if there are any general comments by Members with respect to Bill 56. Not seeing any general comments, are we ready to move into detail?
Agreed.
Bill 56, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. Clause 1.
---Clauses 1 through 9 inclusive approved
Thank you, committee. To the bill as a whole.
Agreed.
Agreed. Does the committee agree that Bill 56 is ready for third reading?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Bill 56 is now ready for third reading and I’d like to thank Minister Ramsay and Ms. McLaughlin for your attendance here today. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witness from the Chamber.
If committee agrees, we’ll move on to Bill 59.
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. Then we will ask Minister Ramsay if he has opening comments on Bill 59. Minister Ramsay.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am pleased to appear before the committee today to assist in your review of Bill 59, Estate Administration Law Amendment Act.
The Estate Administration Law Amendment Act is an omnibus bill that would amend four separate acts that deal with estate administration: the Children’s Law Act, the Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, the Intestate Succession Act and the Public Trustee Act.
A primary focus of the proposed amendments is the changes necessary to ensure that existing legislation is consistent with the new Estate Administration Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. Those rules will replace the current Probate Rules, which have been in place for many years. The rules have been under development by a drafting committee, led by the Supreme Court, since September 2009 and are expected to be completed later this year. Bill 59 will eliminate references to the Probate Rules and add regulation-making authorities to address requirements relating to the filing of accounts by trustees. The bill also includes amendments that will increase the amounts that may be paid on behalf of a child where there is no appointed guardian, increase the entitlement a spouse receives where the deceased has surviving children, and allow the Office of the Public Trustee to administer an estate having a value less than $75,000 without obtaining a grant of probate or administration.
The department consulted on the proposed amendments with the Law Society of the Northwest Territories and the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories. The department also consulted with the public guardian with the Department of Health and Social Services.
I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social Programs for its careful review of Bill 59, and I am pleased that a motion resulting from that review will be brought forward this afternoon to help improve the bill. I would be happy to respond to any questions Members may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Minister Ramsay. At this time I’ll ask the chair of the Standing Committee on Social Programs that reviewed the bill to offer their comments. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Standing Committee on Social Programs conducted its review of Bill 59, Estate Administration Law Amendment Act, on September 15, 2015. A clause-by-clause review was conducted the same day. The committee would like to thank the Minister and his staff for presenting the bill.
Bill 59 is an omnibus bill that amends four separate statutes related to estate administration: the Children’s Law Act, the Guardianship and Trusteeship Act, the Intestate Succession Act and the Public Trustee Act.
A primary intent of the proposed amendments is to coordinate provisions of these acts with the new Estate Administration Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories.
During the course of the review, the Minister agreed to consider the committee’s request for a motion to be drafted to amend the bill. The intent of the motion is to repeal and replace Section 50 of the Children’s Law Act to clarify the intent of this section and to make some modest wording revisions to improve the text.
It was agreed that this motion will be moved later today during our Committee of the Whole consideration of the bill. This was done to exponentially allow the standing committee clause-by-clause review to proceed at the September 15th meeting without causing any undue delays.
Following the committee’s review, a motion was carried to report Bill 59, Estate Administration Law Amendment Act, to the Assembly as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the committee’s opening comments on Bill 59. Additional Members may have additional questions or comments as we proceed. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister Ramsay, would you like to bring witnesses into the Chamber?
Yes, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. Does committee agree?
Agreed.
Agreed. Thank you. I’ll ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to please escort the witnesses to the table.
Minister Ramsay, for the record of our proceedings today, could you please introduce your witnesses.
