Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.
Section 31 of Bill 12 sets out the requirement that the NEBS plan be funded on a going concern basis, rather than a solvency basis.
Although this was not raised as a concern in any of the submissions received by the standing committee, the committee gave consideration to this section of the bill, which represents a change in the way NEBS has conducted its business in the past.
A solvency valuation is performed to determine the funded status of a plan if it were to terminate on a certain date. It is a common practice for private sector plans to be funded on a solvency basis where there is a much greater risk that a plan might wind up as a result of bankruptcy or business closure.
A going-concern valuation, by comparison, is calculated based on whether or not there is enough money now in the plan, when combined with expected new contributions, to cover the benefits of current and future retirees.
The standing committee was persuaded by NEBS’ position that it is more appropriate that this pension be funded on a going-concern basis, as it is a type of pension plan that is likely to operate indefinitely and one which is not facing an immediate threat to its existence.
In order to deal with the practicalities of operating the NEBS plan in a multi-jurisdictional environment, Bill 12 allows for the Minister responsible to enter into intergovernmental agreements respecting matters related to the NEBS plan. In some defined circumstances, the terms of an intergovernmental agreement will prevail, if there is a conflict, over some sections of the act.
The standing committee acknowledged the rationale for intergovernmental agreements, given the multi-jurisdictional nature of the NEBS plan, but was concerned about ensuring in the legislation that the power afforded to governments, in entering into intergovernmental agreements, not be used in such a way as to circumvent requirements of the act. Motion 3 addresses this concern.
Clause 32 of Bill 12 specifies that, under the NEBS plan, the contribution rate for active members must be equal to the contribution rate for participating employers.
The standing committee considered the possibility that employers may wish to make pension contributions in excess of 50 percent, as an employment incentive to recruit and retain workers. The committee discussed with Minister Miltenberger the option of amending the legislation to provide the flexibility to the Pension Committee to increase the employer contribution rate beyond 50 percent.
In declining to concur with the committee’s proposal, the Minister offered the rationale that the trend for public sector plans across Canada is to require 50-50 cost sharing. The Minister also pointed out the inherent logic in enshrining a 50-50 cost sharing arrangement to complement the proposed amendments to clause 12 creating a 50-50 governance model for the Pension Committee.
The standing committee reviewed pension legislation across Canada, to determine how other jurisdictions addressed the matter of employee-employer contribution rates. Their research revealed that:
All of the statutes reviewed have clauses intended to prohibit an employee’s contributions to his or her pension from exceeding a certain level or threshold. Under the Pension Benefits Standards Act (Canada) and eight provincial statutes, the employee’s contribution plus interest may not exceed 50 percent.
The New Brunswick Pension Benefits Act permits the minimum employee contribution to be determined according to the relevant pension plan. However, where the pension plan is silent, then “the plan shall be deemed to have fixed the percentage at 50 percent.”
Three jurisdictions – Manitoba, Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador – refer to this as the “50-50 Rule.” In others, it is variously referred to as the “minimum commuted value,” “maximum employee cost,” or the “minimum employer contribution.”
The standing committee found that, while the effect of such provisions may be to create an environment where 50-50 cost sharing is likely to occur, the legislation is not worded to require cost-sharing. The committee’s research did not reveal any provisions in any of the statutes it reviewed that prohibit an employer from making a contribution in excess of 50 percent.
Therefore, while the committee was not persuaded by the Minister’s assertion that the trend across Canada is 50-50 cost-sharing, the committee was willing to concede that the amendments to clause 12, allowing for balanced employee-employer membership on the Pension Committee, was reasonable grounds for acceptance of the “50-50 rule.”
The standing committee listened intently and gave careful consideration to the opinions that were expressed at the public hearing on Bill 12.
The clause-by-clause review of the bill was held on February 19, 2014. At this meeting, the committee moved 12 separate motions to amend Bill 12. Each of these motions was carried and Minister Miltenberger concurred with each:
Motion 1:
This amendment clarifies, in legislation, the commitment to have the NEBS plan operate and be interpreted as a “defined benefit” plan rather than a “target benefit” plan. There is further discussion related to this motion under Motion 6, below.
Motion 2:
This amendment provides that no provision of an intergovernmental agreement may be used to waive statutory requirements of the act.
Motion 3:
This is a consequential motion necessitated by the amendment to clause 12, Motion 5, which specifies the number of pension committee members. Given that the composition of the pension committee will be set in the legislation, it is no longer appropriate, and legislatively confusing, to have the current sub-clause permitting the board to set the number remain in the bill.
Motion 4:
This motion is related to Motion 6 to amend clause 15(3) and removes the authority of the board to approve or reject Pension Committee recommendations for contribution rate increases for employers.
This motion, in conjunction with Motion 6 to amend clause 15(3), means that the power to recommend and implement increases will lie with the pension committee, not the NEBS Board.
Motion 5:
As originally drafted, Bill 12 proposed that the Pension Committee be composed of two independent members and such other members as the board determines.
The standing committee heard the concerns that the composition of the Pension Committee was seen to be weighted to favour the interests of employer members over beneficiaries, and that employees were left without an effective voice in the governance of the NEBS plan.
The standing committee passed a motion to amend clause 12 to provide for equal employee/employer balance, with one independent member of the Pension Committee. It also provides that the pension committee shall elect its own chair. The standing committee believes that this amendment to the bill will implement a fair and balanced governance model for the NEBS plan.
Mr. Speaker, I now ask to turn the report over to my colleague Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Moses.
Motion 6:
As originally drafted, clause 15 of Bill 12 authorizes the Pension Committee, at any time, to retroactively reduce accrued ancillary benefits and to reduce core pension benefits on a going-forward basis.
In the event that there are insufficient assets to maintain the solvency of the NEBS plan, Bill 12 also requires that the Pension Committee request the consent of the NEBS Board to increase contributions to the pension fund before taking any actions to change or reduce benefits.
This section of the bill, as originally written, also gives the board the power to veto any proposed increase to the rate of contributions by employer members.
The standing committee listened carefully to the concerns raised by many of the presenters who viewed these authorities as placing an undue burden on employee beneficiaries to pay for the costs of an underfunded pension. This was seen to be especially problematic given the lack of employee representation on the pension committee.
As a result, the standing committee proposed amendments replacing clause 15 with a new clause that removes the ability of the pension committee to retroactively reduce any earned benefit as a way of dealing with insufficient assets in the plan.
There is one exception to this general prohibition against the retroactive reduction of accrued benefits:
This exception occurs only in the specific case of the accrual of cost of living indexing benefits accrued after December 31, 2004, where an employer withdraws from the plan or the plan is terminated.
If there are insufficient assets, and the employer has withdrawn or the plan has been terminated, then indexing benefits earned after December 31, 2004, are not guaranteed but are, instead, discretionary.
This exception is in keeping with the current plan text, in which plan members only accrue a right to receive indexing benefits if the plan is not wound up or an employer has not withdrawn.
In addition to the prohibition against the retroactive reduction of accrued benefits, the amended provision gives the Pension Committee the authority to increase contribution rates as one of the ways of addressing an insufficiency of assets in the plan.
As well, this motion removes the clause giving the board a veto power over contribution increases. As a result, the authority for managing pension fund solvency will rest with the Pension Committee.
This motion also has the effect of ensuring that the NEBS Pension Plan remains a defined-benefit plan. For greater certainty, this is enshrined through the proposal in Motion 1 to include the term “defined-benefit” in clause 2 of the bill which outlines the purpose of the act.
Motion 7:
The purpose of this motion is to bring the language of this provision in Bill 12 in line with the language used in Nunavut’s Bill 1, so that the bills mirror each other as closely as possible.
This has the effect of making the wording of this clause more precise. It removes the ability of the Minister to direct either an Aboriginal government or the legislative or judicial branches of the territorial government to apply for membership in the NEBS plan.
Motion 8:
This is a technical amendment designed to go with the amendment to clause 15, Motion 6. This motion eliminates the option of proposing, in an actuarial report, a retroactive reduction of benefits in the event of a funding shortfall.
Motion 9:
This motion would require the Minister to table in the Legislative Assembly an actuarial valuation report within 120 days of receipt, or, if the Assembly is not sitting, at the first available opportunity when it next sits.
Motion 10:
This motion requires the Minister to table in the Assembly the Pension Committee’s financial report within 120 days of receipt, or, if the Assembly is not sitting, at the first available opportunity when it next sits.
As with Motion 9, the purpose of this motion is simply to ensure, through legislation, that this information is made available to the public. Motions 9 and 10 were favoured by the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut’s Standing Committee on Legislation and were added to Bill 12, with the concurrence of this standing committee and the GNWT’s Minister of Finance to ensure symmetry with Nunavut’s Bill 1.
Motion 11:
Under the heading “Disclosure to Members,” Bill 12 contains a clause requiring that 60 days’ advance notice be provided to any pension beneficiary adversely affected by any decision of the Pension Committee to retroactively reduce accrued ancillary benefits.
With the amendment to clause 15, Motion 6, removing the authority to retroactively reduce accrued ancillary pension benefits, such a period of advance notice is no longer necessary.
Nonetheless, the standing committee feels that any reductions to ancillary and/or core benefits planned by the Pension Committee on a going-forward basis warrant 60 days’ advance notice to affected plan members. This amendment ensures that such notice is provided.
Motion 12:
As with Motion 7, the intent of this motion is to mirror the equivalent provision of the Nunavut legislation.
This amendment has the effect of ensuring, where the plan is being wound up, that whatever notice is possible is being given.
Mr. Speaker, now I turn the report over to the chair, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Government Operations’ review of Bill 12 is the result of a highly collaborative process. The standing committee wishes to thank everyone involved in the review of this bill for their assistance and input.
During the clause-by-clause review, the standing committee and Minister agreed to the 12 amendments to Bill 12 outlined in the motions above.
Following the clause-by-clause review, a motion was carried to report Bill 12, Northern Employee Benefits Services Pension Plan Act, as amended and reprinted, as ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
This concludes the standing committee’s review.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That concludes the presentation of our report. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honorable Member for Frame Lake, that Committee Report 11-17-(5), Report on the Review of Bill 12: Northern Employees Benefits Services Pension Plan Act, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Committee Report 11-17-(5) is received by the Assembly and is referred to Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Mr. Moses.
COMMITTEE REPORT 12-17(5):
REPORT ON THE REVIEW OF BILL 36:
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES PROFESSIONS ACT
Mr. Speaker, your Standing Committee on Social Programs is pleased to provide its Report on the Review of Bill 36: Health and Social Services Professions Act, and commends it to the House.
Bill 36, the Health and Social Services Professions Act, will enable the government to regulate numerous professions under a single law. As such, it mirrors umbrella legislation in six other Canadian jurisdictions. The act will ensure that only qualified professionals are licenced to practice. It will also empower the Minister to establish a mechanism for hearing complaints and reviewing professional conduct.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs commends the Minister for developing the bill. It is the result of five years of work by the Department of Health and Social Services, professional stakeholders and the public. The committee believes that the act will enhance public safety, improve the level of care and professionalism in the Northwest Territories and bring our jurisdiction into step with other parts of Canada.
Bill 36 was referred to the committee on November 4, 2014. The public hearing was held on January 19, 2015, and the clause-by-clause review was held on February 24, 2015. During the review the committee passed two minor amendments to address drafting concerns identified by the department and made at the request of the Minister.
Comments were received from more than a dozen stakeholders, including: the Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner; the Association of Psychologists of the Northwest Territories; the Northwest Territories Association of Naturopathic Doctors; the Canadian Association of Occupational Therapists; the Canadian Society for Medical Laboratory Science; the Northwest Territories Massage Therapists Association; the Canadian National Institute for the Blind; the Alliance of Medical Radiation Technologist Regulators of Canada; the Northern Nutrition Association; and a community advocate. All stakeholder comments were shared with the Minister.
Overall, stakeholders indicated strong support for the bill. Many are eager to become regulated under the act. Stakeholders also raised some concerns about how the legislation will be implemented. The remainder of this report addresses these concerns and recommends several courses of action.
The Northwest Territories Information and Privacy Commissioner identified four concerns related to the protection of privacy.
The bill authorizes an investigator to make inquiries of “any person” when investigating a complaint. This leaves a person with no option but to produce records or other materials. The committee considered this matter carefully and concluded that authorities granted to an investigator are consistent with ATIPP and the Health Information Act. Under ATIPP, information may be disclosed if another statute authorizes the disclosure. Under the Health Information Act, a health-information custodian must disclose information if it is requested during the course of an investigation into a health provider’s conduct.
The committee noted that the bill protects third-party information against inclusion in the investigator’s written report. The bill requires an investigator to prepare a written report and provide it to the complaints officer. In turn, the bill allows the complaints officer to refer the matter to a board of inquiry. However, the bill stipulates that third-party information must not to be included in the report and may only be used to determine how a complaint will be handled.
The Department of Health and Social Services advised the committee that all health-related registrars and registry offices are housed within the department and fall under the public service. Registrars and their records are therefore subject to ATIPP. In addition, the department noted that other appointed or contracted officials are required to sign standard contracts, which require compliance with ATIPP.
After careful review, the committee concluded that the common-law doctrine of procedural fairness requires hearings to be held in public. Public hearings allow for scrutiny and ensure that proceedings are fair, transparent and unbiased. Public hearings also give the respondent the right to be heard and to respond to evidence. Members further determined that the bill’s provisions respecting public hearings are consistent with other health-related legislation.
The committee noted that the right to a public hearing is not unlimited. A board of inquiry may hold an in-camera hearing where it decides that the public interest is outweighed by other considerations, such as protection of a person’s privacy.
The committee considered this matter in detail and concluded that the power to compel a witness is a common-law principle of procedural fairness. It allows the respondent and the complainant to put all relevant information before the decision-maker. The committee also determined that the bill’s provisions respecting the power to compel witnesses, and the potential consequences of contempt, are consistent with other health-related legislation.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to pass the report over to my colleague Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Moses.
Several stakeholders recommended that a majority of registration-committee members be licenced practitioners or at least very knowledgeable about the profession. The committee noted that provisions pertaining to registration committees are flexible enough to accommodate this request.
Some stakeholders drew attention to the difficulty of regulating professions, which have a small number of practitioners. For instance, the Northwest Territories is home to just a handful of naturopathic doctors. The association representing them noted potential for conflicts of interest or situations in which “friends are regulating friends.”
One community advocate made several recommendations. First, she recommended that the department ensure complainants are interviewed by a complaints officer. Second, she recommended that community members be given a stronger voice in the licensing, registration, and complaints processes. Third, she urged caution around the use of alternative dispute resolution processes, noting that such processes can result in hasty or inadequate remedies for complainants.
Another stakeholder expressed fear that professional standards will erode if foreign-trained professionals are licenced within the Northwest Territories. However, the Minister and his staff indicated that the department does not have the capacity to assess or certify foreign-trained professionals and will therefore only accept foreign-trained professionals who are certified in other Canadian jurisdictions.
With respect to fees, several stakeholders cautioned against overburdening professionals who are required to pay fees to national associations or in other jurisdictions. They requested that the government keep its fees to a minimum. The Minister assured the committee that annual fees in the Northwest Territories will be kept to $300 or less.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs recommends the following courses of action:
that the Department of Health and Social Services proceed without delay in regulating the first four professions, including emergency medical service providers, psychologists, licenced practical nurses and naturopathic doctors, and further, that the Department of Health and Social Services respond swiftly to other professions requesting to be regulated;
that the Department of Health and Social Services provide professionals with opportunities for substantive input on the development of regulations;
that the Department of Health and Social Services ensure that the legislation is carefully implemented in accordance with ATIPP and the Health Information Act;
that the Department of Health and Social Services ensure that a majority of registration-committee members be licenced practitioners of the profession;
that the Department of Health and Social Services seek the involvement of professionals in other jurisdictions where there is a small number of professionals practising in the Northwest Territories;
that the Department of Health and Social Services provide community members with opportunities for input in the registration and complaint processes;
that the Department of Health and Social Services direct the complaints officer to interview every complainant to ensure that complaints are accurately understood;
that the Department of Health and Social Services exercise caution in the use of alternative dispute resolution processes and guard against hasty or inadequate remedies for complainants;
that the Department of Health and Social Services set reasonable and nominal fees for professional memberships; and
that the Department of Health and Social Services require professionals to meet national certification standards, engage in professional development, and keep abreast of best practices in their profession.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to pass this back to our chair, Mr. Moses. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dolynny.
The committee thanks all stakeholders who commented on the bill or attended the public hearing.
The Standing Committee on Social Programs advises that it supports Bill 36 as amended and reprinted and presents it for consideration to Committee of the Whole.
MOTION TO RECEIVE
COMMITTEE REPORT 12-17(5) AND
MOVE INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE,
CARRIED
That concludes the presentation of our report. Therefore, I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Range Lake, that Committee Report 12-17(5), Report of the Review of Bill 36: Health and Social Services Professions Act, be received by the Assembly and moved into Committee of the Whole for further consideration. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. The motion is in order. To the motion.
Question.
Question has been called. The motion is carried.
---Carried
Committee Report 12-17(5) is received by the Assembly and referred to Committee of the Whole for further consideration.
Item 5, returns to oral questions. Item 6, recognition of visitors in the gallery.
Welcome everybody here in the public gallery today. Thank you for taking an interest in our proceedings.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier in the day when I did my Member’s statement, I was speaking about the Stanton Renewal Project and the need to include an Aboriginal wellness centre. So I’d like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services – I know he had discussions with the elders, the Stanton Elders Council on this matter – how supportive is he of such a project? Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The department and I recognize the importance of culture in health care, and work to incorporate Aboriginal wellness is being done within Stanton and within the health care system here in the Northwest Territories. We have planned for continued delivery of Aboriginal wellness programs through Stanton, but we do acknowledge that not all of the functions or activities that can be done, or should be done, in the Aboriginal wellness centre could actually be done within the infrastructure of a hospital. There are certain codes that we have to adhere to and some of the activities cannot be done.
The concept of an Aboriginal wellness centre is based on similar approaches that we’ve seen in Alaska and elsewhere, including some things that are being done in the Yukon. Planning for an Aboriginal centre is being done at Stanton Territorial Hospital, and it’s being done at the same time as the Stanton redevelopment. We are working closely with the Elders Advisory Committee and moving forward and planning for an Aboriginal wellness centre on the Stanton grounds. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I guess part of the issue, too, with a stand-alone Aboriginal wellness centre is about funding the business plan case or the business case to provide such a facility, and cost, et cetera, I think even class B engineering estimates. We don’t think it has to meet the high technical standards that a hospital would have. I believe it’s a stand-alone centre.
How can the department assist with planning and creating business plans for such a wellness centre? Thank you.
The Stanton renewal planning work that has been going on has actually identified a piece of land on the property where an Aboriginal wellness centre can go. The next step in planning is actually to develop a more detailed outline of the program requirements, what the Elders Advisory Council would like to see, as well as other Aboriginal government partners. Starting in April, we are going to be developing and consolidating all of that information into a plan that will help us articulate what exactly an Aboriginal wellness centre will be, what standards, what codes, what facilities, what programs will be delivered in there. Details on timing and budget and other things like that can’t really be completed until we’ve actually done that work and have a better idea of what it is that we want, to work with our Aboriginal partners to create here in the Northwest Territories. Much of the final construction will not be able to proceed until we’ve identified the resources required, potential partners, and we also have to continue to move forward with the Stanton redevelopment. We need to find out what that project is going to look like and we are still waiting for proposals from the three qualified proponents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It shows that the department is willing to entertain and move forward with this. I would like to know how well the department continues to endorse and support this very worthwhile initiative. The Stanton Renewal Project is to be completed in five years. We do have an opportunity to include this as part of the completion in five years.
An Aboriginal wellness centre was not part of the plan of the Stanton renewal, but is something we have articulated to the qualified proponents and we are hoping to see some interest on their part to move forward. We are also pursuing other partners, Aboriginal organizations, Aboriginal governments who might have an interest in being partners on this important facility that we would like to create here in Yellowknife for all the residents of the Northwest Territories.
We acknowledge fully that this is an important building. It needs to be done. We do need to find a way to make it happen, but the first thing we need to do is figure out exactly what services and programs should be delivered there, and we are relying on Aboriginal governments and the Elders Advisory Council to help us with that. They are going to be doing a significant amount of work, starting in April, for the next three or four months to articulate and quantify what that will be. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am really pleased to hear the progress that has happened to date. I believe the Legislative Assembly has to have the political will. As I said, it’s an idea whose time has come and I believe that we have to throw our full support behind this and our resources. I know they are looking for some resources to do a planning study.
In government we have other departments that certainly support Aboriginal culture, such as ECE and ITI, that have no problem supporting businesses that want to do a business plan. I believe we can take a consolidated approach using all of our resources to benefit this group.
What will be the next steps forward? Would you let this Elders Counsel run on their own, or can there be a more structured approach to get everybody to the table and make this dream come true? Thank you.
The Stanton Elders Advisory Council will be playing a lead role in the work that I have articulated that is going to occur, starting in April, for the next three to four months, the planning, the articulation, programs and services.
We don’t have a lot of money in the Government of the Northwest Territories. Our budgets are incredibly limited. So to move on something like this is going to take a significant amount of creativity and ingenuity. We are looking, as I said, to other partners who might be interested in coming in on this particular project, whether it’s Aboriginal governments in the Northwest Territories and we will also be looking within as much as possible. This is an important initiative. There is a lot of interest in this particular project and we would like to find a way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Mr. Dolynny.
QUESTION 748-17(5):
EMERGENCY SERVICES IN
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the Minister spoke about safe communities and I spoke about the need to remove the politics from emergency services, especially in our smaller communities. It’s clear when one hears about a stop work order for an entire fire department that we should be asking those bigger questions. My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs.
Back in December 2014 the Fort Resolution fire department was issued a stop work order by Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission. Reports did cite deficiencies reaching as far back as July 2013.
Can the Minister indicate what role his department performed specifically during this concern leading up to the stop work order? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Dolynny. Minister of Municipal and Community Affairs, Mr. McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t believe small communities play politics with emergency services because you’re playing politics with the safety and well-being of your residents. The issue was brought to MACA’s attention in late 2013 when WSCC advised us of a non-compliance issue involving the community. In response to this, we work with the community officials to help them develop policies and procedures, by providing guidance, advice and templates. At this time we didn’t assume a hands-on approach in preparing the necessary instrument and tools.
Since December 2014, can the Minister indicate what improvements have been undertaken in the department assisting the hamlet of Fort Resolution to meet emergency service standards of operation? Thank you.
Given the seriousness of the situation and increased fire hazard around Christmas, we worked with the community government to validating a suitable service level by taking a hands-on approach to develop guiding policies, procedures and training plans. I would also like to note and highlight the tremendous effort of the community fire staff and Hay River in their help and training volunteers from Fort Resolution…I almost said Revolution. Their contribution at this time was greatly appreciated and they did a fantastic job. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I’m trying to keep the topic of transparency in mind. Can the Minister confirm whether his department compiles community information indicating compliance to the codes and standards of emergency services? If not, why? Thank you.
The office of the fire marshal works extensively with community governments to complete fire department assessments and development plans. Information contained in these assessments provided MACA with a good idea of broad gaps and deficiencies that exist within NWT’s community fire protection system. This helped our key stakeholders, including the NWT Fire Chief’s Association, to develop the Community Fire Protection Plan that contains a number of priority initiatives aimed at improving the system. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Dolynny.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know the Minister shared, earlier today, progress towards the continued implementation of the NWT Community Fire Protection Plan, yet there appears to still be an overall lack of a proper fire safety culture in our communities.
Can the Minister share what he intends to do to fix this monumental problem? Thank you.
It is a problem that we are taking steps to deal with. Every year I have the privilege of attending the NWT Fire Chief’s Association’s annual general meeting. Each year, obviously, the participants showed great interest in this topic. Make no mistake about it, community fire protection in the Northwest Territories is challenging and we are taking steps to deal with that. The communities are upgrading their training and we are working with them to upgrade their training. They also have in their ability, through their CPI funding and gas tax, to purchase firefighting equipment and get the proper training. It is a concern and one that is being dealt with by the communities in the Northwest Territories. I have great confidence in their abilities to put good plans together, implement the plans and make sure they have all the infrastructure they need in place, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Human Resources. I want follow up on my statement when I talked about absenteeism and mental health in the workplace and making our workplace better.
I mentioned a statistic from the 2013 Public Service Annual Report and I’d like to first off ask the Minister, the statistic I mentioned was 12.3 days absence per employee in the year 2013. So, I’d like to know from the Minister, if he can tell me, what accounts for the very high incidence of days absent from work? Are there any statistics that he can give us, to me, to the House? Any reasons for absence that add up to 12.3 days per employee? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The sick leave is monitored and tracked by the Department of Human Resources; however, specifically why the individual employees are on sick leave is not indicated. It’s a privacy matter and individuals have a union agreement that they are allowed a certain amount of sick leave. If they’re within that amount of sick leave that’s allocated within their employment agreement, then we don’t ask why. If they start to exceed that amount, then there’s more investigation with the employee and there could be discussions to determine exactly why an individual would be missing more than what is allowed in the agreement. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. It may be that every employee is allowed 12 sick days per year according to their Collective Agreement, but I’d like to know from the Minister, because the Public Service Annual Report presumably looks at all aspects of our public service, and I would hope that they would also be looking at costs of certain actions of our public service, does the Minister have any idea what the cost is for 12.3 days of absence per employee in a calendar year? Thank you.
The negotiated amount is actually 15 days of sick leave per employee. Once they exceed not the 15 days but a certain amount of days, less than 15, I think it is nine days, the individual can be questioned by their supervisor as to why.
Determining the cost, I guess I don’t have that specific number with me; however, it would be very easy to determine the cost. We just have to track the sick leaves, as we have done, to determine how much the individuals are being paid who are taking the sick leave, do the arithmetic and we would come up with the number. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. I would think with 4,500 or 5,000 employees, whatever we have, times 12 days times an average salary per day, it’s going to be a pretty huge number. I would urge the Minister to look at that number and consider that maybe we ought to be considering the cost of absenteeism and working to bring that down somehow.
There is a report that I have encountered which says that up to 25 percent of mental disability costs directly incurred by an employer are preventable. I talked a lot in my statement about mental health and the need for us to make it easier for people to talk about it, easier for people to bring it into the workplace, not the mental health illness itself but to talk about it.
One of the things that I think is increasing more and more is stress leave. So, I’d like to know from the Minister, in terms of mental illness in the workplace, in terms of stress leave, which I think is a mental illness in itself, what are we doing with our workplaces, in our workplaces to try and reduce stress and to try and reduce the amount of absenteeism related to mental illness and stress? Thank you.
