Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Devolution legislation has not been reviewed at all by people as being referred to as having northern tools and things like that. We’ve heard “devolve” and “evolve.” Perhaps we should have “revolve.”
There seems to be a few legislative gaps in our Lands legislation that needs filling. Despite promises from our Premier, serious review will only occur when departments take it on. A new department in a supposedly democratic government guided by legislation with absolutely no vetting from the citizenry, that’s the Department of Lands.
When will the Minister begin the consultative process to make inherited legislation relevant, that the people of the Northwest Territories were promised, in a way that people were promised? Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, that will happen. On the Lands side of it, we’ve inherited the Territorial Lands Act, which is a huge piece of work. We also are working with the Commissioner’s Lands Act that we had worked with previously. That is a huge undertaking, and I can commit to the Member and all Members of this House that that work, I think, in the life of this government anyway will have to do the initial work. The bigger piece is going to have to be done, I think, in the 18th Assembly, to amalgamate those two acts. It’s a huge undertaking, but it’s one that we’re aware of and one that has been brought to our attention, and the work is going to get started on that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have questions for the Minister responsible for Seniors, Mr. Abernethy. As I indicated in my statement, seniors are a valuable asset in the Northwest Territories and we know there is an expanding group of people. What is the Government of the Northwest Territories doing to improve the seniors’ quality of life in the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister responsible for Seniors, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure there are enough minutes on the clock to outline all the things the Department of Health and Social Services in addition to the Housing Corp, Education, Culture and Employment and all the other departments are doing to support seniors. But I will go into a few of the items that the department is undertaking.
We do have Our Elders, Our Communities, which is a framework for action on improving the results for seniors in the Northwest Territories. Our Elders, Our Communities outlines priority areas that will be used to guide future programming and design for older adults to assist them to remain in their communities for as long as possible. Some of the priority areas that we’re working on include healthy and active aging, home and community care services, integrated and coordinated services across the continuum, caregiver supports, elder-responsive communities, accessible and current information as well as some sustainable factors, Mr. Speaker. I can go on and on but I’ll defer to the Member. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I could have asked this question to several Ministers, as the Minister indicated, but my question to the Minister responsible for Seniors is: What is the connection? Is there a committee that gets all the departments together that are linking seniors together that have seniors issues, whether it’s the Department of Finance for taxation, whether it’s Health, whether it’s MACA, whether it’s Housing? Is there a group of people who get together and discuss seniors specifically? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
A number of requests do come to me from organizations like the NWT Seniors’ Society, which I absolutely share with the individual Ministers responsible. But we also have the Ministers’ Social Envelope Committee of Cabinet where there’s an opportunity for us to discuss issues across multiple departments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is about that committee. Does that committee get together on a regular basis to talk about seniors along with the Minister responsible for Seniors, to actually just sit down and discuss, or do they come up just on specific topics? Does this group get together regularly regarding seniors? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Social Envelope Committee of Cabinet meets on a frequent but not scheduled basis and we talk about topics that have come up either in the House or directly from other individuals from outside of the government itself, and we’re topic based. We have had issues or topics specific to seniors but we don’t have a seniors standing agenda item.
As the Minister responsible for Seniors, like I said, I do have a lot of different groups, different seniors’ societies coming to me on a regular basis with issues that are cross-departmental and I do bring those forward to the respective departments and work with them to get responses back to the individuals who are looking for answers.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s hard to get all of the questions in because there are a lot of issues that we deal with as Regular Members here on this side. I guess my question would be concerning funding.
Has the department or the Minister looked at the funding that we give to seniors, whether it’s through senior groups, whether it’s through fuel subsides? Are we looking at expanding funding that we give to seniors?
When you add all the programs together, whether it’s housing or education or health and social services, there is significant money going into this particular area. I will commit to getting some more quantified, sort of, results or numbers for the Member and provide that to him as soon as I can.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Public Works and Services. Will the Minister confirm when a planning study will be undertaken for replacement of the school in Aklavik?
Thank you, Mr. Blake. The Minister of Public Works, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated earlier, that school will be scheduled for replacement or a major upgrade about 20 years after the last mid-life retrofit, and that would be in 2019. If we work backwards, I’m assuming that construction will begin in 2019. Then the planning study, if we’re following the cycle, should start in 2017.
Last week the Minister did confirm that we were going to go ahead with construction for a new school here. My question pertains to the community consultation.
Will the Minister assure me that his department will consult with the community members to ensure a new school building accommodates their needs?
We have a capital planning process and the capital planning process takes the department’s requests for new infrastructure through five different filters and then once the projects are categorized they will go through five more filters. At that point it is determined that we are going to move forward, that this was the project that was highest on the points, and then we move to a planning process. After the planning process is complete, actually the following year, we go to design detail. It is during the design detail that there is community consultation that will occur. There’s a schematic design and then when there’s a detailed design, then there will be a community consultation process. But there are discussions with the communities through the organizations that are responsible for the infrastructure from the very beginning of the process.
There are a number of problems with this school here, whether it’s the foundation, electrical, plumbing, a number of issues. This building was built in 1969. That’s well over the 40 year mark. It’s time for a replacement. We had confirmation last week. Will the Minister live up to his confirmation that there will be a new building?
Thank you. We know that Moose Kerr building is actually in pretty good physical shape. We are going to run it through the capital process. There’s no doubt we have been maintaining the building and it is in good shape, so we’re pleased about that. Even though the schedules have time periods as to when the buildings should be replaced, sometimes the buildings are in very good condition and then, in that case, for the sake of the money, we could effectively do a major renovation. But as I indicated, there is a plan to replace that building in 2019. The process leading up to that, I’m indicating that the process will start in 2016 and then a planning study in 2017. From there it just flows to when the building is commissioned, which would be, I guess, between 2019 and 2020.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final closing, Mr. Blake.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The policy kind of conflicts here. First it says whether the building is over 40 years old you will get a new building. Then it says 20 years after major retrofit, which will still be way over 40 years.
So I’d like to ask the Minister, will the Minister ensure that Moose Kerr School is put on the right flag list? Thank you.
The Department of Education is going to put this into the capital planning process. What we essentially do is compare project to project using various filters, protection of people, protection of assets, protection of environment, financial investment, and the need for programs and so on. After that we do the scale of the impact, the severity of the impact, the urgency and also the mitigation factors. So those are filters that we use for all capital planning. In that way we’re able to compare one capital project against another and it makes sure that the process is an objective process. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister of Human Resources some questions about the department’s position on employees who have been charged. I’m not too clear if they’ve got a policy or a guideline or a procedure or how it works when it comes to our employees. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The Minister of Human Resources, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Each case is quite specific. It would depend on whether or not the individual was management, excluded, union. In the case where an individual was unionized, then what we’d recommend to the employee, if there are issues that they’re not happy with if they’re to be charged and not feeling that they’re being treated fairly by the departments, is they have the option to deal with their union. Thank you.
Earlier in my Member’s statement I spoke about the presumption of innocence, which means, of course, you’re innocent until proven guilty. I’ve got a scenario where an employee was actually suspended without pay, pending the court case. If there’s no policy or guidelines, how can this happen? Like, we’re an employer, we’ve got beautiful policies on maintaining and keeping and expanding on our employees, yet when somebody gets in a situation like this we suspend them without pay. How can this happen? I’d like the Minister of Human Resources to answer that. Thank you.
Aside from any court situation, we have a code of conduct with our employees. So, employees are expected to follow a code of conduct. There is also a possibility that individuals could be new employees and still be under probation. Therefore, there’s a possibility that the department could be looking at rejection based on probation. Thank you.
Natural justice must prevail. I clearly laid out in my Member’s statement with regard to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that people are innocent until proven guilty, yet here the Minister is saying perhaps they are breaching a code of conduct. They’re actually not. It has to be proven in a court of law. I would like to cover off in other departments, Justice, maybe RCMP, people are actually not suspended without pay. They are delegated other duties in their department.
Why are we taking a hard-line position, especially when we’re not following any natural justice process? I think we’ve got to be fair to all our employees, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
It is very difficult to speak in an open forum like this about individuals’ employment status. My best advice to the employee or to the Member, and the employee has gone to the Member for advice and support, is to actually discuss with the union the situation the employee is encountering. He is likely a union employee. In that case, then the union would provide the support necessary so that when he feels he is being treated unfairly, the union will represent that individual with the management of the department. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister thinks I’m trying to be specific, but I’m trying to be general about this. When it comes to treating employees fairly, it means treating them all fairly.
Why would we want to treat one employee more unfair than other employees, especially when he’s not management, he’s not an excluded employee and he’s fairly low level as an employee? So just generally, he’s sitting there, he’s the Minister of Human Resources, the law and natural justice must prevail and everybody must be treated equally, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
To be general, in the Public Service Act, Section 29 allows the deputy head to suspend individuals in the public service that are considered to have misconduct. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned back in February of 2013, I asked then-Minister of Health and Social Services about the right to a second opinion. He mentioned that they were hiring a policy officer to review the health benefits. The review of a second opinion is within that review.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services, what is the update on that review of the health benefits? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Moses. Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister made his initial set of questions in 2013, we have hired a clinical advisor within the Department of Health and Social Services who is helping us to determine or quantify some of these results and questions in these areas. I just want to be clear to the Member, in some complex areas, medical diagnoses, some patients clearly would like to get a second opinion from another doctor. Doctors will respect a patient’s request, reasonable request, for a second opinion from a physician of the patient’s choice. This is consistent or is straight from the Canadian Medical Association Code of Ethics, paragraph 26.
NWT residents can also ask the doctor who’s given the original diagnoses for the name of another expert, someone with whom he or she is not actually associated with where the patient can go and get a second opinion.
I would just like to throw something out there for residents of the Northwest Territories, and that’s not to be worried about offending your doctor. They won’t be offended. They understand their obligations and they understand the importance of a second opinion, so please don’t be worried about offending the practitioners.
The cost of the visit itself for a second opinion is an insured service paid for by Health and Social Services. So the visit itself is covered. However, if a doctor for the second opinion is not located in the patient’s home community, the medical travel costs would not be covered or would, rather, be the responsibility of the patient itself. Depending on the outcome of that second opinion, some of the travel costs may be eligible for reimbursement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to thank the Minister for that very comprehensive response to a second medical opinion. They’ve done a lot of work and I agree that residents shouldn’t be afraid to offend any medical practitioner or physician in seeking a second medical opinion. He did mention something and I was going to ask a question in terms of the lack of physicians in the Northwest Territories in some of the regions and the medical costs. He understands the situation we are in, where some of the regions don’t have physicians and we have locums who continue to come through.
Would he be looking at reviewing that medical travel for someone who needs a second medical opinion? I know Members on this side have all heard our constituents who have gone to the hospital and been given Tylenol or something and told to go back home and not to worry about it. Would the Minister look at reviewing that medical cost for people who need that second medical opinion? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I indicated, depending on the outcomes of a second medical opinion, if an individual did have to travel to get that second medical opinion, we would be willing to explore covering some of the costs. I do hear the Member and I have heard other individuals express concern in this particular area. I can confirm that this topic is part of the medical travel modernization. This is a topic we are looking at as we modernize medical travel here in the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Some of our highest rates of health risks and health incidents are in the Northwest Territories and fall into the area of people who live in poverty, who live on income assistance and housing, who can’t afford to go to Yellowknife or Edmonton to get that second medical opinion. Some of them are even afraid to go to the hospital and will take their word as trust.
I’m asking the Minister if he would be willing to look at paying costs up front for individuals to have the right to go get the specialized medical diagnoses in areas that might provide those such as Edmonton, who I know we have contracts with. Will the Minister be looking at doing that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I’ve already indicated, our policy doesn’t currently do that, but we are willing to reimburse if a second opinion is determined to be necessary upon completion of the second opinion. I have already indicated it is part of the medical travel modernization and this is something we’re looking at. We need to make sure we are detailed on this assessment because not everyone needs a second medical opinion and we want to be careful about how far we put ourselves out there financially. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Moses.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned in my Member’s statement, a person’s health and life is at stake when we go this route. I don’t think putting ourselves at a financial risk should be the indicator for seeking a second medical opinion. The policy in itself is a barrier for this second medical opinion. He mentioned, and he is going to say again when I ask again, that I’ve stated that it’s in our policy that we will reimburse upon return.
I am asking the Minister if he would look at reviewing that policy so we don’t reimburse upon return, but be able to support someone to go seek that second medical opinion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
