Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions today are for the Minister of Transportation. I would like to follow up on my Member’s statement and ask some questions about the Deh Cho Bridge review, which is apparently not now coming. I would like to ask the Minister, first of all, if he could please explain to me the answer that I got from him that he and Cabinet had decided that the public did not deserve a report which had been promised by the previous Transportation Minister in 2011.
I have to ask him, what is the value of the promise of government and why did you decide the public did not deserve the analysis that was promised? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Minister of Transportation, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I don’t believe I said that the community or the public did not deserve a retrospective analysis. I indicated that we had done some work with the Auditor General in looking at the bridge at the point when we took the bridge over from another project authority and changed the contractor. We also had a report done by independent people, the Levelton Report that was done from the time the bridge started until we took over the bridge, and DOT had done a couple of reports on lessons learned. I felt that that was sufficient for us to move forward using that bridge as lessons learned on other major projects that would be undertaken. It isn’t a matter of whether or not people deserved something; it was something we felt we could work with the information we had to move forward. Thank you.
Thanks to the Minister. I didn’t suggest that… I think it was my statement that the public didn’t get what they deserved. It was a public commitment in the House to do a retrospective analysis and then there was a decision by the executive, by a Minister and I guess the rest of Cabinet, not to go through with this.
So my question is again, which I think the Minister chose to ignore, what is the value of promise by government?
The Minister mentioned a whole bunch of documents. I have a list here that is probably about six or so documents, but why should the public have to go searching all over the website, all over the GNWT public site looking for documents to find out why this project didn’t proceed as planned? I would like to ask the Minister, in that particular instance, where is it – I know there is no spot – that the public can go to get a fully inclusive retrospective analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project. I don’t believe it’s there. There is no one report which covers everything and I want to ask the Minister why that is not there. Thank you.
We do have that information on our DOT website. We felt that individuals who wish to determine what the issues were could find that information in a lot of different places. We looked at a retrospective analysis as a tool for ourselves when we move forward. It appeared that the main issues that people in the House felt that there was something wrong with the Deh Cho Bridge. What we were saying is the issue was that the contractor changed midstream, that the project authority changed in midstream. That is what seemed to be the issue.
As far as the department goes, we felt we did a very good job. We put a project in that is very valuable to this city, valuable to the people of the Northwest Territories. It makes travel a lot easier and we felt it was a very good piece of infrastructure. It appears as though individuals are indicating that that may not be such a good piece of infrastructure. We put information together from lessons learned so we could do a better job on other projects, but it wasn’t something that would be there for the individuals to see and say exactly what happened.
Everything that happened with the Deh Cho Bridge was very public. There is more information, and if individuals want specific to what they are saying what they see as an issue, they can make that request. Members can make that request and we’ll comply. Thank you.
I don’t believe I was suggesting that the bridge was not a good project. By the time the government took over the project, I believe it was extremely well managed and it has become an excellent piece of infrastructure. That’s not the issue. The issue is that the project started under a veil of suspicion and it continued under that veil of suspicion for quite some time.
There is no analysis, to my mind, that’s been done, looking at all the documents I got from the Minister. There’s nothing that looks at the project from its inception from the 15th Assembly when it was first discussed, from the transition from the 15th to the 16th when the contract was signed and then on into the 16th until the government took it over. There is nothing which I can go to or direct the public to go where they can see what sorts of things happened and what went wrong.
I would like to ask the Minister, there were lessons to be learned, absolutely. The lessons that were learned by the department were from a review team and specific to the building of the bridge. I don’t have a problem with that. My problem is what lessons were learned from the very inception of the bridge project. Thank you.
I don’t know specifically which lessons were learned from the very inception of the Deh Cho Bridge, but we do have lessons learned. They are on the website. We have made several presentations. The department of highways and marine division of Department of Transportation made a presentation on the Deh Cho Bridge Lessons Learned. That is on the website. Retrospective Lessons Learned on the Deh Cho Bridge, again prepared by the Department of Transportation, is on our website. The Auditor General’s report is also on the website. We charted out the recommendations of the Auditor General’s report. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to say to the Minister that the only lessons that were learned were from the review team project. I quote from their report: “The analysis was based on the experience of the delivery team, and many more parts that included political, financial and legal issues were not looked at.”
I have to ask the Minister, will he, once again, commit and fulfill the promise that was made by the previous Minister of Transportation and provide one report, a fully thorough and analyzed and retrospective analysis of the Deh Cho Bridge Project from inception to completion?
I can have that discussion with the department again. We felt like there was no real value in continuing to do a retrospective analysis. We are busy. There are a lot of projects on the go, and the department felt that with the retrospective lessons learned and the Deh Cho Bridge lessons learned, the Levelton Report before we took over and the Auditor General’s report at the point we took over were sufficient for us to move forward, was sufficient to provide information.
The Member is correct that doesn’t cover the financial and the political perspective of what occurred with the bridge, and I’m prepared to put that information together to provide it to the Member or put it on the website.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Colleagues, before we go on today, I’d like to welcome back to the Assembly Mr. Derek Tremblay, our former head of security here. Welcome back to the Assembly, Derek.
Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I said in my Member’s statement today – and I gave the facts and the numbers, and even the GNWT’s numbers through their partnership with the researcher on Avens – the study Where to Go and What to Do, one thing is clear: a tsunami of seniors is coming and there’s nowhere for them to turn.
As I said in my statement, if the capacity was similar to a school where once a school hit 75 percent full, it triggers a renewal of the school whether through renovation or a building of a new school, but yet we have no policy or solution for the seniors. Avens is 100 percent full right now, at least 50 on their waiting list with nowhere to go.
I want to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services, what are the delays that are stopping this government from making a formal commitment to address the seniors population problem and provide Avens with the necessary tools so they can provide the solutions for those seniors who need places to go?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the numbers that the Member has put forward. I mean, they are department numbers. There is no question that the degree of increase of seniors in the Northwest Territories is going to be significant over the next number of years, but it isn’t just a Yellowknife problem; it’s a territorial problem and we have to look at this with a territorial lens.
We have been putting new beds for long-term care facilities in the Northwest Territories. We will have 18 beds in Norman Wells. We are going to have nine more beds in Behchoko, and we have put new beds in the Territories over the last number of years, including the Dementia Facility. At the same time, we are also partnering with the NWT Housing Corporation that is putting in independent living units throughout the Northwest Territories, five in the life of this government. That will make space available.
We are focusing on Our Elders: Our Communities, which is an aging in place strategy to help encourage and help support people who want to live in their homes.
All that said, we know we need additional beds, and over the last two years we have been working very closely with Avens, exploring a number of different alternative financing options to support the pavilion project which will increase the number of units or beds in the Northwest Territories significantly. We are committed to finding a solution. We will find a solution and we will find a way to support Avens as we move forward on that project. It’s an important project that needs to happen.
It couldn’t be said better than by the Canadian Medical Association president, Cindy Forbes. She talks about the growing rate of seniors. She also references the cost, where it costs $1,000 a day, on average, in Canada to hospitalize and hold seniors. Whereas if you find partners like Avens, it comes at a fraction of that price. She estimates average cost in Canada at fifty. Now, I know these are southern costs, but the ratio is the point, not the actual dollar number. Why is the government not realizing that?
My next question is: When will this government be willing to finally step up and address the Avens problem, which is an NWT problem because there are a lot of seniors there from the Northwest Territories, not just Yellowknife. In other words, when will this government be willing to step forward to make that final commitment to address the overpopulation of seniors and the inability to meet those needs?
As I’ve indicated, we’ve been working very closely with Avens over the last few years. We’ve even presented options and they’ve presented options back. At one point in time, we were talking about working with them to utilize the extended care needs and an extended care facility here in Yellowknife as an option to help them leverage some money to build their long-term care facility. At that time, that was declined by the board. I’m happy to say that the board has actually re-engaged and they are now interested in having dialogue and discussion about the possibility of merging those two opportunities, and it is certainly something that we’re open to.
As I’ve said, we work very closely with Avens. We’re in the process right now of actually taking all the work that’s been pulled together to figure out how we can move forward and exploring all the different financing options that have been presented to us by Avens and other groups to make this a reality. As I’ve said, this is incredibly important. We need to make this happen. We’re working with our partners. We’re going to continue to work with our partners and we will find a way to make this pavilion project a reality.
Avens presently has 29 beds. They want to extend it to 60, and of course, they have bigger plans than that. But you know what? They see what’s in the near future. They’ve got over 50 on their waiting list. I won’t go on at length, but our population is growing to 184 percent in five more years. We’re not meeting the demands. We couldn’t start the planning, reviewing and building and meet that challenge that’s presented to us in five years if we did something today.
Again, I’m going to ask the Minister, when is the government going to make a formal commitment so Avens can march forward on this particular project? We cannot wait anymore. Catastrophe is on the doorstep of seniors. Who is going to take responsibility for this tragic end?
At the current time on the Territorial Admissions Committee list for Avens we have 13 people on the wait-list to get into the Avens facility, so there is clearly a need. We know that when the facility in Norman Wells and the facility in Behchoko opens, we may have some opportunity to move some people back to their initial or home communities, which we are hoping will take off some of the immediate need on Avens.
But at the same time, as I’ve indicated, and I’m going to indicate again, we’re working very closely with Avens. We have a number of options and opportunities in front of us. We need to explore them and we will come to an agreement with Avens, and at that time we will be prepared to make announcements on when and how we’re going to move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Territorial-wide, territorial-wide, the growth in five years in seniors is going to be at 150 percent. All the beds that have been created today and all the beds they think that they’re going to create tomorrow still won’t meet that demand. The Minister can say we’re going to shuffle seniors around the room, around the territory to solve the problem. It is not meeting the challenge.
Will the Minister just be honest in this House to say are they going to make an agreement with Avens and when, because they cannot wait any longer. I can’t wait any longer. The seniors can’t wait any longer. As I started, and I’m going to finish, this tsunami of seniors is on our doorstep and they’re crashing away because they’ve got nowhere else to go. They demand their government to act.
As the Member indicated in his opening comments and following up with his questions, Avens is a territorial facility and it has a number of people from across the Northwest Territories. As we make beds available in Norman Wells, as we make additional beds available in Behchoko, we do believe, and we have a fairly solid understanding, that some of these individuals will move. That will take off some of the temporary demand on Avens, but it doesn’t eliminate the demand. I’ve acknowledged that today.
We are working very closely with Avens. We will continue to work very closely with Avens, exploring all the possibilities and financing options. We’re committed to getting this done and we will get this done. There will be an expansion to Aven Pavilion, and we believe it will be done in the appropriate time given resources, timing and agreements with Avens.
Thank you, Minister Abernethy. The Member for Deh Cho, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are to the Minister of Health and Social Services. Addictions and its effects in the NWT are a big problem. It’s sad to see many of our people struggle, and like many, we are compelled to try to do something. Chief Roy Fabian and his council on the K’atlodeeche First Nation were trying to do that. We have an unused and empty facility on that reserve.
Will the Minister commit to working with Chief Fabian and his council to consider reopening the treatment centre? Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Nadli. Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In 2011 the Nats’ejee K’eh Board funded an organizational review, which made many observations about the issues at the facility that impacted negatively on programs, clients and staff. We worked closely with the board to try to find some solutions. Unfortunately, they were unable to implement any of the solutions to improve the situation there.
In 2013 the executive director advised that no further intakes should take place due to the risk of client safety in that particular facility. When that happened, we were in no other position than to withdraw funding from that facility and prioritize it into other area that it was going to meet immediate demands.
We recognize, as I said the other day, that the people of the Northwest Territories want a continuum and a range of services, including on-the-land programming, community treatment, community counselling-type treatment in communities. We’ve offered the Matrix program and we have contracts with four southern facilities that are providing those services that we’ve never been able to get through facility-based treatment here in the Northwest Territories.
Having said all that, I have been working with the chief of the KFN to try to find a solution for that building. We’ve funded them $44,000 to hold a workshop in 2014 where they brought residents from across the Northwest Territories together to discuss possible options, not including a treatment facility but a wellness centre, a training centre for mental health and addictions, a spiritual centre for Aboriginal people, as well as possibly the home location of what will be the future of a mobile treatment option. All of these seem reasonable. We discussed those with the chief at the time. Even the chief, at the time, indicated that they did not want to open a facility; the facility they had had too many challenges and even their board were the ones who directed that it be shut.
I’m absolutely interested in having a relationship with KFN to find a way to use that building outside of a dedicated treatment facility and we will continue to work with KFN to do that. Thank you.
I’d like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can the Minister expand the fundamental issues in terms of having customized made-in-the-NWT treatment programs? Can the Minister explain to this House the cost deficiencies in terms of having customized addictions programs here in the NWT versus sending people down south? Mahsi.
Thank you. At any given time here in the Northwest Territories, even when Nats’ejee K’eh was in fact opened as a territorial treatment facility, we have approximately 12 people in treatment at any given time. As I explained earlier this week, we have 12 people going out and they’re going to a wide range of programs that we haven’t had in the past. Nats’ejee K’eh offered one sole program. We have a women’s facility; we have a men’s facility; we have a facility focused on narcotics and other drugs.
What we do know is at this time those facilities in the South are costing us around $150 a day for a wide range of programs we’ve never been able to offer, whereas Nats’ejee K’eh was costing us $420 per person per day, which is significantly higher for a very limited program where people and clients were not safe. Thank you.
In the NWT we pride ourselves on made-in-the-North solutions and we always try to be independent in terms of trying to aspire to make things work here for us.
Why can’t we have our own people treat our own people in addictions to help them recover and at least reach a productive life in communities and in the NWT? Mahsi.
We do do that. As I indicated, when the Minister’s Forum on Mental Health and Addictions went out, we heard a number of things: made-in-the-North solutions, on-the-land programming, community counselling, all sorts of different options. People wanted a variety and a range of programs. Facility-based treatment is only one of those options.
We provide money to different Aboriginal governments and organizations around the Northwest Territories to have custom made, regionally specific, culturally appropriate made-in-the-North programs for our residents and those programs are seeing some positive results. We also have community counselling positions and many NGOs who are doing incredible work across the Northwest Territories with a real focus on the North. We also have programs like the Matrix, which are community-based treatment programs with no facility that are being delivered around the Northwest Territories by Northerners for Northerners.
We have responded to the Minister’s Forum on Mental Health and Addictions, which was very clear, a wide range of programs, options that are available and we have moved down that road.
I still think the facility, the Nats’ejee K’eh facility, has a great opportunity to provide some service, whether it’s a wellness centre, whether it’s a training centre, whether it’s a spiritual centre of some capacity, something that is going to benefit all people of the Northwest Territories, and we’re open to having those discussions with KFN. We just don’t feel that, at this point, re-establishing it as a treatment facility that has failed over and over again is going to provide any benefit to the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Nadli.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s very clear and there’s no denying that we have a huge addictions problem in the North.
Will the Minister admit that we do have a problem and that the treatment centre is one solution and that the treatment centre should be reopened? Mahsi.
There’s no question that we have challenges here in the Northwest Territories with mental health and addictions. Addictions is rampant throughout the Northwest Territories, and in direct response to the Minister’s Forum on Mental Health and Addictions, we’re taking the actions that were directed by the people of the Northwest Territories, who said support on-the-land programming, get community counsellors in the communities and regions, make sure that we have a wide range of programs and options. Treatment facilities are but one, and in the Northwest Territories, treatment facilities have failed every time that we have tried to open one. They’ve failed because of staffing reasons, high cost, $420 per day compared to southern facilities at $155, safety issues that were clearly articulated, and underutilization.
These facilities in the South are run and successful because they can maintain a very, very large number of clients at any given time. Poundmaker’s can take between 80 and 100 people, which helps them bring in psychologists, psychiatrists and permanent staff who can really work with the clients. We don’t have that capacity.
So I’m not going to commit to reopening Nats’ejee K’eh as a treatment facility. I will commit to working with the community to finding a use for that facility that will benefit all people, something like a wellness centre, a training centre for mental health and addictions, or a home location for what will be our mobile treatment option at some point in the future, but not reopen it as a treatment facility again because we’ve failed and we’ll continue to fail. We don’t have the capacity. Let’s do something that’s actually for the benefit of our people rather than just result in another failure. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services as well. In my Member’s statement today, I talked about a scenario that could occur where a non-medical escort accompanies a patient to Stanton, or I suppose it could be to Edmonton, and they get there and the programed treatment for the patient changes for some reasons and the person who is the non-medical escort, out of the goodness of their heart, has probably taken time off work and is there doing this as an unpaid service.
When the program changes and the person who is the escort needs to go home, what are their options for that cost being covered? Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Minister of Health, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When an individual travels as a medical escort with a patient, there’s an expectation that they will stay with that particular person. We do know that we have people going out for really long periods of time and we actually have a policy that says after 21 days escorts can swap out and we cover those costs. However, if an escort wants to leave before the designated swap-out person, they are technically on the hook for recovering the costs.
Now, we do recognize that the situation the Member is describing has happened and can happen. So, we do have an extenuating circumstances policy in place that says if you go and something happens, like the patient’s stay is extended and it adversely affects the escort, we can work with them to make sure that they wouldn’t necessarily have to pay back. But if they choose, and there’s no extenuating circumstances, they’re on the hook. Thank you.
That is good news to hear that under extenuating circumstances the escort could find a way home at the government expense. If an escort is only accompanying a patient for a procedure or a surgery or something that’s only anticipated to be a day or two, they may have agreed to it on those grounds, but if it turns out to be a longer period of time, how would that escort then, without having to pay out of their own pocket, access that return ticket? How would they do it? What’s the process? Who is going to determine what the extenuating circumstances are? How long is that going to take to get approved? Those sorts of things. Thank you.
As in all cases, we would obviously need some confirmation from the medical practitioner that the patient’s reality has changed. So the individual would have to work with the patient to get some recognition from the practitioner which could then be shared with the medical travel staff who can actually facilitate the return ticket or rebooking. How long it takes really depends on their ability to get the information to the medical staff, but we can make those things happen pretty fast. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
How much latitude does the person who works in medical travel who issues travel tickets have and are they aware of the discretion they have? In a real life case that I know of, the escort was told, I’m sorry, if you’re travelling home without the patient, you are on your own hook, and at the last minute they needed to get home and had to pay full fare for their ticket and so on. So, are the people who issue the tickets in medical travel aware of the fact that they can approve return flights under those circumstances? Do they have the authority to grant that? Thank you.
We are trying to ensure that all of our staff are up to date, they understand the policies, they understand the policies that exist. We are actually doing a medical travel review and modernization to improve the medical travel experience. One of the things that we’re doing is focusing on client service and making sure that all of our medical travel staff have gone through and are certified as customer service agents, which means they will be able to work better with our clients.
In the case the Member is describing, I would certainly be happy to look at it to make sure everything worked out, or if it didn’t, we can fix it to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We are trying to ensure our staff are trained. We are trying to ensure they understand the policies. We are trying to ensure they know what latitude they have. But at the end of the day, everything around medical travel is going to require some sort of medical practitioner’s recommendation for changes, so we still need to make sure that the medical system is involved. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Final, short supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Like so many other government policies, this one needs common sense and it needs flexibility because there are probably lots of times when somebody is going to be an escort for a patient, if they are going for 21 days or more, in all likelihood it may not be practical or it may not be necessary for that escort to stay with that patient for that entire time. It may just be required that they travel with them, make sure they are delivered into the hands of a health care practitioner down there and they may not need someone to stay. You’re not travelling with the patient, so your expenses aren’t covered isn’t a very good answer from medical travel. I don’t know what my question is, except let’s make it real, let’s make it common sense and let’s make it simple. Thanks.
I agree completely. That’s what we are trying to accomplish through medical travel modernization. We want to have clear rules. We want to make sure people understand their obligations under the rule and understand the Medical Travel Policy, that they understand their roles, both as a professional and as a recipient and that it has the human component built in. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Member for Hay River North, Mr. Bouchard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a follow-up to my Member’s statement, I will have questions to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. As I indicated, and the Minister has indicated in the past that they are working to link with HR, has the Minister had any success in linking and contacting students with jobs that we potentially have in the Northwest Territories? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bouchard. Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
