Debates of October 30, 2006 (day 18)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask some questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services in regards to the labour situation at Nats'ejee K'eh. Mr. Speaker, I am not clear. Certainly, I sense that it is a great deal of concern to all of us that the valuable program being offered at that centre is no longer being offered, that the clients are outside of the NWT jurisdiction getting their treatment and that 22 of our employees or our residents are off the job. I do not understand exactly how we could accept the situation that looks a lot like a replacement worker situation. Although we don’t have workers coming into this facility and doing the job, certainly by moving the clients elsewhere the effect is the same. I think it is a situation that really considerably weakens the workers’ and union’s position in this labour dispute. It is a situation that this government as a third party or the outside party, as the government likes to see itself, should allow to continue. I would like to know whether or not this government has looked into the situation to see if this is in breach of any contract revision to have moved these programs to outside of the NWT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Mr. Roland.

Return To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, ultimately the Department of Health and Social Services has to take very highly into consideration the clients who are seeking the help, the situation that is over at Nats'ejee K'eh on the Hay River Reserve is not one that we like to see continue for very long. That is why I have written a letter to both parties to hopefully encourage them to get back to the negotiation process. Ultimately, this process falls outside of our own union process. It falls under the Canada Labour Code. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, though, by allowing…The Minister hasn’t answered whether or not there are any provisions in the contract with this board of this treatment centre that would prohibit the services to be placed elsewhere the way it is now. He hasn’t answered that. If the government continues to let this go on, is the government not complicit in letting the situation continue on, because it so seriously weakens the bargaining position of the workers and the union thereby not making it necessary for the employer to go back to the table? Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the process that is used is maybe I should have gone into a little more detail. Under the Canada Labour Code, certain actions are allowed for where, in this situation, ensuring that the clients themselves get the services they need, that takes priority for us. That is why we moved the clients that were in that facility to another location to continue with their programming. That is where we are at, at this point, and trying to encourage the parties to come together. Ultimately, from the Department of Health and Social Services’ point of view, we are going to ensure the clients get the services they require. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the Minister is stating that there is a provision on the clients affected in a situation like this, but I would think that it has something to say also about what the government in this kind of situation has to do to not interfere in getting employees and employers back together. I am suggesting that allowing these clients to be treated elsewhere and not checking to see if that is in breach of any contract is prolonging this delay. So I would like to know if the Minister could comment on what he is prepared to do, further than writing a letter, to bring these two parties together. I believe, as is the case in any labour dispute situation, if the two parties are not talking and they are not made to and there is no need for it, they will not talk. This will just keep on going. I would like to know what the Minister is prepared to do. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I guess, for clarity, it should be pointed out that as this originally came about with the existing action being taken, discussions were held and parties were encouraged. I believe there were even parties brought in to try to have both sides come to an agreement. Unfortunately, that couldn’t happen so they are back at the stage they are. For ourselves, we contracted the Deh Cho Health and Social Services Authority to provide that service. From my understanding, there is no contravention of that agreement in place for delivery of services. Ultimately, as I have stated earlier, the Department of Health and Social Services want to ensure the clients did receive programming that was required. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Ms. Lee.

Supplementary To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister indicate whether this is a governmental plan to let this situation continue in that it would allow these treatment contracts to continue on indefinitely and thereby really making it less urgent for the parties to get back together? Does the government not see a huge problem in that? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Roland.

Further Return To Question 222-15(5): Disruption Of Service At Nats’ejee K’eh Treatment Centre

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go into details of what options are available. It would be almost like negotiating around the parties that are directly involved. That is not something I intend to do. We are, as a government, looking at all of our other options and the contract that is in place. As well, we are very aware that this involves another union that is at the table. They have agreed to, in the past, a different standard than what we have in place for our own employees. So all of these things have to be weighed very carefully as we proceed. Thank you.