EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I just want to clarify that to the member, saying that this piece of unit that won’t do the job that was outlined for them to do, like I said, Mr. Speaker, we never found out until late December the lots that we had to work with and it was only then that that was realized where we wouldn’t have access from all four sides when that issue came up. That happened in late December.
Question 302 – 3(2): Confidence of Advice from Staff (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I want to follow up on my colleague’s questioning on this issue.
From what I understand, the minister relied on his staff that this equipment would actually work in the territory.
How can we be confident in the future when he rests his confidence on his staff on future equipment?
As we are stuck with $2 million worth of farming equipment today, what else are we going to be stuck with in the future?
How can we be assured by this minister that his judgement on his staff and himself, that we can rely on it as a territory for future purchases?
In the same way that my hon. colleague counted on his staff over the years to give him advice and each of us as ministers and colleagues count on staff to provide us with advice and question it, I can assure the member that because this was a hot issue that was raised, I made sure that we looked at everything that we could think of to try and ensure that all bases were covered.
Like I said, Mr. Speaker, you don’t have a crystal ball and you are never ever going to anticipate every little thing that comes along, even legislation that this Assembly has passed over the years. We think at the time that we thought of everything, but there’s always something that comes up that gets overlooked.
You have to trust, based on the information that you know at the time and everything that you can try and anticipate, that you’re making the best decision possible.
As all members know, you cannot always think of every single thing that comes along.
Mr. Okalik: I remember asking the minister, so I’m asking my colleague, that’s the minister: why was there no testing taken place in our territory before such a huge commitment was made of our government?
I asked back then, “Can you at least make sure it works in our territory?”  And we know today that we’re stuck with $2 million worth of farming equipment.
How can we be assured that we will get our money back at this point?
So I’m asking the minister: what will happen if we can’t sell that farming equipment for $2 million? What will happen then?
As I said, that is a hypothetical question, “What would happen if…” I don’t know.
If I had that crystal ball, I would be able to tell the member, but I don’t.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Since we now know that the farming equipment can’t work in the territory, I understand there are at least five that are within the communities in Nunavut.
If they don’t work or can’t perform the job, what are those communities going to do with the five pieces of farming equipment that they have now?
That was one of the first questions I asked my staff too.
As I indicated, after checking out the lots that we have been allocated in the five communities that have these pieces of equipment right now, that might be an issue.
They will be able to perform the duties that are required or what’s needed of them because they will have access from all four sides of the unit.
Again I want to point out that that piece of equipment will work and is going to be working in Nunavut, particularly in those five communities that they’re in already. They won’t have a problem doing what they need to do.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I am a bit taken aback by how we hope that we can sell this $2 million worth of farming equipment. I can’t believe that we own farming equipment today.
We hope that whoever gets this contract can get the best deal possible for all of us so that we can get our money back and get equipment that will actually work in our territory.
Can the minister please explain that he won’t do this again in the future?
Again I want to reiterate that the five communities that those pieces of equipment, the New Holland telehandlers, are in will work and will do the job.
It’s just in a few of the communities where we found out in late December that we wouldn’t have where our lots were and the slope, or the grade, or whatever of the lots, that we wouldn’t be able to have access from all four sides. Regardless of whether it was the New Holland or the CAT equipment that was quoted on, neither of those pieces of equipment foresaw taking a situation like this into account.
As I indicated and as Mr. Schell pointed out, I believe the boom length on the CAT was just over 40 feet.
With this new request for proposals, we figured out and calculated that we’re going to need I believe it’s a 54-foot boom length.
So it’s a big difference in equipment.
Like I said, you cannot foresee every circumstance.
We took into account or into consideration that we would be able to have access from all four sides of the unit.
The way the layout was, if the lot would have been turned the other way, then the unit would have been situated the other way on the lot and there wouldn’t have been a problem either.
It’s just when you’re going from front to back, if it’s side to side, then it’s not a problem.
It’s just in a few circumstances in the lots where we found out we couldn’t and the way the house was going to be sitting on it, we wouldn’t be able to access the back of the house to be able to get the roof panels and the ceiling panels up. It would have to be done from the front.
So that’s just the circumstances and challenges that we faced and we found, and we looked and found a way to overcome it.
Question 303 – 3(2): Mould and Asbestos Awareness (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to direct my questions to the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission, the (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Curley.
(interpretation) Next week, the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission will be holding free safety courses in Iqaluit on mould and asbestos awareness for all and any interested workers.
I wish to ask the minister if the courses will include mould and asbestos awareness and whether all affected workers will have to take the course individually.  Can the minister assure me today that all government departments will send at least one representative to these important courses being held next week?
I wish to thank the member for posing that important question.
This is a first for our government and we will have to gather the necessary information on this issue.
I know that all industries, especially construction companies, are required to have safety committees. I will look forward to hearing from the safety committee members attending the workshops.
Mr. Speaker, I have to look into this first.
Once I have this information, I’ll make sure to give it back to the member.
Speaker (interpretation): Mr. Curley, we would like clarification. (interpretation ends) Are you saying you’re taking the question as notice or are you waiting for more information?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): I stated that I will look into the issue.
I thought I was clear.
Speaker: Your first supplementary, Mr. Okalik.
I urge the minister to ensure that all government departments send at least one representative to these workshops and to direct all safety committee members to attend these courses.
I will make sure that these representatives attend the courses. The President of the WSCC was here yesterday and I’m sure they were in session today.
I still haven’t received the official invitation.
Once I do receive that information, I will provide more details.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Okalik. (interpretation ends) Oral Questions.
Question 304 – 3(2): Air Quality at the Cape Dorset Health Centre (Schell)
Mr. Speaker, I raised the issue of the aging status of the Cape Dorset Health Centre and specifically, the ventilation problem faced by staff and clients last week in this House.
I have also copied the minister on correspondence on the same issue.
I trust the minister has had time to look into the situation and will be able to answer my questions.
Can the minister confirm to this House whether he or his officials are aware of the ventilation programs at the Cape Dorset Community Health Centre?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the question is whether our department is aware of the ventilation problems.
Yes, we are aware of the ventilation problems.
Can the minister update this House on what steps are taken to address concerns about air quality or the presence of potentially harmful fumes in Nunavut’s health facilities?
We have written a letter to Mr. Schell and a copy of that letter was also sent to WSCC. They will be responding to that letter.
What I can say is that although the building in question is quite old, the problem has nothing to do with the building itself.
The issue has to do with the lab or x-ray machine there.
They installed the plumbing system, which is the cause of the fumes.
We’re working together with CGS to have the parts replaced as soon as possible.
I have also been told that the machine is back in service now.
I can assure the member that it is not the building that was the cause of the fumes but the medical equipment within it.
I can tell the member that the WSCC is also investigating the matter. In fact, I was told yesterday that the WSCC will be writing a letter to the member shortly.
As I noted last week, I myself experienced the poor air quality and atmosphere at the Cape Dorset Health Centre when I visited the building recently.
I recognize that our dedicated health staff are focused on delivering quality health services as a priority and cannot simply close up shop when conditions become uncomfortable.
Can the minister advise this House on what measures are in place to ensure the continued delivery of services if the conditions in a government facility, such as a health centre, makes it unsafe to work inside the building?
Hon. Tagak Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All government departments support and recognize that all GN staff must have a safe and secure place to do their work and not be exposed unnecessarily to hazardous conditions.
It is the law and we don’t force staff to work if they would be put in a hazardous or dangerous situation in any way.
We work closely with CGS whenever these types of issues arise.
There is not much we can do about aging facilities, but we make sure that our health workers are in a safe work environment.
I can assure the member that we won’t allow our staff to work in unsafe conditions and that we work closely with our partners at CGS to identify and fix any problems that require immediate attention.
Our first priority is to make sure that our staff have the safest work environment possible.
According to the current capital plan, there are no future plans for a replacement health centre for the community of Cape Dorset.
I have actively encouraged the government to bring this project forward in the capital plan.
Can the minister update this House on what efforts he has made to bring the Cape Dorset Health Centre Replacement project forward in the capital plan?
We are fully aware that the facility in Cape Dorset is one of the oldest health centres in Nunavut. We are working with CGS on it. Officials at CGS have produced a report on the current state of our buildings and infrastructure.
I don’t know if and when these capital projects will be included in the five-year plans, but I will discuss this with my cabinet colleagues. I am hoping that we will have a much clearer idea in the fall.
We have a lot of priority items to tackle, but I believe three communities ahead of Cape Dorset are currently being considered for capital projects.
Once the Cape Dorset Community Health Centre gets into the five-year capital plan, I will make sure that the member is notified.
I have no more names on my list. (interpretation ends) Item 7.
Replies to Budget Address. (interpretation) The Budget Address has been taken out of the Order Paper. (interpretation ends) Item 10.
Committee Report 003 – 3(2): Report on the Review of the 2009 Reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on the Financial Management Practices of the Department of Health and Social Services and the Follow-up on the 2005 Report to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on the Financial Management Practices of the Government of Nunavut (Arvaluk)
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) I’m sorry, I was about to go to the Committee of the Whole.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting the report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on its review of the 2009 reports of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, two reports of the Auditor General of Canada were tabled in the House on April 1, 2009.
The first of these concerned the financial management practices of the Department of Health and Social Services.
The second report was a follow-up to the Auditor General’s 2005 report to the Legislative Assembly on the financial management practices of the Government of Nunavut.
The standing committee held its hearings on the Auditor General’s reports from September 29 to 30, 2009. These hearings were open to the public and news media to observe and were broadcast on local cable television.
Witnesses from the Office of the Auditor General, the Department of Finance, and the Department of Health and Social Services appeared before the standing committee.
The transcripts from the standing committee’s hearings were subsequently posted to the Legislative Assembly’s website in both Inuktitut and English.
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee wishes to publicly thank the Auditor General for having acted on the motion that was passed by the Legislative Assembly on March 29, 2007.
This motion requested the Auditor General to undertake a comprehensive performance audit of the financial management practices of the Department of Health and Social Services.
I would note that this is not the first time that an audit of this nature has been undertaken.
In 1991-92, the Office of the Auditor General undertook a comprehensive audit of the territorial Department of Health at the request of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories.
It is worth recalling that the first chapter in the Auditor General’s 1992 report commented that:
“The topic of health in the Northwest Territories is contentious, as demands for more services run into the realities of fiscal restraint … in particular, we comment on the difficulty in estimating costs, requiring regular requests for Supplementary Estimates, the continuing issue of out-of-territories patient treatment, and unpredictable and hard-to-control medical travel costs.”
Mr. Speaker, the standing committee’s recent hearings took place 17 years after these words were written by Ms. Fraser’s predecessor.
I would like to take a moment to list some of the items that were brought forward by the Department of Health and Social Services for approval by the Legislative Assembly in November of last year on the occasion of its consideration of the government’s first operations and maintenance supplementary appropriation request for the 2009-2010 fiscal year:
$5,148,000 for the “increased cost of medical travel”;
$1,088,000 for “increases to contract services provided for lab services”;
$1,071,000 for the “increased cost of providing physicians services”;
$2,918,000 for residential care services “due to an increase in the number of clients requiring services, the complexity of the care and the increased cost of services”;
$2,566,000 for the “increased cost of providing out-of-territory physicians”;
$1,377,000 to “cover the additional expenses for out-of-territory hospital services”; and
$540,000 for the “Extended Health Benefits Program, due to both price and volume changes which have led to increased costs to the program.”
Mr. Speaker, the items that I just listed added up to over $14 million in unplanned spending by the department.
Since the introduction of the Government of Nunavut’s first budget in 1999, almost 30 supplementary appropriation bills have been introduced in the Legislative Assembly containing requests for approval for health related expenditures.
(Ambulance siren blaring) I hope nobody is hurt.
Some of these items have constituted over-expenditures that violate the government’s Financial Administration Act.
This pattern of over-expenditure has been a cause for significant concern for Members of the Legislative Assembly for many years.
By the time that the Legislative Assembly considers the department’s requests for supplementary funding, the money has often already been spent.
For obvious reasons, Members of the Legislative Assembly would never vote to reject a request to cover the costs of medical evacuations that may have already taken place.
The nature of the department’s supplementary spending requests are such that it is almost inevitable that they will be approved given that they frequently deal with matters of sickness and health, life and death.
In the long term, this is not an acceptable situation with respect to other fundamental values and concerns, including sound financial management and accountability.
Departmental managers can fall into the habit of poor financial planning, knowing that the Legislative Assembly will have little practical choice other than to rubber-stamp the department’s requests.
Indeed, it is particularly troubling to note that during her testimony before the standing committee, the Auditor General stated that:
“One difference I would note is that we seem to have said in 1992 that the department returned to get authority for more funds.
What we are finding in our report on Nunavut is, in fact, funds are being spent without being authorized in advance, which is, as we all know in our system, a very serious matter that the legislature should be approving those funds before they are being spent, which I think is again an indication that this department doesn’t have really good financial information.”
I would, however, comment that the department’s requests for approval for supplementary funding for its operations are, in many respects, a symptom of its problems, not the cause.
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Social Services faces a number of ongoing and acute challenges, including high staff turnover, difficulties in filling indeterminate professional positions for nurses and doctors, and unforeseeable health situations, such as outbreaks of communicable diseases, which often lead to costly medical evacuations.
Mr. Speaker, the high cost of medical travel can be viewed as one of the most critical challenges facing the Department of Health and Social Services.
In recognition of this unavoidable aspect of providing services to northerners, the federal government has, for the past five years, contributed over $10 million annually for medical travel as part of the Territorial Health System Sustainability Initiative.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to all Members of this House for their recent and unanimous support of the motion that was passed on December 4, 2009.
This motion called on the Government of Canada to renew the Territorial Health System Sustainability Initiative, including the Territorial Health Access Fund and the Territorial Medical Travel Fund.
The recent federal budget temporarily extended this funding by two years to “consolidate the progress made in reducing the reliance on outside health care systems and medical travel.”
While it is clear that Ottawa heard our call, it is also clear that the cost pressures on our health care system have not been resolved.
Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General’s report made a number of important observations and recommendations concerning such issues as the department’s budget planning, monitoring, information collection procedures, and transaction processing.
The report also discussed the steps that have been taken to address these issues with respect to such matters as working relationship between the Department of Finance and the Department of Health and Social Services.
The Auditor General’s report contained seven specific recommendations.
The standing committee concurs with all of them, as did the government in its responses to the report.
These recommendations concerned such essential areas as strategic planning, budget management, payment processing, and collections.
The standing committee notes that that the Department of Health and Social Services, in cooperation with the Department of Finance, has made a number of significant efforts to improve financial management procedures and processes.
For example, members of the standing committee were pleased to note that witnesses indicated that a number of problems with respect to processing payments to suppliers have been corrected or significantly improved.
Mr. Speaker, during her appearance before the standing committee, the Auditor General made an important observation when she stated that:
“On the question of costs increasing, I think that’s going to be a reality going forward with health costs.
I think most people would predict that health costs are going to continue to rise...”
The standing committee fully recognizes that this is an issue facing all jurisdictions in the country.
Nonetheless, the fact that an issue is national in scope must not be used as a justification for inaction or an excuse for poor management.
Departmental witnesses also noted that growth factors within our population are significant.
For example, testimony to the standing committee during its hearings indicated that health services usage grew at a rate of approximately 7.7 percent in 2007-08.
As recently as last week, testimony provided by departmental witnesses to the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of the department’s proposed 2010-11 main estimates noted that the department’s costs are being driven up by increases in referrals to southern facilities.
Proposed budgets for the Department of Health and Services must explicitly take these types of factors into account if they are to be realistic.
Mr. Speaker, a number of themes and issues emerged during the standing committee’s review of the Auditor General’s report.
Accordingly, the standing committee recommends that the Department of Health and Social Services address the following five critical areas for action:
The importance of developing realistic plans that are appropriately supported by relevant documentation, analyses of expenditure trends and projections, and which include mechanisms to monitor and evaluate progress towards financial targets or forecasts.
This applies to capital plans, work plans, and budget plans throughout all divisions of the department.
Members recommend that the Department of Health and Social Services works towards strengthening its planning processes.
The importance of setting short and long-term goals within a comprehensive and well-defined model for the delivery of health services across Nunavut that is supported by a strategic plan.
At the service delivery level, the standing committee also stresses the importance of providing clear guidance and support to managers who have obligations to develop plans and allocate resources to meet the stated objectives of the department.
The high rate of staff turnover adversely affects corporate memory and contributes to the lack of awareness of departmental priorities in this area.
Greater efforts should be made to orientate and direct new managers.
Although other human resources issues also have an impact on budgets and expenditures, the department has devoted considerable effort to addressing these situations, such as the development of its Nursing Recruitment and Retention Strategy.
Health service delivery models should take these types of challenges into account.