EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The initial one during the design phase is typically $1 million for large construction projects.
That being said, there are the common needs of the geotechnical study, the environmental study, and the design phase that may or may not total $1 million. It’s the overall contracted amount that is the important part.
We just make sure we take enough to complete that portion of the work.
I know I’m making a perfect example here, but just to give a hypothetical, if all that work was completed for $800,000, the $200,000 would go into just the next phase of the building. It’s overall. For example, in Arctic Bay it was $27.7 million that was the total cost.
We just make sure that we take enough to complete that cycle of building within that fiscal year.
I hope that explains it properly to the member.
It makes it clearer.
I thought that we had used a large chunk of that $1 million.
Health centres are very important and I believe they are built from basically the same design.
I am concerned about communities with larger populations such as Arctic Bay.
What plans do you have for larger communities such as Baker Lake?
I’m asking about the future need to build health centres using Arctic Bay as an example.
Taking Baker Lake as an example using cost-effective measures, would you build something similar to what you’re building in Arctic Bay?
That would be determined during the preplanning process of a project. Using Baker Lake as an example, it would determine whether that size of structure would be sufficient or whether it would need to be a little bit larger. That’s where we take the common design elements of the exam room design, the records management site, and the administration needs into consideration and we do some customization to that common design to meet the needs of the community.
Again, it’s not a perfect cookie cutter. We don’t take one like Arctic Bay’s design and it may or may not meet the needs of Baker Lake, but the core of it does and that’s where we can expand upon or shrink based upon the needs of the community.
We still want to make sure that we’re meeting the local needs, not with just a cookie-cutter model.
I also thank the minister very much for clarifying that for me.
When I first got elected, I found out that when a health centre is planned to be constructed, a morgue may be included in the design.
I thought the health centre for Taloyoak was going to have a morgue, but it was taken out of the project design.
Maybe I misunderstood that, so if you can clarify that for me.
Typically that’s a consultation that is done with the community.
As Mr. Rumbolt says, it’s very important to engage the community and identify the needs with the hamlet. Sometimes those services are available through existing infrastructure that the hamlet may have or may contract out to some local enterprise. Typically we wouldn’t build a morgue into the health centre, but it’s something that is taken into consideration in discussions with the hamlet or municipality.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister.
I am concerned when dealing with capital estimates, especially when it comes to health centres, because we can die at any time and not necessarily just in winter.
Death comes to the door anytime, even in the summer, as it is part of our lives.
When a person dies, what I disagree with is in communities with no morgue they have to place the cadaver in the community meat freezer while they wait for the coroner since no morgue exists and it cannot be placed in a warm place.
With that being the case, it is extremely important since it would cause me consternation if my deceased relative was being housed in the freezer.
Would the minister consider adding a morgue when considering any new health centres for a community?
Would you possibly consider that for future buildings, depending on the needs of the community? I do understand that if a community wishes to add a morgue, it can be added to a new health centre.
I don’t think a morgue exists in Arctic Bay since I don’t recall a request.
What direction will the minister take with regard to this issue?
Hon. George Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for bringing light to that issue.
Basically to answer quickly, that would depend on the community.
If the community has already arrangements made amongst the hamlet or municipality, then we wouldn’t build that into the health centre.
If the community wants us to do that, it’s definitely something that we would take into consideration during our design and construction.
There’s appropriate legislation forthcoming very soon to deal with proper storage and how to handle people after they have passed away.
I look forward to discussions on that potential topic when Bill 14 comes forward.
I was concerned about this issue. When can I make comments regarding the small capital projects?
Thank you. I still have minutes and I’ll make it brief.
In the 2016-17 capital estimates regarding vehicles, it indicates that you use small capital funds to purchase health centre vehicles. It’s my observation that these health centre vehicles are not adequately utilized.
They’re just always stationary and are not used to transport residents.
It’s something I am concerned about, especially when there are people with little means of transportation.
Even when there is an emergency, there is no alternative available in the communities.
I’m not sure what the point is to have a health centre vehicle when the health centre is accessible in a community.
Why is it necessary to have these vehicles?
Please explain that to me.
The answer could be quite complex depending upon the different uses of vehicles in the communities with health centres.
With the committee’s indulgence, I would like my deputy minister to respond to that.
Ms. Stockley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that question.
The health centre vehicles are used in a variety of ways.
Depending on the needs of the community, it could be to transport home care nurses to patients’ homes in order to receive care.
Many times it is to transport medications, particularly daily medications like TB medications, for example, to patients’ homes.
They’re not typically used for transporting patients, except in emergency type situations if there are no ambulances or no alternatives provided in the hamlet.
This is indeed a critical matter with that being the situation.
Since I rarely spend the entire year in my community anymore due to commitments, I have never seen the vehicle allocated for this function of providing medication to patients requiring daily dosages and I doubt it has ever been used for that.
I don’t know. I have never seen the vehicle in use and that is the only thing I know.
Due to the importance of this function, I wonder what further directive can be provided.
Hamlets already hold vehicle insurance policies. Perhaps these types of emergency vehicles or transportation vehicles to the airport can be added.
Can the hamlet receive assistance from the Nunavut government to administer and manage these emergency vehicles?
Can they provide this funding to the hamlets for that?
There are vehicle replacement funds that are provided through Community and Government Services.
When we’re talking vehicles that are under the Department of Health’s responsibility, you run into challenges.
Maybe they may not be as utilized as efficiently as they may be.
The need is still there.
If a patient does need their medication or does need a home care visit, we need to have that vehicle available for use to be able to provide that extended level of care to our residents.
Maybe there is something to be said for the residents of Arctic Bay, that they are very healthy and that they don’t need all that level of home care or medications delivered.
I hope that is the case and I hope it continues if it is.
Again, we still need to have a vehicle there to be able to provide that use when it’s needed.
I think that is where maybe the member’s quandary is. If a vehicle is sitting there for maybe days at a time, it may not look efficient, but we still need to have that vehicle there for when it is needed.
I hope that responds to the member’s concern.
I’m running out of time.
I understood part of the response.
The last name on the list, Mr. Joanasie.
First of all in your opening comments on the community centre were clear, as were the minister’s responses to questions.
The planned health centre for Cape Dorset has been deferred for various reasons. The minister also stated that the power generation capacity was not the reason why the Cape Dorset Health Centre has been deferred.
Can you provide more details on why it was deferred?
With the power plant planned to be constructed, would that be after the new health centre for Sanikiluaq is completed?
From all the information that I had received wearing a previous hat, the power needs of the community are available to be met, including the current construction projects that are slated to go in there, one of them being the new power plant.
That wasn’t a consideration in delaying this project.
It was to make sure that the community of Cape Dorset has ongoing construction opportunities to promote local employment and trades opportunities for residents of Cape Dorset on an extended period of time with the number of projects that are going on there simultaneously.
We understand that Arctic Bay will be receiving a new health centre and although they had staff housing adjoined to the health centre, it will be a separate facility.
Every time you’re going to be constructing a new health centre in the communities, will the housing corporation be constructing adequate staff housing as well?
The intention is to provide staff housing under a separate building than the health centre.
With that design model, it has saved approximately $2 million per project.
When I talked earlier about the different building codes that are associated with the health centre construction, by removing the residency from that building, it has realized quite substantial savings and it is still providing very close proximity housing available to staff.
Every time you’re going to be constructing a new health centre, aside from Mr. Rumbolt’s question, it would be ideal to have staff housing in close proximity to the new health centre in case of emergencies. When you are building new health centres, will you make sure that the staff housing is close by?
Hon. George Hickes: Wherever possible, yes.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you. That’s good to hear.
I do want to ask another question regarding ongoing lifecycle. In the substantiation sheet you have identified different priorities.
Will you be providing funding for all of your highest priorities under ongoing lifecycle?
I believe I had mentioned earlier on when we were talking about a list such as this, I believe it was in response to the Chairman’s question.
This list does have some fluidity to it, but the priority lists on here are especially specific to health. Let’s say, health and safety are obviously a very high priority and we endeavour to look at this with the money that we’re allocated based upon the cost associated. The estimates that come in with specific pieces of equipment does bring some potential for changes to the list, but our intention is especially the ones that deal with the health and safety of our staff and patients are dealt with first.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister.
I have seen, for example, in some communities like Kimmirut the health centre needs a new generator and they say that it’s a high priority.
Can the minister tell me that the Kimmirut Health Centre will be getting a new generator?
When the power went out in Kimmirut fairly recently, it was an issue, so it highlighted the need even more so than what an age in the priority ratings can bring to a piece of paper.
The reason why I’m asking this question is because I know that in Kimmirut there was a power outage almost for a whole day. There was an emergency in the health centre when the power was out. The concern came out of that incident.
I will move on to another topic of vehicles. We have different vehicles. We have ambulances and there’s a vehicle for disabled people.
Can the minister tell us if that is part of this program?
Typically vehicles like that are provided in conjunction with continuing care centres. That being said, there have been communities that have used their vehicle replacement to purchase vehicles specific to moving different groups around, if you want to call it that.
I believe, if you look, in Cambridge Bay there’s an identified need for a passenger van because of the increased capacity at the continuing care centre there.
Typically it’s not a per community allocation for that type of vehicle use.
I want to get clarification. For example, if the Department of Education has a student with special needs, they have a special needs bus. They also provide a special needs bus for disabled people.
If there was no special needs bus in either one of the communities, do you look into that or review the matter? For example, if the DEA doesn’t have one and the community requires a vehicle to be used by the health centre for patients who may require a special needs vehicle, that is what I am trying to ask about here.
I’m just wondering if the member could maybe clarify.
In part of his question he talked about meeting the needs of the students within the education system or is this separate, if it was a grown adult that had special needs and needed different transportation needs.
Can I get some clarification?
Chairman: Clarification.
The example I used was specific to a school vehicle used for special needs students with physical limitations or who require the use of a wheelchair.
The Department of Education provides a vehicle and I am just using Cape Dorset as an example here as there is a vehicle for that.
However, with requirements outside the mandate of the Department of Education, such as Health, I wanted to know if this is also part of the review of community needs assessments where residents with physical disabilities are provided with a vehicle. Is this included in your review?
I thank the member for that clarification.
Typically that would not be under the realm of the Department of Health to provide vehicles of that nature.
That might be something the municipality or the hamlet might put in their priority list of their submission to Community and Government Services or look at internal fundraising opportunities or maybe third party partnerships to address that if a need like that arose.
I also thank the minister for providing the details.
Maybe I’ll ask him about wheelchairs.
Do all health centres have wheelchairs available for patients who are on medical travel or for residents with special needs? Are they allowed to temporarily use wheelchairs owned by the health centre? Do all community health centres have wheelchairs?
Typically all health centres do have wheelchairs.
As far as I’m aware, they all should.
With regard to somebody temporarily using one, I think that would have to be an individual basis, realistically within the decision of the health centre, whether they’ve got the equipment that’s available to be used under what conditions.
Typically, if somebody is going to be in a wheelchair for an extended period of time, most residents would be covered under that under NIHB where they would have a wheelchair provided for them.
It’s a one-off circumstance that I wouldn’t be able to respond to on a permanent basis at this juncture.
Mr. Chairman, are we still on H-3 in English?
I want to know if we can also ask questions on H-4.
I want to ask questions on this page and I’ll start with the small capital figures that are written in the document.
Let me read the paragraph in your substantiation sheet. Perhaps it will be easier to read the section in English.
I may use the wrong Inuktitut terms as I only have the English version.
Within your substantiation sheet it states, (interpretation ends) “In March 2016 the health regional directors, Qikiqtani General Hospital, and corporate services prioritized projects based on a number of requests submitted by program managers/directors throughout the territory.”
(interpretation) The first question I want to ask is: did they review the projects for fiscal year 2017-18? Was that part of the review?
When you’re talking of different needs addressed, especially with prioritization, it’s a live list.
It is an ongoing communication with regional offices at the community levels and correlating that information from each community back to this master list, if you want to call it that, Mr. Chairman.
What jumps out at me within this paragraph, and I am unsure whether it constitutes an actual concern or not, but for my own understanding of the matter, it speaks to several items under small capital, such as carpets, at least in our dialect.
I’m referring to (interpretation ends) carpets (interpretation) and their repair or replacement.
There seems to be increasing cases of individuals who are allergic to carpet fibres.
Has the department ever contemplated the removal or phasing out of carpets, especially in public places owned by the department, such as our health centres?
When it says “replace carpeting,” if you look over further down in Kimmirut, as an example, when it talks about replacing the flooring, it’s replacing it with flooring, not carpeting.
More and more people were finding that it’s a lot easier to clean traditional flooring than it is carpeting. Typically, unless there is a real need to have carpeting in an area, we would replace it with non-carpeted flooring.
I believe it is much better for the majority of people.
In the same paragraph I want further clarification on this capital estimates page for last year under capital projects for 2015. In reviewing them, there is a section speaking to vehicles, but no mention of Pond Inlet at least from what I can decipher.
With the estimates we are reviewing for fiscal year 2016, I’m assuming it’s for the Pond Inlet Health Centre, as it is in the capital estimates for the Department of Health. There is a vehicle listed for Pond Inlet.
I want to ask the minister this question.
Perhaps I can be content in that this summer our health centre received a new vehicle, a Ford Explorer, which arrived via the summer sealift. That is good to see.
Does it mean that we are getting another vehicle for the summer of 2017?
I don’t have that level of detail.
I apologize to the member that I will have to get back to him after these proceedings to clarify the purchase of that vehicle, whether that was an initial purchase, and if there is another one coming.
There are occurrences where, if there are multiple vehicles in a community, they may come back to back due up for replacement. This could very well be a second vehicle, but to be perfectly honest with the member and to make sure I’m giving factual information, I would appreciate it if he would allow me to get back to him later on that specific topic.
If this funding estimate submitted today is to be approved by members and we approve the total amount requested, a vehicle for Pond Inlet is included in the list for the summer of 2017.
Does that mean we can expect this vehicle since it is included in the request for approval? Can we expect it after we approve it?
I think it’s very safe to say from my part that you could probably double this request and we would still spend all the money. When you’re looking at basing these things, you’ve got high priority and medium priority.
If you take a look at the actual costing of all this stuff, we can’t even do all of what we want to do with the money that we’re given.
For example, if the vehicle that the member was talking about isn’t needed in Pond Inlet, it would go to the next highest priority of what we need to keep the level of care at least where it’s at or if not, looking at improving it.
It is documented here that the need for the vehicle in Pond Inlet is one of the higher priorities and should be top priority.
I’ll just expect that if we approve this request, then Pond Inlet will get a vehicle next year.
Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop there for now.
Total Capital Expenditures. $4,550,000.
Chairman: Back to page H-2.
Do members agree that we have concluded the Department of Health?
Do you have closing comments, Minister Hickes?
I would like all the chairmen that proceeded over this appearance.
This is my first appearance as Minister of Health and I appreciate the level of questions and the detail.
I appreciate the staff, not just the staff that I brought with me but the staff behind the scenes that put in all the work of making sure that I’ve got the information that I need to be able to respond to your questions. With any commitments I made during this proceeding to get back members with specific details, I commit to getting that sooner rather than later.
I think it should not go unsaid that I really appreciate the level of questions that you guys challenged me with today. It shows that you’re very engaged within your communities and show a high interest in the level of care that our health centres are able to provide throughout the territory.
I would like to thank my deputy minister and Mr. Babstock for attending with me today.
I had to utilize each of their services at least once. Thank you all to Mr. Chairman and committee members.
Your committee would like to commence with the review of the capital estimates for the Department of Family Services.
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2017-2018 – Family Services – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: Thank you. Minister Mike, please proceed to the witness table.
Minister Mike, please proceed with your opening comments.
I’m sorry that my officials are not here, but they will be here shortly and they are in the building.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the members.
I am pleased to be here today to present the 2017-18 Department of Family Services’ capital estimates.
The department has been initiating capital investments in order to improve program delivery and enhance services that are provided throughout the territory.
It is essential that we recognize the importance of technology today in order to make wise investments tomorrow.
In this regard, the Department of Family Services is seeking to continue work on an electronic case management system for the Children and Family Services Branch and to carry on the implementation of the Income Support Delivery System in additional communities in Nunavut.
Furthermore, the department remains persistent in addressing other small capital requirements which are required to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of program and service delivery in our communities.
To complete these tasks, the Department of Family Services is requesting a total of $3,170,000 in capital funding for fiscal year 2017-18.
The department is seeking $2,020,000 in funding for 2017-18 to continue with the acquisition and implementation of a case management system for the Children and Family Services Branch.
This is consistent with the previous request approved in the 2016-17 supplementary appropriation of capital to begin the process of acquiring and implementing this new system.
The department is also seeking resources in the amount of $1,150,000 to address small capital requirements, which include the installation of servers and cabling for the Income Support Delivery System, facility repairs and renovations, office space renovations, vehicle replacement, and regular replacement of furniture and equipment.
Specifically our small capital resources for 2017-18 are planned to be allocated as follows:
$45,000 to purchase a vehicle for Qikiqtarjuaq to replace the eight-year-old unit that incurs high maintenance costs.
$45,000 to purchase a vehicle for Grise Fiord as there is currently no service vehicle in the community.
$50,000 for the replacement of office furniture that is in a state of disrepair in various communities in the region.
The total Qikiqtaaluk regional allocation amounts to $140,000.  For the Kivalliq region:
$45,000 to purchase a vehicle for Chesterfield Inlet as there is currently no service vehicle in the community.