EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 11, An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to waive Rule 62-1 in order that Bill 11 may be read for the first time today.
Bill 11 – An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act – First Reading
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 11, An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act, be read for the first time.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is requesting to waive Rule 62-1 in order that Bill 6 be read for the first time today.
Bill 06 – An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act – First Reading
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues.
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Amittuq, that Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 6 has had first reading.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for first reading of Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister is seeking to waive Rule 62-1 in order that Bill 7 be read for the first time today.
Bill 07 – An Act to Amend the Liquor Act – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Liquor Act, be read for the first time.
The motion is carried and Bill 7 has had first reading.
Bill 1, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2006-07, with Mr. Netser in the Chair.
We’ll take a 30-minute break.
>>House Recessed at 15:34 and resumed at 16:14
Chairman (Mr. Netser)(interpretation): Thank you for coming back to the House.
We are going to be dealing with Bill 1.
Mr. Evyagotailak: Mr. Chairman, we wish to continue with the review of the capital estimates for Health and Social Services. If time permits, we will then proceed to the review of the Department of Community and Government Services.
We will do so then. (interpretation ends) Madam Minister, for the record, please introduce your staff again.
Bill 01 – Appropriations (Capital) Act, 2006-07 – Health and Social Services – Consideration in Committee
To my right is Bernie Blais, the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, and to my left is Rosemary Brown, Capital Items Advisor.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Welcome. We are on page 8.
I believe Mr. Alagalak had a comment on that issue. Mr. Alagalak.
One of our colleagues made a comment on this issue; looking at the numbers here, it looks like we are not even going to be getting a dollar on capital items.
When it just says Keewatin region, it’s going to be used for all of the health centres. There’s going to be a little bit of money, so I guess if they need pencils, they will buy them and not much else.
We have been making a lot of comments in the House in regard to different services, beds, midwifery equipment that is used for midwives and midwifery, also ultrasound and other equipment, and to update the outdated equipment that we have now.
In Arviat we occasionally get a doctor and he usually doesn’t have any equipment to help him do his work.
Another issue that I brought up as a statement was that there’s a lot of work that was to be done on the health centre; the outside was going to be done, the grounds around the health centre were going to be fixed up, and you can’t even get up the slope because it’s almost at a 45 degree angle. If you were there, you would see it in person.
We have very patient employees working there. There are elders who need help or assistance to go up to the entrance of the health centre. Those need capital dollars in order to upgrade them.
I’m just talking about one community.
There are other communities in the Keewatin region that I’m sure need equipment and renovations. I urge the department to come to the communities to find out what their needs are.
I have another question for the deputy minister and it was brought up earlier, but the question is: what type of criteria was used for the continuing care centres?
I believe that was brought up by the Member for Cambridge Bay, but as a follow up question: how many communities were short listed for those long-term care facilities? That’s my question.
We identified four communities; the two communities announced, I don’t recall if there were any other communities listed outside of those two that were announced. I can ask Bernie to clarify that.
The proposal that went to Cabinet in an RFP identified all Nunavut communities and their ratings based on the criteria, the needs criteria that were used and the four that were are the top were moved. All of them were sent to Cabinet and Cabinet basically made the final decisions on those that were sent forward.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the deputy minister for his response.
I am sure the recommendations from the department that each community of the four communities all had strengths and weaknesses that were presented to each case.
Did the community of Igloolik and Gjoa Haven, were they the top ones or was there a mix between the four?
The two communities that were identified were the top two of the study and the two that were recommended could only receive funding financially for two facilities in this capital-planning year. So only two communities were put forth for approval for this year’s capital planning purposes.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Minister. Is there anything else Mr. Curley?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) My final question is the next two communities the strengths of the two according to the Financial Management Board and the Cabinet. Would they then be the next two if the same program is applied to provide funding for continuing care facilities in other communities, or within the same region, or were the other two from the same regions as well?
I don’t recall where the other two facilities are or the other top two communities were aside from Gjoa Haven and Igloolik. The recommendation would go back to Cabinet and the Financial Management Board for a decision and it would be all based on the most needs again.
Chairman: Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: It is not all that clear as to what the answer is.
What I am trying to get at is; these continuing care facilities that were established to be funded by the Government of Nunavut are probably not a one shot deal and programs for that kind of facility continue for ever. So hopefully in the future we will continue with a similar program for other communities and regions.
So my question is: would we apply similar criteria, and if so, would we be establishing continuing care facilities in communities other than Gjoa Haven and Igloolik?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize if my response was not quite clear, but what I did say was the criteria used to determine the location for Gjoa Haven and Igloolik will be the same criteria for the remaining two. That submission would go to Cabinet and the Financial Management Board for review and most likely it’ll go in this coming capital year or the one after that for decision.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Is that it?
We are on page H-8. Mr. Peterson if you would like to talk about page H-8.
I would like to welcome back the minister and her officials to our meeting. In the criteria for the continuing care centres, was the information that was used just based on the community information, or did it include regional information? Was that a consideration when you decided where to locate the continuing care centres?
Please respond, Ms. Minister.
The criterion used was not only the community but also the current number of people residing out-of-territory from those communities.
For example the Continuing Care Centre in Gjoa Haven, did you just use information that only affected people that are living in that community, or who were residing out of territory that were from that community.
It doesn’t include people from Cambridge Bay, or Taloyoak, or Kugluktuk, or anywhere else in the Kitikmeot. Am I correct?
I think I need to clarify that any facilities of this nature are territorial facilities and if there is a vacancy, as an example, in the centre here, that vacancy would be an option for individuals requiring that care anywhere in Nunavut.
One of the things that were used in the criteria, again I mentioned out-of-territory people that required care.
In addition to that, I am going to ask Bernie to elaborate again on the procedure and the criteria used to put forward those recommendations.
Chairman: Please proceed, Mr. Blais.
Again the criterion that we used is we looked at the number of elders that would be over the age of 55 for all 25 communities. We also looked at the socio-economic factors; like unemployment; social welfare; as another determinate because normally those are associated with other health status issues.
We also look at the number of existing facilities; some regions do not have nearly any facilities at all; whether they are group homes, elders’ facilities, or children’s facilities, especially for high needs.
Out of all of that we also looked at all of the out-of-territory adults and children to look at whether we could repatriate, or bring back some of those Nunavummiut by regions as well.
So we use regional factors and community factors to arrive at a decision point. And we use that across the board for all communities.
I thank the minister and Mr. Blais.
If a person from Cambridge Bay needed to be placed in a continuing care facility how would you determine where that person would go?
If there is an opening in Gjoa Haven, would they go there?
If there’s an opening in one of the other facilities in Nunavut, would they go there, or would they be sent to Yellowknife, or would they be sent out of the territories?
The way the system will work is depending on the kind of services that we have in Nunavut, we have our inventory of the kind of services provided in each of those centres.
The other factor that we look at in deciding whether to send patients to these facilities or not is the kind of care the patient requires.
If it is high-end medical care, then we’d have to look at whether our facilities are able to accommodate that kind of service or not.
So it all depends again based on the client and there would be a rating system for each client to ensure that wherever they are placed that the kind of service that the patient requires is available in that centre before they are placed.
So two things that we look at: we look at internally the kind of facility, whether it is youth, or adult, or a combination, and the condition of the patient.
It seems to me there is a huge demand or requirement for these types of facilities in Nunavut, including senior’s facilities.
I am wondering Mr. Chairman if the minister and her colleagues have considered using any of the Northern Strategy funding to help us to construct these facilities in different communities. Was that ever a consideration?
I don’t recall this item being presented for consideration under the Northern Strategy.
I think it certainly could have been considered.
It would have sped up the process because I think we are going to need a lot more of these facilities as we go along with our aging population and increasing growth in Nunavut. There are no two ways around that.
I would like to say on the comments you made in your opening statements yesterday on items that were not included in the capital plan, you mentioned the boarding home in Cambridge Bay.
You said some design changes ordered by the fire marshall meant that materials needed for renovations missed this year’s sealift. What specifically did the fire marshall order to be changed that caused the delay of the sealift?
When the fire marshall did an inspection it was so close to the cut off date for the sealift that when they did the inspection we missed the cut off date.
So from what Ms. Brown tells me it relates to the elevator to go to the second floor that is required for the renovation of the student hostel.
Thank you, minister, for that answer.
Do you mean these corrections were for the building, the physical structure that is there now or were they for the review of the design the architectural plans? I am not clear on your answer.
I will try and answer that question and if I missed anything I will ask Ms. Brown to respond.
The boarding home that is going to be used in Cambridge Bay is an old student hostel. The old student hostel is an old building.
In order for us to use that as a boarding home, we needed to look at making changes to the current structure and that is to add an elevator because all the rooms in that building are upstairs. So if we are going to have patients stay there, we needed to build that access to the second floor. The inspections were done and they required us to add the elevator.
At the same time, I believe the fire marshall reviewed and added fire exits to the second floor. We needed to make modifications to the building around that.
And I will ask Ms. Brown if she wants to add anything.
We are under Kivalliq region.
Cambridge Bay is not in the Kivalliq region.
After Ms. Brown explains or gives a clarification, we are still in the Kivalliq region and we will move onto the Kitikmeot region.
Ms. Brown: Okay Mr. Chairperson.
This does relate to the youth hostel in Cambridge Bay. The modifications upstairs; there were two internal stairs.
The fire marshall wanted doorways installed for both of those for extra protection because the clientele of youth is mostly involuntary and patients with crutches or wheelchairs, so they also require external exits to the outside.
It required some renovations of the downstairs where we wanted to put some new bedrooms and plumbing for elders so that frail elders and people in wheelchairs, for their protection, wouldn’t have to go up stairs.
Several reviews occurred with the fire marshal and he kept making further changes, and it got to the point where we just couldn’t bring those things into service.
Mr. Peterson, when we get to the Kitikmeot region, I don’t know why they put the Kivalliq and the Kitikmeot region in one page; maybe because their budget was so small that they decided not to waste any time and put it into two different pages like they did with the Qikiqtaaluk region.
So I’m going to go to Mr. Tootoo at the moment.
Maybe they put it together on one page because they ran out of trees to make paper from.
Under the Kivalliq region, there’s $100,000 for equipment and vehicles. I’m just wondering what the breakdown is between the equipment and vehicles for the $100,000.
The equipment and vehicles; there’s no breakdown that has been allocated to the region and each region prioritizes the allocation and distribution of that $100,000.
One thing I noticed for both the Kivalliq region and the Kitikmeot region is $100,000; you look back at the previous page, only $80,000 for the Baffin region, which is twice the size of the other regions.
I’m just wondering how and if there must have been specific needs identified to come up with those numbers for that if they are not just putting historical numbers in there; that there are actually numbers that they could back up.
Just to clarify for the Baffin, $80,000 goes to the hospital here and $100,000 is allocated to the Baffin region.
Do you have any more, Mr. Tootoo?
How do they come up with those numbers; are they based on need or is it just a historical figure that they are plugging in there from previous years?
Just based on information on page H-7, it looks like it was the same last year, but I’ll have Rose Brown elaborate on that as she has more insight into the history of these items.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How the budget is put together is we take the base target, initially, that the FMB gives to the department, the multi-year projects are factored in; if it’s an ongoing health centre or that we are committed to or a Government of Nunavut priority like the continuing care centres, and then what money is left over, after we have put money towards those contractual commitments, is divided up between the regions.
And historically, it’s been around $100,000 to each region and then in the last two years, we had been requesting $100,000 for the hospital, but because the hospital is now getting new furniture or equipment kicking in, for the next couple of years, we have dropped it to $80,000.
It makes it basically a matter of available funds because we should be asking for that type of money out of the target and not out of supplementary funds.
I guess the point is, what I know is that I think homecare or Public Health rented a vehicle and a crate fell on it this year and they just took a hammer and pounded out the dents. I think it’s been around forever.
All the other government departments, they see nice new vehicles being purchased and I’m sure, again, that there are limited resources, which I understand but, pretty soon I think they’re going to putting their feet through the floor and going like a Flintstonemobile.
I’m sure they’d appreciate something a little more reliable. My question is on something I don’t see in here, and it deals with the Kivalliq Health Centre. I understand and Mr. Peterson was talking about some changes required by the fire marshal to a facility in Cambridge Bay.
It is my understanding that there were also some changes required by the fire marshal for the health facility in Rankin Inlet. I’m just wondering if I can ask the minister to elaborate on what those were.
These are being addressed through the Department of Community and Government Services and I’ll get Rose to explain why.
Ms. Brown, please.
Ms. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.
There were some electrical deficiencies identified, particularly by the electrical inspector, different things that he wanted on the master panel for the emergency generator.
These deficiencies have been corrected as we speak. The consultant draws up the plans, they’re costed, and they’re given to the contractor to make those changes.
They should be done, I would hope, before the end of November, so that the occupancy could be granted for the upstairs for patients right now.
Staff can use the upstairs, but not the patients and it’s basically as a safety precaution.
I’m just wondering if there was anything other than the electrical thing that the fire marshal had concerns about.
As far as I know that was the only area, but Rose might know more on that.
As far as I know, the concerns of the fire marshal that were identified in previous inspections have been corrected. Sometimes they want extra sprinklers here and there when they do the final review.
I’m just wondering, if these things... the plans for any building have to be reviewed, in my understanding, by the fire marshal and I would think that a facility of this nature and magnitude of work that would have gone at the drawing stage through all that stuff for all the inspections and everything like that.
I’m just wondering, if it wasn’t caught at that stage, how did it....you know, and I understand that it’s not the Department of Health’s responsibility for looking at that, but I’m just wondering how did that stuff get missed? And, how much did it cost?
I’ll start off with a response and then I’m going to refer it to Bernie.
As far as I know, with complex projects like that, there are different stages where inspections take place.
Sometimes there are change orders within the project scope and before we can actually take possession of the building a final inspection occurs.
Sometimes as part of that the different inspectors will require some change order and the fire marshall’s change order being one example. I will get Bernie to elaborate more on that.
Mr. Blais: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Typically, these types of projects you are planning these years ahead and the code changes as well.
There will be changes that will happen in every jurisdiction that will require you to go back and revisit plans. That is one of the reasons why changes occur. And I’ve been building hundreds of millions of dollars of hospitals in my past, so I know.
There are also equipment requirements when you look at the equipment requirements today they will change as well, requiring different electrical capacity so that might also represent change and an order for that equipment closer to the opening and you will find it might not be necessarily compatible to what you anticipated when you got the plans four or five years earlier.
So there are many different reasons.
In my experience also they are inspected during the construction process and those kinds of things can be picked up earlier rather than later. There are contingencies in place in all construction projects to help address those as they are being built.
Those are kind of the general reasons why you will have those changes occur and sometimes even architects in the best of plans will miss something, and again, it is important for us to go back for safety and for functionality to ensure that discrepancies are corrected.
Probably Community and Government Services will be able to answer on the process side because we are not in the construction business in Health. We are basically recipients once they are completed, but we do participate in the steering committee as well.
I will correct the deputy minister; they are in the construction business for people not for buildings.
We wanted to find out how many changes there were and what they were and what was the cost. That would be something that Community and Government Services would look after.
I will be asking those questions when Community and Government Services is in Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the vehicles they are requesting in the Keewatin; or we don’t know where those vehicles are going.
In the standing committee we got a commitment from the Department of Health and Social Services that the vehicles that they use in the communities that they are too small even to carry stretchers.
I wonder if these vehicles or that vehicle will be big enough to hold a stretcher.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will get Rose to answer that question.
A few years ago smaller vehicles were bought in the federal government’s program for home and community care.
They’re small Suzuki’s and they were bought with federal funds so that the homecare nurses and homecare people could do home visits. So they were dedicated to homecare. Those are the small vehicles.
The new standard that the Department of Health and Social Services has is a type of Explorer type vehicle that does have fold down seats in the back that can take a stretcher. That was a specification that was written and approved by Community and Government Services, as they approve all the specifications for each department’s vehicles. Within the approved government services vehicles, they did not have one that could take a stretcher, so they allowed the development of this vehicle.
So the new vehicle that you bought for the Department of Health and Social Services; you have converted them to be able to handle stretchers. Are there children that you medevac out, or babies, because that is all that they are big enough for?
I didn’t hear the last part of this question; if he can repeat the question.
Can you repeat your question, please?
That vehicle that they are going to get is quite small.
I think it is only adequate for children, especially when you see the size of the vehicle, especially the one that we have in our community, the Ford Escape, I believe.
It doesn’t seem to be big enough to carry an adult sized stretcher. I don’t know how they manage to make room because the health department made a commitment that they were going to provide bigger vehicles which were capable of carrying stretchers. Maybe it’s only for children because that is all they seem to fit is the children sized stretchers.
I would like to remind you that we shouldn’t make false accusations.