EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I certainly hope the Minister of the Housing Corporation is working hard to find new housing. I’m aware that in addition to the three units in Cambridge Bay that I was referring to in the last couple of weeks, there are other units in Cambridge Bay. Perhaps they don’t quite meet the specifications and criteria that the Nunavut Housing Corporation has put in a request for proposals, but there is certainly very good housing.
So I would urge the minister to sit down with her colleague, the Minister of Housing Corporation, and talk about how they can acquire another eight to ten houses...units, on a lease, at least they will be able to hire some professionals and then maybe make a big step forward to opening that health facility.
I’m wondering if the minister would commit to sitting down with her colleague and discussing the availability of housing in Cambridge Bay that didn’t come forward in the request for proposal process.
This is an ongoing issue, after the first round of RFPs, and not addressing or acquiring the numbers we wanted.
I had discussed the results of those with my colleague, and I have mentioned or suggested that we need to go back out and he is reviewing that continuously. I have sat down with him and he is aware of our current situation.
I know that he is committed to trying to address that as well. So, perhaps, there will be another request for proposal process in the near future, but I can’t speak for my colleague.
I have made my concerns known to him that we need to do more in that area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the same line of questioning; we are on H-7.
Last year you spent $3,898,000 for the continuing care in Gjoa Haven. This summer, there will be $1,500,000, but between 2008 and 2009, there is going to be $3,669,000 spent on capital.
It seems like this is an ongoing expenditure.
I wonder if the minister can explain to us what this consists of.
From what I understand, the project has been spread out over the three years.
It cost $3.8 million last year, and then $1.5 million this summer.
It seems like you’re going to almost complete the project, and then start over again for the next three years, as you stated.
We don’t see what’s going to be happening on the years after that. What’s your completion date for the Continuing Care Centre?
The completion target for the Gjoa Haven Continuing Care Capital Project is 2008-09, I believe.
On the page, I will direct my question...well, I have a concern.
For example, in Taloyoak, there’s going to be the hospital, which I believe the drawings were done for about $1 million last year; $913,000.
This tiny nursing station is going to cost almost $1 million.
My first question is: where are those blueprints?
Are they within the government department? Or, do you hire consultants/architects; where do they come from?
Madame Brown.
Because capital funding has been short, this project was slowed down. So the drawings, blueprints, will be finished probably next year.
We were going to try to finish them by March 31, but because the construction is not available for another year or so, we are slowing that down.
The question in terms of who does the drawings, the Department of Community and Government Services issues a public tender for design consultants.
The project in Taloyoak is a little different.
It is both a renovation and an addition.
My question was why it costs almost $1 million for an $8,000 a year tiny building for renovation just to draw up the blueprints.
Wouldn’t it be cheaper for the government to have architects, in-house architects, to avoid those because...I guess my next question should be: what is the total cost for the architects for all your buildings in the small communities for the Nunavut Government?
It must in the millions now that could have built generic houses, generic hospitals, and generic schools to save that entire bundle.
Excuse me, that’s not very parliamentary language, but Mr. Chairman, it is upsetting sometimes when there’s hardly any money to build my rink, arena, in Pond Inlet, that you would spend millions and millions of dollars on architects. I don’t think very many of them are Nunavummiut.
Hopefully, you get two percent Payroll Tax out of them, but other than that, we’re throwing away more money out of the Nunavut Government.
The member makes a good point. I don’t know how much money we spend on architects as a government. I can say though for the Department of Health what we’ve tried to do is use the same design for the two new facilities that we are constructing next year, the Gjoa Haven continuing care facility as well as the Igloolik facility for that very reason.
The Taloyoak project has been delayed a number of years for various reasons, but I do recognize the member’s concern, the member raised a very good point.
The protocols, I couldn’t answer, but what we have done internally was try to come up with one design to reduce the cost and stretch our dollars as far as we could to address the number of priorities identified by this House.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that should be a priority policy direction of the government to try to avoid having to hire my friends from Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and elsewhere to put in these extra costs that the government cannot really afford.
So my question, Mr. Chairman, is that isn’t there any way that you can use your... because if I see Community and Government Services staff from information you made available, then there’s a whole lot of planners, and a whole lot of designers in house. If you go to your office and you say that that beautiful blueprint desk should throw it that way.
I don’t know, maybe they only do... what do you call this, planning only, not architectural engineering, that kind of thing. I would like to ask the minister if the in house architects from Community and Government Services can be used... they used to be DPW, it always used to be under the big costs, to try to cut down on unnecessary expenditures while the monies are very lean.
I will convey the member’s comments to my colleague, the Minister of Community and Government Services on that. They’re the ones that do that RFP so I don’t know the one dollar amount for architects spent by this government, but I will share it and she’s here and she’s heard it so, but from our point of view we had tried to reduce the cost and use the same design for Igloolik and Gjoa Haven.
Although I noticed the member making reference to Taloyoak and I’m trying to find out what number he’s referring to because I’m not following where his amounts are coming from, so if he can just clarify that for me?
I appreciate that from the minister.
I’m not using Taloyoak as a scapegoat, you know, I accept that. It’s just that a part of it is because it has to be renovated and etcetera maybe addition to it.
What puzzles me is that for years now we have not been able to control, to take hold of control of our expenditure in architects and designers.
If you were down south you’ll see humongous buildings with less than 10 percent for architectural engineering, but most of our capital are not less than 10 percent, this one is 12 percent or 13 percent for architectural engineering.
That is a major cost if you look at all the capitals that we are reviewing today and I may be barking up the wrong tree but I still treat it as it is still a part of the government, which is because it’s the Health Department.
It must be very frustrating sometimes, to see that the little money that we have for capital, over ten percent of it is taken out by the architectural engineers every single time, because it doesn’t really cost the architectural engineers on fuel, on other things, that other departments are faced with.
In other words the Nunavut Power Corporation, or the other explanation required on the basis of fuel costs, but the engineer is not.
Why is it so high?
My last question to the minister is that in the next capital project, would the government try to find a way to reduce the initial architectural designing to try to cut down as much as possible in that area because we are happy as long as we...I don’t believe all that wonderful architecture that are very expensive do a good job at all.
An example, Nunasi Corporation finished the staff housing in Pond Inlet not too long ago when the decentralization came.
Last summer, they had to replace all the windows because it was not done properly. So we had to move out until all the windows were done. Sometimes we tolerated it because it was summertime.
We put up a tent outside for a little while. All the whole area was done, the four-plex apartments.
If it was that expensive architecture, I would try to do something better the first time around, rather than having to have it replaced all the time.
Can I ask the ministers then if they would try to review the architectural costs, especially compares into a percentage compared to the total cost of the project and try to find a way to reduce the costs?
I will raise that with my colleagues.
I can’t really answer on behalf of another department that is responsible for architectural RFP processing.
I am applying to a department that provides that type of service. I do know that within the Department of Health we have tried to address the member’s concerns by constructing two things the same to cut down the costs of design.
Some designs are more complicated than others, but I can’t speak to CGS.
I think the members here have heard his concerns.
I will certainly internally review the whole percentage of what we use for the Department of Health towards architectural design, and still convey to my colleague the overall costs on architectural design, and so on. Internally I will commit to reviewing that.
Page H-7.
Total. Kitikmeot Region. $1,500,000.
Chairman: Total. Tangible Assets. $9,419,000.
Chairman: Go back to page H-4.
Total Capital Expenditures. $9,419,000.
Chairman: Are you agreed that the Department of Health and Social Services is concluded?
Thank you, Mr. Browne, Madame Brown.
At this time we will now go onto another issue.
Do you have any closing remarks Madame Minister?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I thank the members for their comments and suggestions and I want to thank Rosemary Brown for travelling from Rankin Inlet and staying the weekend and sitting here patiently.
And I believe we will be dealing with the Pharmacy Act legislation. So you just let me know if you want me to do my opening remarks, we will be here. It is up to you Mr. Chairman.
I would like now to ask Minister Aglukkaq to do your opening remarks on Bill 27.
You may sit where you are. Madame Minister you can stay where you are and do your opening comments.
Bill 27 – An Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act – Review in Committee
The Department of Health and Social Services is ready to present Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act to the Legislative Assembly for consideration.
This bill was prepared in order to enable Nunavut Pharmacists to dispense prescriptions signed by nurse practitioners. Currently there are nurse practitioners in Nunavut who are not able to practice their full scope. This is a disservice to both nurse practitioners and to the patients that they serve.
The nurse practitioners play an important part of our primary health care system in Nunavut. Pursuant to the direction approved by Cabinet, Bill 27 adds a definition for nurse practitioners; clarifies that the Act does not prevent a nurse practitioner from exercising a privilege conferred by legislation relating to the practice of a nurse practitioner; and the bill Nunavutizes the Act.
As well Bill 27 amends the Pharmacy Act as follows: it updates the definition of narcotics so that it refers to the current federal legislation; it increases the penalty for contravening the Act or it’s regulation to $10,000 from $100; it moves drug schedules to regulations from the legislation itself and; it updates the drug schedule to national standards.
At this point, I would like to express my thanks to the standing committee for its thoughtful review of the bill. They asked for more certainty as to the national standards the drug schedules should follow.
During its review of clause 13 of the bill, the standing committee expressed some concerns about what type of documents would be incorporated by reference in regulation under the proposed Section 28. In response to that concern the committee and I agreed to a motion that specifies the type of document that may be incorporated.
The current Act lists drugs through schedules to the legislation. These schedules have not changed since 1950 when they were first developed.
As a result there are many modern drugs missing and some very old drugs present. For example, pharmacists don’t sell Nux Vomica – what today we call strychnine – any more.
Putting drug lists into regulation allows Nunavut to respond quickly and easily to advancements in drug therapy and development. It is essential that Nunavut meets national standards for drug storage, restrictions, and use.
Most Canadian jurisdictions use the drug schedule developed by the national association of pharmacy regulatory authorities, which is what Nunavut will be doing and the amendment to Bill 27 makes clear. Many jurisdictions have placed the drug schedule into regulation in their pharmacy legislation.
Bill 27 builds upon the recognition given to nurse practitioners through amendments to the Nursing Act that came into force in 2004. Those amendments gave nurse practitioners the ability to prescribe.
Bill 27 gives pharmacists the ability to dispense the medication prescribed by the nurse practitioners.
The Department of Health and Social Services convened a Nurse Practitioners’ Prescriptive Working Group to develop the amendment to the Pharmacy Act. Over the past year, they reviewed the pharmacy legislation from other Canadian jurisdictions and consulted with pharmacists, nurse practitioners, and physicians.
I welcome questions from the members of the committee of the whole.
Minister, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table? Minister Aglukkaq.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have two.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the officials in to the witness table.
To my right is Ron Browne, Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services. And to my left is Diane Buckland, who is our Legal Counsel.
Does the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Health and Education have opening comments?
Mr. Alagalak: Almost again.
If it wasn’t his name, I guess he would have said it. (interpretation) That was funny.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The Standing Committee on Health and Education has had an opportunity to review Bill 27 and I am pleased to be able to make some comments today on the proposed Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act.
Bill 27 was originally proposed to amend the Pharmacy Act to enable Nunavut’s pharmacists to dispense prescriptions signed by nurse practitioners.
The standing committee had noted that similar legislative changes have occurred in a number of other jurisdictions in recent years. These changes have enabled a steadily increasing number of nurse practitioners to provide health care services across Canada.
Recognizing that nurse practitioners fill an extremely important role in the delivery of health services across Nunavut’s communities, the standing committee supported the concept of them practicing to the fullest extent possible, including having their prescriptions dispensed by Nunavut pharmacists.
A few days before the introduction of the bill in the House, standing committee members received correspondence indicating that Bill 27 would also include amendments to other sections of the Pharmacy Act, such as removing the lists of approved drugs, known as schedules, from the Act itself and including them in regulations.
Bill 27 also proposed to update the definition of “narcotic” and increase the penalty for contravening the Act or its regulations.
Bill 27 further proposed to establish what types of materials such as drug schedules and formularies can be incorporated as regulations.
In September of 2006, the standing committee had asked to review the results and report on the consultations held by the Department of Health and Social Services’ Nurse Practitioner Prescriptive Working Group. The committee was disappointed to not have received that information prior to meeting with the minister and her officials.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Health and Education met with the sponsoring minister last week to discuss the proposed legislation.
While the committee recognized that including lists of approved drug schedules and formularies within regulations instead of within the Act itself would enable the government to respond more quickly and easily to advancements in drug therapy and development, members were concerned that the proposed amendment was not specific enough in identifying the type of body or organization whose publications would be adopted as drug schedules under the regulations.
The committee recommended that the relevant section of Bill 27 be amended to ensure that schedules and formularies would only be adopted from other Canadian jurisdictions or from scientific or professional associations, persons or body of persons in Canada.
The standing committee greatly appreciated the minister’s willingness to work with the committee to make an amendment to the Bill as recommended.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee is aware that our neighbouring jurisdiction, the Northwest Territories, recently replaced its Pharmacy Act, which is identical to the one we are currently amending, with completely new legislation.
The standing committee recommends that the minister and her officials review some of the new initiatives addressed by the NWT’s new Act for future reference.
The standing committee has also been made aware of recent developments within the pharmacy industry, such as telepharmacy, which may be worth taking into consideration during future changes to the legislation.
The committee supports the bill as amended and reprinted, and recommends its passage to all members.
Are there any general comments from committee members?
I, too, would just like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of the minister and her officials, the drafters, and her other legal advisors on this to be able to come up with some amendments that addressed and made everybody happy, and that we’re all comfortable with.
I think that’s an important way to move forward in developing legislation.
One little thing I wanted to ask, and it will save me asking the question when we get into the clause by clause…it’s just, I stated in the past that I’m always cautious when you’re taking something out of legislation and putting it into regulation.
And, I know things like nux vomica - it sounds like a Star Wars planet or something like that, instead of a drug - but it is a lot more difficult to change, and I can appreciate that.
If I can ask the minister and her officials, just to get an idea of how quickly those lists change, just to get an idea of why it feels necessary to have it in regulation like that.
I understand it is quite rapidly changing.
I have no more members on my list for general comments. We will now proceed to a clause by clause review of Bill 27, reprint.
The Bill is in your white binder.
Bill 27, An Act to Amend the Pharmacy Act, reprint.
Chairman: Clause 1.
This is the area that I referred to in my comments.
I think if I was taking the schedules out of legislation and putting them into regulation, I’m just wondering if I can just get a response, just for the record as well, quickly, just to give members and the public an idea of how quickly this is changing and as to why they feel it’s necessary to move it from legislation to regulation.
This change would allow us to add new medications approved by the National Association of Pharmacy Regulatory Authorities.
From what I’ve been advised, that organization updates its listing of new prescription drugs about four times a year, and approximately 30 new types of medication are added.
This change would allow us to add those to our list in a quicker way without having to go through the legislative change process.
Chairman: Does the committee agree to Bill 27 as a whole?
Just on Clause 15, and I know I mentioned this before, but I would just like to have it on the record a comment in Committee of the Whole.
This legislation is updating because of the Nursing Act to recognize the nurse practitioners in the past and it’s something that’s already in place and the main purpose was to give them the ability to write prescriptions.
Given that, I’m just wondering how come they don’t have...I guess as soon as it’s passed, like the coming into force section of it…instead of having a day or days to be fixed by order of the commissioner, and not just as soon as it has reached assent.
The member is correct that in the Nurses Act it does recognize nurse practitioners can write prescriptions. The pharmacy legislation did not recognize that so the amendment to the Pharmacy Act will allow pharmacists to accept the prescriptions prescribed by nurse practitioners.
In terms of when it comes into affect, the regulations will set out how the nurse practitioners can prescribe. So we will have to wait for the regulations to be done to move forward in that area.
I’m just wondering, for the benefit of those nurse practitioners out there that may be listening, do you have any idea of when that could be done? Is it going to be a week, two weeks, six months, two years; just an idea of when they can expect to be writing prescriptions.
Mr. Chairman we think it will start three months from now. We will be able to have all that in place to implement this change for nurse practitioners.
I am really a bit concerned here and I hope that the registered nurses give out more Tylenol because Tylenol is safe and seems to be a normal practice.
I should ask the minister if that means they will become liable under this clause in this or clause 9? Will they be protected by their peers like the doctors and pharmacists and things like that?
I would not want to have the nurses, who are very valuable in our homes, to be scared by this inclusion bill.
Ms. Buckland.
Ms. Buckland: This will allow nurse practitioners only to have the prescriptions fulfilled. Not just any nurse, but a nurse practitioner and the nurse practitioners will be properly trained to ensure that they can do it with full confidence.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Buckland. (interpretation) Clause 15.
Chairman: Does the Committee agree with Bill 27 as a whole?
Chairman: Does the committee agree that Bill 27 is ready for third reading?
I would like to thank Diane and Brook who was not at the table, but who sat here this afternoon in preparation for this and all the members for comments.
Chairman: Thank you, minister, Mr. Brown and Ms. Butler.
I would like now to ask Minister Akesuk for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to make his opening remarks. Minister Akesuk.
Bill 26 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2007-08 – Review in Committee – Economic Development & Transportation
I am pleased to be here today to present my Department’s 2007-08 Capital Plan. The Department of Economic Development and Transportation is proposing a $13.55 million Capital Plan for the fiscal year 2007-08.
Safe and reliable transportation is crucial for development of an economy for Nunavut and it also requires large capital investment.
(interpretation ends) Therefore, in order to provide Nunavummiut with ongoing improved access to air, land, and sea travel, the department is proposing to dedicate a significant portion of our total capital plan to transportation related projects.
This works out to be $11.5 million, or 88 percent of my department’s total capital plan.
Close to 75 percent of the total capital commitment will be carried out in community-specific projects, while the other 25 percent will be used for strategic projects that affect the Territory as a whole.
Airports will continue to be the backbone of our transportation system for the foreseeable future.