EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
It’s obvious they don’t care if they’re going to put it through like that anyways because it was brought forward and brought to their attention during our standing committee review.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I would like to move that this budget be deferred until they come back with a more accurate number for their medical travel.
The motion is in order. However, I will distribute a copy of the motion and we will take a five-minute break before we do that.
>>Committee recessed at 16:56 and resumed at 17:24
Chairman: Welcome back, Members.
Mr. Tootoo, could you please read your motion again for the benefit of all members.
Committee Motion 012 – 2(4): Deferral of Consideration of the 2008-2009 Main Estimates of the Department of Health and Social Services (Tootoo)
Very simply, Mr. Chairman, my motion was that I move to defer the Department of Health and Social Services budget.
Before we proceed with the debate on the motion, I have a few comments to make as to procedures.
The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply which closes debate.
I know that when we’re looking at these budgets, all members expect them to be as accurate as possible.
I think, if you take a look at the historical numbers for medical travel, the fact that they’re having a more open Client Travel Policy kicking into force, the numbers that we have looked at in past years up until this year have been based on a three-year-old contract now and it’s also the prices that drove those numbers to where they are, are three years old.
We’re starting this year with a new contract, and given all the increases over the last couple of years, I can’t imagine that the costs are going to go down on that.
I’m just asking that it be deferred and for the department to come back with a more accurate projection.
I know that it is a projection; it isn’t an easy thing to nail down, but I really believe, in this case, it is way under what it should be and as a result of that, given the historical numbers and everything else, I can’t vote on something that I don’t think is correct.
So based on that, I would like for them to come back with a more accurate projection, given the historical data and the new information that they have now, with a number more reflective of what it should be.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’m a little bit puzzled by the motion.
We’re being asked to predetermine how many people will be sick this coming year.
That’s a very difficult question to answer for anyone because none of us know how many people will be sick this coming year.
We’re basing our numbers on last year’s figures. My colleague for Iqaluit Centre is saying that the figures always go up.
If we look at the actual figures in 2006-07, we were at about $47 million for medical travel.
This coming year, we’re forecasting it at $46 million.
They may go down by the looks of it and these are actuals for this coming year.
So we can only base it on how much we have spent in the past year.
For us to predetermine that there’ll be more people sick this coming year is not a nice way to think of setting budgets.
We’re hoping there will be less as they have been sometimes in some given years, and to ask us to just pick a number out of the air is not very good forecasting; we’re trying to base our figures on budgeted items in the past year.
In the unfortunate event that we do go over this figure that we based on this past year’s numbers, we will go back to FMB, we will go back to this House, and explain why went over the figures and justify them in this House.
Also, Mr. Chairman, there is an audit taking place of the entire Department of Health which will look at what better ways that we can manage our expenses in this given department, including medical travel.
So we’re trying to find better ways of managing these dollars, and to try and say that there will be more sick people next year is not a very good way to manage a budget.
We’re hoping there will be less and we’re trying to find ways to reduce our costs. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With regards to the Premier’s comment, we don’t know if the patients will increase and not all patients leave their home community for treatment.
The population of Nunavut is increasing and the number of young children and parents are increasing. Also, in Repulse Bay, when they have premature babies, they have to send them out.
Our population is not decreasing. The births are increasing annually, not just for the community but for the whole of Nunavut.
Although we have regional hospitals where they can give birth in Rankin Inlet, in Cambridge Bay, and in Iqaluit, other communities don’t have hospitals.
Currently, I have not heard anything about giving birth. Some pregnant women are sent out because of the complications they might have when they’re delivering their baby, so they have to be sent out.
All the communities cannot have birthing centres, and for that reason, I don’t think the motion is saying there are going to be more sick people.
I think what we’re saying is the population is growing at a very fast rate.
For that reason, I agree and I don’t expect the costs to go down because patients have to leave their communities for treatment. I just wanted to explain that further and I am in support of the motion.
To the motion. Mr. Arvaluk.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I just have a very brief comment to make in support the motion.
For example, the Midwifery Act, I can’t remember the bill number, is not coming into force right away because there will be some training involved.
There will be a lot of expectant mothers who will be leaving their communities and that’s the reason why the amount will not decrease even after the audit is completed.
While auditors are reviewing the information, patients will continue leaving the communities.
If I told my father where I was going to go caribou hunting and he asked me how much gas I’ve got, and I told him, “Yes, I bought 20 gallons of gas,” he would ask, “When was the last time you were out with only 20 gallons of gas for two weeks?”
He would ask me right away because he knew that I didn’t have enough.
What was mentioned earlier about women who go to hospitals to give birth; they are not sick.
I agree with the Premier that we don’t want to say that there will be more sick people but there are lots of women who will need to deliver babies and they will need to leave their communities because they don’t give birth in their communities.
The purpose of the motion is not to take this off; we just want this to be looked at carefully so we can tell our constituents what the reasons are. I don’t want to have to say that I don’t know and that I don’t know why it’s less than what it was previously, so this needs to be reviewed carefully.
Maybe if we are provided with substantiation sheets and given an explanation, such as, “It’s going to remain the same given these reasons. Please take a look.”
So at this time, I will support the motion to defer the budget until we get substantiation sheets or something giving us reasons to justify that amount.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. (interpretation ends) I have no more names.
Again, I’ll just repeat what I had said. It’s an area that’s very difficult to predict. It’s very difficult to predict or find someone who can actually predict the number of people that will be sick in Nunavut in the coming year.
Historically, we have been quite accurate in some of the budgets over the years and I’ll use 2003-04 as an example. We had budgeted $32 million but we actually spent $31 million.
In 2004-05, we budgeted $33.8 million and we were actually at $33.6 million.
So there are areas where it was actually lower. Where we have gone up, a lot of it relates to cases and some related to fuel price increases.
So there are some factors that added to the difficulty of actually predicting number of people that would be ill and then there are other factors outside treating patients that we had to deal with resulting in supplementary appropriations that went before this House. A lot of effort has gone into trying to address this issue within the department, including the clarity within the travel policy, consistency in the application, and the whole issue about escorts. The new policy will become effective April 1 of this year.
The Public Health Strategy, for the very first time in this government, we have a policy direction which drives initiatives to keeping people well and not focusing on treatment all the time but rather trying to prevent people from getting sick. So that’s long-term but we want to see some results as well. The other area is a decision around the medical travel contract; we’re anticipating some changes around that.
Taking us to this fiscal year, 2007-08, we projected that we would spend $46 million. The amount that we’re at right now is $46 million, so our projections are very accurate to today.
We’re basing this year’s budget on the actuals of 2007-08. They’re the same. So what we’re proposing to you today is to approve the line item based on the best information we have available to us, which are the projections for the year end figures for this year.
That’s what we’re asking you to approve.
To go back and hold off on this budget and to say, “Come up with something more accurate,” that’s as accurate as we can get today. That’s the best information before us. To go beyond that, you’re saying, “Project how many people are going to be sick,” then I’m making up numbers at that point.
Anything that’s beyond what we’re proposing is what you’re accepting now. What we’re saying is this is what we know we have spent and this is what we’re asking for. To go beyond that, I’m basically guessing a figure from the air to get it through, and that’s what we’re dealing with right now.
So what we’re saying now is this is the best information we have. Deferring this department’s budget on this line item is not going to change the information before us. We’re still going to be working with the same information, which is our year end figures from last year; it’s the same.
To go beyond the figures would be inventing information. So that’s the challenge you’re asking us to do.
The other part is we have been working with the Auditor General of Canada. Based on the recommendations from this House, we’re working with her and the area they’re auditing is medical travel. We’re waiting for her too, as well, to come forward with recommendations on how we can better improve the delivery of this program.
But, there are a number of initiatives we have undertaken to better manage this budget by updating the policy, clarifying the policy, training our staff, adding the audit, and putting in the systems for tracking our medical travel.
I can say the Department of Health now has a data entry system for medical travel that will tell you to today how much we have spent, to February 26. That’s how accurate it is now; it’s not a made up number.
So the numbers that we are putting before you is the closest to what we spent last year and we’re working with that figure today.
Anything beyond that, I can’t invent another figure which is what I think I’m being asked to do, to come up with another figure.
The best information we have is what created this figure.
In any areas, we will continue to try and put initiatives in place to save money.
My big goal to try and address is to reinvest some of this money that we have spent on airline tickets before we even treat sick people in programs that actually help prevent illness down the road is the ultimate goal with the Public Health Strategy that we have implemented.
With that, I don’t support this motion and I don’t believe this motion, in deferring, is going to make a difference in the information that we have to come forward to you with.
That’s the actual information we have, which is what we have shared with you today.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Mr. Chairman, with the motion there, we’re not asking the minister to come up with a figure just from air.
If she was capable of doing that, then we would probably ask her daily.
I just want to tell her that, in last year’s main estimates, they requested $37 million for medical travel, but they requested another $8 million under supplementary appropriations because they were way under budget.
Now, we know for sure that fuel prices went up, the airfare will probably will go up, and we know that oil is over $100 a barrel.
They’re not factored in and they’re not for sick people.
(interpretation ends) Transportation alone is going to probably increase by ten percent; I would say close to ten percent. In my estimates, Mr. Chairman, we’re not asking the minister to invent new stuff, but I think there’s certainly a more accurate figure that can be presented to the House.
I also not only just look at that figure, but if you look at the whole expenses under that item in the main estimates on page H-7, the Contract Services amazingly decreased by $10 million.
We don’t know where those figures went; we didn’t get to that question.
Surely, I think the minister should agree with us that they need to do better planning. We don’t believe that they have been doing an analysis that are acceptable to this committee, and I think by agreeing to do a better analysis and planning, we’re prepared to work with accurate information as possible.
Just to try and say, for arguments sake, that you couldn’t invent a new way of putting accurate figures, and we know you couldn’t do it, but we would like you to cooperate with us. That’s all we’re asking you right now.
First of all, the motion is asking to defer the Department of Health’s budget, number one.
With that, there are impressions being said, “Why would we defer the department for an estimate number?”
I think the minister has, rightfully so, pointed out that the number that is being presented is based on the best guesstimate that the department has available to it. It also is contingent on the medical travel that we have talked about, and indeed, there was a question on it in the House.
There is a presumed savings in the medical contract, airline contract, over several years, and that would be reflected in an expectancy of savings money in the medical travel. When you’re dealing with medical travel, Mr. Chairman, you’re dealing with an area where you have very little control over what those costs will be.
If you have an RSV outbreak in a community, you could end up blowing your budget within a very short period of time.
That’s the reality of doing business but you don’t defer the budget because you don’t believe the numbers aren’t realistic.
Also, in the contingencies that we have in government and that Minister Tapardjuk talked about earlier, there is a contingency there to cover medical travel.
Again, that would be discussed when you get to the Department of Finance’s budget. When you look at the contingencies, there are some monies in there to actually, I think, cover off some of the concerns the members are saying.
Fundamentally, when you want to defer a budget, you want to defer it because number one, you don’t agree with the budget; number two, you think there’s something wrong with the total amount of the dollar values that are available; those types of things. I don’t think that we should be deferring a budget or a line item on a certain part of the budget based on the motion that is presented. The motion says to defer the whole budget of the department, the largest department in government, because we’re not happy with one line item.
That’s a bit much. The public out there deserves a bit more of an explanation than that.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if you have a concern with that area of the budget, you complete the budget in the House, and that’s what we’re supposed to, and then over the next 24 hours the minister, because we have a better tracking system in place, we will be able to look at the numbers again.
We can’t add to a budget; we can only take away from a budget, and the members know that.
I believe that when we get to the Department of Finance, there may be some opportunity there within the contingencies that we have in place to be able to look at it if that’s the concern from the members.
However, I will allow the mover of the motion to exercise his right to the last reply and this will close the debate.
I agree with some of the comments that I have heard over there.
It’s not about: we’re hoping more people get sick. That’s not what we want. Take a look at all of the indicators.
Our health care professionals are fleeing the territory. We’re getting increased costs in agency nurses.
There are services that can’t be offered here now because of a lack of professionals and all those other things that my colleagues said that just make sense.
Mr. Picco indicated that we can defer a budget if there’s something wrong. Well, there is something wrong here.
That’s not a reflective number; it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The minister has made it quite clear that, “Well, we’re hoping that with this new contract, we’re going to save money.”
This budget was done months ago before we even had any sniff of what the contract was in place for, unless they already had it appraised and unless they already knew, which would raise more questions, but I doubt that very much.
We’re not asking to invent anything. I’m not an accountant, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not an economist. If you just take a look at the external factors related to any business, anything, inflation goes up and your costs go up - our population is increasing and the costs to operate in the north for the airlines have gone up.
All of these numbers that were mentioned, like you said, are based on old numbers; a three-year-old price.
The minister had also pointed out that they had been pretty much on budget all the time, every year. I don’t think that there’s been a year that’s gone by that we haven’t had a supplementary appropriation for medical travel.
I don’t think so. I stand to be corrected on that but I’m pretty sure, every year, there has been a supplementary appropriation for the Department of Health.
She indicated that they had budgeted $46 million for 2007-08. Actually, their main estimates for 2007-08 that we approved was $37,416,000.
That was what we approved, and then they revised through supplementary appropriations and it’s now $46 million.
All you have to do is take a look at a three-year-old price; the cost of everything else has gone up, the population growing, and a new Client Travel Policy that’s supposed to be more open, which will have more uptake on it. With all of those factors, it doesn’t take a genius to figure that, in all likelihood, the numbers are going to go up. That’s where I’m saying, to me, I don’t think that has been done properly and that’s what I would like to see happen before we approve this budget.
So that’s it for my comments.
This closes the debate.
A recorded vote has been called.
Mr. Arvaluk. Order, please. Order.
Madam Brown.
Thank you everyone. The motion is carried.
We will close the debate on this budget of the department for now.
The committee had approved earlier that we will now move onto the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Premier, do you have opening comments?
That was a short one.
All those in favour of the motion, raise your hand.
Going back to the Orders of the Day. Item 21. Report of the Committee of the Whole.
Member for Uqqummiut, Mr. Arreak
Your committee has been considering Bill 23 and the Main Estimates, and would like to report progress, and that one committee motion was carried. Also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arreak. (interpretation ends) Is there a seconder?
(interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Mapsalak.
A reminder for tomorrow morning, a meeting of the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit at nine o’clock in the morning in the Tuktu Boardroom.  Orders of the Day for February 28:
Speaker: Can we have some order in the House, please. Order.
Please proceed, Mr. Clerk.
Clerk: …
Motion 26 – 2(4)
Motion 27 – 2(4)
Members, this House stands adjourned until Thursday, February 28, and we will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Pages 3048 – 3118
Opening Prayer 3048
Ministers’ Statements 3048
Members’ Statements 3049
Returns to Oral Questions 3056
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 3057
Oral Questions 3057
Replies to Budget Address 3077
Revert to Item 14: Tabling of Documents 3080
Motions 3081
First Reading of Bills 3088
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 3088
Point of Order 3114
Report of the Committee of the Whole 3116
Orders of the Day 3116
Thursday, February 28, 2008 3048
146 – 2(4): Inuinnaqtun Language Certificate Program (Picco) 3048
339 – 2(4): Up Here – The Magazine of Canada’s Enterprising North (Peterson) 3049
340 – 2(4): Support for Sarah Ali (Tootoo) 3050
341 – 2(4): Caribou within Municipality of Baker Lake (Simailak) 3051
342 – 2(4): Sovereignty in the High Arctic (Arvaluk) 3052
343 – 2(4): The Need for an Elders’ Facility in Kugluktuk (Evyagotailak) 3054
344 – 2(4): Diversion of Rivers for Hydro-electric Purposes (Kattuk) 3054
345 – 2(4): Need for Docking Facilities at Grise Fiord & Resolute Bay (Barnabas) 3055
Return to Oral Question 393 – 2(4): Pension Adjustment Announcement (Tapardjuk) 3056
428 – 2(4): Travel Arrangements for Minor Patients (Tootoo) 3057
429 – 2(4): NAC’s Provision of Support Services to Single Parents (Peterson) 3059
430 – 2(4): Medical Travel Destinations for Kugluktuk Residents (Evyagotailak) 3062
431 – 2(4): Update on Rankin Inlet Medical Boarding Home (Simailak) 3064
432 – 2(4): Nunavut Housing Corporation Contracting Practices (Curley) 3066
433 – 2(4): Medical Travel Contract Including Sanikiluaq (Kattuk) 3068
434 – 2(4): $200,000 Approved for Arctic Bay Road (Barnabas) 3069
435 – 2(4): Support for Literacy Programs (Peterson) 3070
436 – 2(4): Security Measures at Old Residence in Iqaluit (Tootoo) 3072
437 – 2(4): Update on Employees’ Payroll Canada Savings Bonds (Arvaluk) 3075
438 – 2(4): Sole Source Contract – Inuujaq School in Arctic Bay (Barnabas) 3075
Reply to Budget Address 001 – 2(4): Mr. Tagak Curley 3077
185 – 2(4): Letter from Sarah Ali Requesting Support for ING Speed Skating Challenge Video (Tootoo) 3080
186 – 2(4): Seniors Facility for Kugluktuk – Motion from Elders Meeting February 12, 2008 (Evyagotailak) 3080
026 – 2(4): Extension of Review Period for Bills 6 and 7 (Mapsalak) 3081
027 – 2(4): Acceptance of the Report of the Integrity Commissioner to the Legislative Assembly Regarding Mr. David Simailak, MLA (Tootoo) 3082
Bill 27 – An Act to Amend the Land Titles Act – First Reading 3088
Bill 23 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Executive & Intergovernmental Affairs 3088
Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Mr. James Arreak, Mr. James Arvaluk, Mr. Levi Barnabas, Honourable Levinia Brown, Mr. Tagak Curley, Mr. Joe Allen Evyagotailak, Mr. Peter Kattuk, Honourable Peter Kilabuk, Mr. Steve Mapsalak, Honourable Patterk Netser, Honourable Paul Okalik, Mr. Keith Peterson, Honourable Edward Picco, Mr. David Simailak, Honourable Louis Tapardjuk, Mr. Hunter Tootoo.
Before we go to the Orders of the Day, I would like to recognize an elder from my constituency. My late uncle who was also a Member of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Ipeelee Kilabuk’s wife turned 78 years old today.
We wish her happy birthday from Pangnirtung.
Minister’s Statement 146 – 2(4): Inuinnaqtun Language Certificate Program (Picco)
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to inform the House about a new program that’s underway in the Kitikmeot region to enhance the Inuinnaqtun language revitalization.
An Inuinnaqtun Aboriginal Language Certificate Program is currently underway in Kugluktuk.
Mr. Speaker, this will evidently increase the number of skilled Inuinnaqtun immersion teachers.
This certificate program is run through the Nunavut Arctic College, in partnership with the Department of Education’s Kitikmeot School Operations and Kugluktuk’s Tahiuqtiit Society.