EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Tabled Document 034 – 4(1): Grants and Contributions 2012-2013 (Peterson)
As I committed to my colleague from Baker Lake earlier, I am pleased to tablet the 2012-13 Grants and Contributions Report.
Bills 3, 4, and 5 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:54 and Committee resumed at 16:14
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Good afternoon, my colleagues and Nunavummiut who are watching through the television, and also listening on the radio. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bill 3, Bill 4, and Bill 5.
We wish to commence with the review of Bill 3, followed Bill 4 and Bill 5.
Are we in agreement that we deal with Bill 3?
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
Hon. Minister of Finance, Minister Peterson, you can now proceed with your opening comments for Bill 3.
I am pleased to present Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2013-2014, totalling $34,565,000.
This bill will provide additional funding to cover cost pressures that have arisen over the year and have exceeded the departments’ ability to pay.
Bill 3 consists of additional funding to the Legislative Assembly and three departments.
$156,000 is being requested for the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
This money is to be used to cover the additional costs associated with office space of the new child and youth representative and Elections Nunavut, and cost of the additional indemnity for the new minister for the Fourth Assembly.
$5,409,000 is being requested for the Department of Family Services to fund a projected budget shortfall in various programs:
$2.0 million for social assistance payments;
$300,000 for additional payments under the FANS program;
$1,474,000 to cover additional costs for residential care clients; and
$1,632,000 to cover employee salary costs.
$200,000 [is being requested] for the Department of Justice to fund shortfall in the Legal Services Board due to increased costs associated with an increased number of court circuits.
An additional $2.8 million to the Department of Justice [is being requested] to fund a compensation and benefits budget shortfall within Corrections.
$26 million is being requested for the Department of Health to fund continued cost pressures in seven program areas:
$1.8 million for the Pharmacy Services program to purchase additional vaccines and medical supplies;
$8.0 million for out-of-territory hospital services, where the number of Nunavummiut requiring hospital visits outside of Nunavut have increased over the past several years;
$6.2 million for medical travel to cover the increasing costs of transporting Nunavummiut to health care facilities in and out of the territory;
$5.0 million for agency nurse contracts;
$1.0 million for travel and transportation costs for an increasing number of clients requiring services at mental health and addictions treatment centres;
$2.8 million to pay for additional mental health contract costs for the increasing number of Nunavummiut admitted to southern facilities; and
$1.2 million for physician services contracts for the higher cost of attracting specialists to Nunavut, which will provide more care to Nunavut and help reduce out-of-territory travel.
Do you have any officials that you would like to bring with you to the witness table?
Yes, I do have witnesses.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Does the committee agree to bring in the witnesses?
Thank you, (interpretation ends) Sergeant. (interpretation) Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your witnesses. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister.
To my right is Chris D’Arcy, Deputy Minister of Finance, and to my left is Peter Tumulty, Assistant Deputy Minister of Financial Management. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) Mr. D’Arcy and Mr. Tumulty, welcome to the House. (interpretation) Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of our two rules.
You have 10 minutes to speak, Rule 77(1), and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
Are there any general comments or questions on the opening comments?
You can ask your detailed questions during the clause-by-clause review of the bill. The floor is open to general comments or questions. Are there any comments or questions?
There being none. We will now deal with Bill 3.
We’re on Bill 3, starting on page 4.
Office of the Legislative Assembly. Operations and Maintenance.
I’m sorry. We were looking at different pages here. I will start again.
Expenditures on Behalf of Members. Total Expenditures on Behalf of Members. $45,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. Total Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. $111,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. $156,000.
Ms. Angnakak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Why do we read in one area projected budget shortfall whereas in another area it states budget shortfall? Does this mean one area is already spent and the other is not?
If Ms. Angnakak could clarify where she’s getting that information from.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) Ms. Angnakak, clarify that, please.
Where it says here on page 5, projected budget shortfall in children and family, and then if you turn to page 6, then you have budget shortfall.
I’m just asking about language. Does it mean something different?
I thank Ms. Angnakak for the sharp eye.
Mr. Chairman, there is no difference.
Page 5, the amount of $2,675,000 is requested to cover a projected shortfall under income support. According to the stats from the GN website, the number of social recipients are relatively the same over the last three years and even down in from 2008.
So I’m just wondering why there’s a request for this amount.
The information we have from the department is that the caseloads are increasing and the costs of food are increasing due to cost of living, so additional funding is required.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you.
Under FANS, there’s a projected shortfall of $300,000. Is this because there are more students attending school or have you increased the rates?
Mr. Chairman, it’s demand-driven. The rates have not changed.
Ms. Angnakak (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, if I can ask you, can I ask a question on page 7?
Chairman (interpretation): We’re now on page 5. It will be better if we stay on this page, as we will get to page 7.
I don’t have the actual numbers with me, but I don’t think I have seen any department that is in a situation where they’re fully staffed, yet I’m seeing a supplementary appropriation for compensation and benefits.
Can the minister clarify how this could come about in a situation where most departments are under staffed and there should be surplus monies in compensation and benefits, not a demand for more?
Mr. Chairman, I’m going to ask Deputy Minister D’Arcy to explain this.
As most members will recall, this was a new department. It was created out of several divisions in other departments last year, so there’s an issue with budget reports and transferring monies. Mr. D’Arcy will clarify.
I will allow Mr. D’Arcy to speak.
Although there are shortages or capacity issues territory-wide in all departments, it’s also true for all departments that a lot of those shortages are taken up through the use of casual employees and also through overtime.
Along with that, as Minister Peterson has said, there is a bit of an adjustment that we have to make this year with respect to the budgets that were transferred from other departments, principally the Department of Education, but also the Department of the Executive to the Department of Family Services.
We do know that the projected expenditures, as Ms. Angnakak has pointed out, to year-end for the department are in excess of the budget in two areas: Children and Family Services of $960,000; and Income Assistance of $672,000.
That’s our best bet for ending the year in terms of those overages.
Tracing where the budget transfers came from with the number of employees in the other department was difficult to back out.
At this point in time, we understand that we’re moving forward with this request so that the department does not exceed their appropriation for the year.
Hopefully, we’ll fix this up for the next fiscal year of 2014-15.
Mr. D’Arcy mentioned that these monies are funding two separate items: casual employees and overtime. Does the minister have a breakdown of how much of it is overtime and how much for casual employees?
We don’t have that level of detail with us.
I also noted that $1.474 million is to cover additional costs for Residential Care Clients. Is the number of Residential Care Clients increasing? Is that the purpose of this appropriation?
Yes, it’s the understanding that it is demand-driven.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Hickes.
I’ve brought up this issue a number of times in this House, as well as different briefing with different departments. We need to start looking at utilizing our own resources within the territory to keep our residents here at home where there are support groups and where the care is more appropriate to their customs and lifestyle.
I think this just exaggerates that message, Mr. Chairman, if we’re having to increase supplemental appropriations to continue to spend money in other jurisdictions to care for our residents.
What kind of measures are going to be taking place in the future to make sure that this number declines and not increases?
Mr. Hickes raises a good question.
It’s not a new issue. One of the concerns in Nunavut is that we don’t have the facilities that some Nunavummiut would require for specialized care.
There was an initiative in the past government. We renovated the old boarding home, Akausisarvik, into a facility that could assist with treating people at home. There are initiatives in Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay that I’m aware of where the Department of Health is looking at those types of measures.
Until we build those types of facilities and can offer specialized care, there will always be a requirement to send folks down south.
I believe the department is looking at containing the costs by negotiating with the facilities down south to reduce the costs.
We do recognize that, over time, it would be better if the government could treat more people at home and provide those kinds of services. The department recognizes that. I’m reading that in our briefing note here.
Has your department, in conjunction with Family Services, taken a look at a cost-benefit analysis of how much infrastructure dollars would be needed to offset some of these expenses?
I thank Mr. Hickes.
We haven’t undertaken that initiative yet.
Chairman: I’m not getting a very clear signal from you, Mr. Hickes. You’re done?
Okay. (interpretation) Thank you.
My questions were mostly answered by the minister when my colleague, Mr. Hickes, asked, but just for clarification, the cost overrun for compensation and benefits was that there were no new employees; it is just that the money that was supposed to come over did not come over.
For clarification.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Savikataaq for the question.
Yes, that is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Then there theoretically is a $1.6 million surplus in other departments.
I’ll have Mr. D’Arcy clarify that.
First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to clarify my previous remark.
I think I said, “the Department of Education.” I should have added the Department of Health as well into social services with the transfer because they were both significant transfers of positions from Health and from Education.
Mr. Chairman, as we go back into balance, most of the departments don’t have 100 percent salary dollars and it’s not necessarily costed out on a per-position basis either. It is a little bit more of a group of funds that we have in the departmental budget.
So when the budgets were transferred, there was an amount that was transferred, but it wasn’t necessarily 100 percent dollars person for person.
Some positions may have been vacant and to help assist in reducing the budgetary over-expenditures in Health and to keep the cost down in Education, some of those moneys may have been moved.
We found that out after the fact and it’s a rebalancing exercise now.
The long and the short of it, Mr. Chairman, is that if we didn’t do it in Family Services, if we came up to full capacity in Health, we would have had to give that money to Health or Education, for example.
In fact, you are stating that if all the departments were 100 percent full, all the jobs, no vacancies, that the government could never fund 100 percent occupancy.
I thank Mr. Savikataaq for the question.
We would be in a very difficult situation if the government was 100 percent staffed. We would have to look very closely at budgets.
I suppose the FANS and the social assistance payments are demand-driven. Shouldn’t they be budgeting a little higher then, so they wouldn’t always have to ask for supplementary appropriation, especially for social assistance?
The budgeting isn’t a precise science. There are changes throughout the year. There are more students who didn’t anticipate applying who may have decided to go to school or people who didn’t anticipate seeking social assistance who decided to apply and costs go up.
It isn’t precise. That’s why we have the Financial Management Board available to allow departments to come forward, if they want to transfer money between programs or seek additional funding, to address these situations when they arise.
I know this is on the income support portfolio, but with social assistance, if the demand is always going up and they’re always asking for more money, should they budget for more money?
That is why we have the annual main estimates. The departments do come forward with annual requests.
They come to the House for the annual increases to different programs and initiatives, subject to approval, they may get the funding that they seek or they may not or they may get some portion of it.
Let me remind everyone that we’re on page 5.
I have two matters which I want further information on related to funding of this program.
The income assistance budget is slightly over $2 million, and further, underneath that for career development is the line item listing $300,000.
Can they provide information on how many people have received assistance from this particular program, for example, their (interpretation ends) their caseload. How many more cases in relation to those two items? (interpretation) Provided that they are able to answer that question.
I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman, we didn’t come prepared with that level of detail.
If we had known in advance, we could have asked the department for that information.
Let me go again.
Family Services. Operations and Maintenance. Not Previously Authorized.
Children and Family Services. Total Children and Family Services. $2,434,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Income Assistance.
Total Income Assistance. $2,675,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Career Development.
Total Career Development. $300,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $5,409,000.
We’re on page 6 now.
I’m going to ask the same questions to the Department of Justice as I did for Family Services.
Out of the $2.8 million to fund compensation and benefits, this is not a new department where there was staff transferred over from other departments to create it and I am pretty sure that this department is not 100 percent staffed to capacity.
Can the minister explain to me why we’re seeing a supplementary appropriation for this amount of money?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Hickes for the question.
Mr. Chairman, this is the Corrections Division, and they have corrections facilities in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet and Kugluktuk.
I believe that the funds that they’re requesting are to cover overtime and casual wages for corrections officers.
I’m also going to ask the same question. Maybe the Department of Justice can provide a little more detailed briefing note to the minister. How much of this is casual employees, and how much of this is overtime?
I again apologize. We don’t have that level of detail. Perhaps the Minister of Justice may be willing to answer that question.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, for this past year we spent $5,177,000 in casual workers for all the correctional facilities, and $680,332 in overtime up to February of this year.
Those are the dollars spent so far. We have been able to reuse some of this with internal transfers, but we’re going to be short $2.8 million.
That’s why there is a submission. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hickes: I’m sorry. There was a cut-out during the number for the overtime. Could the minister clarify that amount for me?
Minister Okalik, please clarify.
Hon. Paul Okalik: Yes. There was $680,332 in overtime spent up to February of this year. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Okalik for the clarification.
I thank Minister Okalik for indulging me with that clarification.
If Minister Okalik doesn’t mind and I realize Minister Peterson is on the chair, can the Minister of Justice answer which facility has the most casual workers? Is it Kugluktuk, BCC, or Rankin Inlet?
Minister Okalik, are you prepared to answer that question?
Hon. Paul Okalik: All I have are global figures at this point for all the facilities.
I would imagine that the Baffin Correctional Facility would have the most, as they have the most number of employees. To date, there were 107 casuals for all the facilities, 25 relief casuals to accommodate temporary needs for the facilities.
So in total, just over 132 casuals. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had asked a question last week to the Minister of Justice on the amount of Inuit employment and casual employment and what kind of steps they’re taking to make some of these positions full-time.
I would highly encourage the minister to really take a look at creating 132 casual employments and making some of those full-time with the proper training and proper resources allocated to them.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Hickes. (interpretation ends) Mr. Okalik, did you want to make a comment?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, we are taking steps.
We are trying different steps to train more and more Inuit employees.
There is shadowing taking place, where they learn from qualified and working correctional officers.
We are taking more steps to do more training so that each of our new employees feels comfortable and confident in doing their tasks.
So those steps should be taken so that we retain more of our employees in the long run. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to thank Minister Okalik for providing Minister Peterson with the level of detail that I asked about.
Chairman: Thank you. Ms. Angnakak.
I was going to ask questions about the $2.8 million too, but I do have one question and that’s on the $200,000 budget shortfall for legal services.
Has this money been spent already and, if not, why is there a need for the additional funds?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Angnakak. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Peterson.
Well, it is the funding that’s requested to get the Legal Services Board through the end of the fiscal year. I can’t state with certainty if it has all been spent, but I presume that some of it has been spent.
We’re on page 6. Justice. Operations and Maintenance.
Directorate. Total Directorate. $200,000.
Total Corrections. $2,800,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $3 million.
On page 7, under Treatment, they’re requesting an additional $5 million for agency nursing contracts.
We have been using agency nurses now for many years. I’m just wondering if he can explain why they need an additional $5 million for this department.
With your permission, I would like to bring in another witness to the table from the Department of Health.
Does the committee agree and allow the minister to bring in another witness?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witness in and the other witness out.
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister, will you please, for the record, introduce your witness.
To my left is Bill Neish, Acting Director of Corporate Services for the Department of Health.
Mr. Neish, welcome to the House. (interpretation) Let me ask you, Mr. Rumbolt, to repeat your question.
My question was: for the $5 million for agency nursing contracts, we have been using agency nurses now for many years, and I’m just wondering why, all of a sudden, we need an additional $5 million towards them contracts.
I’ll ask Mr. Neish to respond.
I shall ask Mr. Neish to respond. Mr. Neish.
Historically, Health has spent, a few years ago, around $25 million in agency nurse contracts. That number reduced significantly when we implemented the nursing recruitment and retention strategy.
At one point, it dropped down to less than $10 million. Our budget is currently at $5 million.
Historically, we’ve not had funding that we have needed.
Our vacancy rate is around 40 percent right now with the full-time nurses. So we tend to try to hire casual nurses whenever we can and use agency nurses as a last resort.
When we’re using agency nurses in our communities, what amount of time are they required to spend in one location at a time?
I’ll ask Mr. Neish if he can answer that question.
Chairman: Mr. Neish.
The time varies, depending on the situation.
We have peak periods of the year, especially around Christmas time, or summertime when the regular nurses are going on holidays.
Sometimes it’s difficult to maintain our staffing levels. We cannot reduce our nursing services, or close our health centres. Sometimes we do have short-term agency nurses covering off vacation periods.
We try to keep the agency use as short as possible.
What is the maximum amount of time that an agency nurse will be required to stay in one location? Do they have a turnaround time of two weeks, six weeks; you would have to send somebody else in to replace them or is an agency nurse left in the community until a replacement is found?
Mr. Neish will respond to that.
There is no maximum term that an agency nurse can stay in the community.
We don’t like switching them out because of the travel costs.
So we try to only book agency nurses that can come and stay for the full period that’s required.
I’m going to ask a different question.
Under Directorate, you ask for $400,000 to provide funding for continuing cost pressures for Directorate for travel and transportation.
Whenever a budget is given to a community, for example, a housing association, a hamlet, or a school, they’re given X number of dollars and they’re told to work within that budget, and if they do cost overruns, the following year, they’re asked to find ways to make up for the shortfall.
Why is it the government can go over their budget and then request additional monies when you do the opposite in our communities?
I thank Mr. Rumbolt for the question. I should not thank him for that question.
I’ll ask Mr. Neish to respond to that question.
The Directorate section includes a lot of programs and services in that area. We currently have mental health headquarters staff; we have audiology services that we are providing to communities, and territorial leads in those areas.
So there is a lot of travel that we’re requesting in that area.
Ms Angnakak.
My question is around the agency contracts as well.
I am just wondering what measures and support is being done to increase the number of graduate nurses in Nunavut.
With your permission, if I can refer that question to the Minister of Health to respond.
I would like the member to repeat the question so that I can respond appropriately.
There has been a lot of discussion around agency nurses and contracts over the years.