MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CBDF23.2E525C30" This document is a Web archive file. If you are seeing this message, this means your browser or editor doesn't support Web archive files. For more information on the Web archive format, go to http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/office/webarchive.htm ------=_NextPart_01CBDF23.2E525C30 Content-Location: file:///C:/B1334F13/273.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Speaker: I will now call the House t=
o order.
We will proceed at this time with prayers.
<= o:p>
Prayers
DAILY ROUTINE
Speaker: We will proceed at this tim=
e with
the Order Paper.
Tributes.
Introduction of visitors. <=
/span>
Returns or documents for tabling. <=
/span>
TABLING RETURNS AND DOCUMENTS
Mr. Cardiff: =
I have for tabling a docume=
nt about
the ecoENERGY program.
<= o:p>
Speaker: Are there any further retur=
ns or
documents for tabling?
Reports of committees.
Any petitions?
Any bills to be introduced?
A=
ny notices
of motion?
NOTICES OF MOTION
Mr. McRobb: I give notice of the follow=
ing
motion:
T=
HAT this
House urges the
<= o:p>
Ms. Hanson: I give notice of the following moti=
on for
the production of papers:
T=
HAT this
House do issue an order for the return of a stat=
us
report on the “Actions to be undertaken” contained in the
<= o:p>
Mr. Cardiff: =
I give notice of the follow=
ing motion:
T=
HAT this
House urges the Harper regime to renew the popular eco=
ENERGY
retrofit — homes incentive program in order that:
(=
1) total federal, provincial and territorial government
revenues of $5 billion a year are generated;
(=
2) federal, provincial and territorial governments can co=
llect
more than $2 in taxes for every $1 paid out in retrofit incentives;
(=
3) 350,000
person-years of employment are created in communities all across
(=
4) an average of 22 percent energy saving per house are d=
elivered
and three tonnes per year of greenhouse gas per=
house
are saved.
Speaker: Are there any further notic=
es of
motion?
I=
s there a
statement by a minister?
T=
his then
brings us to Question Period.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question re: Health
care facility costs
Mr. Mitchell:&=
#8195; Later today, we will be discussing a
government motion about health care. This government has told the
Hon. Mr. Hart: We have been working closely with t=
he
Mr. Mitchell:
So what we just heard is that=
there
were no studies done, but they are going to work on it now.
T=
he reality
is that the government did no studies at all to determine what the potential
cost savings of these new hospitals might be. The commitment that they will
save money is simply a promise from this government, and we all know what t=
hat
is worth.
A= previous Yukon Party health care minister who now sits on this side of the House was= in charge of these projects when the capital budget ballooned from $5 million = per building to $25 million per building. He quit on the Premier shortly after.
With increased capital costs come increased costs to o= perate the facilities. Can the minister tell Yukoners what it will cost to operate= and maintain these two new facilities each year?
Hon. Mr. Hart=
:
Just to remind the member opp=
osite
again, the hospital in
Mr. Mitchell:
Mr. Speaker, we are well awar=
e that
there has been a cottage hospital for many years in
W=
hile the
motion later today is an attempt to portray this government’s health =
care
plan in a good light, the handling of the two new hospitals shows the
government is operating without a plan. We know the government had to borrow
all the money for these buildings because of its poor fiscal management. It
also had no idea what the cost savings, if any, associated with the new
buildings will be, and it doesn’t have much of an idea what it will c=
ost
to run the facilities. Finally, the government has no idea where the staff =
will
come from to operate these buildings.
W=
hat is the
government’s plan to staff these facilities?
Hon. Mr. Hart: As we stated many times on this que=
stion,
we had debated the cost of the facility of Watson Lake, and in fact, we have
provided the Whitehorse Hospital Corporation with the funding that was prov=
ided
through Health and Social Services for the operation of that facility to en=
sure
that they can carry on with the operation of the Watson Lake hospital.
T=
heir CEO
has reviewed that information and has provided us with a breakdown of that
costing. Again, we have debated that costing in this House many times, and =
the
member opposite did question the
I=
look forward
to the board’s continued attendance here in the House to answer many =
of
these questions with regard to both the Watson
Question re: Emergency
medical services building
Mr. Elias: =
I have a follow-up question=
for the
Minister of Community Services. I asked the minister last week about the co=
st
of the new emergency medical services building this government is in the
process of developing at the top of Two Mile Hill. The minister said yes, t=
he
government was building it, and yes, it was budgeted for. The minister is n=
ot
telling us the whole story. He’s holding back some critical informati=
on.
T=
he new
emergency medical services building will actually be considerably more
expensive than the current $8.7 million that is identified in the budget. T=
he
Budget Address documents confirm this. Will the minister now tell us what t=
he
real cost of this building will be?
Hon. Mr.
Lang: =
; In fact,
Mr. Elias: =
Mr. Speaker, the Yukon Part=
y keeps
breaking its promises. The
N=
ow
Hon. Mr. Lang: The member opposite is correct R=
12; we
did work with the city for a period of time on a plan as to how we could
integrate
T=
he fact
that we are building an
Mr. Elias: =
This has Yukon Party bad pl=
anning
all over it. They promised one building to
W=
here is
the rest of the money going to come from to finish the emergency medical se=
rvices
building?
Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: Before the honourable member
answers the question, Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, when the honourable member
uses terms like “keep to himself” the
implication, of course, is that members are withholding information. I
don’t think the honourable member meant that, but just be careful in =
the
future.
T=
he
Minister of Community Services has the floor, please.
<= o:p>
Hon. Mr. Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m r=
epeating
myself here as minister responsible for EMS
Question re: Energy policy
Mr. Cardiff: =
Last week my colleague, the=
Member
for Whitehorse Centre, failed to get any straight answers from the minister
responsible for the Yukon Energy Corporation about the
As
currently conceived, this project — which proposes to connect two
separate watersheds with a canal — faces some major environmental and
political challenges. The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans says t=
he
proposal is “likely to result in significant impacts to fish and fish
habitat.”
I=
n a letter
dated
W=
ill the
minister responsible for YEC tell us how much public money the corporation
plans to spend on this project this year?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
The first problem that the =
Member
for
W= hat else is very clear here is that our regulatory and assessment processes work very well. When these types of concepts come forward, it is clear that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and all other regulatory processes and required processes, which anything like this must go through, work very wel= l. That’s why the Yukon Party government believes in the stringent regulatory regime that we have. It’s balanced, but it also protects.<= o:p>
Mr. Cardiff: =
The Energy Corporation says=
on its
website that it did a number of technical studies last year to determine
whether this project is feasible. The studies include impacts on fish and f=
ish
habitat, birds, vegetation, wildlife, First Nations, land and river system,
land uses such as hunting, fishing and recreation. In an article in one of =
our
local papers on
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
In every operating year, th=
e Energy
Corporation will expend resources in looking at options and alternatives, as
they should. As far as this particular concept, there are more studies to c=
ome,
more discussion to come, along with other options and alternatives which are
many. In fact, there’s a major public discussion going on right now in
the
Mr. Cardiff: =
I will help the minister ou=
t a
little bit here. The Yukon Energy Corporation said it spent $3.1 million on=
the
proposal that has little chance of going forward because DFO believes it wi=
ll
cause irreversible damage to fish and fish habitat. It raises troubling
transboundary water issues. The letter that DFO sent said that the plan sho=
uld
be revised to eliminate the inter-basin water transfer and reduce the negat=
ive
effects on fish habitat. The whole proposal is based on the inter-basin
transfer of water, so how is it going to go forward?
W=
ill the
minister advise the YEC to stop throwing public =
money
at this folly and move on to proposals that are environmentally sound,
don’t involve transboundary water issues and have some hope of getting
regulatory approval?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I appreciate the offer of h=
elp, but
the Yukon Party government does not need help from the NDP, frankly, on any
matter. We all know why. The history of the NDP on energy, on the economy, =
on
industry — their position on mining, claiming that it is unregulated =
and
privileged — is all a problem for the NDP. So, no thanks for the help,
but the Yukon Party government will continue to support our Energy Corporat=
ion
— our public utility — and that’s a lot more than we will
ever get out of the NDP.
Question re: Mental health
services
Mr. Cathers:
Lately it’s hard to tur=
n on
the national news without hearing more about Charlie Sheen. Rather than us
laughing about it and treating it like entertainment, it would be more
appropriate for everyone, including the national media, to use it to bring
attention to the fact that mental health problems, especially when coupled =
with
addictions, can destroy lives and careers.
W=
hether
someone is rich and famous or poor and anonymous, mental health problems are
serious and should be treated as such. Many people with mental health issues
can be helped, so today I’d like to ask about mental health programs.=
W=
hen I
became Minister of Health and Social Services, the
Hon. Mr. Hart: We provided $200,000 in capital in
2008-09; we’re also providing a little under $1 million for O&M,
which will flow in 2010-11, and the hospital has implemented a secure medic=
al
unit within
W=
e have
four psychiatrists now working in the
Mr. Cathers:
When I was Minister of Health=
and Social
Services the Hospital Corporation asked for assistance in renovating the
hospital to provide a more secure ward for people in the hospital who had
mental health issues. Prior to the renovation, people in hospital for treat=
ment
of a mental issue were mixed in with all other patients, which created a sa=
fety
risk and did not provide patients with mental health needs treatment that w=
as
directly focused on their problems. I agreed to provide the hospital with f=
unding
for the renovation and support for the increased cost of operating it, and =
that
work was completed on the current minister’s watch.
W=
ill the
minister please tell us what the capital cost of the renovation was and how
much increased funding to the hospital has been provided to help them opera=
te
the secure medical ward?
Hon. Mr. Hart: For the member opposite, as he will=
no
doubt be aware, there was funding provided for this secure unit. It did take
some time for us to get the appropriate hardware in order to segregate that
section of the hospital. As such, we did encounter some difficulty with reg=
ard
to obtaining the special doors that were required.
In
addition, we had to make some adjustments in regulations to allow for
psychiatric nurses to be made available here in the
Mr. Cathers:
Recently the Minister of Heal=
th and
Social Services announced continued funding of programs created under the
territorial health access fund for rural mental health, early psychosis
intervention and conflicts client care. I commend the minister for continui=
ng
these necessary programs, which were started when I was Minister of Health =
and
Social Services. The cost of these programs alone is approximately $700,000
— adding to the cost of increased psychiatric services and the cost o=
f a
new mental health ward that demonstrates increased annual funding for mental
health services of over $2 million. That number doesn’t include other
investments made when I was minister and under the current minister’s
watch.
W=
ill the
minister please tell us how much annual funding for mental health has incre=
ased
over the level it was at in 2002 under the Liberal watch?
Hon. Mr. Hart: As the member opposite mentioned, w=
e have
increased our funding substantially. I am very proud of our officials who h=
ave
been able to come up with money to carry on with our early psychosis progra=
m,
which is costing us approximately $750,000 to $800,000. In addition, we are=
looking
at other issues as they relate to mental health to improve our services in =
the
form of counselling, especially in the rural areas, through our Many Rivers
program, as well as the social workers and psychiatrists who visit there.
W=
e are also
using telehealth to enable us to work with our rural clients, and we look at
continuing to add to our services throughout the
Question re: Education report by Fraser Institute
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr.
Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, this government likes to take cr=
edit
for good things happening in the territory: the high price of metals, the
amount of exploration occurring in the territory, resulting from high metal
prices. Anything good, whether they had a hand in it or not, they like to p=
oint
out the good, though they never want to talk about or deal with the bad, as=
in
the bad review from the Fraser Institute on education in the territory. It =
is
one thing to receive a bad review and work to make improvements, but this
government cannot seem to get it right in education.
T=
he
Education minister has been receiving bad reviews as far back as 2007. This
minister likes to wrap himself in good reports he receives on mining, but
chooses to ignore the bad ones on education.
W=
ill the
minister accept responsibility for the bad education report from the Fraser
Institute, as he did with the good report on mining?
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
The Government of Yukon has taken g=
reat
strides in the area of education throughout the territory. We followed up on
the unfortunate results of the Liberals’ Education Act project
— their review — and we were left with quite a situation. We we=
nt
to work with our partners in education and other Yukoners, rolled up our sl=
eeves
and have really done the hard work.
I=
’m
pleased to see the changes in the education system, whether it be the
investments in the classroom, the increased number of teachers, the increas=
ed
number of educational assistants, the increased amount of curriculum that is
locally produced, the increased work going on at our facilities, whether in
Yukon communities or here in Whitehorse.
=
We’re
taking great strides to increase the reporting back to Yukoners about
what’s going on in
W=
e have a
number of different ways to provide feedback to parents about the performan=
ce
of their students and to provide the community with information about
what’s going on in their schools and to all Yukoners about what’=
;s
going on in
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> This minister has been prom=
ising to
review the Education Act and bring new policies forward to improve t=
he
education system. Since the beginning of this government’s mandate, in
eight and a half years he has yet to deliver. The minister made commitments=
to
improvements in 2006, yet still received another bad report from the Fraser
Institute in 2007. In May of 2008, he promised to use the institute’s
report as a reference point, yet today he chooses to ignore another bad rep=
ort
card. At least his colleague, who now sits on this side of the House,
recognizes the need for improvement demonstrated by the Fraser Institute re=
port.
T=
his government
is at the tail end of their mandate. Yukoners have lost trust in this
government. Will the minister take responsibility for his poor report card =
from
the Fraser Institute and work to improve his results?
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
I am proud to see the growth, the c=
hanges
and enhancements that have been made to Yukon’s education system, whe=
ther
it is looking at the school growth plans, which involve the community in the
direction of the school; whether it is the creation of full-day kindergarte=
n to
provide earlier childhood education learning opportunities; whether it is
putting in place things like the Yukon student information system so that we
have a statistically valid way of tracking performance of Yukon students
throughout their entire education career. There are a number of different
initiatives going on in Education. I hope the member opposite will be paying
greater attention in budget debate so that he too can be made aware and hav=
e a
fuller appreciation of what’s really happening out in Yukon’s
education system today.
Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> We do pay attention, and we=
ask
good questions. It is the answers that are coming from the minister that are
questionable. This minister is not delivering on promises made — peri=
od.
Yukoners are tired of empty promises. This minister has received a bad repo=
rt
card, not once but more than twice, from the Fraser Institute. The Auditor
General was also hard on the minister. There were a number of recommendatio=
ns
coming from the education reform project based on tremendous input from the
public, partners, stakeholders; yet the minister has not implemented a majo=
rity
of these. Perhaps if he actually acted on recommendations and reviews given=
to
him, we would not be looking at a poor report card yet again.
W=
ill the
minister accept that bad education report card from the Fraser Institute? W=
ill
he do that?
Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
I just want to bring the member
opposite’s attention to the annual report that the Department of Educ=
ation
has provided, which provides an update on the status of responding to the a=
reas
of concern identified with the Auditor General’s report. We’ve
recognized that those were valid concerns brought forward by the Auditor
General, and we have responded to them and the steps taken that identified =
them
in the annual report. In addition, we’ll be holding another education
summit. This is our third one, and I hope this time — the third time
— is the charm and that the Liberal Party actually attends our educat=
ion
summits, because they haven’t shown up for briefings in the past and =
they
haven’t obviously read the information that has been provided to them.
Additionally, in the very near future we’ll be tabling the
department’s strategic plan as a go-forward basis. Yukoners have been
very involved in this creation; we look forward to launching that and also =
an
update to our website, which will provide additional information and additi=
onal
reassurance as to how the Department of Education has been responding to ma=
ny
of the initiatives brought forward in the education reform project.
Question re: Energy policy
Mr. McRobb: One of the huge issues faci=
ng our
territory is how best to supply future energy demand. As the Premier knows,
Yukoners are presently engaged in this discussion and decisions made now wi=
ll
affect all residents far into the future.
A=
global
rebound in commodity prices, coupled with a modern-day Yukon=
st1:State> gold rush, largely to the c=
redit of
our local recipient of the Canadian Prospector of the Year award, will crea=
te
new energy demand from the mining sector far in excess of our hydro capacit=
y.
T=
his energy
deficit will continue to grow with additional industrial customers. Unless =
something
is done soon, we’ll continue to meet increased demand with diesel
generation. So far, this government has been talking wind and conservation,=
but
many people doubt this government’s agenda is to truly go down this s=
oft
energy path.
So
let’s hear it from the Premier. What’s his solution?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Mr. Speaker, I’m quite
flattered that the Member for Kluane would think that an individual such as=
I
would have the solution to a very challenging issue, not only in
A=
nother
example is how industry has invested in our public utilities infrastructure.
Another example is our
M=
uch is
being done. Does that mean there are no challenges ahead? Of course there a=
re,
and that’s why the Energy Corporation and the government are doing the
work we are today.
Mr. McRobb: The Premier mentioned the E=
nergy
Corporation’s resource plan; however, many view that plan as outdated=
and
simply inadequate in terms of the bigger challenge that faces our territory.
Our territory would be better prepared to meet the energy challenge if the
Premier hadn’t created the scandal with his secret parallel negotiati=
ng
process to sell out
L=
et’s
go back to his
W=
ill the
Premier now confirm or deny that his caucus gave its full approval to proce=
ed
with ATCO?
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Mr. Speaker, this brings up=
a very
important point, which has to do with the trustworthiness of any individual=
in
this House and the statements made. We all know the facts of the matter, as=
the
Member for Kluane does. He even questions Energy Corporation officials on t=
he
matter, so we know about all that. Of course, there were discussions about
energy for
Y=
esterday,
the Member for Kluane stated that a trailer or house in Beaver Creek had se=
wage
leaking under it. Well, the fact of the matter is that it had a frozen
waterline. The Member for Kluane cannot be trusted; the Liberals cannot be
trusted. They are all in it together and this is a clear example of the pro=
blem
here. The Liberals say anything; the facts don’t mean a thing.
Speaker’s statement
Speaker: Before the member asks his =
last
question, Hon. Premier, I will exercise the same caution to you as I did to=
the
Member for Vuntut Gwitchin. We are presuming that each and every member in =
this
House is honourable. Just keep that in mind in terms of answering the
questions.
<= o:p>
Mr. McRobb: Mr. Speaker, Yukoners deser=
ve to
know if, in fact, the whole caucus gave its full approval to proceed with i=
ts
plan to privatize our energy future.
T=
hat’s
what the Premier indeed stated in his letter. We all remember back when the
Premier’s right-hand man, his former Energy minister who is now the
Independent member, resigned over the scandal and headed a movement to disl=
odge
the Premier from his post. The Independent member soon challenged this Prem=
ier
to stop hiding behind officials and admit he was solely responsible for the
ATCO negotiations. It is documented on page 4826 in Hansard, which
reads, “…the
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I have a question for the M=
ember
for Kluane. Did the caucus of the day approve the burning of millions of
dollars of more diesel instead of using water ou=
t of
Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible)
Point of order
Speaker: The Hon. Member for Kluane,=
on a point
of order.
Mr. McRobb: On a point of order, Mr. Sp=
eaker,
you have ruled on this matter in the past, and the Premier is neglecting th=
at
ruling. In addition, the Premier is personalizing debate by referencing my
property at this lake, which was completely cleared with the Conflict of
Interest Commissioner, so the Premier needs to be called on a point of orde=
r on
this matter.
Speaker’s ruling = p>
Speaker: From the Chair’s pers=
pective,
although I’ve cautioned honourable members in the past, in this insta=
nce,
from the Chair’s perspective, it is simply a dispute between members.=
H=
on.
Premier, you have about a minute left.
<= o:p>
Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No =
matter
what the issue may be, the Liberals have a very big and significant problem
with the
S=
o on the
energy file, great progress has been made by the Yukon Party and our Energy
Corporation during the nine years of our mandate. We intend to make further=
progress
in dealing with the energy challenges of
B=
y the way,
when the members opposite list commodity prices, they forget to list
devolution, the advancement of land claims, poli=
tical
stability and the policies of the Yukon Party government.
<= o:p>
Speaker: The time for Question Perio=
d has
now elapsed. We’ll proceed to Orders of the Day.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
GOVERNMENT PRIVATE
MEMBERS’ BuSiness
MOTIONS OTHER THAN GOVERNMENT MOTIONS
Motion No. 1340
Deputy Clerk:
Speaker: It is moved by the Member f=
or
THAT this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue to ensure t=
hat
Yukoners have access to a standard of health care that is comparable to the
standards in other jurisdictions in
(=
1) encouraging existing medical clinics and practices to =
expand
their services and attract more health care professionals to reside in the
territory in order to improve Yukoners’ access to family doctors;
(=
2) sponsoring the education of
(=
3)
encouraging visiting health care and medical specialists to offer their
services in the territory by providing them with the access to appropriate
medical facilities, including office space and residences, such as the new
staff residence/health service facility being constructed on Hospital Road;=
<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> (4) establishin=
g
regional health care facilities throughout the territory, such as regional
hospitals being constructed in
(=
5) utilizing and expanding telehealth care services throu=
ghout
the territory; and
(=
6) ensuring Yukoners have priority access to health care =
and
medical services in other jurisdictions, primarily
<= o:p>
Mr. Nordick: It gives me great pleasure today to=
rise
to this motion. I want to start off by saying that the beginning of the mot=
ion
urges the Government of Yukon to continue to ensure that Yukoners have acce=
ss
to a standard of health care that is comparable to standards in other
jurisdictions in
I=
n our 2002
election platform’s vision for health care, we stated that we need to
ensure that Yukoners receive the best possible health services and hospital
care. It’s all about vision and planning, and this government backs up
its vision and planning with action. Once again, in 2006, this Yukon Party =
government
— I was extremely excited to become part of the team — also had=
a
vision for health care in this territory. Yukoners actually supported our
vision from 2002 and then re-elected us in 2006 because of our vision.
O=
ur vision
in 2006 was to implement a strategy for recruitment and retention of doctors
and other health care professionals that included the following: family
physician incentive program for new graduates that provides financial
assistance to physicians who have recently graduated medical school in exch=
ange
for years of service in Yukon, which could amount to over $50,000 for a
five-year period. That was laid out in our 2006 election platform, building=
on
our vision from the 2006 platform.
T=
his motion
today speaks about continuing with this vision. The vision also had medical
education bursaries that provide
W=
e also
included the vision of nursing education bursaries. We included the vision =
with
regard to health professional education bursaries, nurse mentoring programs=
and
social worker mentoring programs. We also envisioned working with members of
the health care community on a pilot project to establish a collaborative c=
are
medical practice to help meet the health care needs of Yukon=
st1:State> families.
W=
e had a
vision to work with the federal government to expedite the immigration of
health care and other professionals into the territory. We had a vision to
continue to support the Yukon Hospital Foundation. I know about a week or t=
wo
ago, the Liberal opposition members said not to support the Yukon Hospital
Foundation in a question they asked during Question Period with regard to t=
he
MRI campaign they have launched.
W=
e support
the Yukon Hospital Foundation. We also had a vision to supply support servi=
ces
for children with severe disabilities. We had a vision to exclude the child
care benefit and residential school monies from income when determining soc=
ial
assistance. We also had a vision to review the funding arrangement for fost=
er
families. It’s all about a vision and a plan.
N=
ow when
you think about the vision and the plan that this Yukon Party government had
and my colleagues had in the 2002 and 2006 election platforms, people wonde=
red:
how do you back up that vision with action?
W=
ell, early
in the first mandate, our Premier, along with the two other northern premie=
rs,
went to
T=
hat is how
seriously this government took the health care needs of the
T=
he premiers
of the north looked to the federal government to support the creation of an
independent fund that recognizes the unique challenges of providing health =
care
services in
I=
n January
of that year, the Canadian premiers agreed that the new territorial health =
fund
should be established to supplement federal transfer payments calculated
according to the population of individual provinces and territories. The new
fund would provide an additional .5 percent of total new health funding per
territory to address the challenges of providing health care to small
populations scattered over vast geographical areas across
C= urrently, one of the premiers mentioned that the per capita funding did not take into consideration all of the small communities and the scattered populations. <= o:p>
A=
n example
of cost is the cost of a medevac in 2003 from the riding of Vuntut Gwitchin,
from Old Crow to
W=
e had a
vision to ensure that Yukoners had access to comparable health services. The
vision that the three northern premiers had, that this Yukon Party governme=
nt
had, resulted in concrete actions. The premiers of the territories announce=
d in
2003 that they had a step forward in addressing the health care crisis in t=
he north.
The territories received a floor of $60 million for a special health fund a=
nd a
personal commitment from the Prime Minister of the day, Mr. Chrétien=
, to
find a more equitable, long-term fiscal funding arrangement.
T=
he Prime
Minister also directed his officials to work with the territories to establ=
ish
a process that will address the inadequacies in the current per capita based
funding formula fiscal challenges facing the north.
T=
he
commitments came in a meeting with the Prime Minister that took place betwe=
en
the three premiers of our territories. At that time, our Premier stated that
the three territories will continue to press for a fair and more reasonable
deal for Canadians living in the north. He went on to say we have a commitm=
ent
from the Prime Minister that the federal government will work with us to
develop a funding allocation that addresses the inadequacies of per capita
funding.
W=
e had a
vision, a vision to work with our sister territories, to demand of <=
st1:country-region>
F=
rom that
approach in 2005, after signing the accord in 2003, the northern premiers h=
ave
garnered over $780 million in new funding for the north. That was in 2005. =
The
premiers met three times under the accord and those meetings resulted in th=
ese
examples of funding: a $210-million increase in health funding; $360-million
increase in territorial formula financing; $90 million in economic developm=
ent
funding; and $120 million through the northern strategy.
W=
hen we
think about comparable services in the north, it brings us back to the ques=
tion
about sovereignty and security. It’s about sustainable northern
communities. We want a healthy, self-sufficient, stable and secure north.
N=
ow I will
speak a bit more directly to the bullets in this motion. The first bullet
I’d like to discuss is about encouraging existing medical clinics and
practices to expand their services and attract more health care professiona=
ls
to reside in the territory in order to improve Yukoners’ acces=
s to
family doctors.
C=
urrently,
the
I=
want to
do a little bit of a comparison of health care services in 2002 to health c=
are
services in 2010. In 2002, there were 10.5 positions available for social w=
orkers
in child protection. In 2010, there were 18 social workers for child
protection. In 2002, under social workers in adoption, there were 2.5 emplo=
yees;
in 2010, there were five. In 2002, social workers in child care were 4.75
full-time positions; in 2010, 6.5 full-time positions.
Social workers under foster care in 2002, two full-time positions; in
2010, three full-time positions.
T=
hose are
just some of the examples of how this government has worked to improve heal=
th
care accessibility to Yukoners.
I=
n 2002,
there were 21.75 employees with regard to social workers and care of Yukone=
rs.
In 2010, there are 36.5, and they range from social workers, family support=
for
children with disabilities, to people working in the child protection part =
of
the department.
M=
r.
Speaker, I want to speak a little bit about specialists and how specialist
visits to this territory have changed since the last Liberal government was=
in
office. In 2010, we had 6,531 visiting specialist clinics. In 1999, there w=
ere
1,594 visits.
I=
n 2010,
there are 363 clinic days for specialists. In 1999 there were 140. This is =
all
because of the vision we have as the Yukon Party government to ensure that
Yukoners have access to health care standards that are comparable to southe=
rn
jurisdictions.
Goal 2 in the motion states, “sponsoring the education of
H=
ealth
professions that are considered priority areas in the Yukon are dental ther=
apy,
dietetics, nutritionists, licensed practical nursing, medical imaging
technology, medical laboratory technology, occupational therapy, pharmacy,
physiotherapy, primary care/advanced care paramedics, rehabilitation therapy
aide or therapy assistants, social work, speech and language pathology and =
audiology.
T=
he
education bursary is to a maximum of $20,000 per year. The
S=
ince 2006,
this
T=
o date,
the three bursary programs have provided support to over 59 students since
2006. That’s 59 students from the
T=
he third
bullet says, “encouraging visiting health =
care
and medical specialists to offer their services in the territory by providi=
ng
them with access to appropriate medical facilities, including office space =
and
residences such as the new staff residence/health service facility being
constructed on T=
hat is
actually quite self explanatory, but if you build on that and consider that=
we
are building new facilities in Watson Lake and Dawson City, where visiting
specialists can travel to communities — can travel to communities to
provide services, so citizens of Watson Lake, Dawson City and the north
don’t have to travel to Whitehorse for all the services — that =
is
an amazing benefit for rural Yukon. I=
’m
just going to jump forward to the fourth bullet in the motion. It speaks to
establishing regional health care facilities throughout the territory, like=
the
new regional hospitals in O=
nce again,
I have to put on the floor that the Leader of the Liberal Party stated on
September 22 of last year — so it’s not just one mistake; this =
is a
repeated comment: “There is a model, a good governance model of health
care delivery used across Canada and the United States and that is to
concentrate resources in the greater population centres.” Forget about
rural T=
hen the
Leader of the Liberal Party went on to say on the September 23:
“That’s just the way it works. You make certain decisions when =
you
live in every community.” I encourage the member to travel to =
I=
’d
like the member to explain his party’s stance — the Liberal
Party’s stance — on regional health care facilities in places l=
ike &=
#8220;The
Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in, the Na Cho Nyäk Dun and the
Village of Mayo governments are pleased with the recently announced plans to
build a regional hospital in Dawson that would serve all northern Yukon peo=
ple.
We wholeheartedly support this initiative and wish to play an integral part=
in
planning the facility and its services.” I=
am going
to pause from reading that for a second just so the Liberal Party of this
territory and the NDP of this territory realize that these kinds of service=
s in
communities are supported. <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The letter goes on to say,
“Residents of the north &=
#8220;By working
together — First Nations, municipalities and territorial governments
— we ensure that regional hospitals will meet the needs of all commun=
ity
members. We would welcome the opportunity to meet with you and the City of =
&=
#8220;Thank
you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you
soon.” T=
hat letter
was addressed to the Minister of Health and Social Services on I=
t actually
gets better. I’m going to read a letter from the City of Watson Dawson
E=
ven the
City of
W= hat the Liberal Party of this territory and the NDP of this territory are voting against and saying we should not build because there is no business case for it, is emergency services. It is outpatient services such as outpatient clinics, IV antibiotics, et cetera. It is six beds providing the following services: stabilization, observation and monitoring, convalescent care, res= pite care when McDonald Lodge is unable to do so, palliative care when not avail= able in the community, acute medical detoxification, acute mental health intervention and other care as required — not supported by the NDP. <= o:p>
O=
ther
services that will be built in this new facility: First Nation health progr=
am
— not supported by the NDP and the Liberals — laboratory in- and
outpatient work, medical imaging in- and outpatient, in-patient pharmacy,
dietetic counselling, therapies. You know what else is built in this facili=
ty?
Community nursing, community health care coordinators, emergency medical
services, a medical clinic — a new medical clinic for Dawson City and=
its
residents and the north — supported by Na Cho Nyäk Dun, supporte=
d by
the Village of Mayo, supported by the City of Dawson; not supported by the =
Liberals.
R=
etail
pharmacy space, visual specialist professionals, optometrist, dentist,
audiologist, speech and language pathologist. On=
e only
has to look at the location of the new facility in Dawson City to realize t=
hat
it’s adjacency to where the new McDonald Lodge will be built will all=
ow
McDonald Lodge to provide meal services for the new Dawson City hospital, c=
utting
down on expenses. Some of the building services will be shared. The =
T=
here will
be the ability to transport patients from McDonald Lodge to the
I=
’m
going to give a little example to the opposition parties of what this facil=
ity
might look like. The main level will have space for medical clinics. I̵=
7;m
looking here at a detailed drawing. It has one, two, three, four, five R=
12;
six medical examining rooms — not supported by the Liberals or the ND=
P.
It has a pharmacy in this new facility — not supported by the opposit=
ion
parties. It has in-patient rooms, six beds — six patient beds. It has
emergency diagnostic services on the side opposite
I=
t has a
family room lounge, in-patient waiting area; it has building support; it has
staff areas, and that’s just the main level. Lo and behold, thereR=
17;s
a second level, and guess what’s on the second level? Community suppo=
rt
programming for community nursing.
T=
his new
facility will provide more office space, more medical examination rooms for
community nursing, more space for staff support, more teaching space and a
First Nation room, yet, it is opposed by the
opposition parties. I know why they are opposing it. It’s because
it’s rural
W=
e can go
on to the
O=
nce again,
I would encourage members opposite to travel to my community and say to
I=
had a
friend, about a week and a half ago, who had some health concerns. They cou=
ld
have been minor; they could have been extreme. We don’t know, because=
she
was medevaced to Whitehorse
I=
took time
out to visit that individual in the hospital where she was monitored. She
wasn’t monitored in
I
don’t know the opposition parties can stand up and tell my friends, t=
ell
my family members, tell rural Yukoners that they need to be medevaced
for everything, because currently that is what happens. If the members are
unaware of that, travel to the communities, speak to people and ask them if
they have ever, in the last number of years, spent more than a couple of
minutes in the nursing station. The nursing station provides amazing servic=
es
with the resources they have — amazing services — and I commend=
the
work they are currently doing, but they react as first responders and then
medevac people to Whitehorse. We don’t even give them the option of
working with doctors to watch people in the communities.
T=
hat is
what we are doing. We are building health care facilities so there can be
in-patient care in the communities. The members opposite are saying, “=
;Travel
to
J=
ust
recently, in February 2011, the NDP stated that there are a lot of projects
that are necessary in this territory. It’s about having a vision and
staying in touch with what Yukoners want and not going out and initiating l=
arge
projects without consulting Yukoners, such as hospitals, as in
I=
support
this Hospital Corporation, its board of directors and its capable staff in =
how
they are managing these two new facilities and the residents across the str=
eet
from here. I support them. This Yukon Party government supports them. The NDP, not so much, because they said that on
N=
ot only
are we looking out for health care in rural Yukon, on February 14, 2011, a =
joint
venture that could see significant changes to the way that the Whitehorse
General Hospital campus looks and functions was announced by the Yukon Heal=
th
and Social Services minister and the Hospital Corporation.
A=
joint
steering committee will be established to oversee the development of strate=
gic
campus facilities planned and a master plan looking at new and necessary
construction on the land around the hospital, including such critical needs=
as
an expansion to the emergency department and space for a new MRI room. Not =
only
are we looking out for rural
T=
he members
opposite do have some explaining to do. I know they’re going to get up
and say it’s taken out of context. Well, you can’t say don̵=
7;t
build a hospital in
W=
e are
encouraging the expansion and continuation of Telehealth is available in =
Dawson
T=
here is so
much that this Yukon Party government has envisioned for health care needs =
of
the Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Point of order Speaker: The Hon. Member for Whiteho=
rse
Centre, on a point of order. Ms. Hanson: Mr. Speaker, when somebody was clea=
ring
their throat — I was not doing that.=
Please, Mr. Speaker, decorum is expected in this House. Mr. Nordick: I apologize to the member opposite.=
Speaker’s ruling Speaker: The apology then nullifies =
the
point of order, but it was a good point of order. T=
he Member
for <=
o:p> Mr. Nordick: On February 10, 2011 — the Le=
ader
of the Liberal Party stated: “Clearly, the side opposite — the =
government
— has come to the conclusion, contrary to all evidence and all expert
advice, contrary to accepted practices across the country, contrary to any
rhyme or reason …” on how to provide medical services. I encour=
age
the member opposite to stand up and say how providing a level of how one
provides health care to Yukoners that is a standard across Canada is contra=
ry
to any reasonable practices across this country or contrary to any rhyme or
reason, as stated by the Leader of the Liberal Party. S=
o it goes
back to my opening remarks with regard to a vision for health care in this
territory, a vision that we were elected on in 2002, re-elected on in 2006,=
and
acted upon by the Yukon Party Premier — the three northern premiers i=
n Ottawa
— to demand health care that is comparable in the north to what is
offered down south. I=
could go
on all day, but I do want to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party stand up =
and
explain the Liberal stance. I encourage him to do that, because my community
would like to hear what he has to say about the Liberal stance on a regional
hospital in I=
also
encourage the Leader of the Third Party to stand up and explain the NDP’s vision for health care in A=
ctually, I
remember the former Leader of the NDP saying it was an insane direction. He
used the words “insane direction” for a health care facility in
Dawson City, yet I read a letter from Na Cho Nyäk Dun and the mayor and
council of Mayo and Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in supporting what=
the
NDP and the Liberals consider the wrong direction for health care in rural
Yukon. S=
o when a
citizen from Old Crow gets health care services in a couple of years in Daw=
son
City, and the Member for Vuntut Gwitchin, whoever it is at the time, is
visiting their constituents in a hospital in Dawson City, I encourage that
member, in the future, to remember what the Liberal Party would have done. =
They
would not have built that hospital in <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
Well, it is indeed interestin=
g to
stand today to address the motion from the current Member for T=
o begin, I
just want to say that this is an interesting motion. It is certainly a moti=
on
worth debating. I would have to say that it’s a little surprising that
we’re debating this motion on the government’s ultimate motion =
day
and the last spring sitting of this Assembly, of the 32nd Yukon
Legislative Assembly. Based on laying out the plan for health care, one wou=
ld
have thought that the Member for Klondike might have brought this motion
forward perhaps in December of 2006, following the election of the governme=
nt
he’s so proud to sit with. He might have brought these ideas forward
then, since he points out what was included in their platforms in 2002 and
2006. T=
he member
has a lot to say about other people’s opinions. That might have been
indicative of a planning approach to actually lay out the plan at the
beginning, rather than trying to lay out the plan at the end. However, better late than never. We’re used to s=
eeing
this government make decisions and then try to explain them by creating the
plan after the fact. We’ve certainly seen that in the evolution of the
health care facilities in rural W=
e saw his
predecessor, the former Member for Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Point of order Speaker: The Hon. Premier, on a poin=
t of
order. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
I must point out to the Lib=
eral
leader that the Member for Speaker: The Hon. Member for Copperb=
elt, on
the point of order. Mr. Mitchell:
There is no point of order. T=
he
member opposite didn’t cite any Standing Order that has been violated=
. He
simply would like to comment on comments made from this side. Speaker’s ruling Speaker: From the Chair’s pers=
pective,
there is no point of order; it is simply a dispute between members. L=
eader of
the Official Opposition, you have the floor, please. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
As I was saying, it’s an
interesting approach to advocating for what should be done — to go ah=
ead
without the plan for five years and then present the plan two weeks before =
the
end of the sitting. However, we will deal with it because that’s the
motion that is on the floor. N=
ow, the introduction
of the motion says “that this House urges the Government of Yukon to
continue to ensure that Yukoners have access to a standard of health care t=
hat
is comparable to the standards in other jurisdictions in N=
ow, the
previous speaker, the MLA from H=
e said
they walked out on the Prime Minister in 2005. That was how they presented
their vision. They staged a walkout, Mr. Speaker. That’s what the Mem=
ber
for T=
hat must
be the plan, because we certainly didn’t hear one this week. We heard
that was funding that had a sunset clause and, therefore, it was the fault =
of
the former Liberal government, according to the Premier, because it was T=
he Justice
minister is apparently planning one too. We
can’t quite hear what she’s saying because she doesn’t ha=
ve
the floor, but she has a lot to say. T=
hen the
Member for T=
hat we
heard at every other door, but at the doors in between we certainly heard,
“We can’t find a family physician. This government promised us =
in
2002 they would do something about it and now it’s November of 2005 a=
nd
it has gotten worse.” S=
o, they
had a plan but they weren’t executing it at that point. Here’s
another stat for the Member for T=
hen he went
on to say, “But it’s not actually 49 beds that are available.
It’s actually 45 beds, or 44, because there are four or five beds in =
the
secure mental health section that are segregated and aren’t available=
for
general population because they’re there for a particular purpose. If
there are any patients suffering from mental health issues in those beds, t=
hose
beds are not available for general use by other patients. S=
o we have
a hospital that once had 110 beds, when the population in W=
e really
have no issue with the preamble to this motion. We do deserve, as Yukoners,=
a
standard of health care that is comparable to the standard in other
jurisdictions in T=
he Member
for I=
have to
say that I have also been told by more than one health care provider —=
; by
both doctors and nurses in Yukon while this debate has gone back and forth
about how we provide health care in rural Yukon, and in Whitehorse to rural
Yukoners — you know, buildings don’t provide health care, people
do. T=
hey also
go on to say that we can’t keep doctors and nurses sufficiently for o=
ur
needs in S=
o, looking
at this motion, bullet number (1) says: “encouraging existing medical
clinics and practices to expand their services and attract more health care
professionals to reside in the territory in order to improve Yukoners’
access to family doctors.” We think that is a positive point. I
don’t think it requires a lot of debate, actually. I agree with the
Member for T=
he Member
for C=
ertainly,
we on this side are absolutely in favour of using financial incentives to
encourage Yukoners to return to the territory after completing their medical
training. Certainly, we are supportive of providing incentives for Yukoners=
to
undertake medical training in all the various disciplines, from physicians =
to
nurses to dietitians to medical imaging technologists and so on, as were li=
sted
off by the Member for I
don’t take credit for inventing the idea; the idea was suggested to m=
e by
constituents, by friends while I was going door-to-door, running for office=
the
first time, in the by-election of 2005 that I was successful in being elect=
ed
for Copperbelt. I had many people say they couldn’t get a family phys=
ician.
My family physician had recently retired and, when I called up to simply ge=
t a
prescription renewed at that clinic, I was told the physician was no longer
there and the physician who had come in to replace that physician had decid=
ed
to leave, so I asked for an appointment with someone else and I was told
— this is after having lived in the north for 35 years and used that
clinic; the physician from that clinic had delivered my eldest child, who w=
as
born in Yukon in 1973. I was told, “We can’t accept you as a
patient.” I said, “What do you mean? You have all my medical fi=
les.
I’ve been your patient for 35 years.” They said, “You hav=
e to
go elsewhere.” S=
o I
understood — T=
he Premier
finds it very amusing. I use this example, which the Premier finds so amusi=
ng,
because it was indicative of what a lot of Yukoners were going through. I
raised that issue in this House. In fact, I raised it on Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
Excuse me. Does the Premier h=
ave
something to say? Because it’s hard to hear when
he’s speaking across the aisle. But if he would speak louder, I
could repeat what he says into the record. Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
The Premier is asking for
forgiveness and we will pardon him. He’s actually saying, “Pard=
on
me.” If the Premier wants a pardon, that’s fine. If he asks for
pardons and it’s in our power to give him a pardon, I will pardon the
Premier. If that’s within my power, I offer the Premier a pardon. I
don’t know how good it will be. Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
The Member for Vuntut Gwitchi=
n said
he would have to reapply, but — Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: =
; Order please. A couple of th=
ings:
first, honourable members, I would ask that you not speak to each other off=
-microphone.
The member who is speaking does have the floor. So, in general, let’s
respect that. S=
econdly, I
have talked to honourable members about interpreting other members’
motions, emotions, et cetera. We’ve just had an instance earlier toda=
y.
So, honourable members, keep that in mind. You’re here to speak to the
issue and to the motion, not to be wandering into areas of personal attacks
against other members or imputing motives against other members. K=
eeping
that in consideration, the Leader of the Official Opposition still has the
floor, please. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
Thank you for that, Mr. Speak=
er,
and pardon me. Speaker: Order please. We don’=
t need
any comments. We just need the honourable member to carry on debate. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
On December 6, 2005, I said d=
uring
Question Period in this House to the then acting Health minister — the
Health minister of the day or of the month, currently the Hon. Minister of =
Economic
Development, who was then the acting Health minister because the Health
minister had moved to this side of the House, as Health ministers are wont =
to
do under the Yukon Party government — and I will quote from Hansar=
d:
“On October 31 of this year, our c=
aucus
introduced a motion urging the Minister of Health to examine new incentives,
including forgivable tuition loans for medical students to help relieve the
Yukon’s shortage of health care professionals.” And then:
“The Liberal caucus has put forward a positive suggestion: let’s
look into forgivable tuition loans.” I went on to say in a
supplementary, Mr. Speaker: “…let’s look into setting up a
program where medical students who are willing to return to the I=
just want
to point that out because, (a) it was a good Liberal idea that I brought
forward, and (b) I did make certain to indicate that we hadn’t invent=
ed
the idea; we were pointing out something that had been successful in other
jurisdictions and we were urging the government, back in 2005, to take up t=
his
idea. The response I got from the acting Health minister of the day was,
“I do ask the member opposite to d=
o a
bit of math on this. Making forgivable loans, for instance, will give us fo=
ur
to six years to produce the first doctors who could come up here and
work.” Nevertheless, we are pleas=
ed that,
although it doesn’t happen very often, the government soon replaced t=
he
acting Health minister with another Health minister. It’s a little ha=
rd
to remember all the players because that Health minister now sits as an Ind=
ependent
member but, in fact, that Health minister did actually bring forward these
ideas. He brought them forward, he got them into their platform, and it is
something they did. S=
o I want
to thank the Premier for the uptake on a good Liberal idea. It doesn’t
happen as often as we would like, but certainly we can support this because=
we
actually started the discussion on this idea and although it met with some =
no
doubt well-intentioned, good-humoured criticism=
at
the time, the government went back and they — as the Premier is so fo=
nd
of saying — saw the folly of their ways and they in fact did implement
that program. T=
here are
benefits to this; certainly I can think of a couple of benefits. One,
obviously, is if we support young people in their studies with bursaries, w=
ith
forgivable tuition, if we provide scholarships, if we provide incentives an=
d if
we attach to these a requirement, which acts as an incentive, for students =
to
come back to Yukon and practise their professio=
n in
order to not have to repay at least a portion of these bursaries, well then
that will bring back Yukoners. H=
opefully,
if they are here for four years or five years, or whatever the requirement =
is
in order to fulfill the obligation, they will become family members and they
will be enmeshed in the community. They will have built their professions,
whether it be as doctors or as nurses or as medi=
cal
imaging technologists, dieticians and so forth. We will gain from their
expertise, which is something that is especially challenging, we know, in r=
ural
communities. So financial incentives, particularly for new graduates who may have
significant student loans, would provide compelling reasons for them to T=
hey know
about our great cultural opportunities through various theatre groups, thro=
ugh
the Yukon Arts Centre, the Guild and so forth. They know about the fantastic
recreational facilities we have, whether it be the cross-country ski trails=
or
the multiplex, the Canada Games Centre, so they’re obviously ideal
candidates. We think we can go further and that we can also institute, as h=
as
been done in other jurisdictions, tuition forgiveness for health care
professionals who didn’t grow up in W=
e think
this is a positive, and we thank the government for acting on this key Libe=
ral
idea. As I said, we brought it forward five and a half years ago in light of
the acknowledged doctor shortage we were experiencing. As I said, we
didn’t get a very warm reception. The acting Health minister didnR=
17;t
see much value in the idea and he seemed content to say, among other things
— and I have those quotes as well — that since the rest of the
country was also experiencing a shortage, this was a national problem and we
could expect the same here — but that wasn’t good enough, becau=
se
Yukoners deserved action, not fatalism and I’m glad that the governme=
nt
did take up that idea. =
Five
years and four months later, a length of time has passed, and thanks to the
Yukon Party adopting our idea we’re seeing positive effects. It’=
;s
unfortunate that as early as Question Period today, the Premier, in speakin=
g to
the Member for Whitehorse Centre, said, “Thanks but no thanks. We
don’t need any of her ideas.” The Premier said, “We
don’t need any New Democratic Party ideas. We’ve seen how bad t=
hat
is for the territory and we’ll do just fine on our own.” The Yu=
kon
Party has the answers. In fact, in Question Period they usually prefer to a=
nswer
a question with another question. <=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> Well,
I’ll be the first to say that we in the Liberal Party have many
philosophical differences from the New Democratic Party, as we do with the
Yukon Party, but I have heard good ideas come forward from the New Democrat=
s. I’ve
heard good ideas come forward from the Yukon Party. I don’t think any
member should stand on the floor of this House and say, “There are 18
members in this House, but we are not interested in ideas from any but
10.” That’s not a positive approach to governance. That’s=
the
kind of tired rhetoric that Yukoners are fed up with. There are good ideas =
that
come forward from every community and every elected member, and that is why
Yukoners have sent each and every member to the floor of this House. ItR=
17;s
not productive in debate to say, “The ideas from the opposition have =
no
value; we don’t want to hear them.” That’s not doing Yuko=
ners
a service, and it is not doing this body a service or respecting its purpose
and its intent. I=
t is no
surprise that so many people are fed up and disappointed in what they hear =
in
this Assembly, and many even question whether we would be better off not to
have party politics in W=
e had a
party that was headed by the former chair of the Yukon Energy Corporation a=
nd
Yukon Development Corporation and a former member of this Assembly and a fo=
rmer
Health minister — although, ironically, the Health minister who downs=
ized
the hospital to the state where it’s now a struggle for the health ca=
re
professionals to be able to provide the services that they need to. B=
ut
nevertheless, since the Member for N=
ow, today,
we hear of another new party being formed by Yukoners. Some of the things t=
hat
they talked about in their announcement was that=
they
are looking for better cooperation and collaboration and a better code of
conduct followed in this Assembly. I=
t’s
interesting that two terms of Yukon Party governance has inspired not one, =
but
two new parties to form in terms of Yukoners’ dissatisfaction with the
conduct they see. I would have to say there is nothing wrong with asking
questions in this Assembly, but one would hope to occasionally receive answ=
ers.
S=
o to get
back to this motion, I will move on to point (3). Point (3) says:
“encouraging visiting health care and medical specialists to offer th=
eir
services in the territory by providing them with access to the appropriate
medical facilities, including office space and residences, such as the new
staff residence/health service facility being constructed on I=
t is a
challenge, no matter how we approach it, to enable Yukoners to receive
treatment from medical and health care specialists. There are obviously two
ways in which we do it. Sometimes we are able to bring the specialist to =
span> R=
ural
Yukoners often have to travel to W=
ithout
getting personal, I suspect there’s probably not one of us in this
Assembly who hasn’t either received treatment from a visiting medical
specialist or travelled Outside to see a medical
specialist. I’ve done both and I’m very appreciative of the fact
that our public health system has enabled me to receive the best possible
treatment. W=
e have a
small population that’s spread over a large area and visiting special=
ists
provide a level of expertise that Yukoners would otherwise not have access =
to.
You know, I think we have four general surgeons operating — no pun in=
tended
— but practising medicine and operating in
Yukon at this time, and we’re very fortunate indeed to have them here.
I’m very thankful, as my fellow MLAs know, I had an accident last year
and I had to receive surgical treatment and I got the best possible care he=
re
in I=
was fortunate,
because he did, in fact, do an excellent job here in W=
e do need
to encourage those specialists to come and to come again and return. Having=
the
right kind of medical facilities and residences for the visiting specialists
does encourage that. Although we have asked questions about the financing a=
nd
the ultimate costs of that facility, we haven’t questioned whether or=
not
we needed to replace the old facility. We’ve only asked how it is goi=
ng
to be funded and how the money that’s borrowed is going to be paid ba=
ck.
We’ve asked questions as to what the breakdown will be on the space
between the residential portion and the office space and clinical space, if
there will be any. T=
hat’s
our job here and members opposite shouldn’t take offence. To his cred=
it,
when we ask those questions, the Health minister endea=
vours
to answer them and we do appreciate that. I=
t is
important to not only ensure that visiting specialists have access to
appropriate residences, but that our local medical professionals also have
access to an acceptable level of housing. Professionals who have been visit=
ing
are not always provided with the standard of housing provided they expect a=
nd
are entitled to, and that would encourage them to stay long term in their
communities. Just recently we heard of concerns from a nurse in Beaver Cree=
k;
we’ve heard this again and again. It’s a larger issue —
adequate housing for medical professionals — and one we hope to retur=
n to
on another occasion. R=
egarding
point (3), we agree that we need to do whatever we can to encourage visiting
health care and medical specialists to offer their services in the territor=
y. W=
e do have
questions, in particular, and will get into them in the Health debate. When=
the
specialists are visiting, how much time can they spend, for example, going =
to
Dawson and Watson to provide specialists’ services? You know, it is a=
five-hour
or six-hour drive, depending, and physician time is very valuable time, whi=
ch
is why rural Yukoners come in to receive treatment from the specialists when
they are here. It has been done as an efficiency=
. But
for the Member for I=
’d
like to move on to the fourth point because it’s one that has some
wording that we think is maybe a little problematic. T=
he fourth
point in the Member for I=
certainly
was new when it was being debated in 2005 and 2006, but I presumed that the=
re
were studies done and a needs assessment done and consultation done with he=
alth
care professionals, both the existing practitioners within Yukon — wi=
th
the Yukon Medical Association, with the Yukon Registered Nurses Association
and, of course, because we’re a small jurisdiction, with health care
professionals outside of Yukon in rural Canada — not just in the nort=
h,
but in rural areas of British Columbia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, what have you
— to find out how this is done elsewhere and how it is best provided.
That is how the government would have come to the decision to build these t=
wo
$5-million, multi-level health care facilities. I=
t became
apparent over time that there never was a needs assessment done to come to =
that
decision. There never was an analysis done. There never was a close examina=
tion
of the existing facilities. The government simply made the decision and
announced it. They said, “This is what we’re going to do because
this is what the people in S=
o we do
support high-quality, responsive and sustainable health services in rural <=
/span> We
certainly can’t maximize the funding that is available to us in Yukon
— the some $800 million a year that comes from Ottawa and elsewhere
— or, closer to $900 million, actually, out of a billion-dollar budget
— 89 percent, I believe in this past year. If we simply make a decisi=
on,
make a political announcement and say, “This is what we are going to =
do
and then we’ll figure out how to explain it later.” W=
ell, we
watched and we asked questions over the years. We watched the very slow pro=
cess
that went forward in both Watson and Dawson. What happened in B=
ut, in the
end — and I’m sure this is probably something the Member for
Klondike heard when he was running for office and maybe it was even one of =
the
reasons for running — the Member for Klondike of the day worked on th=
ose
plans for so long they never got beyond the planning stage. Not one shovelf=
ul
of dirt was ever turned. We didn’t ever see the health care centre =
8212;
a multi-level health care facility or any other health care facility —
built in Dawson during that time, from 2004-05 until the 2006 election. That
was very disappointing for I=
n T=
hat was by
the former Health minister, the Member for T=
hat is
something they have the right to do, and they eventually announced they were
going to build two $25-million hospitals — one in W=
hen the
government did this, we had a lot of questions for the government. The firs=
t we
knew of it was when we discovered an RFP on one of the government websites,
because the government didn’t exactly announce it up front. This RFP =
was
to hire a local architectural firm to examine the $5-million shell — =
it
might have only been a $4-million shell at that point in time, but the
government kept putting money into it — and see whether it could be
converted or be used at all as part of a new hospital, because there were
problems regarding infrastructure of the new facility — the new shell
— that had been built. T=
he
drainage and supply plumbing was built into the slab at ground level, where
elevator shafts were located, where the kitchen facility was located, so the
government had to spend money to determine if they could use the $5-million
empty shell, as the Health minister has often described it. After two, thre=
e,
four years, five years, there has never been one patient treated in this
$5-million multi-level health care facility that had morphed into the shell=
. T=
he
government did this sort of reverse planning, where first you build somethi=
ng
— and I’m sure we’ll hear more about this later from the
Member for Mount Lorne, because he has a great deal of expertise when it co=
mes
to construction and planning of construction, and has often talked about ch=
ange
orders and the expense incurred by change orders when the government builds
this. It’s a pretty expensive proposition when a government undertake=
s to
do this without planning it properly. T=
his was a
real concern of the government, and it should be a concern of the government
because, in February 2007, the Auditor General of S=
he said,
“In September 2003, the department received a work request from the
Department of Health and Social Services to initiate a needs assessment
feasibility study and functional program for a care facility in T=
hat must
have been a frustrating experience. You have a plan, supposedly; you have b=
een
asked to initiate a needs assessment, a feasibility study, and a functional
program; you have asked the department to manage the projects; and then you
exclude the project manager from the meetings to manage the project. T=
he Auditor
General went on to say, “The department indicated that the roles,
responsibilities, authority, and accountability of all parties in the proce=
ss
were not clearly defined. It was essentially participating after the fact,
receiving information following meetings between the design consultant and =
the
client department.” Then it gets really interesting. Here’s what
the Auditor General found: “In December 2004, the department recommen=
ded
that it decline the assignment for these two projects. In June 2005, the
Minister of Highways and Public Works, on behalf of the department, declined
responsibility for the projects.” W=
ell, that
must have been a fascinating day. When the then Highways and Public Works
minister walked into Cabinet and said, “Mr. Premier, no more. My
department is not in the loop. We’re responsible for this, but the th=
en
Health minister of the day is holding meetings that we’re not invited=
to.
My officials can’t possibly manage a project if the decisions are bei=
ng
made in their absence. I want no more of it and I relinquish
responsibility.” You know, irony of ironies, like=
a boomerang
— what has happened? This project has landed back in the lap of
that same member, the Member for Riverdale South. We can only have compassi=
on
for that minister, who has inherited it again as Health minister and finds =
himself again answering questions on this floor. What =
did
the government do? The government found a way out, because it’s diffi=
cult
to answer questions when there are no good answers; it’s difficult to=
provide
a needs assessment study to justify the $25-million version when there has
never been one done. The Member for T=
he
opposition would like to see the studies that said this is the facility, th=
is
is what’s needed. The government passed it over to the Yukon Hospital
Corporation. What occurred before that happened? We asked in this House abo=
ut
it and, in a typical question set, the Health minister answers the first two
questions and the Premier jumped up for the final supplementary. W=
e were
asking how the government decided to move a $5-million health care centre a=
nd
morph it into a $25-million hospital. We asked that question. What did the
Premier say? T=
his is not
one of the quotes that the Member for T=
he
Premier, who says in his budget speech, “if this isn’t good pru=
dent
fiscal management, I don’t know what is” — well, I can see
why he would say that, because his approach to how we determine what the bu=
dget
should be is — whatever. That’s what he says — whatever
— whatever it costs. The sky is the limit — whatever it costs. =
Y=
ou know,
we can’t provide high quality medical care to rural Yukoners if we
don’t first do our homework. That means thorough, forward-looking nee=
ds
assessments, what services does this community need, how many people will n=
eed
them, how will this change over time, reliable estimates for how much facil=
ities
will cost to build and how much they will cost each year after that to oper=
ate
and maintain, not “we’ll start to build a $5-million facility in
Watson Lake, but then we’ll need to turn it into a $25-million
facility”. W=
e are
already facing a crisis of affordability with respect to health care expens=
es.
We know that health care costs have gone up — I think it’s 80
percent — over the course of the Yukon Party government. We know that=
it
has moved up to be more than one-quarter of the entire budget of the Yukon,=
and
that means that we have to make sure that we are spending the money as
efficiently and effectively as we can. W=
hat are
the staffing plans? There are already issues with recruiting and retaining
health care professionals in rural I=
’ve
heard the Member for T=
he
interesting thing, though, is — of course babies have been born in =
span> T=
he
interesting thing is that when we had the chair and CEO and CFO of the Hosp=
ital
Corporation here this year and last year, we asked the Hospital Corporation
what the plans were for delivering babies in the new, planned facilities in
Watson Lake and Dawson City. Were there special facilities and equipment to=
be
provided for delivering babies? Would it only be some babies, depending on
whether it seemed to be a fairly straightforward pregnancy or there were
potential complications? What kind of expertise? Would there be an ob/gyn sourced to live in those two communities, because=
you
can’t simply hope the babies will be born on their projected delivery
date. T=
he
majority of families I’ve known, the babies are born on any date other
than the projected delivery date, so it’s pretty hard just to have the
visiting specialist show up and say, “Now’s the time.” T=
he answer
we got is that there were no plans to deliver babies at either hospital =
212;
that that was not going to be something the Hospital Corporation entertained
doing, and that babies would continue to be born at W=
e know the
Member for T=
he
Hospital Corporation has said, “No, we don’t plan to do
that.” Again, when I asked what studies were made and undertaken to
determine the level and function of these hospitals, before the hospitals w=
ere
announced — not what studies the Hospital Corporation, which has now =
been
given the responsibility, is making to determine how to lay out the hospita=
l.
What studies and needs assessments were done before the Premier stood up and
said that whatever it costs, that’s what will be spent? T=
he answer
I got from the Health minister was, quote: “As such, we are going thr=
ough
the process, in conjunction with the Whitehorse Hospital Corporation, to as=
sess
the needs for that particular building and how that building can be utilize=
d to
enhance health care for A=
gain, it
comes down to the level of care. Of course, it is preferable to receive care
closer to home in the communities, but is the level of care that will be
provided as good as what will be received by those Yukoners if they are in =
O=
ne of the
other examples that were cited in this Assembly last year during debate was
that there was an unfortunate accident — a tragic accident actually
— at the new Wolverine mine. O=
ne worker
was killed; another was badly injured. It was pointed out that the injured
worker was in fact flown to I=
would
like to point out a couple of things to the government and the Member for
Klondike: (1) the worker received treatment at an existing medical facility,
because treatment is provided by health care professionals, not by building=
s;
and (2) we followed up on that with the Hospital Corporation, and I’ve
also followed up on that by asking other health care professionals, includi=
ng
surgeons, “Is that what we will do?” If there is a tragic accid=
ent
— and we hope there won’t be any more accidents; the Workers=
217;
Compensation Health and Safety Board is working hard toward that objective
— but if there is an accident in a mine in southeast Yukon or in a mi=
ne
operation west of Carmacks, north of Carmacks near Dawson City, beyond local
first aid and emergency care — obviously, if somebody is hurt in the
goldfields they’ll be taken into Dawson first. B=
ut will
people then — will people from near Mayo be mede=
vaced
to A=
gain, the
question is, what level of hospital? We know P=
oint (5),
“utilizing and expanding telehealth care services throughout the
territory” — well, telehealth is a medical services deli=
very
tool. It uses video conferencing to provide health care services and educat=
ion
to 14 We support enhanced medical services in the communitie=
s and
using this technology is in fact one way to do it. Telehealth connects peop=
le
in the communities to medical professionals in larger centres like I=
t could be
the Premier needs to stage another walkout. We don’t know, but we do
think it’s a worthwhile program. How will this be paid for in the fut=
ure?
With what funds does the government intend to expand it? Is there a business
case for expanding it? We look forward to the Health minister, when he̵=
7;s
on his feet, responding to those questions. We do think it’s a good p=
lan
and it should be continued. W=
e do
support it. I’m loathe to say we support i=
t. You
know why, Mr. Speaker? Not because we don’t think it’s a good i=
dea.
Unlike the Yukon Party, we actually can acknowledge a good idea. We can
actually say, “Good job for instituting this. It provides additional
options for health care, particularly for rural Yukoners, but also for Yuko=
ners
in T=
he problem
is that because we don’t have confidence in this government and their
financial and fiscal management, because we see this government continuously
cited by the Auditor General for lack of proper planning and for running T=
hat
obviously means that when the Premier sat in opposition, he was opposed to
everything, too, because he, too, voted against budgets and spoke out again=
st
them. But we’ve never tried to make that case. W=
e actually
understand the T=
here’s
a point that I wanted to make. I’ll go back to point (4) on those two
health care facilities because they’re not actually just $25-million
health care facilities. The government has used what I could only describe =
as
“new math”. I know when I was a student in grades 6 and 7, they
were constantly publishing textbooks and it was the new math. But two and t=
wo
always added up to four, no matter how they described it in the books. W=
e’ve
seen some interesting new math, because the two $5-million facilities became
two $25-million facilities. Then it just became $50 million for two facilit=
ies.
Okay, I understand that math. Then the government said they were going to s=
pend
more in T=
hat
sounded like it made sense until they completed the sentence:
“We’re only going to spend $22 million in I=
know
there are other members eager to speak to this motion today. Point (6) says,
“ensuring Yukoners have priority access to=
health
care and medical services in other jurisdictions, primarily I=
sort of
presume he was encouraging the Premier to walk out on the Prime Minister ag=
ain
— stage another walkout. Now, we know that federal funding is running
out. We know that W=
ill there
be cuts? Will there be fees? Will fewer Yukoners be able to access medical
specialists outside the territory? Well, we’re kind of nervous, becau=
se
we’re hearing from Yukoners that they’re nervous about that.
We’ve heard two answers. The Health minister has never actually stood=
up
while we’ve been having this debate and said, “No. I guarantee
there will be no new fees imposed.” He said, “We’re looki=
ng
for efficiencies. We’re not looking for cuts in service.” T=
he
Premier, on the other hand, kind of said so on t=
he radio
the other day, we think but we’re not sure. So I think we need more
clarity on this point. A=
s a
result, I would like to improve this motion with a friendly amendment in the
interest of clarity. I’d like to propose a friendly amendment, and I
think the government will probably be able to support it because we all need
clarity and certainty. <=
o:p> Amendment
proposed Mr. Mitchell:
In the opening paragraph of t=
he
motion, I move T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340 be amended by inserting immediately after the words “to a
standard of health care” the following: “, without the impositi=
on
of health care fees,”. Speaker: The amendment is in order. =
It is
moved by the Member for Copperbelt T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340 be amended by inserting immediately after the words “to a
standard of health care” the following, “, without the impositi=
on
of health care fees,”. T=
he Member
for Copperbelt has 20 minutes on the amendment, please. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
Well, I don’t think
I’ll need 20 minutes. The Premier is looking to be in an agreeable mo=
od,
so I will lay out the case. First of all, the Member for W=
ell, here
is one aspect of it: the Liberal caucus is categorically opposed to new hea=
lth
care user fees. There you go. We believe in a vibrant, effective, sustainab=
le
health care system for Yukoners. But the government is required to provide
first-rate, affordable, publicly funded health care without the imposition =
of
means tests, user fees, premiums or any other word to describe something wh=
ich
we now do not have. T=
he Member
for Whitehorse Centre, a little while ago when we were waiting to see if the
amendment was in order, said that she could support that. Off microphone, s=
he
said that Tommy Douglas would be pleased to hear it. I would again say that
Tommy Douglas was a great Canadian. He can truly be called the father of
universal health care, so I think that it’s a good principle to conti=
nue
to provide affordable health care to Yukoners. P=
revention,
education and good planning are the best means to reducing health care cost=
s. P=
roperly
planning and budgeting for our health care needs means that shortfalls in t=
he
Health budget won’t have to be passed on to individual Yukoners throu=
gh
fees. I spoke about the need to properly plan health care facilities earlier
this afternoon. U=
nder the
Yukon Party over the past nine years, health costs have risen greatly and it
has been said by the government that this is not sustainable. In fact, what=
the
government hasn’t said is they are so short on funds that new health =
care
facilities are being built entirely with borrowed money. They justify that =
by
saying it’s only right that the people who=
will
benefit in the future from these facilities should pay for them. I would po=
int
out that, in the past, the government didn’t find the need to borrow =
the
money to build new health care facilities, to build new housing facilities,=
to
build new facilities for elders, to build new schools. N=
ow they
are running out of money so they have to borrow the money into the future
through the Crown corporations, authorized by the government. The money is =
all
being borrowed. We believe that individual Yukoners and their families shou=
ldn’t
have to pay for the Yukon Party’s poor financial management. This
government’s poor planning should not cost Yukoners when they or their
family members need medical services, so that is why we oppose new fees. Us=
er
fees would predominantly fall to, or have the greatest impact on, those who=
are
least able to afford them. T=
o quote
from What We Heard: A Public Dialogue on the Yukon Health Care Review: F=
inal
Report: “The odd anomaly in health and illness is that all too
often, those who use the illness care system the most may be the ones least
able to afford user fees, premiums or other means of creating revenue. Perh=
aps
some means of applying this ‘burden’ to the entire population m=
ight
be more appropriate and more acceptable to the values and beliefs of Yukone=
rs.” T=
hat was
the Yukon Advisory Committee on Nursing in their response to the What We
Heard document. Now, as I have said, the Liberal caucus does not support
penalizing those with low incomes when it comes to accessing necessary heal=
th
services. W=
hen people
have access to preventive and early intervention health care, they enjoy be=
tter
health, and they cost the health system less in the long run. That’s
where we must focus our greatest efforts. We are concerned that user fees, =
were
they to be imposed, could discourage or prevent people from seeking help ea=
rly
on, when it would be most beneficial — preventive medicine, says the
Member for Kluane — and early diagnosis. T=
he Premier
has given mixed messages in the past. The Liberal caucus has been clear on =
our
position on user fees, but the Premier has been less certain. Let me read f=
rom
the Premier’s Some Hon. Member: (Inaudible) Mr. Mitchell:
“Uh oh,” says the
Member for Kluane. The Premier must have forgotten when he said that. He st=
ood
on the floor of this House and read it out: “some carefully planned
private/user fee health care services.” Those were the Premier’s
words. That’s a real concern because now we see the $300,000 consulta=
tion
or review by accountants for efficiencies. We’re not sure what that
means. Could those be for the carefully planned private/user fee health care
services? Now in response to the former Member for Whitehorse Centre, the
Premier said on April 1, some six days later, “There is no process to
increase fees, apply user fees. There was, in the past, a fee that Yukoners
paid toward health care, but that is not what the government is doing
today.” On M=
ore
recently, the Health minister has not ruled out user fees categorically for
those requiring medical travel because he’s under pressure, as
we’ve said, with federal funding running out and no plans in place to
deal with that — spending $300,000 on Outside consultants. So, we thi=
nk
that this small amendment, just adding the words “without the imposit=
ion
of health care fees” will provide clarity to Yukoners on the plans of
this Yukon Party and Yukon Party government, at least for the duration of t=
his
term, perhaps going forward — although if the Premier could give two
different views six days apart, it’s hard to know what the views migh=
t be
before and after an election. Nevertheless, we could get some clarity in the
House today. I encourage all members to support this amendment. T=
hank you,
Mr. Speaker, and I thank all members for their attentive listening today. <=
o:p> Mr. McRobb: I do feel it worthwhile to =
get on
the record to speak in favour of this particular amendment this afternoon. =
The
government side has failed, once again, to step up to the plate and make its
views known in debate. We’ve received no indication from the governme=
nt
side that the members are willing to accept this friendly amendment that wi=
ll
best serve the interests of Yukoners by clarifying the issue of future user
fees. O=
nce again,
how can we trust the government from essentially failing to engage in the
debate and knowing the government side likes to use its majority to defeat
opposition side amendments to motions? Hopefully, the government side will =
have
a few extra minutes to reflect on how it intends to approach voting on this
amendment. W=
ith this
additional highlight on its voting record and attention given to this amend=
ment
this afternoon, hopefully it will see the light and be prepared to support =
the
commitment to avoid future user fees in the territory by lending its majori=
ty
support in this Legislature, so that this friendly amendment — and I
think it goes beyond the acknowledged definition of “friendly” =
from
just members in this Assembly to the broad definition to being friendly to =
all
Yukoners. Anyway, hopefully the government side will have a few more minute=
s to
see the virtue in supporting a vote on this amendment this afternoon. <=
o:p> Ms. Hanson: I rise in support of this friendly
amendment. There are several reasons that the NDP would support this amendm=
ent,
not the least of which is the restating of an absolute fundamental principl=
e of
medicare health care in T=
he Yukon
Health Care Review did speak to the possibility of an imposition of user
fees. The government of the day, the government we have today, said at the =
time
that they would convene this larger panel — a public dialogue —=
on
Yukon health care to gauge what Yukoners’ responses were to the 43
recommendations of the health care review. Y=
ukoners
came out very strongly with respect to those recommendations. When the Y=
ukon
Health Care Review recommended that government should consider a user f=
ee,
30 percent of respondents strongly disagreed. I think it’s important,
given the words and comments made earlier by the Member for In
addition, I’m not going to speak long. This is just a fundamentally
important piece and speaks to the issue of trust. We’ve seen the
government ignore the health care review, ignore Taking the Pulse, a=
nd
ignore the Auditor General’s recommendations and observations with re=
spect
to lack of planning. W=
e need to
have some assurance that the sort of general statements of intent with resp=
ect
to how the Government of Yukon would move forward in terms of ensuring a
standard of health care — that it’s done in the context of it b=
eing
done without the imposition of health care fees. Mr. Speaker, my final comm=
ent
is that the Leader of the Liberal Party made an earlier comment today about=
the
importance of working in a non-partisan manner and it’s quite delight=
ful
to be able to support this motion, because if one thinks back about 50 years
ago this year, to 1961, in fact it was a Liberal opposition leader in
Saskatchewan who argued strongly against health care. We can see the evolut=
ion
of political thinking. It’s wonderful to see. I’m very happy to
support this friendly amendment to this motion. <=
o:p> Speaker: Are you prepared for the qu=
estion
on the amendment? Some Hon. Mem=
bers:
Division. Division <=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Speaker:
Division has been called. <=
o:p> Bells Speaker: Madam Deputy Clerk, please =
poll the
House. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Agree. Hon. Ms. Taylor: =
Agree. Hon. Mr. Hart: Hon. Mr. Kenyon:
Agree. Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Agree. Hon. Mr. Lang: Hon. Ms. Horne: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Agree. Mr. Nordick: Agree. Mr. Mitchell:
Agree. Mr. McRobb: Agree. Mr. Elias: =
Agree. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Mr. Inverarity: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Ms. Hanson: Agree. Mr. Cardiff: =
Agree. Mr. Cathers:
Agree. Deputy Clerk: Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare=
the
amendment carried. Amendment
to Motion 1340 agreed to <=
o:p> Speaker: Is there any debate on the =
main
motion as amended? <=
o:p> Mr. Cathers:
It gives me pleasure to rise =
here
today in support of the motion as amended. I won’t spend a long perio=
d of
time this afternoon talking about this motion. Other members, including the
mover of the motion, provided a fair bit of information about this and I
appreciated the information the Member for Klondike provided, in particular
about the success of a number of the programs, including the bursary progra=
ms,
the programs to attract visiting health care and medical specialists to off=
er
services in the territory and the expansion of telehealth, for examp=
le,
and other services encompassed within the motion. O=
ne thing I
would like to do very briefly here — I think the amendment to the mot=
ion
was a positive one, but I think the mover of the motion, the Member for
Copperbelt, did miss something in his amendment. The amendment encompasses
“without the imposition of health care fees”; however, fees for
health care and premiums for health care can mean two different things to
different people. The fees for health care are, or can be, related to servi=
ces
being provided, and I certainly support that inclusion. Amendment
proposed Mr. Cathers:
I would like to propose a fur=
ther
amendment accordingly: T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340, as amended, be further amended by addi=
ng
after the words “health care fees” the phrase “or premium=
s”. Speaker: The amendment to Motion No.=
1340,
as amended, is in order. It is moved by the Member for T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340, as amended, be further amended by addi=
ng
after the words “health care fees” the phrase “or premium=
s”. M=
ember for <=
o:p> Mr. Cathers:
I’d like to just note in
referencing this, as I noted in my introduction, there is a difference betw=
een
a fee and a premium. They may in some people’s minds be synonymous or
perhaps not. I’m also interested to see if the Liberal Party, in movi=
ng
the worthwhile amendment to the motion, will also be in support of getting =
on
record as opposing health care premiums or not. I=
’m
interested in seeing — I hope that all members of this House will sta=
nd
up on what I hope will be a recorded vote and indicate opposition to both
health care fees, as was already done, and health care premiums, because the
Yukon system would not be well served by the introduction of health care
premiums. It was not well served when that was in place. The
access to health care for citizens, regardless of ability to pay for it =
212;
the principle of access for each and every citizen of our territory to that
service — is an important one. I also think we’re seeing=
in
a few other Canadian jurisdictions that the imposition of health care premi=
ums
does bring some hardship for those of limited financial means. It comes wit=
h a
significant cost administration as well. So I hope that all members will
support this amendment to the motion. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
I’ll be very brief, bec=
ause
the Premier wants to get on with a vote. I=
would
just say that while we would view fees as being the sort of more inclusive,
overarching term — one example of which might be a premium — if
there is concern, as expressed by the Member for Lake Laberge — it mi=
ght
be that one would say no new fees but somehow have new premiums —
we’re amenable to this additional amendment because, if clarity is wh=
at
we’re seeking and there’s some confusion, then so be it. I think
“fees” covered “premiums,” but we can support this.
There are other things that could be done, in terms of saying “or
reduction of services” — there is lots we could add in here but=
, in
the interest of moving forward, I will sit and let others speak if they so
choose. <=
o:p> Speaker: Are you prepared for the qu=
estion
on the amendment? Some Hon. Members: =
b> Division. Division Speaker: Division has been called. <=
o:p> Bells <=
o:p> Speaker: Madam Deputy Clerk, please =
poll the
House. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Agree. Hon. Ms. Taylor: =
Agree. Hon. Mr. Hart: Hon. Mr. Kenyon:
Agree. Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Agree. Hon. Mr. Lang: Hon. Ms. Horne: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Agree. Mr. Nordick: Agree. Mr. Mitchell:
Agree. Mr. McRobb: Agree. Mr. Elias: =
Agree. Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Mr. Inverarity: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Agree. Ms. Hanson: Agree. Mr. Cardiff: =
Agree. Mr. Cathers:
Agree. Deputy Clerk: Speaker: The yeas have it. I declare=
the
amendment carried. Amendment
to Motion No. 1340, as amended, agreed to <=
o:p> Speaker: Is there any debate on the =
main
motion as amended? <=
o:p> Ms. Hanson: I rise to speak on the main motion =
as
amended. This afternoon we have heard many very interesting commentaries on=
the
subject of health care in the O=
ne of the
consistent themes that has gone through the history of this territory over =
the
last eight or nine years, though, has been a distinct lack of vision. The
Member for I=
think we
need to be mindful that we have many sources of information to help us in t=
he
discussion about what kind of health care we require in this territory and =
how
we can build on the very strong basis we already have in this territory. We=
all
acknowledge the health care professionals in this territory and the health =
care
systems do a remarkable job and often under great pressure. It’s a he=
alth
care system that is regarded by those who are practitioners and those who l=
ive
here as citizens — we regard it with pride and want to ensure we
don’t get ourselves caught in a trap where we’re basically being
promised things we cannot deliver on. I=
would
suggest that what we’ve been hearing from the member opposite and from
the Yukon Party is something that cannot be sustained and is not going to b=
e in
the future. What we’re being set up for is a big fall. T=
his
government, according to the Auditor General, within five years, increased =
the
health care spending over 47 percent. This government, in realizing the
trajectory of health care spending was going up without cease, put in place=
a
health care review to look at the sustainability of health care in this ter=
ritory,
to look at options for health care in this territory. O=
ne would
have expected that before decisions were taken about how we’re going =
to
address the sustainability of health care in this territory that this
Legislature would have reviewed that — that this Legislature would ha=
ve
debated both the health care review and the secondary, follow-up review tha=
t I
referred to earlier this afternoon: Taking the Pulse. But that did n=
ot occur. I=
nstead,
what we saw was this government, before Taking the Pulse — bef=
ore
they actually heard back from the citizens of I=
am not
disputing the need for appropriate health care facilities anywhere in this
territory. What I am disputing is taking action without a plan, which seems=
to
be the modus operandi of this territorial government. We cannot continue wi=
th a
government that refuses to listen to Yukoners and then refuses to implement=
any
of the recommendations made by the health care professionals who participat=
e in
reviews, or the science, math and economics of the arguments behind alterna=
tive
ways of delivering health care. T=
here are a
number of delivery models that are not spoken to, either by the motion that=
was
put forward by — well, I
guess he is the Cabinet commissioner — the Member for Klondike or this
government. I’d like to just speak a little bit about what is missed =
and
what is being proposed here. There is no discussion, as the health care rev=
iew
recommended — that we look at health care delivery models that talk a=
bout
expanded home care, community support programs, supported or assisted livin=
g. Y=
ou know, I
found it highly ironic that the Member for Klondike spoke about one of these
visions that the Yukon Party has, that being collaborative care. If they we=
re
serious about collaborative care models, then they would demonstrate that by
not insisting upon acute care in 2011 in communities. What we’ve seen
elsewhere are collaborative care models. The use of nurse practitioners is =
in
fact the kind of model that delivers the appropriate health care for all
citizens. You’ll find communities across the country of the same size=
as I=
’m
not suggesting that you have collaborative care only in T=
he Auditor
General identified that this territorial government does not have any data =
gathering
systems. It does not understand what it is paying now in terms of health ca=
re,
in terms of a physician’s billing, because it does not know what
physicians are doing in terms of the services they are providing on our beh=
alf.
So, there were 116,000 physician visits in the year that was examined by the
Auditor General. There is no indication of what services were provided. The=
re
is no need for you or anybody else in this Chamber to necessarily be seeing=
a
physician for a routine blood pressure check or medication renewal. Nurse
practitioners have an expanded scope of health care training. We should be
using that. None of what this Yukon Party is talking about in terms of heal=
th
care options or models they are proposing recognizes any of the substantive
work that has been done by the health care professionals in this territory =
to
look at ways of creating a health care system that is sustainable and more
cost-effective. There are a number of things that this motion does not speak
to. Basically, what it is saying is we are going to continue the spending
process without planning it. S=
o I just
want to remind this House that this is not me speaking — but just ref=
erring
back to what the Auditor General said and explaining why I find difficulty
finding confidence in accepting that the plan that the Yukon Party is setti=
ng
forward in terms of the appropriate way of delivering health care will be d=
one.
If they have not identified its most important health priorities, how will =
they
deliver on them? This is what the Auditor General has said: “has not
started to set targets for health outcomes”. So how do you know what
you’re putting in place across this territory? T=
his
territorial government has not developed key health indicators, so this
territorial government — the Yukon Party government — cannot as=
sess
whether it is providing the right programs and services. So, how do you know
that the programs and services that you’re putting in place are the r=
ight
ones? It’s time to take stock. It’s time to listen to what Yuko=
ners
said. This government has refused to listen to Yukoners and is going on
uncharted waters here, saying “Just trust us, we can spend more money=
and
it will be good enough.” Well, when the health care review was done, it said that the territ=
orial
government risks exceeding its revenue by $250 million by 2018 if it contin=
ues
on the trajectory that it’s on. T=
his
government needs to take responsibility for planning before acting. What I =
am
suggesting is that before we go further along the path — and we have =
seen
before this idea of setting up hopes and dreams, that if you just build fan=
cy
places throughout a territory or province, that will solve the problem. Wel=
l, I
would invite the members here to drive around rural W=
e cannot
give people false hopes. What we need to do is say that what we will do. As=
a
New Democratic government, we would be putting in appropriate health care
systems, based on what we heard from Yukoners and what are the best practic=
es
— evidence-based approaches to health care delivery. I=
n order to
really assist the government in delivering what the Member for <=
o:p> Amendment
proposed Ms. Hanson: I would move an amendment to Motion=
No.
1340, as amended: T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340, as amended, be further amended by deleting all clauses after the
phrase, “in other jurisdictions in Canada by” and replacing them
with the phrase, “acting upon the recommended actions contained in the
report of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled Yukon Health Services =
and
Programs — 2011, Department of Health and Social Services, and in=
the
Yukon Health Care Review final report of September 2008.” I=
would
hope that members would consider this as a constructive amendment because I
think that is does address the kinds of concerns that we’ve been hear=
ing
over and over and over again for the last three years from Yukoners across =
this
territory, from every health care professional that I’ve ever spoken =
to,
to people on the doorstep. I
can’t speak to it any more? Sorry. Speaker: The amendment to Motion No.=
1340 is
in order. It is moved by the Member for Whitehorse Centre T=
HAT Motion
No. 1340, as amended, be further amended by deleting all clauses after the
phrase, “in other jurisdictions in Canada by” and replacing them
with the phrase, “acting upon the recommended actions contained in the
report of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled Yukon Health Services =
and
Programs 2011, Department Health and Social Services and in the Yuko=
n Health
Care Review, final report of September 2008. T=
he Member
for Whitehorse Centre has about nine minutes left on the amendment. <=
o:p> Ms. Hanson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would enc=
ourage
other members of this Legislature to consider carefully the import of the
amended motion. I think it’s important that we do reflect and act in
every way possible that respects what Yukoners have identified as one of the
most important issues to them. They do that in unity, I think, with Canadia=
ns
across the country, which is to ensure that the health care systems that we
have are responsive to the changing dynamics of the country and, indeed, of
this territory. What we’re talking bout is reflecting the kinds of
recommendations that the Yukon Health
Care Review most importantly, because that’s the voice of Yukoners
— the voice of Yukoners from all walks of life, including those who a=
re
the health care professionals upon whom we rely to provide health care serv=
ices
and the voices of professionals who are not stuck in a health care model th=
at
is 10, 15 or 30 years old. T=
here have
been many changes and this territory has the opportunity — this terri=
tory
in fact passed legislation last fall to recognize the role of nurse
practitioners’ expanded scope of health care services. Nurse
practitioners are professionals who take masters degrees in health care. Nu=
rse
practitioners, in establishing collaborative health care units across this
country, what we’re seeing is physicians and nurse practitioners work=
ing
together in a cost-effective model of health care. There is no reason why, =
if
we were serious about health care changes in this territory, we wouldn̵=
7;t
be embracing it. There is nothing in the actions of this territorial
government, nor in what has been proposed in the
motion earlier this afternoon, that comes close to acknowledging this as an
option for this territory. S=
o I think
that is one element of change that is very clearly elaborated in both the
health care review and in Taking the Pulse. S=
peaker
after speaker, participant after participant, whether they did it in writin=
g or
they did it in terms of participating in meetings, when they talked about t=
he
concept of sustainability of health care in this territory, talked about the
issues of quality of service, equity, equitable access to services, consumer
choice, and compassionate care, one of the key and most important aspects of
health care and what we miss when we don’t look at the long-term and
community-based options is that many of the kinds of cares that people need=
in
their own home and in their own community are those that can be provided by=
a
collaborative health care model. When we talk about palliative health care and the ability for those
services to be provided in people’s homes in their home community, th=
at
doesn’t need an acute care facility. Acute care facilities are costly and what
we’re seeing is they’re basically not models of health care that
any other jurisdiction is promoting because you cannot sustain it. We are
talking about the need to ensure that we manage our fiscal resources the sa=
me
as we manage our home resources. You don’t spend more than what
you’ve got and this territorial government doesn&=
#8217;t
seem to get that. We’re not talking about any dramatic or crazy kinds=
of
notions here. We’re talking about the kinds of ideas that Yukoners put
forward and need to be reflected are not reflected in what’s being
proposed by this status quo approach of this Yukon Party government. S=
o they
talked about improving efficiency, talked about prevention and personal
responsibility, mental health, addictions and drug and alcohol abuse. I
don’t know how many times we’ve spoken about the need to get se=
rious
about mental health services, addictions and drug and alcohol abuse. This
territorial government has relied upon, relies upon and continues to project
that it’s going to rely upon special funds from the federal governmen=
t to
do these kinds of services. Well, quite frankly, it’s time for us as
Yukoners, as this Government of Yukon, as any Government of Yukon, to own u=
p to
the fact that these are serious issues and we need to take care of them our=
selves.
It’s not just because somebody is going to give you a little top-up m=
oney
that you’re going to deliver these programs and services. It’s
because we take them seriously and we will reallocate the resources in our
fiscal base to ensure that Yukoners have the appropriate levels of mental
health services, addictions and drug and alcohol treatments. That means in =
the
community. So, I combined the kinds of recommendations that we heard from
Yukoners with the resounding critique — and I think it was a positive
critique that the Auditor General. You know, the Auditor General takes a ve=
ry
comprehensive, systemic review of a program or service. They did that and t=
hey
did the Yukon and the Yukon government a great service by allowing us to st=
ep
back and say at this critical juncture in our history, “What do we ne=
ed
to do to improve health care services?” W=
e should
be doing that before we make decisions that are going to cost all of us and=
our
children’s children into the future. W=
hen the
Auditor General says that we don’t have a comprehensive health care
information system to collect and complete accurate health care data, one h=
as
to take stock and say, “Well, if you don’t have that, how are y=
ou
making these decisions?” We are making decisions without the wisdom of
the basis of information. W=
ithout
having that comprehensive health care information system, we therefore
don’t have a comprehensive view of the health needs of the population=
. As
the Auditor General went on to say, we are therefore unable to determine
whether changes should be made to programs and services. I=
think
there is some housekeeping to be done by this government before it starts
making these changes. What it should be doing is making sure it has its hou=
se
in order so we can, with confidence — because I don’t have
confidence and I know Yukoners don’t have confidence or trust in this
government to be moving forward on these very important matters, because th=
ey
have been going along, lurching from subject to subject. W=
e put
forward this amendment to the motion by the Member for Klondike, in
support of the idea that all Yukoners deserve and should have levels of ser=
vice
that are comparable to other jurisdictions in the country. W=
e are also
saying that when we put those comparable levels of service in place, we do =
it
because we have listened to and respected the views of Yukoners. We do it b=
ased
on the best data available to us, and we will demonstrate as government tha=
t we
will do it based on that information. M=
r.
Speaker, I commend this amendment to my colleagues here in the Legislature =
and
look forward to their support. <=
o:p> Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know I=
have
been in this Assembly a long time, but I’ve never witnessed such a de=
bacle
from the once-proud NDP of this territory. What the Leader of the Third Par=
ty
has just put on the floor of this Legislature is astounding — absolut=
ely
astounding. And that’s considering the fact that, moments ago, this v=
ery
member voted for amendments that the member has just now, with her amendmen=
t,
completely contradicted. L=
et me get
into some of this. But I have to begin with the fact that no matter what the
NDP think, what gives force and effect to health care in this country for a=
ll
Canadians is the Canada Health Act — not the Auditor General, =
not
reviews, not conversation — the Canada Health Act. That is what
gives force and effect to the delivery of a universal health care system for
all Canadians. Let us extrapolate that into comparable services. That’=
;s
the position the three T=
his whole
country went through a process back in 2004 to deal with the adequacy gap
created by the federal Liberals in cutting the CHT, in reducing the
territory’s base budget by five percent and capping equalization. The
federal Liberal government vacated their responsibility and obligation for =
the
delivery of health care in this country under the Canada Health Act.
This is really quite something, so I want to quickly get to the NDP
leader’s amendment. W=
e have on
the floor a motion, now amended twice by the Liberal caucus and by the
Independent member, that the government side has
accepted. By the way, the motion lays out a number of areas of focus for the
delivery of health care in this territory. Certainly, the government side h=
as
demonstrated its willingness to accept input from the members opposite beca=
use
once again, there is no partisan division or boundary in health care. It is
universal and it’s the W=
e know
full well that the NDP leader, all wise now in the delivery of health care,
maintains it’s not acute care, it’s something else. The NDP opp=
oses
utilizing expanding telehealth. The NDP have just stricken it from the moti=
on.
Ensuring Yukoners have priority access to health care and medical services =
in
other jurisdictions, L=
et’s
look at the Auditor General’s report. It’s this government that
continues to engage the Auditor General’s office to find ways to prov=
ide
services and programs more efficiently to T=
hat’s
a given and a constant, and we’ve done it every single year that
we’ve been in office. The Yukon Party government accepts that as a ve=
ry
strong element of good governance. That’s why we’re here. A=
nyway,
here’s what the NDP has replaced the content of the motion and delive=
ring
and enhancing health care services and access to health care for Yukoners w=
ith
— exchanging it for the Auditor General and a review. I guess the Canada Health Act — is it rescinded? But let’s begin. O=
n the
medical treatment travel program, the NDP now supports, after voting in fav=
our
of no fees or premiums, that the government should — and this is out =
of
the review; it’s a recommendation — consider introducing a user
charge for out-of-territory medical travel. This is absolutely ridiculous. A
few minutes ago, the NDP leader voted in favour of no premiums, and now the=
NDP
leader has taken a position to implement premiums for medical travel. My
goodness, look at this, Mr. Speaker — chronic disease and disability
benefits. The government should consider introducing changes to the chronic
disease and disability program that would result in a deductible and copaym=
ent
— expecting those with disabilities and chronic disease to somehow en=
ter
into a copayment program. O=
nce again,
there is a contradiction here of what just transpired moments ago. The NDP
leader voted in favour of no premiums, no fees, and is now saying, “N=
o,
the NDP has changed its mind; its position is copayment for chronic disease=
and
disability benefits.” S=
eniors
health benefits, pharmacare and extended health — the NDP has taken t=
hose
areas of health care right out of our system and the government should cons=
ider
introducing changes to the seniors pharmacare and extended health benefits
program that would result in a deductible and copayment along similar lines=
to
the seniors drug and extended care programs that currently exist in the
provinces. Moments ago, she voted in favour of no premiums, no fees, and now has taken the position that on seniors h=
ealth
benefits and pharmacare extended health, there should be fees. T=
here’s
another good one — the NDP now supports, when it comes to continuing =
care
services — and let me go over this one. It’s in the health care
review that the NDP leader has just presented to this House as the blueprin=
t,
the guide for health care, along with an Auditor General’s report. I =
find
that very interesting from a leader from the NDP. We all know that that gra=
nd
old party — the CCF and Tommy Douglas were the champions of universal
health care. I imagine that poor gentleman is rolling over in his grave aft=
er
listening to this. On
continuing care services — the daily accommodation rates charged
residents living in the government’s continuing care or long-term care
facilities should be reviewed by government with a view of adjusting them
upwards — upwards — charging Yukoners more for continuing care =
in
establishing more closely reflected rates. The NDP just voted against premi=
ums
and fees in this territory moments ago and now the NDP leader is suggesting=
we
should charge Yukoners more money for continuing care. That’s really
something. H=
ere’s
another one — insured health services. The NDP just voted in this Hou=
se opposing
premiums, opposing fees, and now has taken the position and support —
support and demand that the government should consider the introduction of
health care premiums to assist in financing the increasing cost of existing
health care services. I’ve never seen such a display. T=
his is not
a place for practice. This is the real, real issue here. That’s what =
this
Assembly is about. It’s not about practice or trying to establish some
political quirky implement here. This is serious business and the NDP leade=
r is
obviously not very serious about health care in this territory, about this =
institution
or about her job. W=
e cannot
support such an amendment because we, the Yukon Party, are consistent, are
committed, are dedicated and, long ago, we made commitments to the Yukon pu=
blic
not to implement user fees or premiums and we will not do such a thing. The=
NDP
will, and now we know, when the opposition members said, “We will use
this sitting to lay out our plans for L=
et me go
on. The NDP leader has also made light of what we’ve accomplished in =
this
country dealing with the adequacy gap on the delivery of health care. That =
has
to do with federal funding. M=
r.
Speaker, the NDP has now suggested that we should be following the review. =
Do
you know what this review actually says? I have a question: did the NDP even
read this review? It said that this extra fund — this
“top-up”, as the NDP leader put it — which, frankly, I ta=
ke
exception to. It’s far from a top-up; it’s a fundamental princi=
ple
in this country. This review says that the federal government should make t=
his
kind of investment in the north permanent. Permanent, Mr. Speaker — s=
o at
least the NDP leader has that one somewhat focused, though she calls it a
“top-up”. I hardly think that Yukoners are going to be very hap=
py
with the NDP leader’s view of what is required in this territory to g=
ive
them those comparable services and access to health care, Mr. Speaker. N=
o, we
cannot support such an amendment. Frankly, this amendment is a farce. It is=
an
amendment that is going to damage the future of this territory and its abil=
ity
to deliver health care. I=
t’s
an amendment that puts the burden of these services on the backs of Yukoners
and the Yukon Party government will not stand for it. We oppose this amendm=
ent.
It is nonsense. <=
o:p> Mr. Mitchell:
Maybe we can just dial it bac=
k a
little bit, although one can certainly enjoy the Premier’s passion,
although I think he has moved beyond passion. The Leader of the NDP brought
forward an amendment that struck out all of the subcla=
uses
and spoke to simply acting upon the recommended actions contained in the re=
port
of the Auditor General of Canada, entitled Yukon Health Services and
Programs — 2011, Department of Health and Social Services, and in=
the
Yukon Health Care Review final report of September 2008. T=
he Premier
has, in his inimitable style, certainly made the point that there are some
contradictions between the amendment before us now and the one that we
previously all supported — and the two that we previously all support=
ed
— my amendment to ensure that there would be no user fees and the Mem=
ber
for Lake Laberge also adding the word “premiums”. I=
can
certainly support the first portion of this that says “acting upon the
recommended actions contained in the report of the Auditor General of S=
o, I could
ask the Premier: if in fact we’re bound by the Canada Health Act <=
/i>and
that is what defines this to begin with, one could ask, why are we even
debating the motion at all? Because the Canada
Health Act tells us this is what we must do? However, this is the motion
that’s in front of us today. I guess my comment would be twofold. I h=
ave
some of the concerns that the Premier expressed, because I was here when th=
is Yukon Health Care Review came out.=
I was
part of the oversight committee of MLAs who met with the Health minister to=
discuss the follow-up report=
, the Taking
the Pulse report, and I have some concerns with a blanket endorsement of
this report. W=
e now have
wording in the preamble that says, “without imposing any health care =
fees
or premiums”, but just as an example — I’m not sure; the
Premier gave so many so fast I didn’t catch all of them, but the one I
turned to immediately is on page 141. Under “recommended actions̶=
1;
it says the government should consider the introduction of health care prem=
iums
to assist in financing the increasing cost of existing health care services=
in I
can’t support that. I don’t support that. I’ve spoken out=
in
this House repeatedly against that and, I don’t know, an hour ago, I
said, let me make this clear, here’s one aspect of the Liberal plan, =
no
health user fees. T=
he second
portion of this amendment, which says “and in the Yukon Health Care
Review final report of September 2008” — those are in the f=
inal
report. I=
t would
seem the amendment as it’s now worded would contradict itself, becaus=
e it
would say, earlier on, “no fees, no premiums”, and then it would
endorse a report that does include a recommendation for fees and premiums. =
That
in itself prevents me from supporting this motion, well-intentioned though I
believe it to have been — this amendment, rather. S=
econdly, I
would say, let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. I spoke =
in
support of the majority of the points in this motion, although I said I had=
a
lot of problems with point (4), because it was endorsing the two hospitals =
that
are being constructed, and our concern was that the case has not been made =
for
how that determination was made to build those particular levels of facilit=
ies.
There are things that I do support in this motion that are not necessarily =
in
either the Auditor General’s report or the Yukon Health Care Revie=
w
final report, as well as the inconsistency where it now looks as if we are
backing away from not having fees or premiums, because they are spoken of in
this report. For that alone, I can’t support the
amendment. I want to say again, and I think it was only a week ago
— maybe it was two weeks ago — when I said in this House that we
can have this debate without accusing other members, as was done one week a=
go,
of a sham or as was done today, of a farce. T=
he debate
is not a farce. We are here to debate. We call it general debate when we st=
art
dealing with the budget. We have departmental debate. Debate is what we do.=
We
should give good and fair consideration to everything that comes forward in
this House. That doesn’t mean that, because we have genuine disagreem=
ents
on spending trajectories or on philosophies or on planning — or on wh=
at
should or should not be happening in the mining industry — that we
describe other people’s views as a farce or a sham. I think it does a=
ll
of us a disservice when any of us do that. It’s why we have another p=
arty
declaring that they are going to clean this up and why we had it one year a=
go.
Until we do, since we are debating health care today, I would say, physicia=
n,
heal thyself. Until we improve how we debate in this House, the public will=
not
approve of any of us. S=
o I hope
that other members who may speak to this can express their opinions without
denigrating any member who has spoken previously. Thank you. <=
o:p> Mr. Cardiff: =
Well, I can’t help but
respond to the Premier’s misunderstanding of the amendment to the mot=
ion.
It’s unfortunate that he’s not willing to listen to what is
actually being said and chooses to give his own interpretation of what he
thought he heard. The way that the motion, as amended, read was “that
this House urges the Government of Yukon to continue to ensure that Yukoners
have access to a standard of health care that is comparable to standards in
other jurisdictions in Canada” and it was amended by adding
“without the imposition of health care fees or premiums” in that
part of the motion. We
didn’t amend that part of the motion. We still support that part of t=
he
motion. It’s kind of interesting when you listen to the Member for =
span> T=
he Yukon
Health Care Review report from September 2008 was all done in the conte=
xt
of the Canada Health Act and the provision of services. Does the Pre=
mier
not understand that? He’s the one who walked out on the Prime Ministe=
r.
Surely he understands that the review was done in the context of the Can=
ada
Health Act. We haven’t done anything in this amendment to the mot=
ion
by deleting those six clauses to negate or denigrate the Canada Health A=
ct
or our responsibilities under it to provide services to Yukoners. T=
he Premier
chose to cherry-pick or to pick out a few things in the health care review =
that
he felt were important to raise. So the six thin=
gs
that the amendment deleted, basically — there are a lot of those thin=
gs
we could also support. W=
e feel
that it is important, given the Auditor General’s report, and what it
says in the Auditor General’s report about the fact that the governme=
nt
hasn’t done a good job of identifying the most important health
priorities. It has not set targets for health outcomes and it has not devel=
oped
key health indicators. It cannot assess whether or not it’s even
providing the right programs and services and yet in these six points that =
we
suggest should be deleted at this point, they’ve already made these
decisions. We feel that there is information in the Auditor General’s
report and in the Yukon Health Care Review. This is something that t=
he
Minister of Health and Social Services tasked a group of people to do: to go
out to talk to Yukoners, to talk to the medical professionals, to look at t=
he
science of providing health care and to come up with solutions to make heal=
th
care sustainable. But the Premier is willing to basically say that this rep=
ort
means nothing, that it’s not worth anythin=
g,
that nothing in this report is valuable, that the views of Yukoners donR=
17;t
count. W=
ell, we
don’t believe that on this side of the House. There are a lot of thin=
gs
in the health care review that we support. There are also things that we
don’t support. Some of those the Premier highlighted. So if the Premi=
er
would look at the amendment to the motion, what it actually says is,
“acting upon the recommended actions contained in the report of the
Auditor General of Canada, entitled Yukon Health Services and Programs
— 2011, Department of Health and Social Services, and in the Y=
ukon
Health Care Review final report of September 2008.” N=
ow, just
so the Premier understands, acting upon recommendations doesn’t
necessarily mean accepting them. But if there are good ideas in the report,=
you
should act on them. There are two ways of acting on them: you can either ac=
cept
them or you can reject them. The Premier finds this hilarious, along with h=
is
House leader, but that’s the reality of it. So if the Premier goes ba=
ck
to the original amended motion, before we amended it again, we qualified wh=
at
it was — that we did not support fees or premiums. R=
ead the
amended motion. The Minister of Highways and Public Works doesn’t wan=
t to
read it. So the motion — Speaker’s statement=
Speaker: Order. Hon. Member for <=
o:p> Mr. Cardiff: =
The motion was amended to e=
liminate
the possibility of fees or premiums. The motion remains worded that way, ju=
st
to comfort the members on the other side — that there should be no
increase in fees or premiums. But maybe the Premier is the one who didnR=
17;t
read the Yukon Health Care R=
eview because
there are some good recommendations in there about health care delivery mod=
els,
about expanded home care, about community support programs, about supported=
assisted
living, about collaborative care models, which is one of the things we beli=
eve
should be looked at in providing health care to Yukoners, not just in Dawson
City or Watson Lake, but here in Whitehorse, in Mayo and other communities =
in
the Yukon. It’s about working together. T=
he Premier
and his colleagues are all in it together and don’t want to work toge=
ther
with others on the collaborative care model. It’s about working with
other health care professionals. It’s about providing a level of care
that’s appropriate and suitable for each individual’s health ca=
re
needs. I=
t may be a
nurse practitioner; it may be a doctor; it may be a physiotherapist; it may=
be
some other health care professional who can provide — that’s why
it’s called “collaborative”. It’s because patients
— clients of the health care system — are directed to an
appropriate level of care. They don’t necessarily have to go to a
hospital. I=
t provides
for improved communication and collaboration among the providers of health
care. The Premier doesn’t seem to understand that or to have read that
part of the Yukon Health Care Review. He chose to single out and foc=
us
only on the pieces in the health care review that recommend that fees be
increased or that there be premiums, or that people have to pay for their
medical travel. We’ve been very clear and we were very clear and conc=
ise
during the amendment proposed by the Member for Copperbelt that that’s
what we support. We support no increased costs or fees to Yukoners. I=
would
remind the Premier — the Premier is awfully critical of the NDP, but =
he
forgets where he got his start in politics. He needs to reflect on that may=
be
sometime. T=
he reality
is that at one time, when I first moved to the T=
he
government is operating in the absence of a plan. If they have a plan, they
haven’t shared it or, if this is it, quite frankly, it’s not go=
od
enough. W=
e do
believe in health care for all Yukoners; we do believe in no fees or premiu=
ms
for Yukoners when accessing health care. We do believe that there are a num=
ber
of these things listed already that are being done, and we support those. W=
e do
have a problem with some of the items. That’s why we chose to delete =
them
and focus on what Yukoners said and what professionals said. We feel that t=
here
needs to be a comprehensive plan that’s discussed here in the Legisla=
tive
Assembly. I=
think I
still have the floor, Mr. Speaker. I=
t was asked
of the Health minister and of the Premier why this document — the =
Yukon
Health Care Review — couldn’t be discussed here in the
Legislature. We requested that we bring it forward in the Legislature to ha=
ve
an open discussion, to have an open debate where we could share our views a=
bout
this document, but they chose not to do that. They commissioned —
it’s a 250-page document called the Yukon Health Care Review.
There’s another document called Taking the Pulse. It provides =
some
good information and advice about how to make the health care system
sustainable, but it is this government, on that side of the House, that ref=
uses
to have that discussion here in the Legislative Assembly about what is
contained in the document. They didn’t bring it forward. They didn=
217;t
want to talk about it. They didn’t want to act on anything that was i=
n it
or even have the discussion about what was in it. S=
o I
recognize the Premier’s reluctance to vote for the amendment to the
motion. It’s unfortunate, because we feel that basically what it does=
is
it ignores what Yukoners said. It ignores what health care professionals sa=
id.
It’s a shame that the government chooses to ignore that advice. <=
o:p> Speaker: Are you prepared for the qu=
estion
on the amendment? Some Hon. Members: =
b> Division. Division Speaker: Division has been called. <=
o:p> Bells Speaker: Madam Deputy Clerk, please =
poll the
House. Hon. Mr. Fentie: =
Disagree. Hon. Ms. Taylor: =
Disagree. Hon. Mr. Hart: Hon. Mr. Kenyon:
Disagree. Hon. Mr. Rouble: =
Disagree. Hon. Mr. Lang: Hon. Ms. Horne: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Disagree. Hon. Mr. Edzerza: Disagree. Mr. Nordick: Disagree. Mr. Mitchell:
Disagree. Mr. McRobb: Disagree. Mr. Elias: &=
nbsp; Disagree. Mr. Fairclough=
:
Disagree. Mr. Inverarity: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> Disagree. Ms. Hanson: Agree. Mr. Cardiff: =
Agree. Mr. Cathers:
Disagree. Deputy Clerk: Speaker: The nays have it. I declare=
the
amendment defeated. Amendment
to Motion No. 1340, as amended, negatived <=
o:p> Speaker: Is there any debate on the =
main
motion? <=
o:p> Mr. Fairclough: <=
span
lang=3DEN-US style=3D'mso-ansi-language:EN-US'> On the motion as amended, I=
would
like to say a few words to Motion No. 1340, as it is amended. I thank the
Member for I=
t’s
like perhaps that member has information that this may not take place and we
have to urge the government to continue to do its work. It’s unfortun=
ate,
but it’s not something new that the government is bringing forward. If
the government side had something new, I think they would have presented it
either through a ministerial statement or by a government motion, but
we’re asking the Government of Yukon to continue to ensure Yukoners h=
ave
access to standard health care here in the territory. Q=
uite
often, we hear from the government side also that the health care here in t=
he
territory is of a higher standard than we have elsewhere in I=
know that
the Member for E=
ven the
Auditor General was not kind to government in how they handled big projects=
in
the territory. We have issues with that because we have seen this facility =
in I
wouldn’t be surprised about the outcome of the election here in six or
seven months down the road, or earlier, that the Yukon Party will be sittin=
g on
this side of the House, and projects that perhaps they started — they
will not agree to in this House, and vote against them. Isn’t that
interesting that the member opposite would do that? When there was a positi=
on
offered to the community of Mayo — a doctor’s position — =
the
Yukon Party wasn’t very happy about that. They didn’t approve t=
hat.
That was the number one issue in 1996 to the community in Mayo. That was the
number one issue: they wanted a doctor. They have a hospital in that commun=
ity.
That community is growing. It has a mine that’s in full swing right n=
ow
in the community of I=
t was the
Yukon Party that voted against that expenditure. I don’t know why they
keep saying this on the floor of the Legislature, but it will be interesting
because they will be on this side of the House, because the general public =
is
tired and they don’t trust this Yukon Party government’s inform=
ation
they present to the public. W=
e’ve
said over and over again that this government should be making informed
decisions. In regard to the extended care facilities in I=
brought
up one issue in talking with some of the doctors in the territory that would
have vastly improved their job, and that is improving some of the equipment=
in
the nursing stations around the territory. T=
hey wanted
to see that. I know they talked with the minister. There have been meetings,
but that improvement just didn’t take place. There were simple things,
like having standard equipment for the ambulances around the territory. I t=
hink
that has happened — slowly, but surely, that has happened. I do have a
lot to say in regard to this motion, but I’m going to just sit down a=
nd
either put a vote to it or if anyone on the government side would like to g=
et
up and speak to it or the Third Party, I will let that happen. <=
o:p> Mr. Cardiff: =
I would like to take this
opportunity — I had the opportunity to speak to the amendment previou=
sly
and talked a little bit about the motion as it was amended. Basically, the =
way
that the motion would read is that this House urges the Government of Yukon=
to
continue to ensure that Yukoners have access to a standard of health care
without the imposition of health care fees or premiums that is comparable to
standards in other jurisdictions in Canada by — and then there is a l=
ist
of six Yukon Party platform commitments. W=
e, in the
Third Party agree, very strongly, with the first portion of the motion, but=
we
have some questions. We would like some clarification on some of the things
that are listed in the motion. T=
he first
item in the motion — the first bullet in the motion — reads,
“encouraging existing medical clinics and
practices to expand their services and attract more health care professiona=
ls
to reside in the territory in order to improve Yukoners’ access to fa=
mily
doctors”. We in the Third Party have some questions about exactly wha=
t is
the Yukon Party’s vision. We would like them to flesh it out a little=
bit
more. This is where we were talking earlier about the need for collaborative
clinics. They have it listed as “medical clinics and practices”=
. W=
e believe
that there is a need to expand the services, attract more health care
professionals — specifically nurse practitioners and other profession=
als
— so that Yukoners have the opportunity to be referred to health care
professionals who are best suited to address the specific needs of individu=
als
and that it’s done with a focus on prevention, that it leads to a more
sustainable health care system, because it has been proven that it’s =
less
expensive to deliver health care this way than for patients, every time they
make an appointment, to have to see a doctor, and if there are other models=
of
health care that are more creative, basically. We
don’t see that creative approach in this bullet of the motion, so
we’d like someone on the other side, when they have the opportunity, =
to
stand up and put a little bit more meat on the bones, so to speak, of the
motion. &=
#8220;Sponsoring
the education of <=
o:p> Speaker: Order please. The time bein=
g Debate
on Motion No. 1340, as amended, accordingly adjourned <=
o:p> The
House adjourned at 5:30 p.m.Klondike=
, said that his government h=
ad a
vision. It was all about vision and planning. He went on to talk about a nu=
mber
of issues that we’ll get to. It was interesting, though. He explained=
and
described how the northern premiers walked out on the Prime Minister. That =
was
part of the vision. KlondikeDawson<=
/st1:City>. We are not going to have t=
he same
facility in overbudget, we know the government members will stand=
up
and say, “The Liberals and New Democrats are opposed to it because th=
ey
voted against the budget.” Agree. Agree.Lake Agree. Agree.Canada Disagree. Disagree.Dawson<=
/st1:City> that perhaps it’s goi=
ng to go
to Mayo. It’s interesting that that member said that, and here we have
the Yukon Party government saying that they like to make informed decisions,
they like to consult with Yukoners, and make those decisions with the invol=
vement
of Yukoners — make those decisions that affect them the most. We̵=
7;ve
been asking questions in the House for quite some time now about the Yukon
Party’s way of dealing with building facilities in the communities. <=
/span>
7822 |
&nb=
sp; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; HANSARD &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp;
7821 |