Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to provide our report on the Mid-Year Status Review of the Department of Health and Social Services.
The committee appreciated the candour of the Minister and the department in providing a clear picture of the reductions proposed and the lack of success of the department in meeting many of the reduction targets. This openness allowed a free discussion of issues and concerns.
The Department has indicated they are short of their target by almost $9 million. When the Business Plan was provided to the committee in January, Members expressed a concern about the ability of the Department to achieve what seemed to be a very ambitious slate of reductions and changes. Significant slippage to what the department proposed in medical travel reductions the previous year, added to the concerns of the committee. At the time, the Minister and his staff reassured the Members that the department had greatly improved the quality of their analysis and information they used to make their decisions. They indicated that while there may have been superficial analysis in the past, that was no longer the case. Despite reservations the Committee approved the reduction options and gave direction regarding the need for a coordinated approach between some of the options. The Mid Year Report demonstrates that there is a still a problem with the quality of analysis carried out by the department when reviewing options and program changes. This is an area which the Committee considers very serious and hopes that the Minister and his staff will make efforts to correct. As you make more difficult decisions over the next year, the Committee must be able to have confidence in the information provided. The Mid Year Report talked a lot about planning and studying. In most cases there are no time lines attached to projects to indicate when planning will finish and action will begin.
In reviewing past reports of the Assembly, the department has always done many studies and plans. The Committee is concerned that it is time to move out of the planning mode and into the implementation mode. The Committee is under the assumption that the department's business plan was sustainable. Members are concerned that this is apparently not the case. The department indicated that additional work would be required before sustainable plans could be developed. The department also indicated they are not receiving quarterly reports from the Health Boards. If the business plans are not sustainable and there is no regular accountability from the Boards who receive a large portion of the department's budget, the Committee questions the validity of the department's next business plan which we expect to review in a few weeks.
The department is supposed to be a leader in community wellness. However, there is a lack of clarity about what the department means by community wellness. Members question how communities can be expected to use community action fund dollars to develop community wellness plans when the Minister has defined community wellness as a state of being we aim to achieve. When we are talking about community wellness, communities want and need something concrete and practical. As the Committee has stated before, this does not mean the government should tell communities what to do. What government must provide is a clear framework so communities understand the scope of what they can consider.
During the business plan review, the Committee had recommended that the department look at a new approach to alcohol and drug treatment since the current approach does not seem to be particularly successful. Part of this was looking at the roles of the alcohol and drug treatment facilities in the N.W.T. Members recognize that these facilities have not always been used to full capacity in the past. The Committee felt the new funding arrangement was intended in part to encourage facilities to increase occupancy. The new formula provides for some core funding. Facilities can then receive per diem rates up to 100% of the old core funding. With the upper limit capped, members questioned how this encourages facilities to have full occupancy and the additional cost for staff and supplies that go along with more use.
When discussing capital, members questioned the Minister about changes to two proposed health centre replacements. They were concerned about why fund were moved from one project to another. There were also questions about the capital planning process and how priorities could change in the short period from passing the capital budget to when the changes were made in the summer. Members listened carefully to the Minister's explanation for the changes including the involvement of mayors and councils from the affected communities.
Without clear guidelines regarding changes to the capital plan, the Minister was forced to make a decision based, in part, on subjective factors. The Committee hopes that the new policy on capital changes will assist Ministers in making objective choices in consultation with the Corporate Member in Standing Committee.
Mr. Erasmus will now complete the Report of the Standing Committee on Social Programs.