I just want to offer some
answers to the questions raised.
Mr. Chairman, I think it’s really important that when we delete a capital project, it’s a serious matter, and it warrants a full debate. I would encourage Members to reconsider the vote and take a vote with all the information.
I’m happy to have the opportunity, first of all, to answer some of the questions that the Members may have. We should also note that while this is an interim appropriation, we have agreed that the capital budget will be a full budget, because we know that you can’t approve a quarter of a building. When you approve a project, it’s for a full year. The business of the government has to go on. When in budgets, we could do it by interim budget and approve a quarter of upcoming appropriations, because we understand that we haven’t done the full planning and full business plan process. As a new government and a new Legislature, we want to have full input into that.
But I think it’s important to note that we have agreed to do a different process for capital planning, and we have agreed that for certain projects we would approve for the full year. So I don’t think we should be applying that same rule about interim appropriation now.
There are questions about why this was fast-tracked. The answer is that this was not fast-tracked. This is part of a ten-year plan; this is the second year of the ten-year plan. The building that we have in Fort Smith was built in 1978, and it needs major, major renovations to do the work, to be able to offer the services there.
It’s also a part of the integrated service delivery model, which is the operating principle of our delivery of care of Health and Social Services in the Northwest Territories. Simply put, it’s about being able to offer a combined service of health and social services in the same building. That’s what the Fort Smith Health Centre is wanting to do, as is the case in many other facilities.
I’ve visited Fort Smith, and the renovations have been going on for quite a while. This didn’t come about at the last minute or anything like that. This is part of a ten-year master plan. The work that needs to be done is to renovate a wing of the hospital so that we can accommodate midwifery services there,
which is an important service that this government wants to do more of. It needs space to do more diagnostic imaging in the facility. Also, it has a lot of safety and upgrades and renovations that need to happen. And these facilities have to get the work done in the regular course of business.
This is the result of a technical status evaluation that was done already, and work has been going on for a long time. The Fort Smith Health and Social Services Authority board has approved a master development plan, and the department is working with the authority to do that work.
There’s a question about why Hay River is not in the plan whereas Fort Smith is. The answer to that is…. And I agree the Hay River facility is also in need of either a major mid-life retrofit or a new building. The question there is that there has not been an agreement from the local authority as to what kind of plan that should have. All that disagreement happened before I came into this office. So we did not have an agreement on the capacity or number of beds or levels of services that the facility should provide until last November, when the public administrator submitted a report to me that speaks to the master plan. That part of the work is in the works. Fort Smith did not in any way jump the queue ahead of Hay River. There is work going on for Stanton as well.
The need for technical upgrade and renovations and for making sure we use what money we have to accommodate spaces and facilities to deliver those services that people have to go on.… That is why we need to move on to the second phase of this renovation process.
One more piece to this is there’s another item coming up later on where Northern Lights facility is being renovated. That is part and parcel of wanting to maximize space we have. We make the best use of the spaces we have so we don’t have a long-term care patient who could be taken care of elsewhere and so we’re not using a very expensive hospital setting. They can be taken care of and not be in need of medical services. I urge the Members to think of this as the regular course of doing business in this government.
While we are talking about doing other initiatives, the work of the government has to go on, and this project has been on the books for a very long time.