Mr. Chairman, I find it awfully hard to believe we’d go through a zero-based review at that hospital and not know exactly how many unfunded positions there are or exactly how many unfunded programs there are. To me, that’s unfathomable. I don’t understand it.

It’s a good thing we’re not doctors, because it’s taken us — and still taking us — over three years, and we still haven’t figured out how to stop the bleeding. It’s a good thing we’re in the profession we’re in, I guess, and not doctors. We really need to get a handle on what’s happening out there.

If the Minister doesn’t have the answers to those questions, I’d also like to ask the Minister of Health: how is Stanton going to pay back the $26 million? I’ve heard varying amounts on what the accounts receivable are at today.

I know Nunavut owes us some money, but I think $6 million is what I’ve heard. That doesn’t come close to paying back the $26 million. I’d like to know where we’re going to get that $26 million from.

Maybe the Minister can help me understand that a little bit better.

There’s no $26 million request in this supplementary appropriation. That, the department is working to come together on. Of course, FMBS is involved in some of that work, and some of that is receivables, and some of it is the ongoing delivery of programs and services. Again, that started a couple of years ago, intermittently, initially. But in this last number of months it’s been on a regular basis.

As we go through this work and look at the service delivery, the mandates and the program levels, we’ll be coming back to Members with this type of information.

I know the issue of the $26 million is not in this supp, but I think it’s germane to the debate we’re having on the $11.5 million of accrued deficit the government wants us to approve in this supplementary appropriation. I want to have some peace of mind that the cause of their accrued deficit at Stanton is going to be addressed.

I’m having another tough time understanding how it is that we could bring in a public administrator for three months and they’re going to solve what’s wrong with Stanton in three months. That contract’s up. We’re over halfway through that contract. I’d like to ask the Minister: what plans are there going forward for the administration of that hospital and the management of that hospital so Members can have some peace of mind that it’s going to be run effectively and efficiently?

Mr. Chairman, the first part — not all the work is going to be done within a matter of three and a half months. Most of that work has been undertaken already within the different departments, which are working with Health and Social Services to come up with the figures, the program delivery levels and what’s been mandated for delivery.

There are a number of areas and departments working at coming up with all the information and the potential results of that in the sense of what levels of services we are going to continue to fund and what level of services we are going to say that, as the Government of the Northwest Territories, we can no longer stay in. I will almost guarantee Members that once we get to that level of debate across the Territories, in this Assembly, you will be getting lots of concerned calls about the fact that there’s been any change in delivery of programs and services, much less than what we’ve had in the debate on the budget to date.

For the details of expectation — where that’s sitting at, that work — I’ll have to go the Minister of Health and Social Services.

The Premier is correct in saying the PA’s work is not time specific. He’s been appointed as the public administrator, and he will be in that office until such time as he’s removed by me as Minister.

What I meant when I said in the House that I have given the public administrator three months to do some work and give me some recommendations is that it was specifically to the work following the zero-based review. As I stated earlier, the zero-based review gave us lots of information that required additional analysis, and he’s using that information as a guideline. Also, he’s on the ground looking at the programs and operations of the facility to see how we can address the issues arising out of what’s causing the deficit and how we could move forward in balancing the budget without impacting the front line too much.

His specific task right now is three months, but his work will continue beyond three months.

I won’t keep this going much longer. Getting back to who has the authority to put positions into place that are unfunded and to put programs into place that are unfunded, I think maybe we don’t want to go there. I’m not sure. What other forum is there for me to ask questions about who has the authority to fund programs? We approve the budget every year. I’d like to have some say in who has the authority. I think that’s part of the problem, why we’re at the $17.3 million. There are unfunded positions, there are unfunded programs, and somebody approved them along the way. It wasn’t us, so who was it? I think that’s a question that needs to be answered, Mr. Chairman.

The relationship is spelled out, initially, quite clearly in the territorial health and social services act — the relationship between the authorities and the Department of Health and Social Services.

At times, working with authorities, the department would initiate new programs and program delivery. Telehealth was one the department initiated and worked with authorities in that delivery. There are examples of that where the department has become involved and has encouraged authorities to come on line.

When it comes to other service delivery and the level of delivery, the department gets involved with authorities again. So it’s a combination. Ultimately, the authorities, through their management…. They meet. They discuss the spending and the requirements. They make decisions, and on a yearly basis they would come forward, first through the Department of Health and Social Services, requesting more funding. If they see a growth in expenditures — whether it’s utilities or staff growth

or program and service delivery growth — that would be approved on an annual basis. When it comes right down to it, the Department of Health and Social Services would be aware of service delivery requests and levels of delivery.

Now, if they’re not getting all of the information, then we’ve got a definite problem between the relationship of an authority and the department, hence the reason FMBS is involved in a zero-based review as well as the government overall. We’re looking at boards and agencies and the role they play in delivery of health and social services and education across the North.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m going to ask my questions specific to Stanton, but they’d be true for all the authorities. I see the $11.5 million that you’re asking for, for Stanton. Does that bring them to a zero balance as far as debt is concerned, or are they still further in debt than the $11.5 million?

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. Minister Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The request is asking for the accumulated debt, and that is a debt that grows year to year. It just keeps adding up. It does not take in this year that we’re operating in.

So this clears up previous fiscal years, up to 2006–07, but doesn’t deal with 2007–2008; they’re going into this fiscal year with some additional debt. Do I understand that correctly? The current year’s debt. The current fiscal year’s deficit of $26 million.

Thank you, Minister. Ms. LeClair.

So on top of what we’re paying off now, there is still some additional debt, and you’re hoping to get a fair portion of that back through collecting the receivables that the authorities have outstanding.

The authorities do have receivables from way back still outstanding. Does that $12 million include last year’s receivables, or is it also the accumulated receivables? I know, for instance, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, Beau-Del, as an example, has invoices that are outstanding for years — not just one year but many, many years, which is a lot of money outstanding — that they should have collected years ago. Where does that stand? Is that part of the number you quoted to me, or is that just this year’s receivables?

Thank you, Ms. LeClair. Mr. Abernethy.

No, I’m good. Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr. Hawkins, did you have a question?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I have similar concerns as other Members do regarding this. I think it’s important, on record, to exercise my concern in this regard.

When I see issues like this come before us, I often think of them as bread and butter, and I couldn’t run my household like this in the sense of having unpaid bills.

For my clarity, Mr. Chairman — even if it’s been repeated earlier, but for my clarity — how long has that outstanding billing been in arrears with the Nunavut government? Can I get a sense as to what this government’s doing to recoup that money?

Thank you,

Mr. Hawkins. Mr. Roland.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish I had a tape recorder. Maybe I could replay the message we’ve answered on this piece.

The fact is that it goes back a number of years. In this particular case, as far back as 1999–2000 we started looking at some of the receivables as the overall accumulated debt started to grow.

There is ongoing work for the Department of Health and Social Services. FMBS is now involved in that collection piece. As Ms. LeClair pointed out earlier, we are directly involved in sitting down with Nunavut and trying to clarify some of these areas.

I’d be prepared at some point to sit down with Members to get into a little more detail, but that wouldn’t be appropriate at this sitting.

I appreciate the fact that I was tied up with constituency matters, so I may have missed the earlier answers on this.

I needed a date for that. It causes me to wonder, and if no one’s raised it — I certainly hope they have, but I’ll ask it anyway — why do we continue to provide services that are outside of life and limb if we’re not being paid for these costs? Is there a reason why we continue to provide services for Nunavut if they’re not paying their costs? What does this represent as the greater amount of money, in the sense of business used with the Nunavut government?