Thank you, Mr.

Abernethy. The

honourable

Minister responsible for Health and

Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is obviously no question that prevention is always better than treatment. It is generally accepted that governments and departments of health all across the nation spend a lot more money dealing with the impacts of bad eating behaviour or all kinds of other things that cost money later on.

But realistically speaking, we don’t have enough resources to take all preventive measures that we would like. There is focus in our public health strategy and public health work to encourage healthier habits in people for their health, and the Drop the Pop initiative, for example, is one of those cases.

I do agree with the Member. In any kind of cost-benefit analysis, it is better to prevent this from happening or to treat the children as much as possible. But it is also a fact that dental service is not a government-insured service in Canada.

I was talking more specifically to those unfortunate youth with rotting teeth who are already in the system, who already need the surgery and whatnot.

I understand that it’s not an insured benefit, but if we continue to let this problem grow and we don’t jump in and do something about it, the teeth will continue to rot and these children will have major health problems in the future, which is going to cost us far more than having Stanton and Hay River hospitals open their doors and allowing these dentists to come in and perform the necessary treatments that are required. It’s just a matter of opening our doors.

I did actually hear a commitment to the cost analysis, but in an effort to save ourselves a lot of money in a couple of years when these kids come in with major health problems due to rotting teeth, would the Minister commit to opening the doors to the dentists now and having them come into these facilities to perform the treatments that are required in order to save us a lot of money in the future?

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there’s a disagreement between the Member and myself that we do need to do something about this. We are working on a proposal to see what we can do. I am suggesting that.

But in order to be cost-effective, it is better to concentrate the services in one unit. I have also indicated to the Member that Stanton has indicated to us that they could only make the facility available one day every six or eight weeks.

What we would like to do, for cost-efficiency purposes…. You need an anaesthetist to do this, and they are the most expensive specialists. It is better if we could concentrate them into one place

and do the service six weeks in a row, or four weeks in a row, to clear the backlog and to upkeep them. There is no cost efficiency to be gained, or it’s more expensive to spread the services around if we don’t have to.

Good to hear. What kind of timeline are you predicting on this? Time is of the essence here. When do we think we might be able to start getting some of these kids into the ORs so we can fix the problems and, once again, save us a whole lot of money in the future? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having said all of the above, I think we need to be mindful of the fact that the appropriations for programs like this come from this House. I need to have the budget approved by the Members here, and we need to do the proper steps to roll the program out and figure out all the logistics and such.

If the Members agree and I have the support from the House, I will undertake to do it as soon as possible, because I actually have the video of those 120 children who are waiting for us to make that decision. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Inuvik Twin Lakes, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday in my Member’s statement I spoke to the need for people to go out and seek treatment for addictions. I’d brought this issue up a couple times before. I’d like to direct my questions today to the Minister with heart. I’d like to ask: if someone decides that now is the time to receive treatment or they’ve made that decision to go and receive treatment, what would be the process they would have to go through?

Thank you, Mr.

McLeod. The

honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Generally, anybody who has decided they want to make the right choice and address their addiction issues of any kind will get in touch with either their social worker — in regional offices it could be a doctor’s office — or even somebody in their church to try to take steps on that.

Usually, eventually, they will make their way into our authorities, and they could seek information about what services are available. Our community wellness workers, social workers, mental health workers are trained to provide that information.

I thank the Minister for that. If they decided that treatment was necessary, the health worker would make the referral — I’m assuming the health worker would make the referral — and my question is: then where would they be sent?

We have community wellness workers, counsellors and mental health addictions workers who are trained and equipped to address addictions issues.

If, between the client and the professional, it’s determined that this person requires services that are not available in the territory, then documentation is put together to send to a committee that decides all applications for referrals outside of the NWT. A decision is made according to the facts of the documentation.

I wasn’t going to go there, but the Minister had mentioned community wellness workers. My understanding is the referrals have to be made by a professional with a degree. Are community wellness workers allowed to make referrals for treatment?

It’s usually a combination. The most important party, the client himself or herself, has to be ready, willing and committed to going down the difficult but important task to healing. But there will be a team of people, and often there are medical professionals involved in making a referral.

Thank you, Ms.

Lee. Final

supplementary, Mr. McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that we’ve got that part down as to the referral, my question would be about the next step. Once the referral is made, if they’re going for drug or alcohol addiction, where would they be sent?

That would depend on what kinds of services a person needs. There are all kinds of addiction issues that a person could be dealing with, and there are various facilities in Alberta and other places that NWT residents are sent to. But also we have Nats'ejée K'éh and other places, which a lot of our NWT residents do use for healing.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment. It’s a follow-up to Mr.

Jacobson’s

questioning. My understanding is that under the clawback provisions of the act certain land claims

are exempt from the clawback, especially when it comes to dividend payments, payments that flow through the land claim agreements of the Inuvialuit, the Gwich’in, the Sahtu and now the Tlicho. We had this debate over a long period of time when Mr. Dent was the Minister of Education. It was clearly stated in the public record on the floor of this House that those agreements are exempt under that legislation.

I’d just like clarification from the Minister that under the clawback exemptions of the act the land claim dividends will not be clawed back.

Thank you, Mr.

Krutko. The

honourable Minister responsible for Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I do believe one of the areas is the land claims, the payouts from the federal government. I need to double-check with my department before I commit in this House if it is. Certainly, that’s one of the factors that were discussed along with the IBA payments. But with the Inuvialuit the payout was from the business arm, the economic arm. We do provide, again, exemption on the $1,200 a year to those individuals who do receive benefits. Certainly, I can look into the current act that we have, the legislation, to see if it truly reflects what the Member has stated. It might have been a previous government commitment in the House. I need to double-check on that.

It’s pretty clear in the act that it does exclude those organizations that I mentioned. It is part of the exemption, and I do not believe there was an actual amount or trying to prescribe what is compensation and what is not or where it comes from. It’s clear that those land claims organizations are exempt when they pay their beneficiaries. I’d just like to make the Minister aware that these land claim agreements are legislatively protected through federal legislation. I’d like to ask the Minister: has anything been changed without the opportunity to be aware of it in this House, and what consultation did take place with those aboriginal organizations, knowing that they have these exemptions under their land claim agreements and under the legislation and acts of this House?

There has been some consultation. It was last fall that we implemented the $1,200 exemption. It wasn’t there before. It’s brand new. There may be some people who are not aware of it. Certainly, we’ll be sharing with those communities that may or may not be aware of it. The client service officers in the community through Income Support have that information, and they have shared it with the community. They will certainly continue to do so. That’s an avenue that

we did change to reflect the additional funding and resources that are coming in and paid out to these community members on top of what they’re earning. So that’s one of the areas that we changed as the ECE department.

The Minister mentioned that these changes took place last fall. Were the changes by way of legislative changes or policy changes? If they were, did they take place in this House?