Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to echo some comments which have already been stated by my colleagues. I, as well, appreciate the intent of the motion and the rationale for bringing it forward.
I can support the recommendation that we look at this issue. I am, as well, concerned by the fact that the motion is asking that we compensate medical and non-medical travel escorts for their time. If we were to compensate any escort for the wages that they are losing, we could be in, I think, very serious financial difficulty.
One of my colleagues has mentioned that perhaps we ought to be looking at evaluating on a hardship basis or evaluating income to a certain extent, and I think that’s something that has to be seriously
considered when the department looks at this issue.
I think it’s not totally clear in here – it’s not in the operative clause anyway – but I think this should really only apply to extended absences or extended periods of time that a patient has to be out and a patient requires an escort for that extended period of time.
We have a system right now where many patients, if they go to Edmonton, for instance, do have a place to stay where there is some support for them. Both patients and escorts are pretty well compensated in terms of their day-to-day necessities. They have accommodation; they are compensated for meals or else their meals are provided; transportation is provided. So, you know, we’re really only talking about compensating people for their time, and I’m having a very difficult time believing that our programs should be doing that, that I should be compensated for my wage when I’m there as an escort.
I think one of the things that I am feeling quite good about is that the Minister has said in the last couple of days that we are definitely looking at the Medical Travel Policy, albeit it’s been a long time we’ve been looking at it. I hope we get some definitive recommendations soon. But I am somewhat heartened by the fact that the Minister has said that he will be looking particularly at the escort policy in the very near future, and that was the issue of the RFP that I queried him on the other day.
The only other sort of issue that isn’t covered here – and I guess this would be the non-medical escorts – but very often the patients require a translator when they go out. If we have someone who is unilingual and who has to be in Edmonton or Calgary or some other place outside of the NWT for a month at a time, they are going to need a translator. Perhaps we ought to have a system in place to cover translators.
Like some of my colleagues, I am considerably conflicted. There are a lot of ramifications for the theory of this recommendation. Again, I support the concept. I think perhaps I may have to abstain, but I will not vote against it. Thank you.