Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, welcome to the Minister and to the department today. At the risk of not repeating much of what has already been said by Members, I would like to narrow my concerns to what I consider the areas of concern with the current Health infrastructure budget before us, and I’d like to shed some light on some of the practices that I believe are preventing efficient solutions from emerging or at least provide a transparent process for them to be achieved.
At first glance, given the amount of this budget and comparing this to the operational side of Health, I can attest that we have a very disproportionate budget before us when you look at that comparison to what I consider our overall fiscal framework. When we spend more for one kilometre of new road than we do for lifesaving programs, nurses or elders, I believe we have a problem of values, which puts into question our desire for a prosperous north.
I’d like to narrow my three areas of comments under three broader categories, the first of which is I’d like to kind of call it aging in place or the Aging in Place Strategy. As the government, this is a means to save money. I’m in full support of this initiative. I think it has merit, and we all know that it will reduce the amount of facilities or beds required. But when you look at this process of wanting people to age in their own homes and provide a support network, there’s nothing in this budget as to how and by what means this will happen. We have seniors today who would benefit from some form what I like to call transitional living or at least transitional living options, yet look at what we have for overall inventory to meet this demand and it’s not there. I can tell you, it’s getting worse with every passing day. We are getting older. This department really does not have any firm framework or plan to deal with what I consider a crisis that’s looming.
Clearly, we could be or should be establishing partnerships with the private sector and providing incentives for strategic investments and development. One only has to look south of the border to see that other governments have been doing so for decades and with much success. Again, I challenge this department and this Minister to find incentives, whatever they are, so that developers will see the benefit in partnering with the GNWT in mitigating our backlog of seniors waiting
for viable options and for this type of transitional living.
Next I’d like to talk a little bit on the subject of Avens. I believe the Minister is dedicated in wanting to find a solution for the current Avens project to proceed on course. However, like many, including myself, what we’ve heard in the last day or so, I’m still perplexed why this department still is putting up what I consider roadblocks. I believe, in its basic form, this organization is merely looking for a memorandum of support so they can secure their funding, and I believe this is not a complex ask. It does not require three or four attempts to come forward with different proposals. I believe that the proposals have been genuine and I believe that the offer has been genuine, but the receipt and the opportunity for government to live up to its obligation has not been. I’m seeing nothing in this budget that will send the right message forward for the project designers of Avens, and I fear that we are continuously providing roadblocks that will delay which I consider probably a very critical and important piece of infrastructure not only for Yellowknife but for all Northerners and their families.
Finally, I would like to touch on Stanton and the current P3 initiatives. I believe the Minister recalls not that many days ago he and I were at the Stanton Hospital AGM, and he even reminded residents that were in attendance that this would come back on the floor of the House, so I’m here now not to disappoint the Minister. I know the Minister is not the lead on this project, but clearly the Minister must agree what he has heard thus far should concern him. If not, I’d like to remind him today in the House, and with all my colleagues present, at this AGM, every stakeholder that was there reminded this Minister there was absolutely no dialogue, no public meeting, there was no public substantiation or rationale for proceeding with the Stanton renovation project under the guise of what we now know as a P3 model. Nothing. So we must ask, why? Why did the government proceed in this way? Why the secrecy from public not to have a voice in what the Minister reminded us yesterday was being one of the largest and most expensive projects ever to hit our ledger in the GNWT?
I would like to remind the Minister we have a P3 policy and not P3 legislation in place, and I can assure the Minister that our current P3 policy has not withstood the rigors of success as being touted by our Finance Minister. For the sake of time, I will not table numerous examples of where our P3 has failed this government in the last 10 years or more.
Again back to the issue. When will this Minister take it upon himself to reach out to residents, to patients, to the frontline workers of our health facilities and to the general public to have a frank and open
discussion on the Stanton P3 process and to those affected?
I know the Minister has been very frank on the other aspect of the privatization question. This was a huge question of concern for many residents. But as we heard yesterday in the House, and I quote from the Minister, “We will not privatize the delivery of health services in the Northwest Territories. We will not do it.” Those are his very words. Because, clearly, I have to represent eight very concerned Range Lake residents who are on pins and needles not knowing if their facility services jobs are going to be there tomorrow, I have to bring this question forward. I am there for them and I’m there for all the workers of the hospital system and their families.
Again, those are my general opening comments on this infrastructure budget for health.