Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Member, in her time in this House, knows as well as I that there is sometimes tremendous latitude when it comes to write-off and forgiveness. Will we hunt down to the ground somebody who owes us $250? I would assume that through this government process that it's there. I know that the follow-up, from my time in committee, on that type of recovery is modest at best. Are we very efficient and effective in terms of our information system and capacity to do that? I don't think so. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister wouldn't refer to what I know as well as he knows. I'm not being paid to answer the questions; he is. So I might suggest that his editorial comment with respect to what I know, he might refrain from. That's all the questions I have right now. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The Chair will recognize Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Also on 6-22, we had some discussion in the last couple of days about the supplementary health program, specifically about the co-payment. Yesterday the Minister had indicated that these were a basket of programs and he didn't want to deal with them piecemeal in isolation. Not his exact words, but that's the sense that I got of it. But he had, in fact, announced that he would be increasing the benefit to Metis health benefits. I think that's a good thing. I think though that there is still this gap that needs to be dealt with, and the Minister has acknowledged that that gap exists. So now it's up to us to find a way to help those folks who are falling through the cracks where the program is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I guess what I'm looking for here; maybe I should just start with the Metis health benefits. The main estimates don't appear to show any increase in funding, despite the fact that the Minister said as of April 1st we are moving to 100 percent coverage of the co-payment from 80 percent. I'm wondering if I don't understand this, or somehow this is cost neutral, or why the Minister hasn't planned for further expenditures here. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this is a demand-driven program, so we've put in what we know the costs are. We know the intent is April 1st to go to 100 percent. We don't have a clear sense to the dollar of what we figure the uptake will be, but we will be allowing for that and funding from within existing resources. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that even if we took this baseline information -- $404,000 last year -- I assume that's the 80 percent coverage, and they increased it by 20 percent. If we were to assume that the uptake -- and he indicated it's demand-driven -- is consistent, all we need to do is add 20 percent, and it seems that we get a better indication of what this might be likely to cost us. As opposed to saying, well, we're increasing the program, we know it's going to cost more money, we don't know how much exactly so, therefore, we're not going to make any projections. We're going to go with what it was last year and we'll see what comes out of the wash. Doesn't that seem to make more sense, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Miltenberger.

Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

I guess I am glad the Minister agrees. We'll move on to the next point then. Maybe the Minister can explain to me a little about the Metis health benefit. I understand it to be third party insurance. It did provide 80 percent coverage of this $250 co-payment will now be 100. As we've indicated - and Mr. Dent spoke to this in his Member's statement today - there is still a segment of society that is not covered, has no third party insurance and is forced to pay for this themselves. I am wondering if we couldn't come up with a third party insurance scheme for those who are currently missed that would allow for coverage of this type of thing exactly. I know the Minister has this discussion paper with four high level options. It doesn't get into that level of detail. We've said scrap the co-payment. Do whatever you want, we just want to see the thing scrapped. But I am wondering if he's considered some sort of third party insurance plan for those who currently aren't covered. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, yes, that is one of the options that we've been discussing as a way to close and address this gap. So, yes, it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a government-funded program. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.

So the dues are paid by the government and then the government also pays 80 percent of the treatment and 20 percent is left to the folks who are covered by this. Is that the same type of plan, the same type of program that he's currently analyzing and running up the flagpole to meet the needs of those who aren't currently covered, the same type of third party insurance plan?

Thank you, Mr. Bell. Mr. Miltenberger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is an option. I should point out that we pay the cost of the program. There are no fees or dues. We have a contractual arrangement. Blue Cross administers the program and we just pay the charges. One of the options being considered is some type of arrangement similar to this.

Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. Mr. Bell.