Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was also in support of this motion and I’d like to back up, really, many of the comments that I’ve heard from my colleagues today. There’s little else to add but there certainly is volume. The number of contacts we’ve all received from our constituents has been huge.
On the public consultation front, let me just cite the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society who were shocked and surprised that there were no consultations with the NWT Seniors’ Society or seniors in general prior to the Cabinet making this decision in reference to the 2007 meeting. Alternatives North says presenting the outline of a program that is already planned is not consultation, at best it is publicity. I’ll leave that there.
On income testing, I also agree with my colleagues that this is not the way to go. It moves, as I said the other day, directly away from universality in coverage and I think we need to think about that. The income testing does not reflect ability to pay. I saw no discussion of gender analysis in there. As people know, when you look at incomes by gender there is a difference between men and women. There doesn’t seem to be a separation between single parent families versus couple families. There are big differences there, both in relative cost and income and depending on the gender of the single parent, that’s even stronger divergence. This all reflects on ability to pay and leads to much of the angst over this. Numerous problems were caused
also by this inability to pay. Bad decisions can be made, shortcuts taken that end up having other health repercussions.
On the drug program, again, we need to commit ourselves to pursuing a policy of purchasing generic drugs. I haven’t seen that discussed but it’s an important opportunity for cost cutting. Bulk purchases and the whole Pharmacare program, many people are aware of that. In 2004 the First Ministers committed to going after that, but we haven’t had a champion. This is an opportunity for this government to become a champion at that and get that back on the national agenda, and enjoy the benefits available.
Again, on the funding issue, Canadians have a strong record of being willing to pay through our tax system for universal health coverage. Fundamentally in a universal plan, everyone knows that if they ever require additional support, it will be there for them. With this understanding, the people have demonstrated a willingness to pay according to their ability, for example, through the taxation system and as my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen has suggested, other means. Where is the discussion on this important concept and ability to tweak the program in an important way?
Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we have seen the good and thorough work that would typically be behind a new policy proposal. That has not been clear at all. Health programs and actions require careful scrutiny prior to, during and after development if they are not to result in potential unexpected and destructive affects which can then negate the desired impacts and this is a good example of that.
The development of this policy has failed to look holistically at the social environments in which people live their lives both in sickness and in health. This gets us similar questions I raised the other day. A constituent submitted a series of questions that could be part of the new process here. If I can just read these because I think they’re quite relevant and the Minister may find them useful. Policy development should answer these questions:
•
What is the nature of the problem to be
addressed by the policy proposal and what is the magnitude?
•
What are the sizes of the cohorts targeted to provide solutions?
•
What is the character of those cohorts? And that means holistically, what are the roles in community and community’s well-being?
•
What will be the effect of the policy changes on the cohorts?
•
What will be the effects on government and the public of those effects experienced by the cohorts?
•
Balancing positive and negative effects, what is the net gain or loss to the situation addressed and what are alternative solutions?
Mr. Speaker, let’s make this review a redevelopment of this policy. Let’s take advantage of the extensive knowledge and experiences and perspectives of all and relax the time schedule to that which is required. We need a better policy on supplementary health benefits not just a new one. With this clearly in focus we can move forward. That’s my hope and expectation and on that basis I’ll be supporting the motion. Thank you.