Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I need to ask the Minister what this government is going to have in place as of April 1st , 2009, that is

going to be of benefit to the people in our communities to reduce their food costs.

The first fundamental program we have in place for families in need would be through our Income Security Program. That food basket is looked at and reviewed by the Department of Education, Culture and Employment throughout the year. I don’t have the timing of exactly when that next review and adjustments will happen, but that budget is adjusted, they do review on the cost of living of our communities and adjust on that basis.

For the commercial subsidy piece and how that goes out, as I’ve committed, the Minister of Finance and FMBS will respond to the Member on that issue.

Thank you, Mr. Roland. Item 8, written questions. Item 9, returns to written questions. Item 10, replies to opening address. Item 11, replies to the budget address, day two of seven. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of standing and special committees. Item 14, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 15, tabling of documents. The honourable Minister of Justice, Mr. Lafferty.

Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. I wish to table the following document entitled Northwest Territories Foundation Annual Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008.

Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

I’d like to table page 12 of February 6, 2009, Yellowknifer specifically highlighting a quote from Premier Floyd Roland saying, “Premier Floyd Roland said the motion is a personal attack. Their shadow Cabinet must now be thinking they are ready to take over real roles.”

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Item 16, notices of motion. Item 17, notices of motion for first reading of bills. Item 18, motions. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS the Minister of Health and Social Services had proposed to implement a new Supplementary Health Benefits Program on April 1, 2009, and has now proposed to defer the implementation of that program until September 1, 2009;

AND WHEREAS many northern seniors depend on the coverage for dental, vision, drugs and supplies for which they are eligible under the existing Extended Health Benefits Program;

AND WHEREAS many northern seniors live on fixed incomes, which do not allow them to absorb increased costs for drugs and other health care costs;

AND WHEREAS many northern families live with significant chronic diseases or chronic conditions and are prescribed expensive medications and supplies to manage those conditions;

AND WHEREAS there are many low-income Northerners who are not covered by an employer’s Supplementary Health Benefits Program and not eligible for coverage under the existing Extended Health Benefits Program;

AND WHEREAS the new Supplementary Health Benefits Program would have limited the coverage for some residents who are currently covered;

AND WHEREAS the new Supplementary Health Benefits Program would have created disenfranchised groups amongst NWT residents, contravening the principle of fair health coverage for all;

AND WHEREAS the performance of the existing program administration should be reviewed and evaluated;

AND WHEREAS the new implementation date of September 1, 2009, does not allow adequate time to conduct comprehensive research, engage stakeholders in meaningful consultation, develop a new program based on input from these stakeholders and comprehensive research and analysis, share the proposed program with the stakeholders for final consideration and approval, and implement the new program in a timely and responsible manner;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that this Legislative Assembly recommends that the Minister of Health and Social Services stop the implementation of the proposed Supplementary Health Benefits Program and develop a new policy and program to cover low-income families who do not have supplementary health benefits coverage through their employer;

AND FURTHER, extend the September 2009 implementation date to April 2010;

AND FURTHER, conduct comprehensive consultations with Northerners about the ways to improve the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and services offered by the department, including whether or not means testing should determine eligibility;

AND FURTHER, ensure that thorough research into the program’s complete costs and full implications is undertaken and presented to Northerners including:

1. the cost to the NWT of families moving south;

and

2. increased costs on the health care system

resulting from more people accessing services within hospitals;

AND FURTHERMORE, fully involve the standing committees of the Legislative Assembly in the review of new policy proposals before any implementation is considered.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m making this motion today because I believe that Cabinet and the Minister of Health and Social Services are making a mistake, a mistake that would adversely affect all northern residents, a mistake that will cost this government both directly and indirectly. Fortunately this is a mistake that can be easily remedied.

Let’s go back a bit and talk about why Cabinet and the Minister are going in the direction they are with respect to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. Low-income families who do not have any medical coverage through their employer don’t currently have access to supplemental health benefits other than coverage for a specified medical condition. This means they’re 100 percent on the hook for all dental costs, all the costs related to purchasing glasses and all the costs related to prescribed medications, excluding medications required for specified medical conditions such as diabetes.

Given that these individuals are low-income earners, they are the individuals who would benefit most from support in this area. To their credit, Cabinet was trying to help these individuals. That’s why their forcing this short-sighted and inadequately researched policy down the throats of Northerners. I agree that we must find a way to help these individuals. I don’t agree that it should be done at the expense of other stakeholders in the NWT.

Within our system of government, Cabinet has the right to design and implement policy, programs and regulations. They aren’t required to request the House approval to do so and aren’t even required to share them if they don’t wish to. Fortunately most programs, policies, and regulation changes won’t adversely affect residents of the NWT and bringing them into the Legislature for approval or debate isn’t always going to be necessary. In fact, it could be considered a waste of time in many situations.

However, from time to time these types of changes can be significant and have major ramifications on

the GNWT and the NWT as a whole. The changes currently in question fall into this category.

When designing or redesigning programs, policies, and regulations that will have major ramifications, Cabinet should demonstrate a standard of care which involves actively engaging Regular Members and other stakeholders who may be affected by the changes. This is a public government and we have a responsibility to listen to and engage our residents in meaningful consultation.

Further, information or facts are required to make responsible decisions. Decisions made in the absence of information or facts are bad decisions. In the case of the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program a significant amount of information or facts are required in order to make a responsible and informed decision. Unfortunately, it’s clear that the Minister and Cabinet did not gather the required information or facts. They don’t have a clue of the ramifications of implementing this new policy. How do I know? I and many other Members have continually asked for the information. How much do they think they will save by cutting off seniors and individuals with chronic conditions? How much will it cost the NWT when affected residents choose to leave the Northwest Territories? Not just by way of the $22,000 federal transfer payments but also along with the taxes they pay, the money they spend on goods and services, and the non-monetary benefits they provide by way of volunteering. Also, how much will it cost based on the inadequately low threshold levels put forward by Health and Social Services to cover low-income earners without benefits? Cabinet can’t or won’t answer any of these questions. I don’t believe the analysis was done. How can we feel confident that they have demonstrated a reasonable standard of care or due diligence if they can’t even answer these important questions?

Here’s what should have happened. It’s clear that this government needs to do something to help the low-income families and individuals that have no medical coverage through their employer. The department should have researched this issue, compared cost analysis, defined where problems exist, and what potential challenges may exist in providing this new coverage. Once collected, the department should have engaged potentially affected stakeholders in meaningful consultation where the information is shared and stakeholders are encouraged to offer recommendations and participate in a process of developing a reasonable program. If the information had been shared and affected stakeholders had been actively engaged, they might be willing to make compromises in the best interest of the program as opposed to being confused, scared, or resistant to the changes due the lack of any real involvement or understanding.

A draft policy should have been developed for consideration and review by the Regular Members and the potentially affected stakeholders. This would have ensured that these individuals had the opportunity to confirm or verify that their points of view had been heard and incorporated. It also would have provided the department with an opportunity to explain the decisions they made that are different from what the stakeholders wanted to see.

Once general agreement or consensus on the new program is reached, the comprehensive communications and the implementation plan would need to be designed and put in place. Adequate time is required to ensure that all affected residents have the time required to be made aware of the program, complete the paperwork or applications where appropriate, and ensure that all their i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed before implementation to ensure no disruption in services.

This is a reasonable process. It’s completely different than what happened. Here’s what did happen. Cabinet decided to update the Supplementary Health Benefits Program to include coverage for low-income earners not covered by employer medical benefits. They told the department that they weren’t willing to spend more than was currently allocated to the programs so they must fund any changes from within. No research or financial analysis was conducted. The department designed the proposed program and took it to potentially affected stakeholders for consultation. Unfortunately it wasn’t really consultation. It was more of an information session where the stakeholders were told what was going to happen, not asked for input or to make any suggestions.

To be clear, consultation is a process by which the public’s input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goal is to improve the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in projects, laws and policies. It’s a valuable process when making significant changes to any policy that may or may not adversely affect large groups or, in this case, ultimately all residents of the NWT.

It’s clear that Cabinet and the Minister don’t understand what consultation is. The Minister is adamant that they have conducted consultation. She’s indicated it several times in the press and to Regular Members of this Assembly. I’ve talked to a number of the groups that the Minister claims to have consulted with. All indicate that they weren’t consulted. Rather, they were told what the department was going to do, when they were going to do it and how they were going to do it. They attended information sessions veiled as consultation.

After the department completed the design of the program, the Minister announced that the program was being implemented on April 2, 2009. Here’s where things got interesting. Residents were stunned, shocked and disgusted with this short-sighted program.

Honestly, I’m not even remotely surprised. It’s an incredibly bad program. The program fails to meet the needs of a significant number of Northerners and, by default, adversely affects everybody in the NWT. Further, the threshold levels established for low-income families are so low that people originally targeted for assistance won’t be eligible. To fund it, Cabinet chose to cut off a significant number of seniors and individuals with chronic conditions, who will choose to leave the NWT rather than experience the significant increase in their cost of living. This will result in a significant loss of revenue for the GNWT. Also, the changes will drive residents into hospitals where medications and services are free as opposed to going through treatment in their homes. This will increase the costs of the NWT health care system, which will adversely affect every resident of the NWT. Our health care system is already too expensive. Can we really afford to make it more expensive? I don’t think so.

Since implementation I have heard from hundreds of people on this issue. Not one person is pleased. The City of Yellowknife passed a motion where city council directed the mayor to write to the Minister of Health and Social Services to express the council’s opposition to the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and urge her to cancel the implementation of the new program.

Petitions were filed in this House earlier this week with thousands of signatures, signatures of people who are 100 percent opposed to the implementation of the new program.

I got an e-mail from one resident where she indicated the following: “One of the goals of the 16th Assembly is healthy, educated people and one

of the priorities for the goal states: ‘improve support for children and adults with special needs and disabilities’.”

She is a long-time resident with one chronic physical and two chronic medical conditions and has been on CPP disability pension for almost five years. She has supplemented her disability pension with RRSPs, RRIFs and savings. She pays her own dental bills and eye glasses. However, she receives 100 percent coverage for prescription medications for her chronic disabilities through the GNWT.

Now, based on the new program, she will not qualify for any of her prescription medications, as she is single, under 65 years of age, and had a net income of over $25,000 last year. She feels that this new policy does not support this Legislature’s priority of improving support for children and adults with special needs and disabilities. I agree with the resident.

Another resident made the following comment and asked the following questions. This is from the resident: “The questions just seem to come and the answers don’t seem to be there. Anything new can be scary at first and I understand that, but is the territorial government really ready for this? Have they thought it through? Who is going to fall through the cracks or no longer fit the criteria? What are they supposed to do? Who is the program really aimed at? Does something need to be developed separately to assist those who need it instead of changing something so quickly and without consultation?”

People are concerned in the communities and in the Northwest Territories. Given the massive numbers of comments I raised, I can keep quoting these all day. However, for the sake of time, I won’t, but it is important to recognize that many people are very upset. Residents have asked questions and they deserve answers.

It’s clear. After listening to the people of the NWT, it is obvious that there is nothing good or worth salvaging in the program as presented. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.

In a recent press release, the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services indicated that it is clear that some elements of the proposed program might create undue hardship for some residents. This is a bit of an understatement and is evidence that she and Cabinet have not considered the full ramifications including increased costs to the health system and loss of revenues. It’s good that she acknowledges that the proposed program will adversely affect some residents, but does not demonstrate an understanding of the magnitude of the potential problems.

In response to these undue hardships, the Minister has agreed to defer the implementation date of the program. To address the concerns of the public, the Minister indicated in her press release that the program design will be reviewed before the program is implemented. Unfortunately, Cabinet and the Minister are still committed to means testing and continue to demonstrate that, although some minor modification will be included, the policy is pretty much going to move forward as is and be implemented on September 1, 2009. I perceive this direction as more of a delay tactic than actually

trying to do the right thing for the people of the Northwest Territories.

Means testing for health care is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Cabinet is committed to means testing most, if not all, programs offered by the GNWT. In respect to health care, this is a bad decision; as bad or worse than previous decisions they have made, such as rolling the public housing subsidy program into ECE where it has resulted in huge deficits in the local housing authorities. History has shown that when a bad decision is made, the Cabinet would rather keep the blinders on and request more time. The right thing to do would be to acknowledge the mistake and fix it. So in this case, a year or two down the road when health care costs go up and our revenues have fallen off directly, they’ll say everything is alright and that their uninformed and short-sighted direction is not to blame. Means testing might work in some program areas, but the provision of supplementary health benefits is not one of them.

Although I’m happy that the Minister has deferred implementation, I don’t see it fixing the real problems. It is no more, as I indicated earlier, than a delay tactic. It’s an attempt to fix a significantly redesigned program on the fly rather than acknowledging poor Cabinet direction and sending it back for a complete review, analysis and suitable design.

September 1, 2009, does not allow the Department of Health and Social Services to follow a reasonable and responsible timeline in order to get the inclusion of services for low-income earners or design a fair and equitable system with public input and consultation.

Let’s break down the timeline. We all know that very little will be done over the next six weeks on this policy due to session, which is going to consume everybody’s time. Immediately after session, many Northerners will be going on spring break. So it’s safe to assume that very little can be done by way of public consultation until the beginning of April. In April they will begin their version of public consultation. You would hope that they have done some financial forecasting and conducted research into the effects of different options and how similar services are provided in other jurisdictions. However, I’m not optimistic that this will have happened by this time. Real public consultation will take a couple of months. Conceivably, given their timeline, they might have the consultation done by May. So design will have to take place over the summer. Given the number of people who take advantage of summer for holidays, I don’t really believe that it will be given the attention it deserves over the summer months. So summer is over and they implement what they have designed. To implement a program of this

magnitude, you do need a couple of months to communicate the changes and ensure that all affected residents complete the paperwork required to ensure no gap in services. This means that the program should be completed by July 1st at

the earliest. That’s not much time.

No matter how you look at it, a comprehensive review, analysis, consultation, redesign, acceptance and implementation cannot be done in the time given. So it suggests that some steps will be skipped completely or paid no more than lip service. We’re going to get the same program we have now with a few high profile yet not substantive changes. It’s a delay tactic.

If they move forward with the date proposed, the Regular Members of this House won’t have the opportunity to discuss and debate it in this Assembly as it will be implemented prior to the next significant session. Yes, there is a seven day session starting at the end of May, but there is no way that there will be a reasonable product to discuss or debate at that time. It’s hard to believe that they will even have completed any real or thoughtful consultations with potentially affected stakeholders by then. Our next substantive session will begin around the middle of October, one and a half months after the new program has been implemented. As indicated previously, once Cabinet makes a decision, they don’t go back and reverse it. So we’ll be stuck with a bad program.

The right thing to do is for Cabinet and the Minister to start again. Completely withdraw the proposed program and timelines and start again with the development of a new policy to cover low-income families who do not have supplementary health benefit coverage through their employer, a program where the implementation does not lead to significant loss in services to other groups.

Develop it based on a reasonable and realistic timeline. April 1, 2010, is a date which will allow proper research, consultation, design, debate and ensure adequate time to promote the new program and implement it. It’s the right thing to do.

Prior to the last session, the government released documents on revenue options. Based on the information contained within those documents, it was clear and obvious that one of the best ways to increase our revenues and ensure that this Territory has the financial resources to provide the services to our people is to increase the population. Cabinet stressed that we, as a government and a Territory, need to do things to encourage people to come and live in the NWT and for those that live here to stay. The budget address yesterday suggested the same thing.

Now we are telling many people -- seniors and individuals with chronic conditions -- that we don’t want to do what is required to encourage them to stay. This is a complete reversal from what Cabinet was saying only a few short months ago and doesn’t make any sense. We have people leaving, such as diamond polishers, because they don’t have work. We can’t afford to chase people out who really want to be here in the North -- people who call the Northwest Territories their home; people who have lived here all their lives.

Prior to the mid-1980s seniors and people with chronic conditions didn’t stay in the Northwest Territories. They left. At that time Northerners, seniors and the NWT Council for Persons with Disabilities, championed for change. They made their case and these fantastic supplemental health benefits that we have now were established. Now Cabinet is telling these people that they don’t deserve the levels of support that they currently have; supports that they believed would exist when they were planning for retirement and their futures; programs that made it possible for seniors on fixed incomes and individuals with chronic conditions to stay and live in the Northwest Territories.

It’s time to reject this direction and reapply common sense and good judgment. It’s time to work in the best interest of northern residents. It’s time to do the right thing. This motion encourages Cabinet and the Minister of Health and Social Services to do the right thing. I hope they are listening to us and the public. I hope they choose to do the right thing. Go back to the drawing board. Start again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

I am pleased to second this motion that has been brought forward today by Mr. Abernethy. I appreciate the work that he has put into this issue along with other Members and to his analysis of what has happened. It is so thorough that it is difficult to know what to say and to actually add to it. He has pretty much covered all the bases.

Mr. Speaker, just to summarize and let you know what my concerns are about this change to the Supplementary Health Benefits Policy, I have indicated we did feel for several years as a government that it was necessary to do something to assist those families that were not covered by any other supplementary health benefit insurance and that it was difficult for families if unforeseen illness or medical requirements such as prescriptions or other extraordinary costs were to

come upon them. It could be actually devastating for a family that did not have insurance coverage. So I can remember for as long as I have been a Member of this House, that we thought it was necessary to do something to assist that group of people. Little did I know that when the supplementary health benefits review was taking place it could inadvertently affect seniors in this way.

I believe that we spend an extraordinary amount of time as a government trying to figure out how we can attract people to come live in the North. We have companies that offer incentives for people to move here, to live here, to participate in our communities and yet this action, if played out, would drive seniors out of the North. I have heard those comments made by seniors. I have absolutely no doubt that they are true. It is a matter of fact. The cost of living is probably felt most acutely by those on fixed income. I would say that most seniors are on a fixed income.

I haven’t once heard from this government that this support for seniors is not sustainable but they actually have done the analysis that would indicate what the actual costs are of this program. I just haven’t heard sufficient rationale. Honestly, even if I did hear what the rationale was for it, I would still probably consider that this would be an appropriate expenditure of this government to continue to support seniors in the North with the supplementary health benefits. Yes, it is a good program. Yes, you can compare it to other jurisdictions and say that maybe it is more than seniors in other jurisdictions receive in some instances, but I think it is still money well spent, well invested. When you look at some of the alternatives and some of the alternative costs, if those seniors do become ill or unable to continue to live healthy, independent lives. I think we need to take a very broad look at this on a cost basis even. Even if it turned out that there is a net cost to this government, I think that the people of the Northwest Territories, the taxpayers, the people who have other insurance, would support this group of seniors who would be impacted by this. I think it is a fairly small number of people. In a strange way, it targets quite a small group of people.

My experience with talking to seniors, whether we are talking about the rate scale or programs like this, is that seniors are not adverse to paying and contributing in some fashion. That is why I believe that a part of the investigation and analysis should include this government taking the initiative to see if there is any kind of group insurance that the government could cost share premiums. I am thinking of some nominal fee like $25 a month or something. Not every month or every year are seniors over 60, who would be beneficiaries of a

Supplementary Health Benefits Program, in need of eyeglasses or pharmaceutical support. I haven’t specifically heard from seniors about this, but might I suggest that they may not be opposed to some nominal premium which could go some ways towards offsetting those costs. I have heard the same thing from seniors who live in public housing where right now the rate scale says you pay nothing. People who live independently pay everything. I don’t think they expect continued support with no contribution, but that is something that could possibly be investigated. There are insurance programs that are out there…

Mrs. Groenewegen, you may be steering away from the intent of the motion.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Suffice it to say that I do not support the April 1st implementation of this policy. I do not support the September 1st implementation of this policy. I think

that we need to go back to the drawing board and take a very broad look at what the implications would be of changing this seniors’ Supplementary Health Benefits Policy. Even when consultation takes place, I would be very supportive of ensuring that our seniors over 60 in the Northwest Territories continue to have insurance coverage for these items. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to state that the comments from Mr. Abernethy have pretty much covered everything. He has done an excellent job in summarizing comments we have heard from any number of constituents, residents of the Territory, seniors, those who are non-seniors but who also are affected by the change in this program.

At the outset, I want to say that I am in favour of this motion wholeheartedly. As stated in my Member’s statement the other day, I feel that this is poorly thought out, poorly presented and based on a poor policy and this program should not go into effect.

The intention of the policy is to provide coverage for a group of people who currently don’t have it and who are currently left out. That is the lower income end of our workers. Nobody disagrees with that, Mr. Speaker. We need to provide coverage for people who currently don’t have any, but these proposed program changes solve one problem and creates many others. It cannot go ahead as it is now. I appreciate that the Minister said that there will be revisions, but my problem with that is that it is based on an unworkable premise. That is the premise of income testing or means testing. It

creates different levels of coverage amongst our residents. To quote a comment from a resident in an e-mail: “it will cause bad karma between peoples.” I believe that that is already there and it may be get worse.

Canada proudly trumpets our health care system and with good reason. We’ve got one of the best health care systems in the world. We don’t have to worry about our medical costs. Our system provides universal coverage, but this program change that’s being suggested by the territorial government will go against this particular principle and I can’t agree to that. I’d like to quote again from another e-mail that was sent to me by a constituent: “These changes impact a larger group than just seniors. I’m very concerned about the impact of the changes on staff with chronic illnesses and conditions. Anyone of any age can have a chronic illness or condition and not everyone works for the GNWT with good benefits. Our full-time staff who would be impacted by extraordinary costs for prescriptions and supplies are productive adults who are helping us address the needs of vulnerable people. They make too much to meet the low-income cut-off being suggested, but not enough to pay for the costs themselves. I hope the Minister and the GNWT are not suggesting that affordability means diverting RRSPs for those of us without adequate pension plans or cashing in all of one’s vacation days.”

Those words should be heeded by all of us, Mr. Speaker. The roll-out of this new program was a boondoggle. It was prematurely presented, absent any semblance of good analysis and research. The information available to stakeholders was minimal, confusing and complex to understand. Extended health benefit users, those currently accessing our system, who were unable to adequately understand the program assumed the worst, and often they correctly assumed the worst. Since that time, and since they got some information but not enough information, they’ve been suffering what I think is needless stress and concern. That’s been happening for a number of weeks; it hasn’t been a number of days, it’s been a number of weeks, Mr. Speaker. I think that it’s needless concern on their part. It didn’t need to happen and it could have been prevented by a better roll-out of this particular program.

Members of this House and stakeholders still lack clear information and proof of the value of this program. Many people who are potentially affected by this program are seriously considering moving out of the Territories. I believe that they are seriously looking at it. It’s not an idle threat. I believe that there will be people who will move out if this program impacts them financially.

Not only does this program need to be revamped, but the policy on which it is based needs to be reviewed. If true consultation is to take place, the Minister and the department must start with a blank page; no preconceived ideas at all. We have to develop a program that satisfied the initial goal, that of coverage for lower income workers, but that does not make others suffer or does not make others give up something to give to the lower end. The government must, as was stated the other day, have a conscience and do the right thing. Every time I say that I think of Wilfred Brimley and the Quaker ad where he used to say, “It’s the right thing to do.” This is the right thing to do. The actions that are suggested by this motion are the right thing to do.

I’d like to give you another question that came from another e-mail: “What kind of community do we want to live in?” And this question was related directly to the impacts of the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. We would all be wise to think about that and to think about this particular program as suggested and pass this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

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.

Colleagues, before I go to the next Member, I would like to draw your attention to the visitor’s gallery and the presence of a former Member of the House. Mr. Leon Lafferty is with us. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support the motion that is before us today and I’d like to thank the chair of the Social Program committee, Mr. Beaulieu, and Mr. Abernethy for all the work that they’ve done on putting this motion here. The work that Mr. Abernethy has done was quite extensive. It covered off a lot of bases. Also, I wanted to thank everybody who has contributed in one way or another to getting this motion here today and that’s the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society, the Northwest Territories Seniors’ Society and everybody else that’s out there that called us, e-mailed us, phoned us, talked to us on the streets and gave us their opinion of what the government was trying to do. I appreciate every bit of input that I did receive on this.

Mr. Speaker, I’m left wondering how the government could even take out such a controversial change in supplementary health benefits without first getting an analysis to these changes and how they would impact the residents. I certainly do look at this as a shoddy, poorly thought out and disjointed plan. Answers have certainly been hard to come by even for the Minister. How is it that the department and the Minister could take this out and cause such an uproar amongst our seniors and persons with chronic conditions? The department, the Minister and the government should be embarrassed for themselves over the lack of evidence, analysis, and figures associated with the proposed changes. The Minister can’t even tell us how many people we’re trying to help by trying to address the gap which is the working poor and low-income families. I agree wholeheartedly that this is something we should try to address as the government, but it

should not be on the backs of seniors and those with chronic medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very sceptical of the September 1st implementation date. I believe that these

changes have been in the works for years and another six months over the summer is not going to do this justice. We need to get it right and allow the oversight of the Social Programs committee and other Members of this House to make sure that this is done properly. We owe it to our residents to get this to a stage where we can take it back out to the public. The move to September 1st to me is a way

for the government to dodge some of the tough questions that will come up, to take some of the heat off of the government. Mr. Speaker, I think it’s just a delay tactic and that’s why, again, I fully support the motion to look at advancing that implementation date to April 1, 2010, to allow the proper type of work, analysis and consultation that needs to go into these changes.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I just wanted to thank the Social Programs committee for all their work and Mr. Abernethy and everybody else who has contributed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the elders that are having problems with this issue are the elders that built the North. They were the trailblazers. They developed our communities. They developed our roads. They taught us as children and also they took care of the sick and weak in communities by our health care system. These people have made the North their homes. Mr. Speaker, they paid for what we have today. They developed the North; the trailblazers. Yet, Mr. Speaker, what do we do? We impose hardship on them at a time when they are struggling to maintain a life and enjoyment of the days they have to come.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, support a universal health care system for all people in the Northwest Territories and get away with the debate on race, creed, colour. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, take offence to the racial overtones that have developed because of this policy, in regards to treaties, getting free health care, Metis benefits. Mr. Speaker, it has to be clearly noted that treaties were signed with the people in the Northwest Territories in 1989 in regard to Treaty 8, and 1921 in regard to Treaty 11. There are land claims agreements that have been settled with First Nations people. There are self-government negotiations going on so that First Nations people can take care of their own programs and services. For this policy to become racial is directly on the

feet of the Minister who allowed it to get to that state.

Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories is not a province. The Northwest Territories receives funds from Ottawa because we are a Territory. The programs and services we get by way of education, services, health care services, housing, programs and services which are becoming universal. The intent of the change to this policy was to ensure everybody had access to health care and that we find a system that’s fair to all, and not to use a system that we know is totally dysfunctional by using income thresholds as a means to get to the goal by putting pressure on people to have to leave the North because they can find a better system of health care elsewhere, that is not the state that we are in. We have the financial means to provide services to all people in the Northwest Territories and we should do that and not be eliminating people simply based on the amount of money that you have earned in your lifetime or having a policy that’s better than one policy or another. It should be universal for all people.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion and again I’d like to reiterate the comments that were made. I take offence to the racial overtones of what’s been said on First Nations people in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.