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.