Mr. Speaker, the Minister talks about meaningful consultation and identifying gaps. Mr. Speaker, in her own words, from 2003 to 2007 they worked on this policy in the policy shop. They also went to Social Programs for approval. They sat on this for a year and a half and just before Christmas of 2008, they decided to launch this on the public. You’re telling me, after approximately five years that you took to develop a policy that is so full of gaps that you couldn’t hold water back to save your life, that you’re going to come up and find all the gaps and solve all the problems in six months. That’s why I’m asking that six months won’t do this policy justice and in fairness. I’m going to repeat this question this way: The Minister clearly says programs are demand driven. This side of the House is demanding you take off the implementation date, and if you need to bring it to consultation don’t put the pressure on getting the results by time driven only, go for the results first.

I’ve said I am committed to a meaningful consultation. We have received some really good information that we need to revisit. It’s pretty simple what we need to fix right now. There are some glaring things that we need to fix on what’s proposed; income threshold and the eligibility for catastrophic drug program. We will do a meaningful consultation to make sure that we have fixed this program and we will take the time we need to. I’ve agreed to consult on the process. We’re going to have an exchange and workshops so that you don’t have a situation where people go and have a meeting and then not give enough time or a means to give feedback. I think I agree with the Member, that we will do what’s necessary to improve this situation.

I’m glad the Minister agrees and officially put it on record that she will now take off the time deadline on consultation and implementation.

Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, September 1 is the target date, because

it is helpful in any exercise to have the end date. We will strive to get the work done. We will strive to have most of the work done before the summer. We will make sure we do meaningful consultation with the public and the stakeholders.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, again, I realize this Minister’s trying to be the superhero of health care, but let’s take off the pressure of an implementation date to make sure it’s done properly. Will the Minister take off the implementation date? Secondly, and finally, will the Minister bring the policy to the House for House approval before any implementation is enforced?

Yes, I mean, that’s the regular process. There’s nothing new about that. We don’t do any of these without going to the committee, Mr. Speaker, and we never have.

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

I’d also like to follow up with the Minister of Health on the supplementary health benefits questions. I’m wondering what the Minister has heard from the public that is valid, in her mind for review. What are the significant problems that have been identified by the public and that will be part of this review?

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the announcement of this policy, I happened to have travelled to Fort Simpson, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, and I have to say, when I explained that the changes are meant to expand the program so that we include a group of people that are excluded, people agree with that. When we say the senior cut-off is $55,000 net, and for most people that is a really good income on a retirement, because that means you have to make about $75,000 to $80,000. The gaps that we have found are that we need to revisit the income threshold itself, whether it’s too low or not, the difference between a couple and a single versus members of family, because we understand that there are all kinds of different characteristics and make-ups of a family, and the other gap that we have found is that catastrophic drug costs only covers drugs. We have learned that often the biggest cost item is not necessarily the drugs; it’s the medical equipment, medical supplies, if you

have diabetes, all the stuff you have to use. So we need to make sure that those are included in the catastrophic drug medical equipment and supplies program rather than just drugs.

Another glaring error that, not error, but the issue that we need to look at is the fact that you don’t qualify for the Catastrophic Drug Program until you have spent 5 percent of your net income. People are telling us that is way too high. So we need to revisit that.

I believe with all the number crunching and everything, we can make it so that most people are covered. The vast majority of people are covered, and who are not covered, if it makes sense, I believe that people could see more about why the government felt the need to change this.

There are a few others that I’ve heard of, but one I’m very interested in is the universal coverage and stepping away from that towards the income testing. A lot of my constituents have brought that up with me. Canadians in general want health care, they’re willing to pay for it, and our tax system is already addressing availability to pay, which is not addressed with the income testing approach. So will universal coverage and moving away from income testing be up for part of the discussion in this public review?

The fact is we do not have universal coverage for supplementary health right now. We don’t. So we’re not moving away from universal coverage. The whole point is the impetus of changing this is the fact that we have a group of working poor, as we call them, or low-income families, or if you have a job that doesn’t have third-party insurance. So the self-employed. We have a group of people who are not covered under the existing system. So it is not accurate to say that we have a universal program. We have a universal program for those who are over 60. We have a universal program for those who have a specified condition that is eligible on the list.

We have to decide, as a society and as a government, whether we can afford to pay for everything to do with health issues for everybody all the time. There are implications to that: governing and making policies about making choices. I think for most people they would say the focus has to be on people who need it the most. Right now, under this program, we are excluding those people.

Of course, it is a matter of degree with universal coverage and income testing. We’re moving away from some degree of universal coverage and more and more towards income testing.

I like what the Minister had to say, that those are the issues. Will those issues be part of this public review? The public would like the opportunity to comment on that. There are lots of design ways that Canadians have figured out how to pay for health care, regardless of what their income is, so that it is universal coverage. That needs to be part of this discussion. Will the Minister commit to including that?

Unless the Member has information that I’m not aware of, there is no jurisdiction in Canada that has a universal coverage for supplementary health benefits. In fact, programs like home care services, which the NWT provides as a core service universally, is not included as supplementary health coverage. There is no jurisdiction in Canada that covers 100 percent for anybody who is over 60. There is no...It’s a supplementary health benefit, is what it is. It is supplementary. It’s extra. It’s not part of the Health Care Plan. So universality does not apply here.

We do have a more generous program than most other provinces and territories, and I believe it’s a goal that we want to meet. But we are trying to fill the gaps so we can include those who are not currently part of the program.

I hope that will be part of the discussion, because I think there are still a lot of opportunities to be mined there. Finally, I guess, will the Minister commit to following, as a review process, the model that was used in the review of the Income Support Program, which was a highly successful public consultation process?

I have asked the department to look at that process to see if we could borrow from that. I’m prepared to make a commitment to the Members here, that I will come back with an outline of how we propose to do the consultation and where the meetings will be and how they’re going to take place for the next little while. So consultation and consultative approach as we go forward to improve the changes are very much at the table and I’m prepared to work with the Members and the public to do that.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

I’d like to ask questions to the Minister of Transportation in terms of transportation issues in the Sahtu. I would ask the Minister if he’s had any type of discussions with the request for additional runway lengths in Fort Good Hope and Deline. I know this is a pressing issue for the two

communities and the airline that’s located in the Sahtu in terms of the benefits of having additional runways. We appreciate the additional length of paving to 900 feet, but I think they’re asking for an extra 500 to 1,000 feet. Can the Minister confirm in the House and for the people in the Sahtu in terms of this type of inquiry being imposed to his department from these two communities and the airline?

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the Member that we did have discussions. In fact, he was there. We certainly did engage in some discussion with the communities about runway length. This has been an ongoing issue for some time and we have not had any further discussion prior to the ones we had where the Member was in attendance. We have received some correspondence since then. We have made some commitments to do some further investigation and we were not able to engage for several months. Since then we have received information in written form and we will be responding to them.

Certainly through the memberships and we certainly appreciate the time and records that the department has gone out of its way to assist the two communities. We want to ask, in this type of discussion here, when the department, in terms of responding to the additional requests of the two runways, specifically Fort Good Hope and Deline, in terms of additional runway requirement lengths that they’re asking for. Because we’ve already talked about some partnerships and we are looking forward to this department to respond in a positive way that will see a benefit in terms of stimulating the economy in the Sahtu region.

Apparently a response to that letter to us is being drafted as we speak. We will be reinstating a number of issues that we had discussed. There has, however, not been any further discussions, as we had agreed to have our technical people sit down and explore what the options are out there. We still have the same concerns about extending the runway further than the 3,900 feet. It will cost a lot more. We haven’t explored to see how much that is, but it’s in the millions of dollars. There are other issues that come as a result of that, and we wanted to have an opportunity for our people to work together with the Sahtu communities to talk about that and see if there are any opportunities for partnerships or arrangements. We wanted to find out that there is very limited opportunity to find additional resources and have that discussion also. We haven’t had

opportunity, since this new year has started, to sit down with the people from the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired. I will allow the Member a short supplementary question. Mr. Yakeleya.