Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been waiting on the supplementary health benefits issue because I’m sitting here listening to the debate and dialogue. It is very easy to sit on this side of the House and ask for the world. It’s kind of a little bit irresponsible, though, because we know that it is not sustainable to give seniors over a certain age unlimited, unfettered, non-means-tested access to supplementary health benefits. We know that. We know it cannot be done. So where is the

creativity in the Department of Health and Social Services to look at things?

If we want to address the working poor, as we coin the phrase, those who do not work for the government, those who are not covered by other types of plans, when we look at that group, as Mr. Hawkins refers to them, the mysterious group, it’s not mysterious. I know who those people are. I’ve been standing up talking about them in this House for the last 15 years. Why could we not look at an insurance program that would be affordable? We could even cost share the premium to access something through an insurance program so that those folks could access supplementary health benefits in that way.

When it comes to seniors, rather than saying when you get to a certain age or a certain income bracket there’s nothing, why couldn’t we come up with something creative, something graduated where we say if you are in this income bracket, you are fully covered; if you are in this income bracket, we will cost share with you; and when you’re in this income bracket, darn it, you’ve got enough money you can pay for your own stuff unless it’s catastrophic and completely unaffordable. Where is the creativity in a plan that addresses this issue? Because we know, I mean, there’s nothing worse than ingratitude, and, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories should be very grateful for the services provided by this government through the Department of Health. But where is the ability of this department to look at some creative solutions? Thank you.