Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, life is never dull in this building. Something is always happening. Sometimes we know it’s going to happen, sometimes we don’t, but there is never also any shortage of opinions no matter what the topic.
Today I, along with other Members, will speak to the controversial issue of changes to our Supplementary Health Benefits Program. I feel like we’re jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We’ve spent the last several months sizzling in the pan over the very controversial bridge issue and we will now jump into the fire with the supplementary health benefits issue.
Just so everybody is aware, we’re debating this issue because of a policy decision made by Cabinet in the 15th Assembly, the previous Assembly. The
Executive of the current 16th Assembly has decided
that the policy decision should now come into force, so here we are. As the 16th Assembly we seem to
be destined to bear the burden of our predecessors’ actions.
The Minister of Health and Social Services, in her statement yesterday, said that changes will expand access to the program for those who do not currently have access. The changes will make the program more fair and equitable and that it will be a step towards poverty reduction and addressing cost of living for our residents.
I agree with all of those statements. I’ve never disagreed with the philosophy behind the Cabinet policy decision or with the rationale for making changes to the Supp Health Program. We do need to ensure that all NWT residents have access to extended health benefits. At the moment some do not have that access. We do need to make the program fair and equitable and at the moment it is not.
My problem regarding the changes has been, and continues to be, with the way in which the changes will be made. About a month ago the Department of Health and Social Services released a discussion paper; a paper intended to allow NWT residents to consider the changes to the Supp Health Benefits Program and provide their input or comments. This week, consultation via town hall meetings began.
It all sounds good except that, like the first time around a year ago, the schedule for consultation and implementation is all wrong. There simply is not enough time in the schedule to get the public’s views for the department to consider the input and develop a draft plan, to review the draft with members of the public, and then to have the three months identified by the Minister to prepare for implementation on September 1st .
There must be a second round of consultation to adequately consult with those affected by these changes. Implementation must be delayed to at least November 1st , preferably January 1st, 2011.