Your final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, at one time there was a Compassionate Travel Policy and it was stopped. It could well be suited for particular cases like this. Would the Minister reinvestigate it from that point of view, from a compassionate point of view? I mean, all I’m asking her to do, and I want to be absolutely clear, Mr. Speaker, is I’d like her to do an analysis and we could cost it out and take it from a compassionate point of view when these situations are very dire, as the old Compassionate Travel Policy allowed. Would the Minister reconsider this under that circumstance? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe there was ever a compassionate policy. I am aware that there is a Medical Travel Policy. If you need a medical escort, you get one. The elders would have an escort. Somebody with a language issue will get an escort. Mr. Speaker, the Member is asking me to do a compassionate analysis. Maybe the Member could tell me how do we decide what is more dire: a family who needs to be near a child who has had a transplant, a 90-year-old elder from Fort McPherson who’s dying of cancer who we don’t know how long it will take, somebody who’s had a brain… I’m just thinking of this thing. Somebody who needs to be in long-term care for three to six months in southern jurisdictions and I get asked for the whole entire community to come and stay with the family. Maybe the Member could tell me what is the indicator we use to do what is compassionate. We have people in small communities who need to be near a doctor. In Inuvik we have somebody from Fort McPherson. We have somebody from Ulukhaktok who needs to be in Inuvik or in Yellowknife. They need housing and they need their families to come in.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about cost. In health care when somebody needs medical care, they get their care. When they need an escort, they get an escort. And under the rule, we allow one person. Thank you.

The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of Health and Social Services. Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister yesterday if she was aware of any complaints or inquiries into the conduct of any physicians. I’m going to sort of move away from that today because

she didn’t really directly answer my question and I still don’t really even know if she knows. But it raises an interesting point. To be the agency which approves the licences of people to practise medicine is a huge responsibility. It’s also a huge liability, because if a complaint is laid and an investigation is undertaken and it is elevated to the point of going to a board of inquiry or going to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, then it would be really good if the Minister of Health and Social Services was aware of that happening and was also aware of her options with respect to suspending a licence to practise for a period of time.

So I’d like to ask the Minister what is the protocol currently in place for when a complaint is laid and how she would become informed of that complaint and the process that would ensue. Thank you.

The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the access to information when the complaints come forward. The Medical Profession Act allows that when there are sufficient complaints, a licence can be suspended or even while the investigation is going on and the medical legislation committee would make a recommendation to the Minister to revoke a licence. So all those powers are available under the current system. Thank you.

So the Minister is saying that she would not just maybe be informed, but she would most definitely be informed of a complaint and the process that would follow. And this is not about the number of complaints. This could be one complaint. One complaint could be enough to launch some type of an investigation or disciplinary action.

Mr. Speaker, how involved is the Minister or our government or the act, how involved is it in laying out the process for an inquiry that would ensure the integrity of that inquiry and of that process? Because there are certain laws that are part of inquiries, public inquiries and inquiries in general, there are certain laws that pertain to the complainant, to the defendant, and there are certain laws of natural justice, and there’s a standard to be upheld in that process. How much would the Minister, in her role, be involved in ensuring the integrity of that process as it unfolded? Thank you.

The legislation sets out a very clear process on the steps that a complaint would go through. A board of inquiry would obviously follow the administrative rules which speak to apprehension of bias, making sure there is no apprehension of bias and natural justice and all that. Mr. Speaker, my role in that regard is to appoint the Members into that board of inquiry, and the Medical Profession Act states clearly how that

inquiry will take place and then they will make recommendations. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister satisfied that the process as it exists now has sufficient teeth in it or, well, let’s just say in the case of an uncooperative defendant, somebody who has been complained of and just chooses not to cooperate with the process. What kind of teeth are there in the process that would compel somebody to even participate to respond to a complaint or appear at a hearing or participate? Is she satisfied that the process is sufficient to do that? Because what I’m hearing is to the contrary. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, there are teeth in the legislation to take actions, including suspending the licence while the investigation is going on. The key part in this is that anybody who has a concern about any physician should come forward and lodge their complaint. If they have some concern about criminal conduct, they should go to the RCMP. The most important thing is the evidence that the complainant brings forward in this process, because without the evidence, the process may not have the impact that some people might be looking for or the Member would like to see. Thank you.

Your final question, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we as a government fail to deal with these types of complaints in a very serious way, I think we are putting ourselves at great risk and great liability. It’s one thing for a patient who has filed a complaint, to want to pursue a remedy with respect to the doctor, but we are throwing this wide open for this government to become the party that would be pursued for negligence if these processes are not intact.

Mr. Speaker, in the case that I am referring to, the complainant filed a complaint. The response from the defendant was not even shared with the complainant nor could it be without the defendant’s permission. This speaks to me of a real flawed process.

Mr. Speaker, how can I as an MLA or a private citizen challenge this process? How can I get access to this? It is all shrouded within this privacy of the people that are being complained of. How can a regular citizen, or even I as an MLA, or anybody gain access to know about what is going on within the confines of these processes? I don’t think the process is as good as the Minister thinks. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Member that government has a responsibility, the Minister has a responsibility and we have a responsibility to respond to the people that bring forward serious allegations. So far, even talking to

the Member, I do not have any specific information about what the situations are. That is why I am asking anybody out there who has concerns about a physician, they should follow this complaint process.

Mr. Speaker, so far what we are hearing is what we heard from somebody else. Mr. Speaker, the legislation states the board of inquiry, for example, could be open to the public. The conduct and the process and the outcome depends on evidence being put forward. I would just encourage. I have to state that anybody who has any information should come forward with that information so that it can be assessed and the individual in question could go through the process with the evidence before them. Thank you.

Next I have the honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Originally, I was going to ask questions to the Premier on supplementary health, but now I am going to ask the Minister of Health and Social Services some questions on supplementary health. In responding to Ms. Bisaro, the Minister of Health said that this new policy excludes nobody. Can the Minister please confirm for me that this new policy that is going to be proposed is not going to exclude anybody? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, this supplementary health excludes nobody for the non-aboriginal people. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I find that response kind of funny, because when I look at the Minister’s numbers in the presentations that were provided, I see 1,232 people that are being excluded from this policy. Pretty much anybody that has insurance is excluded. If you have insurance, you are excluded. Therefore, not everybody is covered by this policy. My biggest concern is not all 1,232, although I do have a concern for all of them, my biggest concern is for the 532 people that have insurance that are currently receiving specified medical condition support under supplemental health. By cutting those people off, we are putting a huge financial burden on people who are really sick, people who have specified conditions; Crohn’s, other conditions, cancer, all those types of things. I am wondering, how can we exclude those 532 people? My question is to the Minister. Why would we want to exclude those 532 people with specified conditions, catastrophic conditions, who

have incredibly high costs? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have presented in our presentation on the website and in our public presentation, the profile of those who use our program under supplementary health and such. Mr. Speaker, we have designed a program to make sure that supplementary health benefits or extended health benefits are available to everybody in the Northwest Territories. You get them either by NHIB, NHB or third-party insurance. If you don’t have those, you fall under supplementary health benefits.

I know this is a point that people disagree with, but I am just trying to explain and I am being straightforward here. Our supplementary health benefits I said is a non-insured health benefits program. Government is saying we want to be the safety net for those who don’t have access elsewhere, so that nobody is excluded from having an extended health benefits program. But if you have insurance, yes, you have to have that insurance program and you have to rely on that insurance program. If you don’t have an insurance program, we will help you and we will give you access by your income. I know people may not agree with that, but that is the fact of the program. I keep repeating that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a far bigger problem than the Minister is giving it any credit for. I met a young man yesterday. He has a chronic condition. It costs him $10,000 a month. If that individual, who just graduated from university goes and works for the GNWT, he gets 80 percent coverage under his insurance. Therefore, he is only going to be spending $2,000 a month out of pocket. He is probably going to start at about $50,000, so if he chose to say, okay, I don’t want to work for the GNWT, I am going to go somewhere where they don’t give me insurance, he is going to get all the money covered, which is $10,000 a month; 12 months, $120,000. It is going to cost us more money.

Our best interest and the best interest of everything is to get as many people on insurance as possible. If people are covered by insurance and then we provide some top-ups, it is going to save us a lot of money in the long run. That is consistent with the policy that came out on September 30, 2007, yet the Minister’s plan is going to be a disincentive for anybody to get insurance. Everybody is going to dump their insurance. Anybody making under $50,000 or $60,000 is going to dump their insurance. My question to the Minister is: where is the incentive for people to get insurance? What is the incentive to help us save some money so that we can provide some of our services? The only thing we are doing is increasing our costs and hurting our people.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to disagree with the Member for what he is saying, so I hope he understands that I don’t reject everything he says, as he suggests, Mr. Speaker. That is a serious issue. That is a challenge for any insurance.

What we have right now is that under seniors policy where anybody who is over 60, you are covered 100 percent on everything. So people do drop insurance already. We are going to, on their policy, encourage people to get insurance. If we know they have a job that has insurance, we are going to encourage them to keep those insurance. We are going to ask them to go to their first insurance first, before they come here. The question we have to ask is we have a people right now who have no insurance at all. We have a system right now with the insurance who is dropping out of the insurance. I don’t know why that would be a factor that prevents us from looking at coming up with a program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think the Minister hit it on the head. Let’s do something to find a solution for those people who don’t have insurance. That is our problem. Right now they are already covered for drugs, under supplemental or specified medical condition, so we need to find a way to get them dental and eye care. So let’s do that. But what she is doing is creating a program that is going to be a disincentive, she says. I don’t know how she is going to do it, but the Minister says we are going to encourage people to keep their insurance. People aren’t stupid, Mr. Speaker. If they look at the program and they go, oh, I’m going to get 100 percent coverage if I had no insurance but I am going to have to pay $2,000 a month if I have insurance, who is going to get insurance? Nobody. Therefore, our costs are going to go up. This is going to do nothing but increase our costs. The Minister didn’t address that. I would like the Minister to address how we are going to stop our costs from going up, because we created a program that is going to destroy insurance. How are we supporting insurance, Mr. Speaker?