Mr. Speaker, it is nice that they are asking us questions for a change. Technically, I can’t say what I have wrong with the substance, because in order to make a fair and accurate assessment of whether this program that they are proposing is a right one, we need options to consider. We need alternatives to consider. Research should have been done on this. When we did the motion, Mr. Speaker, the motion included a discussion around the department going out and meeting with the potentially affected stakeholders to get that information, get those options and they were going to research it. The Minister said they would talk to the stakeholders and get that information. They should be coming back to us with all of that information. What the result might be is this might be the best program, but without all of these alternatives we will never know and never be able to make the decision that this is the best. I want that information. The Minister said she was going to give it. Why didn’t she provide us with that information that she said she was going to provide? It is simple. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the direction of the House and the result of the last discussions were that people wanted to know more about who were using this program, how the income threshold would impact the residents who were covered and who would not be covered anymore. At that time we suffered from not having enough detailed information about exactly who was served by this program.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated already, there hasn’t been, I don’t think, a more thorough analysis of a program like we have presented as a result of doing this research for the last number of months and we are putting the information out there. But we understand that people may need more information to have a better discussion and we are willing to provide the information. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Member has more information he needs, I’d be happy to do everything I can to provide it. Thank you.

The Minister seems to remember the parts of the motion and the debate

that support her case. What she’s not talking about here is that we are also asking for alternatives and options. I don’t see alternatives and options. Yes, they’ve done a lot of research, I’ve got to tell you. The product they are providing to us now has way more research. It’s a lot of research, it’s good information, it explains a lot to defend the model that they want to put forward. Where are the alternatives? Where are the options? Those options would have come from the stakeholders that she promised that she would consult with if they’d actually had consultations over a year ago. They didn’t. So I guess I’m going to ask: why didn’t the Minister ask -- and we all know she’s going to say they did -- but why didn’t the Minister not have the consultations that she said she was going to have to obtain these alternatives and options, the information that would help us make informed, reasonable and rational decisions in the best interest of the people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is there is a lot of information to make informed, rational, logical decisions about where we should go with this program on behalf of all the people who need our attention with this program. Mr. Speaker, I know the Member is referring to the public working group. In fact, they asked for more information about the program. Exactly who does it serve? What is the background of the people that access this program? What would it mean in many different ways? So they asked for more detailed information before they put any input in, so we presented that information to the group and the group responded to the material we presented. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again no references to alternatives and options, the thing that is important to make a healthy, rational and reasonable decision. Since I can’t get an answer there, I’m going to ask a different question.

In my Member’s statement from the quote that I read, the individual said the process that we’re going through now does not allow the GNWT to change its policy to accommodate the discussions and recommendations arrived at as a result of these consultations with the affected people and stakeholders prior to the stated implementation date. We’ve said since she announced the start date of this new policy, it’s not enough time to consider some alternatives and make changes. Sounds like they’ve already got their plan decided to implement what they want. Why can’t we push the date back a little bit so we have an opportunity to put in some of these alternatives or at least consider them reasonably? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The constituent that he mentioned, I have the copy of that e-mail too. That

e-mail was written before we had all the details that we posted on the website just yesterday. That participant was part of the stakeholders group which did not have all of the income data and who would benefit or not. This is an evolving process, Mr. Speaker. The public hearings started today. That’s an opportunity for people to give us feedback into what we are presenting.

Mr. Speaker, the Member keeps saying where are the alternatives. I’d be happy to hear from him about what alternatives that he wants us to consider, because I believe the information we have gives a really good point for discussion. Thank you

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to follow up on some of my colleagues’ questions who have been questioning the Minister of Health and Social Services to the proposed changes to supplementary health. The interesting thing for me, I was at the briefing on Tuesday and the information provided was good information, but again, Mr. Speaker, with all the trouble that was caused last year, about a year ago, just over a year ago and the issue is back before us again, I don’t understand why it took that long to get that level of detailed information in front of the Standing Committee on Social Programs. That information, Mr. Speaker, should have been there a long time ago.

Mrs. Groenewegen was asking questions about what research the Department of Health and Social Services has done on the impact of these changes, what impact this proposed change would have on seniors here in our Territory and how many of them would actually pack their bags and leave the Northwest Territories as a direct result of these proposed changes to supplementary health benefits. Many of our residents are approaching retirement age as well and I’m not interested in grandfathering anybody. I think people who have paid taxes and raised families here in the Northwest Territories deserve and have every right to the same benefits that people enjoy today. I’d like to ask the Minister that question: what research was done?

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that question has come up: has the department looked at what impact this will have in

terms of people wanting to leave. I have two direct answers to that. One is that we have no reason to believe that anything we are doing here would encourage anybody to leave the North because our program is as good, if not better, than what’s available anywhere else. So our supp health benefits are still a robust one and the fact is all across the country, except for Nunavut, all extended health benefits are income tested. Not only are they income tested, some of them are means tested, which means they look at more than just the income. In some places it’s asset tested, which we are not proposing to do at all. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and other jurisdictions, their income threshold is less than $25,000 gross. We’re talking about a program that you still have access to even if you make $200,000 a year. So we have no reason to believe that anybody would leave.

Now, why can’t you come up with a dollar? That’s the same question as if somebody could tell me if I’m going to get sick tomorrow. I do not know what my health care cost is going to be to my government because we cannot project people’s health expenses. To ask that, the Member has to know that’s an impossible thing to answer.

The Minister knows full well, she’s the chair of the Strategic Initiatives Committee on the Cost of Living. She knows full well that it’s not a fair comparison to compare the cost of living here in the Northwest Territories to that of southern jurisdictions where, I might add, many people choose to retire in the South. Somebody has to protect the social fabric of our communities and keep families together and keep seniors in the North. I’d like to again ask the Minister how come a survey hasn’t been conducted with the seniors in the Northwest Territories to ask them if proposed changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program would result in them leaving the Northwest Territories. Like I said, when they leave, that affects the social fabric of our communities. We need to keep families together.

I really think the Minister has to address that concern and the $22,000 that the government gets in transfer payments for every person we have on the ground here in the Northwest Territories. That would be gone with them as well.

Obviously I disagree with the Member’s position on that. The fact is the cost of living issue for everyone in the North is important to this government. It’s also important that we continue to provide a robust Extended Health Benefits Program to our residents. What we are trying to do is to expand the coverage to those who do not have it right now, who are experiencing cost of living issues, as well as anybody else. So we are proposing an income as a criterion to consider and we are open to listen to our residents through this

public hearing process about what they think of this and what other information they would like us to consider. We are open to listen to our residents through this public hearing process about what they think of this and what other information they would like us to consider.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Ramsay.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have to have some type of competitive advantage here in the Northwest Territories to maintain our population base, especially for senior citizens. I’d like to ask the Minister if she can explain to me how she feels that this proposed change to supplementary health is fair when it is a redistribution. She talks about it herself. She says there are going to be winners. Who are the losers?

Under this proposal, if you go to the information that we have on the website, you would have to make $400,000 net income, that’s line 236 in federal income tax, you would have to make $400,000 before you have to pay 100 percent of glasses, $1,000 dental benefits, and 100 percent of your prescription drugs. You would have to make $150,000 before you start making some contribution. That is being competitive. I would challenge any other government in the land who would pay for thousand dollar dental fees and glasses without a means test when you’re making $200,000-plus.

The Member should support this proposal where we are going to provide access to children and working families right now who do not have that. I would argue that somebody making $70,000 a year could benefit from a $1,000 dental benefit for each of their children before somebody who’s making $200,000 to $400,000 that they get dental benefits just because they’re of a certain age. I do believe that it’s really important for the seniors out there to know that their benefits will be covered. There are no losers here because we are just asking people who can afford to pay to start contributing.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a government we’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, and I thank him for the initiatives that the government’s started on trying to attract and retain people here in the Northwest Territories. The government knows how important it is to have people stay here in the Northwest Territories. Like I said earlier, it’s $22,000 per person.

I’d like to ask the Minister again, I didn’t really hear it, she said there are no losers. When there are winners there are losers. Can the Minister stand up

in this House today and tell the people of the Northwest Territories who is going to lose under her proposed initiative?

As the Member for Hay River South and many here know, we know that we have a very good health care program in the Northwest Territories. I honestly don’t believe that somebody... Mr. Speaker, making a public decision and doing the right thing you have to look at things as a total package. We have 2,000 people who will benefit by having access to these programs. Remember, I think people should know, even for other seniors programs like the rental subsidy or fuel subsidy, the day care subsidy, a lot of other government programs are income tested. This is not the first program that would try to do that. Really it is a very fair and objective way to do it.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Item 9, written questions. Item 10, returns to written questions. Mr. Clerk.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Item 11, replies to opening address. Item 12, petitions. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. Item 14, tabling of documents. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.