I was more interested in the Minister’s perspectives on the divisive, racially divisive, culturally divisive proposals that she has coming forward. I would welcome any further comments she might have on that.

It was noted at a recent public meeting that the representatives of the NWT Pharmaceutical Association have repeatedly offered to meet with the Minister and her department to share their knowledge and experience in any considerations of changes to the supp health program. The department was also invited to attend the annual general meeting of this association. In both cases the department and the Minister failed to take up those offers. Can the Minister explain why the department would not respond to these offers and how they can design a program without the wisdom and advice of important front-line providers such as these? Thank you.

The fact of the matter is, as a part of our consultation process we did write to the pharmacy association and the NWT Medical Association. The pharmacy association did not respond. We had written in March. We did get an email from Mr. Dolynny, who was not a president of the pharmacy association. He invited our staff to come. We had five days’ notice. Our staff was not going to be available for that time. It was five days’ notice. We had offered to meet with them at another time when it was more convenient, Mr. Speaker. So it is entirely inaccurate for anybody to suggest and it’s without evidence of a basis to say that we did not listen to them. We had written to

them and the pharmacy association did not respond.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this supplementary policy is something that’s used everywhere in the country. Everywhere in the country this is how the pharmacy program is… A lot of programs across the country are income tested, so I’m sure that the pharmacists in the Territories will be able to adjust to this policy.

I guess the word should be put out that if you’re not president of an association, don’t bother contacting the Minister on an opportunity for input

---Applause

Last year when the Minister was directed to go back to the drawing board on supp health, she promised to go back to the beginning and carry out consultations with no preconceptions such as a means test. Yet at her departmental community meetings, Mr. Dana Heide said he was directed to base the proposals on an income threshold model. Can the Minister explain how this could be a fulfilment of her promise, please?

When the motion was passed we had a big debate about whether or not income test is a good option. We should look at things from the blank slate. We did review those. I directed the staff to look at the user profile, look at who’s using it, how much it’s costing, what does it mean, how can we expand the programs to those who are excluded. We looked at all of that, Mr. Speaker, and I know that there are those who choose not to accept some of the information that they received. But the fact of the matter is we have done the research and the research shows that, in terms of income profile of our people, that we have low income, middle income, high income, in all peoples in their ages and background. I believe fundamentally that government’s role is to provide support to those who need it the most, and we will do that. We will provide for seniors. We will provide for working families. We will provide support to those who need assistance from us. Thank you.

Your final question, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Minister is really about the really good suggestions and incredible amount of thinking and thoughtful drafting of options to be pursued by the Minister. Certainly the progressive taxation was one of them. I think there was some mention of fees. I assume that the Minister has developed a perspective on those in response to the overwhelming comments from the public on those suggestions. Thank you.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have referred those suggestions and we have reviewed them and looked at the implications of progressive taxation, taxation to pay a program like this, which is not an insurer service, and we have reviewed the

suggestions made in the Minister of Finance’s roundtable on revenue options. There was a suggestion for progressive taxation by Alternatives North. I believe that the program that we are proposing under supp health is a progressive taxation within the program in that we are supporting those who need it the most and we are asking those on a higher income to make a contribution to a supplementary health care cost, where in any other province they would be required to pay 100 percent unless they had insurance. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement I attempted to describe what I think is a process that is in place that would allow a panel of peers of physicians to receive complaints and deal with complaints about the conduct of physicians who practice in the Northwest Territories. I would like to ask the Minister: could she please describe for me what the process is? What is in place currently in the Northwest Territories? Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a very specified procedure for filing complaints under the Medical Profession Act. Anyone who has a concern with a physician or any other medical practitioner could write… Well, they could first talk to the chief executive officer and the people in their authority. Then there is what’s called a complaints officer under the Medical Profession Act, and the complaints officer would review the complaints. Complaints could go into alternative dispute resolution or any other ways of sorting it out, or the matter could go into a board of inquiry where a board made up of appointed people would look at those complaints. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the board of inquiry, who sits on that board? How do they get on that board? What is the Minister’s relationship with that board? Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health and Social Services appoints members to this… It’s not a panel that exists throughout the year. It’s formed when a complaint is moved to that board of inquiry and a panel is selected from individuals appointed by the Minister. The panel will include at least one doctor who is licensed to practice in the NWT, one doctor who is licensed to practice in a province, and one member of the

public who is not a doctor. So it’s usually made up of three members on that board. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, during this Minister’s tenure as Minister of Health and Social Services, has she ever made appointments to a board of inquiry to look into a matter of a complaint about conduct of a physician practicing in the Northwest Territories, or is she aware of any time in the recent past when a board of inquiry has been appointed? Thank you.

No, Mr. Speaker, I have not appointed a board of inquiry during my time as Minister. Thank you.

Final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Mr. Speaker, is the Minister aware of any board of inquiry that was appointed to deal with a complaint where that complaint, to this day, has not been concluded or disposed of? Are there outstanding complaints that have been raised against any medical professionals that have not yet been concluded? Thank you.

I think I would have to undertake to get more information on that. I am aware that there are a couple of cases, but these things have a way of taking a long time. I can’t tell you exactly when it started or where it is. I don’t have all that information in front of me, so I will undertake to get back to the Member on where -- I can’t remember exactly what she asked -- but I will have to undertake to get back to the Member. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I absolutely did not say and I would ask the Member to correct that I said that this was a tax on sick and the elderly. Mr. Speaker, that is misleading. That phrase is offensive because, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is our health care system is entirely based on taking care of the sick and the elderly. We take care of the sick and the elderly.

Supplementary health benefits is a completely different thing. The Member says that there are actually people not excluded. Obviously, then, he is not paying attention to the low income families who need help from us.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is, the program as we have it now allows people in our communities whose income is $200,000, and there are seniors or anybody else who makes $200,000 and good on them, that is great. I hope that I make $200,000 when I retire. We could have somebody who makes $200,000 and they have a government pension insurance. They get insurance coverage but we top them up for the rest of the 20 percent. That is what we have. Then we have a family down the street in downtown Yellowknife who may be a single mother with four kids. She makes $50,000 a year. She doesn’t work for an employer who has health insurance. For them, it is a decision about whether they are going to go to a movie or buy the next set of glasses or get a dental appointment.

When I was a university student at 25, I didn’t have parents who had an employer health insurance. I had to fork out $150 to go to a dentist.

Mr. Speaker, this program is trying to say, we are going to expand the coverage to all the people and we will determine the access not by age, not by your condition, by your income. At the same time, we are coming up with an income threshold that is more generous than any seen anywhere, to the effect that we will provide to 80 percent of people as good a benefits package as you would get if you work for the government.

Mr. Speaker, the Members here who care about low income people, fairness, inclusiveness, poverty, anti-poverty strategy, everybody should get up and

applaud for the good work and the benefits that this package has to offer. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, it sure sounded like that is what she said on this side of the House. If Hansard proves that she didn’t in fact say that it is going to be a tax on the sick and the elderly, I do apologize for that. But I didn’t hear a response to my question. Basically, if you look at the list of conditions that are covered under the extended benefits, it covers pretty much every condition. I think the only one that I could figure out that is missing on here is high cholesterol, so these low income families that she is talking about, if they want coverage for drugs, they can get it. They can get it today if they just apply for the specified medical conditions. So what she is saying, that they are not covered, it is not completely true. It is doublespeak. She is saying one thing when really she is trying to say another, which concerns me. This is an important issue. Quite frankly, to suggest that we on this side of the House don’t care about the poor and the low income families is frankly quite insulting, because we all do and want that to happen. We want those people to be covered but we don’t want them to be covered at the expense of everybody else. We want to find a way to cover everybody universally. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker, to me the entire revision of the Extended Health Benefits Program seems to lack common sense. For example, the discussion paper lacks any projections which would help the reasonable person to make a reasonable decision. The department has not identified any alternative scenarios or made any potential outcomes available for discussion.

Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Health and Social Services please tell me why no analysis was done outlining the effects of these proposed changes on the people that the changes affect, people affected both in a positive way because yes there are a couple of them, thank God, but also tell me how these changes are going to affect those people that are going to be affected negatively, like people with catastrophic conditions who have an insurance provider but are now going to be expected to come out of pocket $700 or $800 where today they are covered. Those people with catastrophic conditions who have insurance are the people that are going to be the most damaged by what you are proposing. What you are proposing for those people clearly is not fair. I would like the Minister to answer some of those questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the effect and the picture, the impact that we are drawing here is that for 80 percent of the non-aboriginal NWT population, they will have as good or better Supplementary Health Benefits Program than what

they would have if they work for the Government of the Northwest Territories. That is a good program. That is a generous program. That is a fair program. For the rest of that population, 20 percent, they will still be covered. We are still generous. We are asking that they will start paying a premium starting at 20 percent, but no one will pay more than 45 percent. Anybody in that income bracket, I would think, would look to get an insurance program which will then cover them 80 percent.

Mr. Speaker, catastrophic drugs, what Members are talking about, when we are talking about catastrophic drugs nationally, we are talking about drug costs that the government is asked to pay that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is a program that we will be introducing. We are working on it. But for the benefit of this program, yes, we are asking our people to start having to pay for some of their supplementary health costs out of their own pocket. In the rest of the country, you would pay 100 percent on this if you had employment health insurance. If you don’t have employment health insurance, if you wanted to get assistance from government, your income threshold would have to be much lower than what we offer.

Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health and Social Services has reviewed this for three years. We have worked hard to come up with a comprehensive, fair and equitable plan. Mr. Speaker, we stand by this. Thank you.