Thank you. Why? Why do we have to do that? If the question is why, then the answer to why is because we have a group of people who need us and that is the working poor. What I’m hearing is everybody says help the working poor, cover them, what’s taking you so long. Mr. Ramsay said you’ve known for three years 2,200 people are not covered, why don’t you include them? That’s not my problem, include them, spend the money, get it from somewhere else, tax the people. Mr. Speaker, that’s easy to do and what people are telling me is you can cover the poor as long as you cover everybody else, as long as you don’t touch me, you cover the poor as long as it doesn’t impact me, it covers the poor. You keep the benefits for the rich and then cover the poor. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, everybody out there is saying you know what, cover the poor, but don’t let that affect me.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the House and the people, we’re talking non-insured benefits, we’re talking taking money out of insured benefits, we’re talking people saying unless you do everything for everybody else, you’re not going to cover the poor. Mr. Speaker, my question to you and everybody is how long do the poor people have to wait?

Thank you. I’m not sure I heard an answer to my question. I agree that the people who are currently uncovered do need to be covered and, again, I don’t think there’s anybody that disagrees with that. My question had to do with the implementation that is currently being proposed, and that was my question. Why does the policy, in its current format, have to be implemented now? I don’t believe I heard an answer to that. Absolutely we need to cover people, but I think there have been at least eight or 10 suggestions from the general public, from Members, that could cover the costs of the people who are currently uncovered and I haven’t heard that information from the Minister that they were considered.

We have presented suggestions over the last period of a number of months, and what keeps coming back to us as a committee and to the general public is that Cabinet is entrenched in their position. So I would like to ask the Minister to tell me why she and the Cabinet believe that such a divisive policy is right for our Territory. Thank you.

Thank you. This policy is not divisive. It’s divisive to those who believe that it’s divisive, Mr. Speaker. This is covering a group of people who are not covered. We have listened to everybody who gave us input over the last three years. We have responded, we are coming out with a proposal that will be as good or better than any

government employee package. That is generous, that’s going far, that’s taking into consideration what everybody has told us, and, Mr. Speaker, we’ll have to agree to disagree, but, Mr. Speaker, we have done our best to come up with the best package. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think our best package is a long way from what we currently have in front of us. The Minister has said that she is covering some. I agree. We are covering some, but we are uncovering others and that is not the right way to go. I mentioned in my statement that my vision is an NWT where all people live, work and play as equals. What is the Minister’s vision for our Territory?

On that, I agree with the Member. I need to tell the Member that this new package excludes no one.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there’s a lot of information that has been going out and there’s a lot that people need to know. I am willing to answer any specific questions that the Member’s constituents may have about what supplementary health benefits are and what we’re trying to change, what is covered right now and how that is different from NIHB and other supplementary health benefits policies across the country.

Will the program the Minister is proposing resolve the new costs for this government while you’re trying to manage the changes within the existing program budget?

The fact of the matter is, we have a supplementary benefits program. The changes we are proposing are not cost-cutting

measures. At the same time, we need to make sure that the costs are affordable and reasonable. What we are trying to do is we are realigning the Supplementary Health Benefits Program for non-aboriginal people. What we have now is we cover those who are over 60, and those who have a chronic condition, and those who make under $30,000. We have a group of people among non-aboriginal people who are excluded. The changes we are proposing are to bring them on stream.

I want to ask the Minister, for example, what are the implications or consequences of requirements for new funding for residents in small communities if we were to not go ahead with the proposed program?

The answer to that has to do with what I keep saying about insured services versus non-insured services. Insured services are what people know as our health care. That’s our doctor service, hospital service, nursing service, surgeries, hip replacements, having a baby. Those are what we know to be a health care that everybody is entitled to and everybody will get. Nothing changes from that.

What we are talking about is uninsured services. Things like the cost of drugs, glasses, dental, and equipment. Right now the aboriginal people get those covered through NIHB and Metis health benefits. For non-aboriginal people, we have a group that are excluded. We are trying to make that fair and equitable. The more we spend on that, we will be spending money on other things. We are willing to pay to support those who need it the most and we are saying we will determine the access by looking at people’s income, because that is the fairest way of looking at one’s ability to pay.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister how the new program will affect young working mothers who make enough that they will be expected to cover their own extended health care and might have to decide to either buy food or buy medicine.

Right now, as the program exists, we have a real working mother on Facebook every day. I got on Facebook six months ago. This lady posts every day. She says she’s a single mother with two kids. I need a job with a dental plan. I need a job with a dental plan. And I go, there’s a lady with two kids and she is struggling to pay for our dental care. Under the existing system it is totally possible for somebody making $500,000 a year -- and there are people who make $500,000 a year, good on them -- $200,000, $300,000 with no expenses and they get 100 percent coverage. To me, that is not fair.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the House I talked during my Member’s statement about our Territory needing a transplant policy that is clear, that can help northern families keep the family unit strong and united during those darker periods of life that no one certainly wishes upon them. My question to the Minister of Health and Social Services in the past is, would you look at this and it has been an outright no, feeling that we don’t have the money or whether the existing plan doesn’t really allow it or whatnot. That’s not so important as the question today, which is simply if the Minister of Health and Social Services will reconsider this request of mine, to examine the possibility of what it would cost to develop a policy to ensure that families who have loved ones out of the Territory for care do get a chance to respite. And certainly have a section in there in case something happens where it’s required to unite the whole family for one particular circumstance. Would the Minister be willing to at least investigate that possibility and see what it would cost the government if we were to go down that path?

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member knows, we have investigated this. I have responded to the answer to this. We are not in support of designing a separate program based on different medical conditions.

When somebody needs to go away for medical treatment, their needs are similar, whether an elder or somebody having brain surgery. We have mothers who need to be medevaced out or babies who need to be medevaced out. We have elders who need to be taken elsewhere. We provide all kinds of medical services where the family needs to be there. We provide that service. We have a Medical Travel Policy that allows for an escort. We believe that having one policy that applies to all is fair.

I’m not sure that’s necessarily right. The reason I say that is because one policy is great when the questions are simple. But in this particular case and other cases that have been presented by this House, our questions aren’t typically black and white. They require a lot of melding and forming to and fro. The Health Minister is correct, we do have a Medical Travel Policy, but people have been refused even with doctors’ notes. That’s why I’m suggesting that could an analysis of

this particular situation, which has not been done, be considered at this time and we could examine what the true costs would be through an analysis and then make the type of decision could this government afford health care support in this regard.

I believe the Member is speaking about two different things. One is somebody who can be denied medical travel even if someone has a doctor’s note. Yes, that is possible. If a doctor prescribes uninsured service, they will not get medical travel.

The second thing is, the original point that he was suggesting is because of the situation of a family who has had a child needing a transplant is different, we should set up a different policy for that situation.

Mr. Speaker, as dire as the situation is, we get… I’m only aware of one situation, and to set up a whole new policy just for one situation, Mr. Speaker... I’m not saying all family situations are the same. I’m not saying all medical situations are the same. Yes, there are many unique situations. But the fact of the matter is, we require our residents going away for service for all kinds of different reasons. We get asked every day from families who would like government support to be with them and sometimes it’s for months. What we are saying is government policy is that we pay for one person. Yes, we could do more and we don’t even need to do the cost analysis. It just means that we have to pay more. We are doing what we can do with the resources we have. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, this isn’t about one family, and I want to make sure that that’s absolutely clear. You know, it may be about one family to the Minister, but as I proposed it, and the Minister has discussed with me that there are other families that this could apply to, so you can’t say it’s one family only.

I’m talking about when your loved one dies in Edmonton and we have to leave their family here in Yellowknife or we have to leave them in Inuvik, we have to leave them in Fort Smith, we have to leave them wherever, that we don’t unite the family. We don’t have any kind of policy. And that does happen here. They only come one way and it’s not the right way.

So, Mr. Speaker, I’m asking the Minister to do that type of analysis about what it would take to unite families for that sort of opportunity. I think it’s more than just one family. It’s about good territorial policy that puts the importance of health care above everything else, and this is one of the issues. Would the Minister, once again I ask, reconsider this opportunity to look at this situation? Thank you.