Rylund Johnson

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we don't use income testing for anything in public healthcare. And if you show up to the doctor, it doesn't matter how much money you make; you get services provided if you are sick. And that is exactly what we were trying to do with people who had these specified disease conditions. And my concern, Mr. Speaker, is we're now asking people to go out and try and find third-party insurance when they have diseases which makes it very difficult to get third-party insurance. We're asking people to put their coverage at risk, and it is causing them a lot of...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it was quite clear in that public engagement that lots of people were very concerned about the proposal to remove the specified conditions. Can the Minister confirm whether the plan is to draft that new policy that will, in fact, remove those specified conditions? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last fall, the Department of Health and Social Services went out to consult on their extended health benefits policy. And on first glance, it seemed that the plan was to expand coverage and means test it, something I had no opposition to. But upon a closer reading, it was clear that that plan was to do that at the expense of the specified disease conditions in the schedule to that policy, Mr. Speaker; something I do oppose.

And, Mr. Speaker, so the department tabled their “what we heard” report and in that report, it was pretty clear that there was support for expanding...

Yeah, and, you know, I think there's a different argument to be made, whether you want to, well, get a mortgage for a house in nonmarket community but, to me, if we're going to build a new building in Yellowknife, you know, where it's clear that that asset is mortgageable, it has a value, that would make sense. I guess I'll just leave that as a comment that perhaps, you know, at the housing corp, going forward when it tries to get money out of Cabinet, it might not get money but perhaps it could just ask for debt because that would work too. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you, and just a comment on that. I think there's probably some room for well, I'll say cooperation. I would rather perhaps some just straight direction from the housing corp speaking to the Yellowknife housing corp. They go off and do oneoff contracts and giving the example of, you know, they'll renovate a couple bathrooms in some units because there was some water damage and perhaps it's better, you know, for the housing corp to go okay, well, why don't we do, you know, 400 units at once and replace 400 units for taps as opposed to just random orders all across the territory...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, you know, and I think this is a tough policy question. There has to be a way to write it because take Walmart, for example, one of the largest corporations in the world, we presently if they bid on food services, we buy a few hundred thousand dollars-worth of food in this territory, we give them some extra money. And I get they have a building here and they have staff here but my question is, will the Minister remove Walmart from Schedule 3? Thank you.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think at this point the only fair thing is to scrap the entire list and have a policy that anyone can apply to, and maybe some of these companies will reapply. But when you look at many of them, it's clear they have been bought and sold tens of times since they were put on this list and many are owned by, you know, global consortiums around the world. It just doesn't make sense to be spending extra taxpayer dollars on them.

So my question for the Minister of ITI is when is this procurement review going to be finished and will it remove this schedule? Thank you, Mr...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When are we going to remove Walmart from the business incentive policy, Mr. Speaker? I want to clarify it's not just Walmart, it's the entirety of Schedule 3 of the business incentive policy, which is a list of 54 grandfathered southernowned companies that, about a decade ago, seemed to get grandfathered in. And, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the largest companies in the world, like Loblaws. Why do we have to give preferential bid adjustments to Loblaws, Mr. Speaker?

Another egregious example, Northwestel. Northwestel has a legallyprotected monopoly in the North yet we...

Yeah, you know, I've said this before, I'll say it again. Either they should be arm's length and set policies on who can get into rental housing, apply for money, take on assets, or let's take those staff, bring them into the housing corporation, make them public servants, you know, are transferrable, that we can keep a track of waitlists, maintenance lists. It just seems I don't see any benefit to this current approach. I am of the view that giving them more authority is the way to go if we actually want local control, but. Yeah, I will try and frame that as a question.

Going forward, are we...

Thank you. And I guess in the same vein, I know the Yellowknife Housing Authority has tried to apply for funding and been told they cannot directly apply for funding or obtain federal funding or any sources of funding outside of the money they get through the housing corp. Is that something we are willing to revisit? Thank you.