Sandy Lee

Mr. Speaker, we have had very open and healthy dialogue and information sessions with the standing committee. The public hearing just started this Monday. The second one was in Hay River and they will go into all of the regional centres. We have been communicating through the website. Our people are responding. The interchange is quite productive. Our people wanted to know what we are considering for a threshold, because people want to have something solid to see how they are impacted. We have posted them on-line and the Members have details of that.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Member would like to...

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...

Mr. Speaker, the information that we presented to the standing committee Tuesday morning has now been posted on the website and there is very detailed information about what number of residents in the Territories currently have no access to extended health benefits whether through the government program or third-party insurance. The proposal we are making is that depending on where the income threshold is, whether it is $30,000 or $50,000, and remembering again that that is the starting threshold so that if the income threshold was at $50,000, any family making a net income between $50,000 to...

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...

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...

Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand why the Member thinks that he can’t put input into this process. Exactly what is the problem he has with the substance? What is it about the program as proposed that he doesn’t agree with or support?

Mr. Speaker, public meetings started this Monday. We are going to continue to have public meetings. In preparation for those public meetings and public consultations, we posted a conversation document a month ago. We are in the middle of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Member what in substance does he have a problem with. Thank you.

The Member knows and everybody here knows projecting to the last dollar what our health care expenditures are going to be, whether how much it will cost to run Stanton tomorrow or Extended Health Benefits Program, what’s it going to be at Hay River, whatever, that is, I mean, there are lots of formulas to do that, but at the end of the day, it’s a projection.

Mr. Speaker, sustainability of health care programs is a national issue. It’s an issue for every government. We know that on the whole that we will continue to see increases and we budget accordingly. So sustainability is an issue that we...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also received the letter that the Member is talking about and we are aware of the concerns that the seniors have. The important thing to know is that our information shows that this will benefit seniors on fixed incomes and low income in the same way as it would benefit every citizen who’s on a lower income. Our information has shown that there are people over 60 who have high incomes, just as there is for any other age group. So, Mr. Speaker, the fact is, even with these changes, this Extended Health Benefits Program will be very robust. So there will not be another...

The issue here before us is that the extended health benefits as they are set up are not fair or equitable. We have statistical information that shows that the income spread of our residents are such that it has no boundary between ages or whether they’re sick. Our program right now covers by age or by specified condition. We are saying that all of our information shows that’s not the most fair and equitable way. We have tons of analysis that is on the website that we are sharing. What we are saying is, can we not change the criteria so that we look at one’s ability to pay? What we are...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Member really thought about that question, and I don’t mean to be, I mean this in a very, no disrespect. If the Member really thought about this question, he would know that he’s asking me to project what a health expense will be of our residents. How could anybody do that? For example, myself, I’m quite healthy. I don’t see doctors very well. I mean very much. I am a pretty low-cost NWT resident in terms of health care right now. Tomorrow I could develop an illness. I could have a heart attack. Who knows? I don’t know what I’m going to cost the health system. I...