Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I’d like to address my questions today to the Minister for Health and Social Services. I have some questions in regard to the recent release of information about possible change to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. I am very appreciative of the work that’s been done by the department and the staff in the department to do a lot of research and to provide a lot of data. My questions go to the process that has been used to date and the process that’s been planned for the future in terms of consultation.
The motion that was passed last year by this House required the Minister to involve the public and to involve stakeholders and any consultation with regards to bringing Supplementary Health Benefits Program changes back. So, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Minister how she feels that involvement of the public and the stakeholders was done leading up the recent release of information. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member is right; we did make a commitment to have a full consultation process as we went back to work to improve on the information that we had and the discussions that we need to have with the public. We have had that discussion with the public working group as a stakeholder representative. The departmental officials met with them and my information is at the last meeting they had, they wanted the department to come back with more detailed information and this is what they received last Friday. Since then, they have given us feedback that we are considering. Thank you.
To the Minister’s answer, I understand that process. I know that the working group was established. I know there were a couple of meetings, at which I understand there was very little substance, very little discussion about possibilities and so on. So I am concerned when the Minister says they asked for further information. That’s probably true, but when did the department ask the stakeholder group or the working group for their opinion? I am very concerned that I don’t think there was an opportunity for wide-ranging, creative thinking outside the department input to the department from this particular working group. So if the Minister could comment on where that opportunity was for the working group prior to the release of the information that came out this last week. Thank you.
I think it’s important to note that working group was part of the discussion process, but they weren’t meant to be the exclusive or the only group of consultation. Since our last experience, we’ve discussed with the committee about how to improve on things. We’ve had a few meetings on that. Departmental officials have met with health providers, the authorities. I have discussed it with the chairs of the boards. We’ve met with the NWT Seniors’ Society. They’ve invited me a couple of times and we’ve had discussions on that. So I think it’s important to note the public advisory group was part of the consultation process and what the Member is saying we should do, which is to think out of the box, talk to other people, not do all the work in the department, is exactly what we have begun to do as of last Thursday and Friday. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think the important thing to note in the Minister’s answer is she said that’s what they started to do since last Thursday and Friday. The working group was established before Christmas and my understanding was they were supposed to help to develop what the department seems to have determined a draft plan. It seems they have a plan which they’ve put out and they are looking for consultation on, a plan which apparently would charge a fee. I just have to take exception with the fact that the working group was not involved in the drafting of that plan. I guess I ‘d like to ask the Minister why the working group, not that they were necessarily ignored, but why they weren’t more involved in drafting the plan as opposed to being asked for a response to a plan. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Member is absolutely wrong in saying the department is coming up with the plan. I think we’ve learned the last time that coming up with a plan and asking the public to approve the plan did not work. We have learned that. The department staff has been working really hard to gather the data on who the users are, and what their backgrounds are, and what the cost of the services are. We are just providing the raw data. We provided that to the media. We provided that to the committee. We provided that to the public working group and anybody who wants to see that, it’s on the website now. We have suggested that this raw data points to some direction that we should look at. We are not coming up with the complete plan and we are asking the public for feedback, and we are going to have town hall meetings and public hearings, and anybody who wants to talk to us because these are important programs and we don’t want to ask the public to ratify that the department has, but have them give us input and have a public information session. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final, short supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister, we have to agree to disagree, which I do often with Ministers it seems. But in terms of what’s out there, I took this recently from the website. It’s a dialogue with the public that talks about grandfathering, talks about copayments, talks about catastrophic drugs, residence requirements, third-party coverage. That is what the department is looking for feedback on. To me that sounds like a bit of a draft plan, albeit it’s not hard and fast, but it sounds like a plan to me. I’d like to ask the Minister again, how were the working group and other stakeholders involved in the development of this draft plan?
That Member is looking at the material that the committee received. Our discussion was that the data shows that we need to consider those as a policy direction. We’re not going out to say we should do this or we should do that. Copayment is a possible option, but the data or grandfathering or anything else, that’s a transition measure or where do we go next that we should consider. I think Members should take that when we say that we are consulting with the public. In order for the public to respond to us, we need to present them with some hard facts about what is the cost of extended health benefits, which is separate from insured service. Who is using it? What are the age groups of the people using it? What are their income levels? We are going out with an open mind and the hard facts. We are asking the public to respond. The public working group is just a part of the public.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
