Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask a few more questions of the Minister of Health and Social Services relative to the supplementary health benefits proposed changes. I did ask about the timeline for consultation and implementation and mentioned the implantation date. I will try my question again and ask the Minister on what is the implementation date of September 1st based. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Member is aware, this policy was changed by the last government in 2007. My job was to implement those changes. The first time out, the public and the Members wanted us to review the changes. We are now ready to go back with some of the hard facts about the program: what it does, how does it work, what is it for, how is it different from the Canada Health Act. So we are going back to the public to have that discussion. Originally this was scheduled to be implemented in April 2009 and it’s been delayed to September this year, so that’s the date. I believe the Member is aware of all that historical background. Thank you.
I thank the Minister. I am aware. I thank her for the short history lesson. My question was more to the amount of time that’s required for implementation. How much time is being allocated for consultation? How much time is needed for implementation? That was why I asked for the basis for September 1st.
To the Minister: once a decision is made on whatever these changes are going to be, how soon does she and the department expect the changes could be implemented?
As I stated earlier, these changes are to be implemented September 1, 2010.
I’ll try to be a little more definite. If a decision were made tomorrow, how much time is required for the department to put in place implementation? There’s got to be changes, I would imagine, within the bureaucracy that are going to be required to put in place whatever changes are determined to get them into effect. How much time is required from when a decision is made to when things can be immediately implemented after that? How many months? How many days? How many years?
I will have to speculate a little bit. I’m not going to speculate. I can tell the Member -- and I think that’s what the Member is getting at -- I believe the department is prepared to implement with any changes of the policy within three months. So for September 1st implementation, by June they will be ready to implement it in September.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you to the Minister for that specific information. She mentioned, when I asked earlier, that there’s no need at this point for cost information, but I’d like to ask the Minister this question -- and I exaggerate these dollars totally -- if it’s going to cost $100 million to cover the end of our working spectrum who are not currently covered, if it’s going to cost $100 million to do that, that’s going to have a huge impact on what I determine to do with the “high-end” earners or where I’m going to get the revenue from to offset that expense. I’d like to ask the Minister again how she believes that we can make a decision without knowing the costs involved.
We could do that because this is not about cost cutting and this is not offsetting. The Member knows that this is not a reduction of extended health benefits. This is about having a dialogue with our residents about what extended health benefits are as opposed to insured core health service that everybody is entitled to. Every Canadian, every NWT resident is entitled to doctor services and hospital services and some other procedures. Extended health benefits are extra benefits that each government does and they are different all across Canada. The conversation we are having is we are going to talk to the people about how it works now. And we’re not talking about the basket of services. We’re not talking about reducing. This is not a cost-saving measure. This is not a cost-cutting measure. This is about sustainability and making this program more fair and accessible to people who need it the most. Right now people get it if they’re over 60 or if they have a specific condition. We’re looking to see how the access could be more fair and equitable based on need, and income being one of the factors.
