Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, September 1 is the target date, because it is helpful in any exercise to have the end date. We will strive to get the work done. We will strive to have most of the work done before the summer. We will make sure we do meaningful consultation with the public and the stakeholders.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Mr. Speaker, again, I realize this Minister’s trying to be the superhero of health care, but let’s take off the pressure of an implementation date to make sure it’s done properly. Will the Minister take off the implementation date? Secondly, and finally, will the Minister bring the policy to the House for House approval before any implementation is enforced?
Yes, I mean, that’s the regular process. There’s nothing new about that. We don’t do any of these without going to the committee, Mr. Speaker, and we never have.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
I’d also like to follow up with the Minister of Health on the supplementary health benefits questions. I’m wondering what the Minister has heard from the public that is valid, in her mind for review. What are the significant problems that have been identified by the public and that will be part of this review?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the announcement of this policy, I happened to have travelled to Fort Simpson, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, and I have to say, when I explained that the changes are meant to expand the program so that we include a group of people that are excluded, people agree with that. When we say the senior cut-off is $55,000 net, and for most people that is a really good income on a retirement, because that means you have to make about $75,000 to $80,000. The gaps that we have found are that we need to revisit the income threshold itself, whether it’s too low or not, the difference between a couple and a single versus members of family, because we understand that there are all kinds of different characteristics and make-ups of a family, and the other gap that we have found is that catastrophic drug costs only covers drugs. We have learned that often the biggest cost item is not necessarily the drugs; it’s the medical equipment, medical supplies, if you have diabetes, all the stuff you have to use. So we need to make sure that those are included in the catastrophic drug medical equipment and supplies program rather than just drugs.
Another glaring error that, not error, but the issue that we need to look at is the fact that you don’t qualify for the Catastrophic Drug Program until you have spent 5 percent of your net income. People are telling us that is way too high. So we need to revisit that.
I believe with all the number crunching and everything, we can make it so that most people are covered. The vast majority of people are covered, and who are not covered, if it makes sense, I believe that people could see more about why the government felt the need to change this.
There are a few others that I’ve heard of, but one I’m very interested in is the universal coverage and stepping away from that towards the income testing. A lot of my constituents have brought that up with me. Canadians in general want health care, they’re willing to pay for it, and our tax system is already addressing availability to pay, which is not addressed with the income testing approach. So will universal coverage and moving away from income testing be up for part of the discussion in this public review?
The fact is we do not have universal coverage for supplementary health right now. We don’t. So we’re not moving away from universal coverage. The whole point is the impetus of changing this is the fact that we have a group of working poor, as we call them, or low-income families, or if you have a job that doesn’t have third-party insurance. So the self-employed. We have a group of people who are not covered under the existing system. So it is not accurate to say that we have a universal program. We have a universal program for those who are over 60. We have a universal program for those who have a specified condition that is eligible on the list.
We have to decide, as a society and as a government, whether we can afford to pay for everything to do with health issues for everybody all the time. There are implications to that: governing and making policies about making choices. I think for most people they would say the focus has to be on people who need it the most. Right now, under this program, we are excluding those people.
Of course, it is a matter of degree with universal coverage and income testing. We’re moving away from some degree of universal coverage and more and more towards income testing.
I like what the Minister had to say, that those are the issues. Will those issues be part of this public review? The public would like the opportunity to comment on that. There are lots of design ways that Canadians have figured out how to pay for health care, regardless of what their income is, so that it is universal coverage. That needs to be part of this discussion. Will the Minister commit to including that?
Unless the Member has information that I’m not aware of, there is no jurisdiction in Canada that has a universal coverage for supplementary health benefits. In fact, programs like home care services, which the NWT provides as a core service universally, is not included as supplementary health coverage. There is no jurisdiction in Canada that covers 100 percent for anybody who is over 60. There is no...It’s a supplementary health benefit, is what it is. It is supplementary. It’s extra. It’s not part of the Health Care Plan. So universality does not apply here.
We do have a more generous program than most other provinces and territories, and I believe it’s a goal that we want to meet. But we are trying to fill the gaps so we can include those who are not currently part of the program.
I hope that will be part of the discussion, because I think there are still a lot of opportunities to be mined there. Finally, I guess, will the Minister commit to following, as a review process, the model that was used in the review of the Income Support Program, which was a highly successful public consultation process?
I have asked the department to look at that process to see if we could borrow from that. I’m prepared to make a commitment to the Members here, that I will come back with an outline of how we propose to do the consultation and where the meetings will be and how they’re going to take place for the next little while. So consultation and consultative approach as we go forward to improve the changes are very much at the table and I’m prepared to work with the Members and the public to do that.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for the Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
I’d like to ask questions to the Minister of Transportation in terms of transportation issues in the Sahtu. I would ask the Minister if he’s had any type of discussions with the request for additional runway lengths in Fort Good Hope and Deline. I know this is a pressing issue for the two communities and the airline that’s located in the Sahtu in terms of the benefits of having additional runways. We appreciate the additional length of paving to 900 feet, but I think they’re asking for an extra 500 to 1,000 feet. Can the Minister confirm in the House and for the people in the Sahtu in terms of this type of inquiry being imposed to his department from these two communities and the airline?
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister of Transportation, Mr. Michael McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can assure the Member that we did have discussions. In fact, he was there. We certainly did engage in some discussion with the communities about runway length. This has been an ongoing issue for some time and we have not had any further discussion prior to the ones we had where the Member was in attendance. We have received some correspondence since then. We have made some commitments to do some further investigation and we were not able to engage for several months. Since then we have received information in written form and we will be responding to them.
Certainly through the memberships and we certainly appreciate the time and records that the department has gone out of its way to assist the two communities. We want to ask, in this type of discussion here, when the department, in terms of responding to the additional requests of the two runways, specifically Fort Good Hope and Deline, in terms of additional runway requirement lengths that they’re asking for. Because we’ve already talked about some partnerships and we are looking forward to this department to respond in a positive way that will see a benefit in terms of stimulating the economy in the Sahtu region.
Apparently a response to that letter to us is being drafted as we speak. We will be reinstating a number of issues that we had discussed. There has, however, not been any further discussions, as we had agreed to have our technical people sit down and explore what the options are out there. We still have the same concerns about extending the runway further than the 3,900 feet. It will cost a lot more. We haven’t explored to see how much that is, but it’s in the millions of dollars. There are other issues that come as a result of that, and we wanted to have an opportunity for our people to work together with the Sahtu communities to talk about that and see if there are any opportunities for partnerships or arrangements. We wanted to find out that there is very limited opportunity to find additional resources and have that discussion also. We haven’t had opportunity, since this new year has started, to sit down with the people from the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The time for question period has expired. I will allow the Member a short supplementary question. Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was the essence of us having some further discussions. I look forward to a commitment from this Minister to direct his department to start making arrangements with the people in the Sahtu in terms of partnership business proposals, ideas in terms of how can we seek additional dollars to extend these two runways in the region. Because once you do that, you will see enhanced service in terms of aircraft and...
Do you have a final supplementary, Mr. Yakeleya?
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister commit to all these good reasons why we should have a meeting ASAP?
Mr. Speaker, I’d like to point out that in order for us to have meetings, we need both parties to engage. We had agreement already. We waited seven months. Our technical people were not able to coordinate their schedules. It’s difficult. We have to make decisions. We have to plan our budgets. We have to be able to sit down and look at the realistic challenges and see how we can overcome, before we can start planning anything. If there’s still desire from the communities we had talked to, I would be happy to meet with them.
Mr. Speaker, I have a return to Written Question 1-16(3) asked by Mr. Beaulieu on October 24th, 2008, regarding the operation and maintenance of Highway No. 4. I am pleased to provide the following:
The total length of the all-season section of Highway No. 4 is 69.2 kilometres.
The total length of the sections of Highway No. 4 that are either paved or chipsealed is 28.3 kilometres.
The following amounts were the budgeted amounts of O and M expenditures on Highway No. 4 for the 2004-05 to the 2006-07 fiscal years:
2004/05
$132,401
2005/06
$197,543
2006/07
$179,821
The 2006 Census did not specifically indicate the exact number of full-time residents along Highway No. 4, but instead grouped Highway No. 4 residents into a category called “unorganized population in the Fort Smith region.” This category has a total population of 339 people and includes all people living outside of the NWT communities south of Wrigley, of which the majority would be full-time residents along Highway No. 4.
For the 2011 Census, the number of Highway No. 4 residents will be separated from the unorganized Fort Smith region.
The 2006 Census, however, did specifically indicate the population of Dettah, which has 247 full-time residents.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to present a petition dealing with the matter of changes to seniors’ Health Benefits Program. The petition contains 727 signatures of NWT residents, broken down from the following communities: Fort Good Hope, 35; Inuvik, 57; Fort Resolution, 25; Fort Smith, 320. That’s a total 727 signatures. The petitioners request that the GNWT stop the implementation of the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and Catastrophic Drug Program, and that the Government of the Northwest Territories conduct public consultations with all groups in the Northwest Territories before implementing any changes to seniors’ programs.
---Applause
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to present a petition dealing with the matter of changes to seniors’ health benefit programs. The petition that I present contains 779 signatures of Hay River residents. The petition is requesting that the implementation of this program not proceed until substantial consultation has taken place, as the signatures that Mr. Ramsay has read. Seven-hundred and seventy-nine. Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. Item 12, reports of standing and special committees. Item 13, reports of committees on the review of bills. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to report to the Assembly that the Standing Committee on Social Programs has reviewed Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Historical Resource Act; Bill 3, International Interest in Mobile Aircraft Equipment Act; Bill 4, Public Library Act; Bill 5, Professional Corporations Act; and Bill 7, An Act to Amend the Student Financial Assistance Act.
The committee wishes to report that Bill 1, Bill 3, and Bill 7 are now ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole and that Bill 4 and Bill 5 are now ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole, as amended and reprinted.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your committee has been considering Bill 6, Species at Risk NWT Act, and wishes to advise that additional time is required to complete this review.
