Debates of February 6, 2009 (day 6)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Whereas the Minister of Health and Social Services had proposed to implement a new Supplementary Health Benefits Program on April 1, 2009, and has now proposed to defer the implementation of that program until September 1, 2009;

And whereas many northern seniors depend on the coverage for dental, vision, drugs and supplies for which they are eligible under the existing Extended Health Benefits Program;

And whereas many northern seniors live on fixed incomes, which do not allow them to absorb increased costs for drugs and other health care costs;

And whereas many northern families live with significant chronic diseases or chronic conditions and are prescribed expensive medications and supplies to manage those conditions;

And whereas there are many low-income Northerners who are not covered by an employer’s Supplementary Health Benefits Program and not eligible for coverage under the existing Extended Health Benefits Program;

AND WHEREAS the new Supplementary Health Benefits Program would have limited the coverage for some residents who are currently covered;

AND WHEREAS the new Supplementary Health Benefits Program would have created disenfranchised groups amongst NWT residents, contravening the principle of fair health coverage for all;

AND WHEREAS the performance of the existing program administration should be reviewed and evaluated;

AND WHEREAS the new implementation date of September 1, 2009, does not allow adequate time to conduct comprehensive research, engage stakeholders in meaningful consultation, develop a new program based on input from these stakeholders and comprehensive research and analysis, share the proposed program with the stakeholders for final consideration and approval, and implement the new program in a timely and responsible manner;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Hay River South, that this Legislative Assembly recommends that the Minister of Health and Social Services stop the implementation of the proposed Supplementary Health Benefits Program and develop a new policy and program to cover low-income families who do not have supplementary health benefits coverage through their employer;

AND FURTHER, extend the September 2009 implementation date to April 2010;

AND FURTHER, conduct comprehensive consultations with Northerners about the ways to improve the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and services offered by the department, including whether or not means testing should determine eligibility;

AND FURTHER, ensure that thorough research into the program’s complete costs and full implications is undertaken and presented to Northerners including:

the cost to the NWT of families moving south; and

2.

increased costs on the health care system resulting from more people accessing services within hospitals;

AND FURTHERMORE, fully involve the standing committees of the Legislative Assembly in the review of new policy proposals before any implementation is considered.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. There is a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m making this motion today because I believe that Cabinet and the Minister of Health and Social Services are making a mistake, a mistake that would adversely affect all northern residents, a mistake that will cost this government both directly and indirectly. Fortunately this is a mistake that can be easily remedied.

Let’s go back a bit and talk about why Cabinet and the Minister are going in the direction they are with respect to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. Low-income families who do not have any medical coverage through their employer don’t currently have access to supplemental health benefits other than coverage for a specified medical condition. This means they’re 100 percent on the hook for all dental costs, all the costs related to purchasing glasses and all the costs related to prescribed medications, excluding medications required for specified medical conditions such as diabetes.

Given that these individuals are low-income earners, they are the individuals who would benefit most from support in this area. To their credit, Cabinet was trying to help these individuals. That’s why their forcing this short-sighted and inadequately researched policy down the throats of Northerners. I agree that we must find a way to help these individuals. I don’t agree that it should be done at the expense of other stakeholders in the NWT.

Within our system of government, Cabinet has the right to design and implement policy, programs and regulations. They aren’t required to request the House approval to do so and aren’t even required to share them if they don’t wish to. Fortunately most programs, policies, and regulation changes won’t adversely affect residents of the NWT and bringing them into the Legislature for approval or debate isn’t always going to be necessary. In fact, it could be considered a waste of time in many situations.

However, from time to time these types of changes can be significant and have major ramifications on the GNWT and the NWT as a whole. The changes currently in question fall into this category.

When designing or redesigning programs, policies, and regulations that will have major ramifications, Cabinet should demonstrate a standard of care which involves actively engaging Regular Members and other stakeholders who may be affected by the changes. This is a public government and we have a responsibility to listen to and engage our residents in meaningful consultation.

Further, information or facts are required to make responsible decisions. Decisions made in the absence of information or facts are bad decisions. In the case of the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program a significant amount of information or facts are required in order to make a responsible and informed decision. Unfortunately, it’s clear that the Minister and Cabinet did not gather the required information or facts. They don’t have a clue of the ramifications of implementing this new policy. How do I know? I and many other Members have continually asked for the information. How much do they think they will save by cutting off seniors and individuals with chronic conditions? How much will it cost the NWT when affected residents choose to leave the Northwest Territories? Not just by way of the $22,000 federal transfer payments but also along with the taxes they pay, the money they spend on goods and services, and the non-monetary benefits they provide by way of volunteering. Also, how much will it cost based on the inadequately low threshold levels put forward by Health and Social Services to cover low-income earners without benefits? Cabinet can’t or won’t answer any of these questions. I don’t believe the analysis was done. How can we feel confident that they have demonstrated a reasonable standard of care or due diligence if they can’t even answer these important questions?

Here’s what should have happened. It’s clear that this government needs to do something to help the low-income families and individuals that have no medical coverage through their employer. The department should have researched this issue, compared cost analysis, defined where problems exist, and what potential challenges may exist in providing this new coverage. Once collected, the department should have engaged potentially affected stakeholders in meaningful consultation where the information is shared and stakeholders are encouraged to offer recommendations and participate in a process of developing a reasonable program. If the information had been shared and affected stakeholders had been actively engaged, they might be willing to make compromises in the best interest of the program as opposed to being confused, scared, or resistant to the changes due the lack of any real involvement or understanding.

A draft policy should have been developed for consideration and review by the Regular Members and the potentially affected stakeholders. This would have ensured that these individuals had the opportunity to confirm or verify that their points of view had been heard and incorporated. It also would have provided the department with an opportunity to explain the decisions they made that are different from what the stakeholders wanted to see.

Once general agreement or consensus on the new program is reached, the comprehensive communications and the implementation plan would need to be designed and put in place. Adequate time is required to ensure that all affected residents have the time required to be made aware of the program, complete the paperwork or applications where appropriate, and ensure that all their i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed before implementation to ensure no disruption in services.

This is a reasonable process. It’s completely different than what happened. Here’s what did happen. Cabinet decided to update the Supplementary Health Benefits Program to include coverage for low-income earners not covered by employer medical benefits. They told the department that they weren’t willing to spend more than was currently allocated to the programs so they must fund any changes from within. No research or financial analysis was conducted. The department designed the proposed program and took it to potentially affected stakeholders for consultation. Unfortunately it wasn’t really consultation. It was more of an information session where the stakeholders were told what was going to happen, not asked for input or to make any suggestions.

To be clear, consultation is a process by which the public’s input on matters affecting them is sought. Its main goal is to improve the efficiency, transparency and public involvement in projects, laws and policies. It’s a valuable process when making significant changes to any policy that may or may not adversely affect large groups or, in this case, ultimately all residents of the NWT.

It’s clear that Cabinet and the Minister don’t understand what consultation is. The Minister is adamant that they have conducted consultation. She’s indicated it several times in the press and to Regular Members of this Assembly. I’ve talked to a number of the groups that the Minister claims to have consulted with. All indicate that they weren’t consulted. Rather, they were told what the department was going to do, when they were going to do it and how they were going to do it. They attended information sessions veiled as consultation.

After the department completed the design of the program, the Minister announced that the program was being implemented on April 2, 2009. Here’s where things got interesting. Residents were stunned, shocked and disgusted with this short-sighted program.

Honestly, I’m not even remotely surprised. It’s an incredibly bad program. The program fails to meet the needs of a significant number of Northerners and, by default, adversely affects everybody in the NWT. Further, the threshold levels established for low-income families are so low that people originally targeted for assistance won’t be eligible. To fund it, Cabinet chose to cut off a significant number of seniors and individuals with chronic conditions, who will choose to leave the NWT rather than experience the significant increase in their cost of living. This will result in a significant loss of revenue for the GNWT. Also, the changes will drive residents into hospitals where medications and services are free as opposed to going through treatment in their homes. This will increase the costs of the NWT health care system, which will adversely affect every resident of the NWT. Our health care system is already too expensive. Can we really afford to make it more expensive? I don’t think so.

Since implementation I have heard from hundreds of people on this issue. Not one person is pleased. The City of Yellowknife passed a motion where city council directed the mayor to write to the Minister of Health and Social Services to express the council’s opposition to the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and urge her to cancel the implementation of the new program.

Petitions were filed in this House earlier this week with thousands of signatures, signatures of people who are 100 percent opposed to the implementation of the new program.

I got an e-mail from one resident where she indicated the following: “One of the goals of the 16th Assembly is healthy, educated people and one of the priorities for the goal states: ‘improve support for children and adults with special needs and disabilities’.”

She is a long-time resident with one chronic physical and two chronic medical conditions and has been on CPP disability pension for almost five years. She has supplemented her disability pension with RRSPs, RRIFs and savings. She pays her own dental bills and eye glasses. However, she receives 100 percent coverage for prescription medications for her chronic disabilities through the GNWT.

Now, based on the new program, she will not qualify for any of her prescription medications, as she is single, under 65 years of age, and had a net income of over $25,000 last year. She feels that this new policy does not support this Legislature’s priority of improving support for children and adults with special needs and disabilities. I agree with the resident.

Another resident made the following comment and asked the following questions. This is from the resident: “The questions just seem to come and the answers don’t seem to be there. Anything new can be scary at first and I understand that, but is the territorial government really ready for this? Have they thought it through? Who is going to fall through the cracks or no longer fit the criteria? What are they supposed to do? Who is the program really aimed at? Does something need to be developed separately to assist those who need it instead of changing something so quickly and without consultation?”

People are concerned in the communities and in the Northwest Territories. Given the massive numbers of comments I raised, I can keep quoting these all day. However, for the sake of time, I won’t, but it is important to recognize that many people are very upset. Residents have asked questions and they deserve answers.

It’s clear. After listening to the people of the NWT, it is obvious that there is nothing good or worth salvaging in the program as presented. It’s time to go back to the drawing board.

In a recent press release, the Minister responsible for Health and Social Services indicated that it is clear that some elements of the proposed program might create undue hardship for some residents. This is a bit of an understatement and is evidence that she and Cabinet have not considered the full ramifications including increased costs to the health system and loss of revenues. It’s good that she acknowledges that the proposed program will adversely affect some residents, but does not demonstrate an understanding of the magnitude of the potential problems.

In response to these undue hardships, the Minister has agreed to defer the implementation date of the program. To address the concerns of the public, the Minister indicated in her press release that the program design will be reviewed before the program is implemented. Unfortunately, Cabinet and the Minister are still committed to means testing and continue to demonstrate that, although some minor modification will be included, the policy is pretty much going to move forward as is and be implemented on September 1, 2009. I perceive this direction as more of a delay tactic than actually trying to do the right thing for the people of the Northwest Territories.

Means testing for health care is wrong and should be avoided at all costs. Cabinet is committed to means testing most, if not all, programs offered by the GNWT. In respect to health care, this is a bad decision; as bad or worse than previous decisions they have made, such as rolling the public housing subsidy program into ECE where it has resulted in huge deficits in the local housing authorities. History has shown that when a bad decision is made, the Cabinet would rather keep the blinders on and request more time. The right thing to do would be to acknowledge the mistake and fix it. So in this case, a year or two down the road when health care costs go up and our revenues have fallen off directly, they’ll say everything is alright and that their uninformed and short-sighted direction is not to blame. Means testing might work in some program areas, but the provision of supplementary health benefits is not one of them.

Although I’m happy that the Minister has deferred implementation, I don’t see it fixing the real problems. It is no more, as I indicated earlier, than a delay tactic. It’s an attempt to fix a significantly redesigned program on the fly rather than acknowledging poor Cabinet direction and sending it back for a complete review, analysis and suitable design.

September 1, 2009, does not allow the Department of Health and Social Services to follow a reasonable and responsible timeline in order to get the inclusion of services for low-income earners or design a fair and equitable system with public input and consultation.

Let’s break down the timeline. We all know that very little will be done over the next six weeks on this policy due to session, which is going to consume everybody’s time. Immediately after session, many Northerners will be going on spring break. So it’s safe to assume that very little can be done by way of public consultation until the beginning of April. In April they will begin their version of public consultation. You would hope that they have done some financial forecasting and conducted research into the effects of different options and how similar services are provided in other jurisdictions. However, I’m not optimistic that this will have happened by this time. Real public consultation will take a couple of months. Conceivably, given their timeline, they might have the consultation done by May. So design will have to take place over the summer. Given the number of people who take advantage of summer for holidays, I don’t really believe that it will be given the attention it deserves over the summer months. So summer is over and they implement what they have designed. To implement a program of this magnitude, you do need a couple of months to communicate the changes and ensure that all affected residents complete the paperwork required to ensure no gap in services. This means that the program should be completed by July 1st at the earliest. That’s not much time.

No matter how you look at it, a comprehensive review, analysis, consultation, redesign, acceptance and implementation cannot be done in the time given. So it suggests that some steps will be skipped completely or paid no more than lip service. We’re going to get the same program we have now with a few high profile yet not substantive changes. It’s a delay tactic.

If they move forward with the date proposed, the Regular Members of this House won’t have the opportunity to discuss and debate it in this Assembly as it will be implemented prior to the next significant session. Yes, there is a seven day session starting at the end of May, but there is no way that there will be a reasonable product to discuss or debate at that time. It’s hard to believe that they will even have completed any real or thoughtful consultations with potentially affected stakeholders by then. Our next substantive session will begin around the middle of October, one and a half months after the new program has been implemented. As indicated previously, once Cabinet makes a decision, they don’t go back and reverse it. So we’ll be stuck with a bad program.

The right thing to do is for Cabinet and the Minister to start again. Completely withdraw the proposed program and timelines and start again with the development of a new policy to cover low-income families who do not have supplementary health benefit coverage through their employer, a program where the implementation does not lead to significant loss in services to other groups.

Develop it based on a reasonable and realistic timeline. April 1, 2010, is a date which will allow proper research, consultation, design, debate and ensure adequate time to promote the new program and implement it. It’s the right thing to do.

Prior to the last session, the government released documents on revenue options. Based on the information contained within those documents, it was clear and obvious that one of the best ways to increase our revenues and ensure that this Territory has the financial resources to provide the services to our people is to increase the population. Cabinet stressed that we, as a government and a Territory, need to do things to encourage people to come and live in the NWT and for those that live here to stay. The budget address yesterday suggested the same thing.

Now we are telling many people -- seniors and individuals with chronic conditions -- that we don’t want to do what is required to encourage them to stay. This is a complete reversal from what Cabinet was saying only a few short months ago and doesn’t make any sense. We have people leaving, such as diamond polishers, because they don’t have work. We can’t afford to chase people out who really want to be here in the North -- people who call the Northwest Territories their home; people who have lived here all their lives.

Prior to the mid-1980s seniors and people with chronic conditions didn’t stay in the Northwest Territories. They left. At that time Northerners, seniors and the NWT Council for Persons with Disabilities, championed for change. They made their case and these fantastic supplemental health benefits that we have now were established. Now Cabinet is telling these people that they don’t deserve the levels of support that they currently have; supports that they believed would exist when they were planning for retirement and their futures; programs that made it possible for seniors on fixed incomes and individuals with chronic conditions to stay and live in the Northwest Territories.

It’s time to reject this direction and reapply common sense and good judgment. It’s time to work in the best interest of northern residents. It’s time to do the right thing. This motion encourages Cabinet and the Minister of Health and Social Services to do the right thing. I hope they are listening to us and the public. I hope they choose to do the right thing. Go back to the drawing board. Start again. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

---Applause

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

I am pleased to second this motion that has been brought forward today by Mr. Abernethy. I appreciate the work that he has put into this issue along with other Members and to his analysis of what has happened. It is so thorough that it is difficult to know what to say and to actually add to it. He has pretty much covered all the bases.

Mr. Speaker, just to summarize and let you know what my concerns are about this change to the Supplementary Health Benefits Policy, I have indicated we did feel for several years as a government that it was necessary to do something to assist those families that were not covered by any other supplementary health benefit insurance and that it was difficult for families if unforeseen illness or medical requirements such as prescriptions or other extraordinary costs were to come upon them. It could be actually devastating for a family that did not have insurance coverage. So I can remember for as long as I have been a Member of this House, that we thought it was necessary to do something to assist that group of people. Little did I know that when the supplementary health benefits review was taking place it could inadvertently affect seniors in this way.

I believe that we spend an extraordinary amount of time as a government trying to figure out how we can attract people to come live in the North. We have companies that offer incentives for people to move here, to live here, to participate in our communities and yet this action, if played out, would drive seniors out of the North. I have heard those comments made by seniors. I have absolutely no doubt that they are true. It is a matter of fact. The cost of living is probably felt most acutely by those on fixed income. I would say that most seniors are on a fixed income.

I haven’t once heard from this government that this support for seniors is not sustainable but they actually have done the analysis that would indicate what the actual costs are of this program. I just haven’t heard sufficient rationale. Honestly, even if I did hear what the rationale was for it, I would still probably consider that this would be an appropriate expenditure of this government to continue to support seniors in the North with the supplementary health benefits. Yes, it is a good program. Yes, you can compare it to other jurisdictions and say that maybe it is more than seniors in other jurisdictions receive in some instances, but I think it is still money well spent, well invested. When you look at some of the alternatives and some of the alternative costs, if those seniors do become ill or unable to continue to live healthy, independent lives. I think we need to take a very broad look at this on a cost basis even. Even if it turned out that there is a net cost to this government, I think that the people of the Northwest Territories, the taxpayers, the people who have other insurance, would support this group of seniors who would be impacted by this. I think it is a fairly small number of people. In a strange way, it targets quite a small group of people.

My experience with talking to seniors, whether we are talking about the rate scale or programs like this, is that seniors are not adverse to paying and contributing in some fashion. That is why I believe that a part of the investigation and analysis should include this government taking the initiative to see if there is any kind of group insurance that the government could cost share premiums. I am thinking of some nominal fee like $25 a month or something. Not every month or every year are seniors over 60, who would be beneficiaries of a Supplementary Health Benefits Program, in need of eyeglasses or pharmaceutical support. I haven’t specifically heard from seniors about this, but might I suggest that they may not be opposed to some nominal premium which could go some ways towards offsetting those costs. I have heard the same thing from seniors who live in public housing where right now the rate scale says you pay nothing. People who live independently pay everything. I don’t think they expect continued support with no contribution, but that is something that could possibly be investigated. There are insurance programs that are out there…

Mrs. Groenewegen, you may be steering away from the intent of the motion.

Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Suffice it to say that I do not support the April 1st implementation of this policy. I do not support the September 1st implementation of this policy. I think that we need to go back to the drawing board and take a very broad look at what the implications would be of changing this seniors’ Supplementary Health Benefits Policy. Even when consultation takes place, I would be very supportive of ensuring that our seniors over 60 in the Northwest Territories continue to have insurance coverage for these items. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to state that the comments from Mr. Abernethy have pretty much covered everything. He has done an excellent job in summarizing comments we have heard from any number of constituents, residents of the Territory, seniors, those who are non-seniors but who also are affected by the change in this program.

At the outset, I want to say that I am in favour of this motion wholeheartedly. As stated in my Member’s statement the other day, I feel that this is poorly thought out, poorly presented and based on a poor policy and this program should not go into effect.

The intention of the policy is to provide coverage for a group of people who currently don’t have it and who are currently left out. That is the lower income end of our workers. Nobody disagrees with that, Mr. Speaker. We need to provide coverage for people who currently don’t have any, but these proposed program changes solve one problem and creates many others. It cannot go ahead as it is now. I appreciate that the Minister said that there will be revisions, but my problem with that is that it is based on an unworkable premise. That is the premise of income testing or means testing. It creates different levels of coverage amongst our residents. To quote a comment from a resident in an e-mail: “it will cause bad karma between peoples.” I believe that that is already there and it may be get worse.

Canada proudly trumpets our health care system and with good reason. We’ve got one of the best health care systems in the world. We don’t have to worry about our medical costs. Our system provides universal coverage, but this program change that’s being suggested by the territorial government will go against this particular principle and I can’t agree to that. I’d like to quote again from another e-mail that was sent to me by a constituent: “These changes impact a larger group than just seniors. I’m very concerned about the impact of the changes on staff with chronic illnesses and conditions. Anyone of any age can have a chronic illness or condition and not everyone works for the GNWT with good benefits. Our full-time staff who would be impacted by extraordinary costs for prescriptions and supplies are productive adults who are helping us address the needs of vulnerable people. They make too much to meet the low-income cut-off being suggested, but not enough to pay for the costs themselves. I hope the Minister and the GNWT are not suggesting that affordability means diverting RRSPs for those of us without adequate pension plans or cashing in all of one’s vacation days.”

Those words should be heeded by all of us, Mr. Speaker. The roll-out of this new program was a boondoggle. It was prematurely presented, absent any semblance of good analysis and research. The information available to stakeholders was minimal, confusing and complex to understand. Extended health benefit users, those currently accessing our system, who were unable to adequately understand the program assumed the worst, and often they correctly assumed the worst. Since that time, and since they got some information but not enough information, they’ve been suffering what I think is needless stress and concern. That’s been happening for a number of weeks; it hasn’t been a number of days, it’s been a number of weeks, Mr. Speaker. I think that it’s needless concern on their part. It didn’t need to happen and it could have been prevented by a better roll-out of this particular program.

Members of this House and stakeholders still lack clear information and proof of the value of this program. Many people who are potentially affected by this program are seriously considering moving out of the Territories. I believe that they are seriously looking at it. It’s not an idle threat. I believe that there will be people who will move out if this program impacts them financially.

Not only does this program need to be revamped, but the policy on which it is based needs to be reviewed. If true consultation is to take place, the Minister and the department must start with a blank page; no preconceived ideas at all. We have to develop a program that satisfied the initial goal, that of coverage for lower income workers, but that does not make others suffer or does not make others give up something to give to the lower end. The government must, as was stated the other day, have a conscience and do the right thing. Every time I say that I think of Wilfred Brimley and the Quaker ad where he used to say, “It’s the right thing to do.” This is the right thing to do. The actions that are suggested by this motion are the right thing to do.

I’d like to give you another question that came from another e-mail: “What kind of community do we want to live in?” And this question was related directly to the impacts of the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. We would all be wise to think about that and to think about this particular program as suggested and pass this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was also in support of this motion and I’d like to back up, really, many of the comments that I’ve heard from my colleagues today. There’s little else to add but there certainly is volume. The number of contacts we’ve all received from our constituents has been huge.

On the public consultation front, let me just cite the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society who were shocked and surprised that there were no consultations with the NWT Seniors’ Society or seniors in general prior to the Cabinet making this decision in reference to the 2007 meeting. Alternatives North says presenting the outline of a program that is already planned is not consultation, at best it is publicity. I’ll leave that there.

On income testing, I also agree with my colleagues that this is not the way to go. It moves, as I said the other day, directly away from universality in coverage and I think we need to think about that. The income testing does not reflect ability to pay. I saw no discussion of gender analysis in there. As people know, when you look at incomes by gender there is a difference between men and women. There doesn’t seem to be a separation between single parent families versus couple families. There are big differences there, both in relative cost and income and depending on the gender of the single parent, that’s even stronger divergence. This all reflects on ability to pay and leads to much of the angst over this. Numerous problems were caused also by this inability to pay. Bad decisions can be made, shortcuts taken that end up having other health repercussions.

On the drug program, again, we need to commit ourselves to pursuing a policy of purchasing generic drugs. I haven’t seen that discussed but it’s an important opportunity for cost cutting. Bulk purchases and the whole Pharmacare program, many people are aware of that. In 2004 the First Ministers committed to going after that, but we haven’t had a champion. This is an opportunity for this government to become a champion at that and get that back on the national agenda, and enjoy the benefits available.

Again, on the funding issue, Canadians have a strong record of being willing to pay through our tax system for universal health coverage. Fundamentally in a universal plan, everyone knows that if they ever require additional support, it will be there for them. With this understanding, the people have demonstrated a willingness to pay according to their ability, for example, through the taxation system and as my colleague Mrs. Groenewegen has suggested, other means. Where is the discussion on this important concept and ability to tweak the program in an important way?

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think we have seen the good and thorough work that would typically be behind a new policy proposal. That has not been clear at all. Health programs and actions require careful scrutiny prior to, during and after development if they are not to result in potential unexpected and destructive affects which can then negate the desired impacts and this is a good example of that.

The development of this policy has failed to look holistically at the social environments in which people live their lives both in sickness and in health. This gets us similar questions I raised the other day. A constituent submitted a series of questions that could be part of the new process here. If I can just read these because I think they’re quite relevant and the Minister may find them useful. Policy development should answer these questions:

What is the nature of the problem to be addressed by the policy proposal and what is the magnitude?

What are the sizes of the cohorts targeted to provide solutions?

What is the character of those cohorts? And that means holistically, what are the roles in community and community’s well-being?

What will be the effect of the policy changes on the cohorts?

What will be the effects on government and the public of those effects experienced by the cohorts?

Balancing positive and negative effects, what is the net gain or loss to the situation addressed and what are alternative solutions?

Mr. Speaker, let’s make this review a redevelopment of this policy. Let’s take advantage of the extensive knowledge and experiences and perspectives of all and relax the time schedule to that which is required. We need a better policy on supplementary health benefits not just a new one. With this clearly in focus we can move forward. That’s my hope and expectation and on that basis I’ll be supporting the motion. Thank you.

Colleagues, before I go to the next Member, I would like to draw your attention to the visitor’s gallery and the presence of a former Member of the House. Mr. Leon Lafferty is with us. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do support the motion that is before us today and I’d like to thank the chair of the Social Program committee, Mr. Beaulieu, and Mr. Abernethy for all the work that they’ve done on putting this motion here. The work that Mr. Abernethy has done was quite extensive. It covered off a lot of bases. Also, I wanted to thank everybody who has contributed in one way or another to getting this motion here today and that’s the Yellowknife Seniors’ Society, the Northwest Territories Seniors’ Society and everybody else that’s out there that called us, e-mailed us, phoned us, talked to us on the streets and gave us their opinion of what the government was trying to do. I appreciate every bit of input that I did receive on this.

Mr. Speaker, I’m left wondering how the government could even take out such a controversial change in supplementary health benefits without first getting an analysis to these changes and how they would impact the residents. I certainly do look at this as a shoddy, poorly thought out and disjointed plan. Answers have certainly been hard to come by even for the Minister. How is it that the department and the Minister could take this out and cause such an uproar amongst our seniors and persons with chronic conditions? The department, the Minister and the government should be embarrassed for themselves over the lack of evidence, analysis, and figures associated with the proposed changes. The Minister can’t even tell us how many people we’re trying to help by trying to address the gap which is the working poor and low-income families. I agree wholeheartedly that this is something we should try to address as the government, but it should not be on the backs of seniors and those with chronic medical conditions.

Mr. Speaker, I’m very sceptical of the September 1st implementation date. I believe that these changes have been in the works for years and another six months over the summer is not going to do this justice. We need to get it right and allow the oversight of the Social Programs committee and other Members of this House to make sure that this is done properly. We owe it to our residents to get this to a stage where we can take it back out to the public. The move to September 1st to me is a way for the government to dodge some of the tough questions that will come up, to take some of the heat off of the government. Mr. Speaker, I think it’s just a delay tactic and that’s why, again, I fully support the motion to look at advancing that implementation date to April 1, 2010, to allow the proper type of work, analysis and consultation that needs to go into these changes.

Mr. Speaker, once again, I just wanted to thank the Social Programs committee for all their work and Mr. Abernethy and everybody else who has contributed.

Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, the elders that are having problems with this issue are the elders that built the North. They were the trailblazers. They developed our communities. They developed our roads. They taught us as children and also they took care of the sick and weak in communities by our health care system. These people have made the North their homes. Mr. Speaker, they paid for what we have today. They developed the North; the trailblazers. Yet, Mr. Speaker, what do we do? We impose hardship on them at a time when they are struggling to maintain a life and enjoyment of the days they have to come.

Mr. Speaker, I, for one, support a universal health care system for all people in the Northwest Territories and get away with the debate on race, creed, colour. Mr. Speaker, I, for one, take offence to the racial overtones that have developed because of this policy, in regards to treaties, getting free health care, Metis benefits. Mr. Speaker, it has to be clearly noted that treaties were signed with the people in the Northwest Territories in 1989 in regard to Treaty 8, and 1921 in regard to Treaty 11. There are land claims agreements that have been settled with First Nations people. There are self-government negotiations going on so that First Nations people can take care of their own programs and services. For this policy to become racial is directly on the feet of the Minister who allowed it to get to that state.

Mr. Speaker, the Northwest Territories is not a province. The Northwest Territories receives funds from Ottawa because we are a Territory. The programs and services we get by way of education, services, health care services, housing, programs and services which are becoming universal. The intent of the change to this policy was to ensure everybody had access to health care and that we find a system that’s fair to all, and not to use a system that we know is totally dysfunctional by using income thresholds as a means to get to the goal by putting pressure on people to have to leave the North because they can find a better system of health care elsewhere, that is not the state that we are in. We have the financial means to provide services to all people in the Northwest Territories and we should do that and not be eliminating people simply based on the amount of money that you have earned in your lifetime or having a policy that’s better than one policy or another. It should be universal for all people.

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion and again I’d like to reiterate the comments that were made. I take offence to the racial overtones of what’s been said on First Nations people in the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Speaker, quite obviously I support this motion without any type of hesitation. The fact is I stand with the citizens that are going to be hurt by this policy and I think that the government needs to hear and realize this. I’ve also suggested to the Minister that if she goes back and reworks this policy and makes it fair and reasonable to all, that I’ll support her in those efforts and, of course, if the policy comes back I’ve also explained to the Minister that my choice of support has been taken away from me. This is that chance and I think that she has heard loud and clear that this policy needs to be reworked. In my case, there is no reasonable justification why these changes need to be done.

There’s been a group talked about many times, the low-income group that has not received coverage. I’ve not heard one single voice in this community that says they do not deserve coverage. I’ve not heard one opposition to that. Mr. Speaker, those dollar amounts have never been laid before us to say could we find another way. I believe that there are other ways. I’ve heard from constituents who have said if you had to raise my territorial taxes by 0.25 percent, by 0.5 percent, maybe even up to 1 percent this would show an equal commitment amongst Northerners that health care is important to us equally.

Mr. Speaker, as the policy has been reworked and suggested at this time, what it’s really done and being highlighted quite clearly by Mr. Krutko is it’s unfairly pit neighbour against neighbour when they’ve worked, lived, and some will live and die here in the North together, but it’s caused friction that is unnecessary.

Mr. Speaker, I’m confident that the numbers have never really been run. I’m confident that there is no number of saying we need just $1 million, because if we hear that we needed just $1 million or we needed $1.5 million, this side of the House would do whatever we could to make it happen. I don’t believe in any way that people should be put to an income test, because I think you are discriminating against one group and that’s the whole problem here. Coverage for our seniors, coverage for our families, coverage for Northerners should be coverage, not where do you come from. It should be about who you are and how can we help. That should be the first statement.

Mr. Speaker, there are many ways to do this. I guess I’d say the first time around there was no meaningful consultation and, yes, there will be arguments of saying I was in committee or this policy had found some policymaker to talk about once or twice, but it was always kept in the bowels of government and it was approved by the 15th Assembly of Cabinet, not this Cabinet, not this Assembly. The 15th Assembly had said we’re going to make the 16th Assembly responsible for implementing this. Well, I’m telling you, that’s got to stop today. I think clearly the voices out there, the petitions out there, the e-mails out there, the phone calls out there, they’ve been ringing true with the same thing. Just slow down, think about what you’re doing, because what you’ve done is caused a ripple effect that will be difficult to cure and to stop. Mr. Speaker, yes, many people promise that they will leave and, yes, some will. Some will treat it as an idle threat and I know deep down inside that their heart is truly in the North, but what we’ve done is we’ve put an unfair burden, an unfair financial burden on a small sector. I’ll tell you today, I can guarantee that those who have means will use them. Their cost of living continues to rise; power bills, oil bills, gas bills, and now health bills, Mr. Speaker. When does it stop?

We could stop it here today. We could hear from the Minister. I hope she will speak and say that she will slow this down. If changes need to be done I hope she will say we will do a full, open, blank-paper consultation, we will get out there and will change what necessarily needs to be adjusted. But the fact is the broad-brush coverage that needs to be there should not change.

I say again, there are other solutions. Put it around the table how much you need, we will find it. Put it on the table what you want to do, we will work together. I will work together as hard as I can. I’ll make any compromise I can to make sure that coverage isn’t take away from our people. The important bottom line is the fact that people feel abandoned. People feel that their trust has been thrown away because of this policy.

I think we always gave the respect of showing them that the timeline is unreasonable to come forward with reasonable consultation. The timeline designed is just too forceful. And the fact that the opposition that has come to date deserves the respect and it should be given. The fact is, nobody wants this.

Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.

Mr. Speaker, I rise too in support of the motion. I have had the opportunity to travel throughout my communities of Nahendeh to speak to the seniors about this particular issue. As well, many seniors from Fort Simpson attended a constituency meeting. I was very happy to have them there.

As I went to explain the program and how it works I really found myself in the position where I couldn’t make a good explanation of it. There was no analysis in the documents given. There was no costing of the initiatives. How much does it cost to provide these supplementary health benefits? How much will they save if they remove it with the income testing program and the two-tiered program they had designed, and the costs for actually helping those that were identified in need and are unable to access our Supplementary Health Benefits at all?

As I discussed it with them it was apparent that there were two different issues here. One was that the supplementary health benefits were going to be removed from seniors that made, I think the Minister said roughly $66,000, in that area. I don’t think it’s actually working income either. I think it’s retirement income that is included into it. The seniors have made it very clear to me that they have worked hard for these benefits and they work hard in identifying communities they want to stay in. They make a conscious effort to stay in our North. It’s not something that they just do. It’s a conscious effort. It’s planned. They make arrangements to live in the North. Knowing that it costs slightly more, this is their home. That’s very, very important.

When they spoke about it they said, well, this is paramount like taxing us. That’s the way they view it. It’s an additional tax to the seniors to live in the North. In fact, one of my constituents felt very strongly about it. He said. “We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to put up with it”. He goes further to say, “If you don’t like it, we’ll leave.” Pretty serious words. That’s nothing that we, as legislators, as MLAs, want to see happen. We want our people, especially our seniors, to continue the good work they do in their community. They’re volunteers. What income they have they’re spending in our communities and sharing their wisdom and knowledge with our communities.

Once again, no information, apparent lack of recent consultation, and there must be a better way of doing this. The Minister has deferred it, but the motion speaks about a little bit more examination and analysis of this whole area. I think that there are two different issues here. Supplementary health benefits is one and the other one is to find funding for citizens that cannot access any benefits now. In fact, I’m a firm believer that Supplementary health benefits should not be taken away at this point.

Thank you, Mr. Menicoche. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.

Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. I, too, will be supporting the motion. The reason for my supporting the motion is that there doesn’t seem to be a lot of work done that gives comfort to the MLAs from the smaller communities that there are any benefits going from this change to the people in the smaller community ridings. However, there’s definitely a possibility that few of our seniors who were lucky enough to have held good jobs in their lifetime in these small communities will be adversely affected.

In addition, any loss of residents across the NWT would have an adverse effect on all residents of the NWT by dropping transfer payments and removing seniors with good incomes who make their purchases in the NWT. These seniors buy and operate their vehicles in the Northwest Territories. These seniors buy their food here, buy their clothing here, do their shopping here. They volunteer here; seniors that are homeowners and operate their homes through local purchases, never mind the transfer payments. Just the fact that their incomes will no longer be circulating in the economy of the Northwest Territories has an adverse effect on the people across the country.

Today in tough economic times the government should do all it can to try to retain all the people who have made a decision to retire up here and make homes here and made a decision to spend their money here. This program would have an adverse effect upon that. And what has an adverse effect on the NWT in general, usually the impact is felt greatest in the smaller communities where the economy is poor already.

Because my feeling is that this change to the supplementary health benefits has a very negative impact on the communities, whether it’s individual or not, I feel the negative impacts are there. Therefore, I will be supporting this motion.

Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.

The Minister has indicated the possibility of implementing this policy in September. I plead with the Minister to reconsider those dates as that leaves about eight months to implement this policy. Eight months of copied e-mails from the other Members to me in my office in terms of the questions that are out there for clarification by the seniors, concerns by different Members in the Northwest Territories in terms of some very technical and scientific economic formulas that have been used in terms of how do we implement this policy. I don‘t believe we can satisfy all these questions within this eight-month period. I think that this implementation date should be scrapped and the whole program should be looked at, reviewed, get scrapped, and see if it does make sense and they have some hard answers to questions that we are going to pose in regard to this whole program.

I do agree with the MLA from Mackenzie Delta that there are some fine issues we don’t need to bother getting into in terms of this whole thing about the medical health care plan, because there were certain agreements made from our grandfathers in terms of how do we take care of health under certain treaties with our people here.

The seniors in the Northwest Territories, we as Members here, and we’ll go right across the board, are the ones who need to speak up for them. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re protecting the need to heed their voice in this House on this issue. I didn’t realize the amount of concerns and issues that were out there until I started to see the e-mails in my office here and discussions that have happened. I thought we were doing something for the low-income support families. I thought we were going to help them. I didn’t realize the amount of concerns that seniors had about what we were doing. That caused me quite a concern.

I think, if anything, we should make some type of legislation for any seniors in the Northwest Territories. We should really be taking care of them as our first priority, number one. With fuel, with energy, with health, they should be given primary care in terms of how we run this government.

These seniors have walked a long life way before us. These seniors have guided us in some of our teachings as we grow up as to how life is going to be. Falling back on that, if these seniors and elders are the ones that are guiding us, shame on us for causing disruption to their well being, their emotions, their health, and for allowing this to happen.

I think we need to take a step back. I think that needs to be done. The timing is not right. The action is not right. I think we need to really think about how as a government, how as legislators we view our seniors, our elders. Really think about what that means. I had a discussion last night about how this government could be in a position to treat our seniors and elders in a certain way. How is it that we’ve come this far in our life that we can do this to our seniors or our elders? Where have we gone? The fact that the seniors are the fastest growing population in the Northwest Territories I think that’s the value of our elders. We place the values of the elders on our list of values in terms of how we treat seniors in the Legislative Assembly.

Our seniors live on a fixed income. I think by doing the proper thing, by having proper consultation, interpretation, I got a call from Tulita asking what this is all about. Can we get a plain language presentation as to what we are really doing with seniors? What are the impacts?

I plead to the Minister and the rest of the Cabinet to really think about this in terms of how we look at this overall. If it has any type of impact on the seniors we should really back down and support our seniors in the years that they have left with us is this world here. I think that’s something that should be considered in terms of this whole issue here. Maybe this whole issue here with the Supplementary Health Benefits Policy, I like to look at this issue here as having brought out some good in terms of how we view our elders and seniors in our government. This causes a lot of things to think about.

I will be supporting the motion to look at the bigger picture as to how we take care of elders and seniors in the Northwest Territories generally. What is our view of them? So they totally have my support from the people of the Sahtu.

Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Member for Nunakput, Mr. Jacobson.

Basically I’m the last guy to be standing up and supporting this motion, so a lot of good things have been said. Today I’ll be supporting the motion on supplementary health benefits. I support my elders and my people with chronic conditions and disabilities throughout the Territory.

As Northerners we take care of our own, no matter where we’re from in this great Territory. I do agree to throw this program change out and start over. I did help Mr. Abernethy on his statement too.

---Laughter

Thank you, Mr. Jacobson. The honourable Member for Range Lake, Ms. Lee.

I’d like to thank the Members for all the information and statements that they’ve presented today. I’d also like to thank many members of the public who have actively participated in expressing their views and concerns about how do we improve this program since it was announced in December.

As I have already stated in the House and outside, the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits and the Catastrophic Drug Costs programs were designed because the Government of the Northwest Territories believed that nobody should be without access to supplementary health benefits because they can’t afford it. Under the current system that is happening, we do have a group of people who don’t get access to supplementary health benefits.

The government is committed to providing supplementary health benefits to eligible residents and families who do not have access to a plan. Conversely, we have to use our resources wisely and a government program should not be designed in a way that encourages people who can have third-party insurance to opt out of third-party insurance while at the same time not covering those people who do not have supplementary health benefits.

I believe the intent of the policy is reasonable and obviously provides comprehensive supplementary health benefits to those who cannot afford them, and protecting Northerners from catastrophic drug costs. Those who can afford to should contribute to the cost of benefits that supplement their health care.

The program details will be adjusted, and I have stated this on many occasions, to ensure that the program fulfils our intention and does not unfairly impact some of our residents. Also, the program redesign will ensure that the program is fair and equitable. The goal is to make sure that all residents in the NWT who need assistance will get it, particularly the low-income families, the seniors, and those with catastrophic costs of supplementary health care.

I have already stated on many occasions that we will work hard to bring together stakeholders in a public forum, as well as meeting with many NGOs and seniors’ societies who have expressed their views to us. I have already stated that we’ll do that in the form of two-way exchanges and workshops, because we understand, and I have learned, that there are lots of complex layers in dealing with supplementary health care plans.

I should also note that I have made it my practice as a Minister that I consult regularly with the Standing Committee on Social Programs on many issues. Not only that, I also make it a practice to invite Members who are not part of Standing Committee on Social Programs to have the benefit of the briefing or information that I’m providing and there’s no reason to think that I will not continue to do that. I intend to work very closely with the standing committee as we go through the public consultations process to deal with some of the shortfalls and many of the shortfalls that have been revealed since we announced that.

I’d like to thank the Members very much and the public for their input. I should also note lastly that as it is a convention for the Cabinet to not vote on a motion that is a recommendation, we will be abstaining from voting on the motion. But I would like to assure the Members that we take all of the views that were expressed today very, very seriously and we will consider them all.

Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Inuvik Boot Lake, Mr. Roland.

Mr. Speaker, as Minister Lee has pointed out, the work that has been done, the principle and the intent of the program, the input of Members of the Northwest Territories. Mr. Speaker, as Minister Lee has pointed out, as convention we will be voting on that, but for the record as well, when the talk and when the e-mails went around on this issue and as the gaps were identified, I made a call to Mr. Abernethy and Ms. Bisaro about the program and what was needed, got some advice from them as to what…(inaudible)…or looking at delays, so seeing the work that’s been done, we look forward to working with Members, going back to the table, reviewing this, reworking the implementation so it does work for the majority of people in the Northwest Territories. Thank you.

To the motion. Alright, I will allow the mover of the motion, Mr. Abernethy, to make closing comments.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The Member is requesting a recorded vote, Mr. Clerk. All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

Mr. Abernethy, Mr. Menicoche, Mr. Ramsay, Mrs. Groenewegen, Mr. Beaulieu, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Jacobson, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Yakeleya, Mr. Krutko, Mr. Bromley.

All those opposing, please stand. All those abstaining, please stand.

Mr. Lafferty; Ms. Lee; Mr. Miltenberger; Mr. Roland; Mr. McLeod, Deh Cho; Mr. McLeod, Inuvik Twin Lakes; Mr. McLeod, Yellowknife South.

The results of the recorded vote: 11 for, none opposed, seven abstaining. The motion is carried.

---Carried

---Applause

Colleagues, before we go on to the next order of business, the Chair is going to call a short break.

---SHORT RECESS

I will call the House back to order. The Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS pursuant to subsection 61.(1) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly chooses a Premier and recommends to the Commissioner the appointment of Members to the Executive Council;

AND WHEREAS pursuant to subsection 61.(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the persons appointed hold office during the pleasure of the Legislative Assembly;

AND WHEREAS many events have transpired that have eroded the confidence of the general public and Members of this Assembly in the performance of the Premier and Executive Council;

AND WHEREAS this Assembly is only 16 months into a four-year mandate;

AND WHEREAS it is essential that this Assembly has a Premier and Executive Council that acts in the best interests of the electorate we collectively represent;

AND WHEREAS the role of Regular Members in consensus government must be respected and full participation should be encouraged and seen as beneficial to the constructive functioning of government in the best interests of all NWT residents;

AND WHEREAS a full Territorial Leadership Committee meeting would afford the Premier and Executive Council Members a free and secret vote to confirm confidence in Members of the Executive Council;

AND WHEREAS such a vote would allow the 16th Legislative Assembly the opportunity to re-establish confidence in the Premier and Executive Council;

NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that pursuant to Subsection 61.(2) of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, this Assembly formally revokes the pleasure of the Assembly from the appointments of the Premier and all Members of the Executive Council effective Monday, February 9, 2009, at 1:30 p.m. MST;

AND FURTHER, that this Assembly recommends that a Premier and Executive Council be chosen without delay and that the Commissioner be notified of the recommended appointments at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. There’s a motion on the floor. The motion is in order. To the motion. The Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have brought this motion forward as the chair of the Priorities and Planning committee. I do support the motion and, Mr. Speaker, yesterday I spoke quite extensively in this Legislature about where I feel the 16th Assembly has got to this way and it is today where the workings of this Assembly seem to be dysfunctional and not in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories. There is a great long list of junctures and incidents and workings that could be recited here, but I gave quite a lengthy list of those yesterday. What I would prefer to do today is allow Regular Members and Cabinet Ministers to speak to this motion and at the appropriate time, I will conclude debate on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. To the seconder of the motion, Mr. Krutko.

Mr. Speaker, as the seconder of this motion, I have been here for some 14 years, four terms, and I’ve seen several incidents where the executive branch of this government has totally ignored and disrespected Members on this side of the House. In regard to the issues at hand, in regard to supplementary health benefits, income support, support reform, motions that were passed unanimously in this House by Members on this side of the House which directed the government to seriously deal with these fundamental issues that were affecting residents of the Northwest Territories and totally ignoring the issues on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, the conduct of the Premier in regards to this incident, we are all aware of the fundamental breach of confidence when it comes to the workings of this Legislature. We have three levels of government; the judiciary, the executive and the Legislature. Each of those play a very important role in regards to how we do our jobs. It is very sad to have to say here today and we are now having most of our meetings in camera without the clerks at our meetings because of the incident that occurred. For myself, that was a fundamental breach of what we are supposed to do. Those individuals play a very important role to assist us in doing our jobs.

We have a very important job in regards to the government’s committee to review the Legislative Assembly’s direction to review the language legislation after five years, in which the clerk at the time played a very important role in assisting the committee to do our work. Because of the incident that had occurred, it fundamentally undermined the committee’s work and responsibility of due diligence in ensuring that we do have a report that really makes a difference to this House.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of fundamental challenges that we face. Again, we as a Legislature, as I stated in my statement today, show that we really care for the underprivileged people in our society in regards to people who are struggling to heat their homes. They are struggling to even get eligibility for income support because of situations where they either did not go into an office, had an argument with an income support worker or because they basically had someone living with them taking care of an elder. I think it is fundamental as a government that we do have to show that we are providing good benefits.

Mr. Speaker, the issue that I have is the deterioration of respect that Members on this side of the House be involved in critical decisions such as the $34 million loan that was given, and under here there’s a $60 million loan that is being looked at, and then the application in regards to the power review of the $80 million purchase by ATCO Power with no involvement of this side of the House whatsoever and then full speed ahead on those issues, especially when it comes to board reform. Again, the land claim organizations in my region are negotiating self-government. The Inuvialuit and the Gwich’in are in the process of negotiating self-government to look at what type of structures they want to negotiate for themselves and not be dictated by a government telling them that this process is going to change halfway through negotiations. We will have a system that is basically a service board for the communities and be carrying that opportunity to those aboriginal organizations.

The other issue, Mr. Speaker, is the whole incident that has clearly occurred. The Minister clearly stated that April 1st the board reform issue will be implemented and the same thing in regards to the question of the supplementary health benefits. September 1st is the drop dead date and they are going ahead. For me, that is not the way a government should be conducting itself and also knowing that those issues could have been pulled over on government’s process and left here with the future governments or negotiations with First Nations government did not occur. Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting this motion today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.

Mr. Speaker, a democracy is about representing the people, giving them a voice and treating them with fairness and respect towards fair, responsible and responsive government. Being an MLA, a representative of the people in the Weledeh constituency, is a huge honour and a huge responsibility. But there is one thing I most fully appreciate. It is the privilege provided to me on behalf of my people to be heard and to have my opinions and perspectives justly considered by the government.

When MLAs are elected to the Executive, their responsibilities increase. These honoured and privileged people must shoulder the extra burden of trust. This trust is associated with the extra responsibility of knowing many things not commonly known and making final decisions to a lasting benefit to all of our people. Finally, with having to assume the leadership in treating our public with respect and with ensuring them their opportunities for direct input on issues. This last responsibility, ensuring public input, is done both through ensuring that the opportunities for meaningful input from Regular MLAs is constantly realized and through providing for thoughtful consultation via the flow of thorough information and analysis in which to receive feedback.

Much of this is a matter of communication, but we cannot assume that good communication is easy or automatic. It begins with the recognition of responsibilities in this area followed by a commitment to play in these obligations in an intentional manner. To do so brings substantial rewards of good judgment, good decisions and an engaged Assembly and a public. Failure on this front is what brings us to where we are today.

Examples of these failures are numerous by now; a sorry list that’s familiar to many: the Deh Cho Bridge, reductions in personnel and spending, Strategic Initiatives Committees that we heard our Premier mention this morning -- a group of committees that, overall, produced such gobbledy gook, such pact, that we did indeed refuse to participate in them -- review of boards and agencies, the supplementary health benefits issue and its impacts on our seniors and those with pre-existing conditions, et cetera, the Opportunities Fund and so on, others that are painful to mention. The angst, the fear, the painful frustration this government has engendered amongst our public is shameful. This at a time when people are dealing with the rising cost of living and now the recession and all the normal trials and tribulations of life to date.

Mr. Speaker, we did not have the confidence of our public when they realized we, their duly elected representatives to this consensus government, were turning to them for information on what our Cabinet was doing and deciding. Things have become so dysfunctional that the person on the street was better informed about significant decisions made by our Executive Council than their own representatives.

Mr. Speaker, the judgment of our Premier in relation to his relationship with our clerk reflects poor judgment. His inability to share the responsibility for this bad judgment further undermines my confidence in his ability to be our leader.

In our Premier and some Members of our Cabinet, they put trust that was given to them in this House and failed to engage the public on crucial issues time and again. We are required to react.

The motion we have before us today is not one that is put forward lightly, Mr. Speaker. As the Premier said this morning, we have repeatedly raised our concerns, but to no avail. I and my fellow MLAs have been trying to work with this Cabinet and have voiced our concerns over and over again, but despite the Premier professing to hear our pleas, we have seen no change.

Public accountability is the keystone of a democracy and this government has shown that they are accountable to none but themselves. If we allow this to continue, we as MLAs would be failing to uphold the principles we swore an oath to protect.

As I said before, this government’s communications record is a crime against our people and it now begs some kind of final resolution. Mr. Speaker, I will be acting to perform my obligations by supporting this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.

This is a sad day. It is unfortunate that we have to be here at all to consider a motion of this magnitude. It is unfortunate that this 16th Legislative Assembly had to get to such a negative place.

I was born and raised in the Northwest Territories. It is my home and l love it. There is no other place I would rather be. When I die, what is left of me will be buried in the ground here in the Northwest Territories.

I ran for MLA because I wanted to do good things for the people of the Northwest Territories and I still want to do good things for all of the people in the Northwest Territories. I believe in consensus government. I defend it every chance I get. Unfortunately, lately, my ability to defend it has wavered. I began to question consensus government as an institution. Can it be effective and can it work? Here’s what I know: It used to work.

As indicated earlier, I have lived in the NWT all of my life and I have paid attention to the government. I have been interested in how a consensus government works as long as I can remember. Prior to division, although there have always been minor hiccups now and again, it worked pretty well. Back then there were 24 Members. Of these, eight were appointed to the Executive Council and there were 15 considered Regular Members. With that particular division in numbers, it was critical that the Cabinet-of-the-day had to provide rational argument based on research and facts in order to get a consensus on any topic. They had to work pretty hard and engage Regular Members early on in the process, whether it was for legislation or policy development or any other political activity. As a result, there was a significant amount of two-way communication and healthy debate. Cabinet-of-the-day had to develop its policies that pleased the majority of the entire Legislature with what they wanted to pass. They had to get at least six Members to support their position or they were stopped.

Now, technically this is still true. However, since division, Cabinet only needs to get the support of two Members. As a result, they don’t have to work as hard. They don’t have to convince a large number of Members to support an initiative. It’s easy to convince two. Based on the ease of getting two Members to come to their side, it isn’t necessary for Cabinet to research the decisions and base their decisions on facts like they used to. If they want, they can simply base decisions on the desire and belief. Two Members can be brought onside to promises not even related to discussions currently at hand.

With the Members that exist, can consensus government work? I believe the answer is yes. However, it is hard work and takes commitment of all Members. All Members must agree to work with consensus government. Cabinet has to agree to do the research and the work required to make reasonable and informed decisions. They must then agree to share that information with the Regular Members and help them help us understand how Cabinet decisions are made so that Regular Members can also make informed and responsible decisions. Both sides need to agree to listen to each other’s points of view with respect. Both sides need to engage in healthy ways. The Regular Members need to think about Cabinet’s position and not oppose everything that Cabinet says just because Cabinet says it. We need to work to achieve consensus. Unfortunately, it is a lot of work and it takes a lot of time. It requires a lot of individuals to swallow their pride from time to time, and it is easier for Cabinet to ignore and do whatever they want; for example, supplementary health and board reform. Unfortunately, it is very clear that consensus government is not currently working at this time. In fact, I don’t think it has ever been in worse shape. There are clearly Members on both sides who let their emotions and pride get in the way of their better judgment or what is in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.

I support this motion. I haven’t always. When I first heard rumours about it, I was completely opposed. However, some things have happened over the last couple of weeks that have forced me to support this motion. My biggest opposition to supporting this motion is that I feel that a number of Cabinet Members are good. I have a significant amount of respect for the Honourable Michael McLeod, the Honourable Robert C. McLeod and the Honourable Jackson Lafferty. Regardless of how this motion goes, they will continue to have my support. If the motion passes, I will definitely put my X beside their name should they choose to run for Cabinet. Having said that -- and I will get into it a little later -- I do have a couple of concerns that I will bring up later with every Member.

If I support some and believe in them now, how can I possibly support this motion? It is simple. I don’t support Cabinet as an entity.

On January 28th the Minister of Health and Social Services was quoted in the Yellowknifer saying, “A vote of non-confidence against us won’t stop the policy from coming into effect.” She was talking about supplementary health benefits. She went further to say -- and she was referring to a vote of non-confidence against her -- “This is really about political ambition and political gesturing and that it wouldn’t make a difference because Cabinet has already made their decision and it won’t change.” To me, this confirmed what many of the public and on this side of the House have been saying and that I feared to be true. Cabinet as an entity doesn’t care what we think or say and we don’t care what the people of the Northwest Territories want or think either. They know best what is right and what is good. They are going to do what they want, when they want and how they want.

In my opinion, Minister Lee’s comment suggested that the entity which is Cabinet had betrayed consensus government, the Regular MLAs and the people of the Northwest Territories. Something needs to be done to restore our faith in this government. I am no fool. I know Cabinet is made up of individuals. I know that we have no idea what the issues they fight for are or what they stand for in that Cabinet room. It is really difficult to pick out an individual Minister for a decision of an entire Cabinet. We can’t. When they leave the Cabinet room, whether they have consensus or not, they speak with one voice and in one entity. Minister Lee’s comments came to the entire Cabinet at the same time and they must all be held to account. How can we separate out individuals when Cabinet direction and blind devotion to Cabinet solidarity is really the problem?

I and other Members have tried to get Cabinet to work with us in many different ways. I have met and talked with Ministers. I expressed the need for communication. I have asked for inclusion in decision-making. I have asked questions in the House, but to no avail. Nothing has worked. Something drastic that will hopefully get Cabinet Members to sit up and listen needs to be done; something of a serious nature to get them or the Cabinet Members who replace them to take Regular Members seriously, to take residents of the Northwest Territories seriously. To practice consensus style government that we all profess to believe in warrants support.

To me, this motion is the only thing that I believe they would take seriously. Anything with less potential impact would be soundly ignored by the entity which is Cabinet. The beast would go back to its old habits. Cabinet would go back to business as usual and continue to ignore us. For instance, they have continued to completely ignore motions passed by all 11 Regular Members; motions such as the motion to return the public housing subsidy back to the Housing Corporation; ignoring important motions passed by all 11 Members with not so much as a rational or at least an attempt to provide the Regular Members with the reason why Cabinet won’t listen or to act on the decision of the majority of the people in this Assembly. We speak on behalf of the people of the Northwest Territories. The majority speaks. Cabinet must listen.

I said earlier that there are three Members that I believe are good and work hard for the people of the Northwest Territories. I don’t always agree with their decisions, but I respect them for the way that they work and try to work with us as a Minister responsible for a department, not as a Cabinet Member.

There are two other Members that I am currently on the fence with, and I am deeply troubled by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of ITI for their involvement in the Opportunities Fund and their inability to help us understand how the decisions related to that fund were made and why. If this motion passes, I have a number of questions for each of them; hard questions that I will want answered before I consider putting my X beside their name. This motion will put ramifications behind those questions. If they can’t be answered, they won’t be getting my support. If this motion does not pass, asking them these questions will be meaningless to them and I don’t believe that we will get a sincere answer. Once again, I have no option but to support this motion.

For all five of the Members, I do have one problem which needs to be answered by each. Our Premier admittedly had an intimate relationship with one of our clerks of committee. I know some people are asking: What is the big deal? Here’s the big deal. Cabinet has their solidarity. The Regular Members have their committees. These committees are the only place where we can freely vent our frustrations about Cabinet and political issues and plan our daily business. It is supposed to be a safe place where we can trust that what we say won’t be shared with anyone. The clerk of committees that entered into that intimate relationship with the Premier attended all EDI meetings, Government Ops meetings and most Priorities and Planning meetings and is privy to all discussions. Regardless of whether or not she leaked the information -- and honestly I don’t know if she did or not and, for the record, information was definitely leaked -- it was definitely a conflict and the Premier is smart enough to know that.

Nobody in their right mind would allow or support the hiring of a spouse or immediate family member of any Member of the Executive Council into the position of clerk of committees. It would be seen as a clear and obvious conflict of interest. The Premier having an intimate relationship with the clerk is no different. It is still a conflict of interest.

After meeting with the Premier in December at Caucus, I met with him one on one and asked him to resign. In my opinion, the relationship constituted a clear conflict and demonstrated poor judgment on behalf of the Premier. The only thing and the right thing for the Premier to do would have been to resign. I was told no by the Premier. I know that the majority of Members on this side of the House had exactly the same conversation with him. They were also told no. So that is my problem with all of the Cabinet Members, including the ones I respect. They didn’t appear to do anything other than stand blindly behind Cabinet solidarity and support their Premier. Bad form.

The Premier created a serious conflict situation and should have been asked to resign by you, the regular Cabinet Members. It has happened in the past. Cabinet has asked Premiers to resign in the past. There is precedent. It should have happened this time. I was deeply disappointed that the entity that is Cabinet didn’t feel the same way and was willing to stand behind this serious conflict of interest. It puts a negative light on this entire Assembly.

So why didn’t the honourable Members ask the Premier to resign? If he refused, why didn’t the Members tell him to resign and make it happen? As a Member of the Executive Council, each Member swore an oath that he or she would duly and faithfully and to the best of their abilities, skill and knowledge execute the powers of trust imposed in them as a Member of the Executive Council of the Northwest Territories. I trusted the Executive Council to do the right thing: live up to the standards of their office. Each Member swore to execute the powers and the trust that I and residents of the NWT placed in them.

I have a lot of respect for the Premier. He’s done a lot for this Territory and he’s been a strong advocate for the North and his constituents. He’s been a good MLA. In the 15th Assembly he was a solid and respected Minister. He’s definitely capable and would be a good Regular Member, if that’s the way things end up. Unfortunately, he’s made a bad decision and he needs to stand up and take responsibility for his mistake and the damage that it has done to this Legislature. Unfortunately, he’s unwilling, so it looks like we’ll have to do it for him.

As Members -- and this is to all of us -- we all need to be cautious in our behaviour and our actions. As politicians put in office by the people, we have a duty and a responsibility to behave in a decent and an upstanding manner. We have to give up some of ourselves in the best interest of our office and oath that we’ve all sworn.

In closing, and again, I support this motion because it has teeth and I hope that it will make the entity known as Cabinet listen. Hopefully it will also make the individual Ministers think that as well, even the ones that I hope put their names forward and get back onto Cabinet. This is consensus government. It takes a lot of work, but it’s worth it. The people are worth it. The NWT is worth it. Let’s revitalize it and get back to work. We owe it to the people of the Northwest Territories.

Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.

At the outset I have to say that I’m dismayed that this motion has come to the floor. But it’s nothing that I take lightly. It was a long time in coming and I think I want everybody to know that this is not something which was a spur of the moment decision on anybody’s part. I had hopes that we as the 16th Assembly could have found a different or better solution, but there is none to be had.

I feel that I am driven to this step for a number of reasons, and these are my own personal reasons, my own views, my own opinions, my own feelings. Primary among these reasons is a loss in confidence in the Premier and Executive Council as a group. Some Ministers have performed well; some Ministers poorly. Similar to Mr. Abernethy, I feel that some Ministers belong in Cabinet and were the opportunity given to me, I would put them back there.

But I want to emphasize that for me it is a loss of confidence in the group. I am concerned for our Territory. I am concerned for our residents. I don’t feel any comfort that this Executive is working for the best interest of the whole of the NWT. The culture of this Cabinet and its Premier is insular, adversarial, and inward looking. I’m sorry to have to use those words.

There is a lack of cohesiveness amongst this group. Each of the seven Members of the Executive seem to operate independently of the others. Actions are taken by one Minister that the others are unaware of. An example: For the last four to five months I’ve been asking the Premier’s office for the NWT government’s response to the federal government in regards to the McCrank Report. I was assured several times that it was being developed, that coordination was required because several departments were involved, and that I and other Members would get a copy once it was complete. Imagine my surprise when I was told two weeks ago by the Premier’s office that a letter of response about the McCrank Report had gone to INAC’s Minister Strahl in early December of 2008 from the Minister of ENR, apparently without the Premier’s knowledge. If this is the government’s considered coordinated response, why was the Premier not involved?

This example is indicative to me of the “every man for himself” attitude that permeates this Cabinet. Not only have I lost confidence in this Premier and Executive, but so has the public. For months now I’ve been hearing from constituents and members of the general public that they see the government as inadequate and ineffective. They don’t believe that this government is taking us anywhere; that we are as a ship adrift at sea on an aimless journey, no visible charted course.

On the flip side I feel that the long-term goals of this Cabinet and its Assembly are good, but the short-term actions are sorely lacking. On the negative side there’s this comment from a constituent: “For every action there is an equal and opposite government program.”

A second reason is in my short time as an MLA I’ve perceived a distinct lack of leadership from the Premier and the Executive and I feel that the leadership has to come from that group of seven people. I elected seven people to positions of authority and accountability, expecting that they would take charge of this Assembly’s goals and objectives and those goals and objectives that we set as 19 Members back in October 2007. I expected they would take our goals and objectives and lead us forward. I expected them to fill the sails of our ship with wind and move us purposely to the harbour. I don’t see that leadership, nor do I see that purposeful forging ahead that I anticipated 16 months ago. We need to make some personnel changes to get the leadership and the attitude that this Territory needs to forge ahead.

Thirdly, the communication from this Cabinet has been woefully inadequate and ineffectual. I mean communication to both our residents and stakeholders and to us as Regular MLAs. Comments made in the press by Ministers have been contrary and unnecessarily blunt. Ideas and actions put forward by Cabinet have been presented to constituents and to MLAs as a fait accompli, a done deal. What I hear that’s telling me from Cabinet is, don’t bother telling us what you think; we don’t care and we’ll do what we want no matter what. Unfortunately, perception is nine-tenths of the law and the public perception is that this Cabinet is running a dictatorship, not consensus government.

The word “consultation” does not seem to be in the vocabulary of this Executive Council. Witness the presentation of the Board Reform Initiative and the Supplementary Health Benefits Program policy. In both cases the model has been predetermined by Cabinet. That model to be implemented is not in question or for debate, only how it will happen. That’s hardly consultation, in my view. Where is the openness to other ideas? Where is the openness to the consideration of a different way of implementation?

I am constantly amazed at the reticence of this Cabinet to use the considerable collective wisdom and experience of the Regular Members’ P and P committee to vet their initiatives and significant policy changes before making a Cabinet or an FMB decision. This group of 11 has a lot to offer. Why do you persist in ignoring a thoughtful, willing and cost-effective sounding board?

We’re at a point in the life of this Assembly where a review of our Executive Council is due. We could wait for the halfway point of this Assembly -- that would be October upcoming -- but I feel it would then be too late. The review must occur now. This motion provides that opportunity; the opportunity for a review of the Premier and all Members of Cabinet. It’s an opportunity for Members to reaffirm their confidence in those Ministers whom they feel deserve their confidence. Who those people are depends on each of us as Members. We all have different experiences which colour our opinions and feelings, and thus there are differing views on the worth of each Minister.

Should this motion pass, a Territorial Leadership Council will be held. I hope that all the current Ministers will submit their names for a Cabinet post. I think they all should. The Leadership Council process will allow us all to consider the record of Ministers over the last 16 months, and any Minister who has the confidence of this House will be reinstated to their post.

To conclude, this motion may seem like a drastic measure, but it is, for me, a necessary one. I regret we couldn’t find another way to send our message to those across the floor and I regret that I must support this motion.

Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.