I guess I’ll have to spell it out a little slower so that the Minister picks it up this time. A predetermined process does not start out with an automatic implementation date. It has a closing, a consultation date, and allows the consultation discussion to drive the implementation date. The last point on this issue is when you tell people what income level it should start at, it tells me that the department has already decided that income testing is going to be a factor. It doesn’t say should it be, period, no questions asked.
What has this mysterious group that exists out there, what has this Minister done in terms of health regulation, ministerial directive, Cabinet directive, to pass any direction to provide immediate services to this mystery group we keep hearing about? Because that could be done. What work has been done on that issue?
Number 3 tells that answer. So I would encourage the Member and everybody else to look at this questionnaire that we posted on the website. The Member is suggesting, and others are suggesting, that we have a predetermined course of action and that we have a date in place and that we’re shoehorning the public into a decision, which is absolutely not true.
Number 3: Knowing what we know now about the costs and needs of the various existing uninsured health benefits programs, the Department of Health and Social Services is considering rolling the three programs this paper has discussed into a single program that is available to all Northerners not eligible for another program. Eligibility will be determined by your income, instead of age or specific condition. Do you agree?
I cannot think of another example of a more open, better designed, better evidenced, more of a two-way dialogue than this consultation process. I ask the Members to give it a chance. Give our public the benefit of the doubt that they have the intelligence and the knowledge and the interest that they will come out, even if it is the Easter weekend. Or if they don’t have time, they will respond to us on the website. I have faith in the people. I ask the Members to have faith in our public as well.
The ones with the shoehorn of course don’t feel shoehorned. Try being on the side of the shoehorn, not the ones with it. The reality is the Minister is blaming Members of the House -- this side of the House, we have to be very clear -- for not supporting that group of people who don’t have benefits. This Minister immediately could pass a ministerial directive that says this number of people need to be covered and this is how much it costs. How much money would it be to provide coverage to this mysterious group of people, as well as how many people? They can’t seem to answer that. Can the Minister answer that officially in this House?
I blame no one. I am just asking to let us have that dialogue. This is a very important conversation that we need to have. We need people to understand what supp health programs are, who they are provided to, what they cover, what the other jurisdictions do, and how do we go forward in terms of sustainability and protecting the integrity of this program. I believe at the end of the day that we will have the information that we need from the public.
In terms of, say, how much will this cost, I have said a thousand times in this House that health care services are demand driven. We pay what people need. Once the policies are set, we pay for whoever gets the service. For anybody to say how much it will cost, if anybody knew that answer, I think they would be a lot richer than I am at the moment.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yet again the side of this House that has the shoehorn seems to be proceeding with blinders. They have no idea how much this will cost to cover this group that is mysteriously not covered. It doesn’t sound like they even have a clue how many people need to be covered. Will this Minister commit, before any decision is made, that we will identify the costs associated with this and with the number of people who need this assistance? Because we could do it immediately, we could provide support if the Minister could provide that cost, which she refuses to.
The other side of that is the money is voted in this House. We could, as a House, decide that we would provide supplementary health benefits to anybody; we pay for dental, we pay for drugs, we pay for homecare, we pay for anything, just because we want to. Then the Member will just need to pass the budget on that.
That’s not how we do our business here. Supp health benefits programs are very generous in this jurisdiction. We will continue to keep it that way. We have a group of people who are excluded from it and it is very important for us to have a very informed, evidence-based discussion with the public about what it is and how do we protect it and how do we make the access fair and equitable. We’re going to do that by the end of this consultation process.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since 1921 to 2010 it’s about 89 years since we’ve had oilfields in the Northwest Territories. In 1998, the oilfields started to develop and earn some profit and revenue from the Norman Wells oilfield through the pipeline that’s going to Zama. I want to ask the Minister of ITI what has been done to ensure that some of those revenues being generated from the development of the pipeline through the Sahtu region, that these revenues will reach the people in the North and the people in the Sahtu.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Norman Wells oilfield revenues have been a longstanding issue and irritant for this government. I guess it started when the land claims were negotiated for both the Gwich’in and Sahtu, which had provisions for the sharing of royalty revenues. As the Member knows, the Norman Wells oilfield revenues were deemed to be, or understood to be, royalties, but we took the federal government to court to get them to formally agree that those were royalties. The federal government went to court and lost and in order to pay the outstanding royalties to the Gwich’in and the Sahtu, the federal government said they could only get the money if they signed a cease and desist order whereby they would no longer recognize Norman Wells royalties as revenue. So they are saying it’s equity and we’ve been stuck ever since.
I want to ask this Minister why this government has not pursued an equity position with the Mackenzie Gas Project.
We haven’t pursued it because we don’t have the money. To put it bluntly, the royalties keep accruing to the federal government. We’ve been pursuing, collecting it through the devolution and resource revenue sharing negotiations.
Okay, well, that opens up a whole bunch of questions, but I will stay on this one here. Is the Government of the Northwest Territories working to negotiate some type of agreement with Ottawa in relation to the Mackenzie Gas Project in terms of receiving some money through equity or royalties or some regime?
We are supporting the Aboriginal Pipeline Group, who have negotiated a one-third interest in the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline. That involves, as far as I understand it, aboriginal governments of all the land claimant groups.
In terms of the whole issue of the oilfields and the pipeline, I want to ask the Minister if his Cabinet has ever looked at the issue of dealing with the ownership of the oilfields. I know the federal government has one-third ownership of the oilfields as part of the terms of the GNWT asking if they can have a percentage of that share of the oilfields.
My understanding is that has been on the negotiating table from day one, with regard to devolution and resource revenue sharing. The federal government has different views on how the Norman Wells revenues or equity position should be dealt with, but it’s something that will have to be negotiated as part of devolution and resource revenue sharing.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’ve been waiting on the supplementary health benefits issue because I’m sitting here listening to the debate and dialogue. It is very easy to sit on this side of the House and ask for the world. It’s kind of a little bit irresponsible, though, because we know that it is not sustainable to give seniors over a certain age unlimited, unfettered, non-means-tested access to supplementary health benefits. We know that. We know it cannot be done. So where is the creativity in the Department of Health and Social Services to look at things?
If we want to address the working poor, as we coin the phrase, those who do not work for the government, those who are not covered by other types of plans, when we look at that group, as Mr. Hawkins refers to them, the mysterious group, it’s not mysterious. I know who those people are. I’ve been standing up talking about them in this House for the last 15 years. Why could we not look at an insurance program that would be affordable? We could even cost share the premium to access something through an insurance program so that those folks could access supplementary health benefits in that way.
When it comes to seniors, rather than saying when you get to a certain age or a certain income bracket there’s nothing, why couldn’t we come up with something creative, something graduated where we say if you are in this income bracket, you are fully covered; if you are in this income bracket, we will cost share with you; and when you’re in this income bracket, darn it, you’ve got enough money you can pay for your own stuff unless it’s catastrophic and completely unaffordable. Where is the creativity in a plan that addresses this issue? Because we know, I mean, there’s nothing worse than ingratitude, and, Mr. Speaker, the people of the Northwest Territories should be very grateful for the services provided by this government through the Department of Health. But where is the ability of this department to look at some creative solutions? Thank you.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m happy to advise the Member that all that creativity the Member has spoken to is right here in this document. Mr. Speaker, we have facts here that show that there is no difference in income earning power through the ages. Whether you are whatever age, we have people who are making high income and people who are making low income. Right now, people who are making low income but not low enough to be eligible for indigent, are going without basic dental coverage for their children. But we’re not saying, okay, here’s a plan, take it or leave it, yes or no. We are having a dialogue. We are providing people information about who is using it, what do they use it for, what are their income levels.
Secondly, the insurance programs factor. Mr. Speaker, we have a situation right now where some people with insurance coverage are encouraged to drop it because there is a built-in incentive to drop. One idea we are asking the people to talk about is should we encourage people to get third-party coverage. Obviously, the government will be the last resort for anybody who either can’t get insurance or who is rejected from insurance because of a pre-existing condition. Those are the conversations that we are wanting to have and all that information is in this public discussion paper. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, is there any other jurisdiction in Canada where the general population pays absolutely no health insurance premiums? Thank you.
There is no other jurisdiction in Canada where there is not some kind of income testing. In fact, in most jurisdictions they do asset testing. This one, we are saying income as a possibility of determining access, and no matter what your age, your ability to pay should factor in.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, one thing that the Member for Hay River South mentioned earlier is that our previous plan that came out was designed in such a way that if you didn’t make an income threshold, you are dropped off. We’re not suggesting this. This is an idea. We’re saying should there be gradual responsibility for people who can afford it, people who are making high income could start paying in at certain levels so that people in lower incomes can benefit, because they are not, right now, included. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, for people who are in a higher income bracket, but still, people even in a higher income bracket could not be prepared for something like the type of cost associated with certain medications, and always the technology, the medical sciences advancing and things that are available. Mr. Speaker, is this government doing anything to make those people aware of private insurance plans outside of this government? What is this government doing to suggest to people who can afford it that perhaps they should be looking at private insurance plans to cover those kinds of costs that are unanticipated? That is the intention and purpose of insurance. Thank you.
That’s absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. A lot of people have been asking about why we don’t we have catastrophic drug benefits. We don’t have national catastrophic drug coverage in Canada; the national government is not interested in doing that. We know of residents in other provinces who are actually having to sell their houses to pay for cancer drugs. This program speaks to providing coverage for catastrophic drug coverage so that no matter how high your income is, in the Northwest Territories you are not going to be saddled with having to decide whether you should sell your house to pay for your cancer drug. That’s not going to happen. We’re just asking that we look at the accessibility.
Secondly, I need to correct the facts. I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, obviously Nunavut has a very similar program to us in supplementary health, but in most jurisdictions they have either a premium or income testing or much less supplementary health benefits than what we have here. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister will probably feel that she’s already answered this question, but let me say again, for the benefit of the public, the government is trying to create a program that makes sense, that is sustainable going ahead in the future, that this government can afford, and the Minister is committed to meaningful consultation with the stakeholders involved in this and will do everything in her power to make those affected have access to input into this new system that will come into place. Thank you.
Absolutely. Positively, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to having this discussion over the next two or three months. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled NWT Community Futures Program Annual Report to March 31, 2009. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Minister responsible for Environment and Natural Resources, Mr. Miltenberger.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the following document entitled Status Report to December 2009, Environment and Natural Resources Framework for Action 2008-2012. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Miltenberger. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Executive Summary of the Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Pursuant to Section 23 of the Official Languages Act, I wish to table the Office of the Northwest Territories Languages Commissioner Annual Report 2008-2009.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, March 4, 2010, I will move the following motion: now therefore I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, that Tabled Document 4-16(5), Foundation for a Sustainable Northern Future, Report of the Joint Review Panel for the Mackenzie Gas Project, Executive Summary, December 2009, be referred to Committee of the Whole for consideration. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, March 4, 2010, I will move the following motion: I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Thebacha, that, notwithstanding Rule 4, when this House adjourns on March 4, 2010, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, May 11, 2010; and further, that any time prior to May 11, 2010, if the Speaker is satisfied, after consultation with the Executive Council and Members of the Legislative Assembly, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, the Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and shall transact its business as it has been duly adjourned to that time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the day for Wednesday, March 3, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.:
Prayer
Ministers’ Statements
Members’ Statements
Returns to Oral Questions
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery
Acknowledgements
Oral Questions
Written Questions
Returns to Written Questions
Replies to Opening Address
Petitions
Reports of Standing and Special Committees
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills
Tabling of Documents
Notices of Motion
Notices of Motion for First Reading of Bills
Motions
Motion 1-16(5), Elimination of Handling Fees for the Handling of Milk Containers Under the NWT Beverage Container Program
Motion 2-16(5), Adult Diagnoses of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
First Reading of Bills
Bill 1, An Act to Amend the Veterinary Profession Act
Bill 2, An Act to Amend the Dental Auxiliaries Act
Bill 3, Miscellaneous Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010
Bill 4, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act
Bill 5, Apprenticeship, Trade and Occupations Certification Act
Second Reading of Bills
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters
Report of Committee of the Whole
Third Reading of Bills
Orders of the Day
Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Wednesday, March 3, 2010, at 1:30 p.m.
---ADJOURNMENT
The House adjourned at 3:20 p.m.
