Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, in my Member’s statement I talked about the elders and the care for the elders. I want to ask the Minister for the NWT Housing Corporation, in terms of a policy review or consideration, would it be possible that if a child or grandchild or an adult exchange a promise of assistance to support the elders in their homes in terms of a cost of rent increase, is that something that can be looked at? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. The honourable Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are policies set in place for certain reasons, and as much as we’d like to have people in units with the elders looking after them, there is opportunity for them to do that. What we don’t want to get into starting here, and there has been some discussion of this in the past where folks that are working will move in with seniors, realizing that the seniors pay no rent. So we need to get away from that. However, we would like to see the best conditions possible for seniors. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Certainly I’ve considered that also, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the use of the program there is for seniors is for free rent and people, when they do move in, take advantage of this in terms of the free rent. What we’re asking in terms of looking at a policy and maybe with the Health and Social Services or some kind of a program where there would be a subsidy or some payment for provisions for elderly care, maybe a reduced rent but not to look at where the elders would have a huge increase in the rent due to this initiative. This, again, looks at caring for the elders, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I can commit to the Member that we can have some discussions, interdepartmental and myself, and the Ministers of ECE and Health and Social Services to see if there are some options there that we can possibly look at. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Mackenzie Delta, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of the Housing Corporation. It’s in regard to the way capital infrastructure is now being approved through this House. In most cases most of our infrastructure departments are now being approved in the fall session so it allows for the departments to be able to allow their contracts to be let in the fall, allow for logistics to get those materials and contracts in place before the spring session, get them into our communities on the ice roads, and also ensure that we take advantage of the long summer construction season so that we’re not constructing facilities in the middle of the winter. So I’d just like to ask the Minister, has the Housing Corporation considered also applying this policy to the department when it comes to building infrastructure, regardless if it’s a housing unit, elders repairs or whatever. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for the Northwest Territories Housing Corporation, Mr. Robert McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this has been a concern raised by a number of communities because it does happen. I have instructed the department to possibly look at coming forward in the fall with our infrastructure requirements and have that as part of the infrastructure budget in the fall. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that by logistically working together with other departments it will also allow for possible savings in getting a lot of these materials into our communities. We do have fuel resupply; we do have the winter road construction, which they have open roads to ensure that we are able to resupply those communities. So I would like to thank the Minister for that, but how soon does the Minister intend to come back to the House with the assurance that that decision has been made? Are we talking this fall capital session? Will we see that being approved in that session? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we totally recognize the benefits of having winter delivery. I’ve heard from contractors where the prices could possibly go down if we change our cycle, but I can commit to the Member and Members of this House that it is our intent to try and come forward this fall, as part of this fall’s infrastructure budget, with our infrastructure budget for the next fiscal year. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, also I think for the residents and also talking to the contractors, for them, they’d sooner be building in the summer months than having to conclude their construction possibly right to the year end, because most of them do have contracts by way of supply, ship and erect where they have to...(inaudible)...but then also their contract is usually coming to an end March 31st and they’re trying to get all their work done before year end and a lot of them are basically trying to construct in the middle of winter. So, again, I think it’s an advantage to take advantage of the weather we have up here and, more importantly, do all our construction in the summer months. So I’d like to ask the Minister if he’s able to consider the opportunity to conclude these contracts in the summer months and not have the construction taking place in the winter months like they are now. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Member is absolutely correct; it’s the time of year that you’re building that makes a big difference in the quality of the product and the prices that you get. That’s why we’d like to come forward in the fall time with our infrastructure budget, have that approved by this Assembly in the fall, then we could start putting out tenders for contracts so the material can be delivered early and the work can begin as soon as the weather warms up. As it stands right now, sometimes we have construction starting in July/August, when the material finally arrives. So we’re hoping to rectify that by bringing our infrastructure budget in line with the rest of the government. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Frame Lake, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my questions are addressed to the Minister for Health and Social Services today. I mentioned in my statement that a discussion paper was released relative to the supplementary health benefits changes a little while ago. In speaking to the Minister in committee and in the House, the Minister has maintained from the outset that this discussion paper is objective, that there’s no predetermined outcome. But I guess I have to disagree, and I think other Members do as well. The other day, in reference to the public and the public’s response to the information in the paper that’s now available and people are starting to read, the Minister stated they know where we’re headed. I’d like to ask the Minister if she could explain that comment, please.
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the Member’s statement quite closely, it appears that she knows exactly where this policy is headed, what the intent is, what we are trying to achieve, what unfairness and inequities that we are trying to ameliorate, because in fact she just said about 10 minutes ago that she agrees with the intent and the overall approach of this but that she would like it delayed until November. Putting aside the process, if she likes this policy, what is it that she would like to achieve by delaying the process, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there was any reference to my question in there, but I will just kind of carry on.
To the Minister’s comment that I know where things are going, I know where the department wants us to think we are going. I know where the paper wants us to think we are going. I would like to say to the Minister we got some financial information the other day, some income threshold information, and I’d like to thank the Minister for that information that we got the other morning, but it presented almost more questions than it answered.
I would like to know from the Minister, because we didn’t get that information when we asked for it, but I particularly need to know, to consider these changes, how many of our NWT residents do not currently have access to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the information that we presented to the standing committee Tuesday morning has now been posted on the website and there is very detailed information about what number of residents in the Territories currently have no access to extended health benefits whether through the government program or third-party insurance. The proposal we are making is that depending on where the income threshold is, whether it is $30,000 or $50,000, and remembering again that that is the starting threshold so that if the income threshold was at $50,000, any family making a net income between $50,000 to $170,000, depending on the family size, would get covered 100 percent.
This is the most robust Supplementary Health Program available anywhere in the country. Substance is good. I would like us to have a debate about the substance. If the Member has a better idea about how to improve and make our program more fair, let’s hear about it. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have to confess I was having a bit of a sidebar. I don’t think I heard a number as to how many residents are not currently covered. I guess I would like to ask the Minister... To go to her statement, yes, there are other ideas out there, but there really is no option, given the schedule that we are working under. I will try to question again. How many residents do not currently have access to supplementary health benefits? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the existing Extended Health Benefits Program is such that we know who is accessing the program and those who are accessing the program are those who are over 60 or who have a chronic condition or who right now make less than $30,000 which qualifies them as indigent. The information we have on the website says that there are a total number of 3,160 people who do not have extended health benefits coverage or a third-party insurance. That is the number we are trying to work with. Under our proposal, we could cover over 2,000 people out of this 3,000 people. Not only that, unlike the previous proposal, those who are covered 100 percent will still be covered. It is just that we are asking those who could afford to pay, to make a contribution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks to the Minister for that. I already knew that number. She is referencing the number of people who are currently accessing the system. There are others who are not. I think it is incumbent upon the government to estimate those people who are not currently covered, who are not currently accessing the system so that we can then know what kind of costs we are incurring.
I would like to know from the Minister... We are going to have consultation. We are going to consider input, presumably. We are going to make a decision and draft a new program. I would like to ask the Minister how are those proposed changes going to be communicated to Members and when, to Members and to residents. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, we have had very open and healthy dialogue and information sessions with the standing committee. The public hearing just started this Monday. The second one was in Hay River and they will go into all of the regional centres. We have been communicating through the website. Our people are responding. The interchange is quite productive. Our people wanted to know what we are considering for a threshold, because people want to have something solid to see how they are impacted. We have posted them on-line and the Members have details of that.
Mr. Speaker, I know the Member would like to have more information than not, but perhaps she could consider 2,000 people who are going to benefit. Those are the people who do not have benefits right now who will benefit. I need to really wonder. I have to ask her does benefiting 2,000 people who are not benefiting now mean anything to us as a policymaker? Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister of ITI and I want to refer to a couple of tabled documents from yesterday, a letter from Imperial Oil updating their economic feasibility to the Mackenzie Gas Project, a letter from Lawson Lundell in which the GNWT declines the opportunity to cross-examine Imperial Oil’s witness at a couple of hearings along with the rest of the public. The economic feasibility update notes that the start-up for the MGP would be 2018 at the earliest, about nine years from now. I am wondering why the government has decided not to participate in that hearing and ask questions and draw out information that could be useful in informing both us and the public. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, Mr. Bob McLeod.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to answer that question in a very short period of time. As the Member knows, the Government of the Northwest Territories and particularly the Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment has been fully engaged in the NEB process since the proponents filed their project description in October 2004. We were working on an agreed upon process until late in 2009 when, with the lengthy delay in completing the regulatory process and the delay in getting the JRP report, the National Energy Board in its wisdom decided to change the order in which interveners would respond. So that instead of the responsible Ministers from the various departments responding to the Joint Review Panel first and the NEB holding public hearings, it was decided by NEB, without input from our government or other governments, as far as I know, to hold their hearings in advance of responsible Ministers responding to the Joint Review Panel and primarily to shorten the time period because it had taken so long to receive the Joint Review Panel report. To continue with their original schedule would have added probably another four to six months to an extremely lengthy process. Because of that, there were certain legal implications to our government.
Primarily we are very concerned about allegations of predetermination and apprehension of bias, which could lead to legal proceedings calling for judicial review. We do not want to bias our responsible Minister, who is the Minister of ENR, in responding to the Joint Review Panel recommendations. As such, we are being very careful in determining which hearings we would participate in and we are aiming to primarily participate in final arguments.
That’s an interesting and complicated response. I’d like to explore that a little further, but I’m wondering if it does not serve us to examine the assumptions that are being made on the largest infrastructure project ever conceived for the Northwest Territories and become informed and probe those as this side of the House does for any assumptions that the government comes up with in order to be responsible to our public and to be able to make informed opinions. Obviously the timing of this, there are convolutions to it that are difficult to discuss in this format. I’m wondering how we will deal with that. I think the Minister probably has questions about some of the assumptions in the report from Imperial Oil. I would think that as a responsible authority he certainly should have. I think the question is clear. I’m wondering how we’re going to fulfill that role in a way that serves our public.
As the Member recognized, this is a very complex area and as such we’re relying a lot on legal counsel and advice that we’re receiving. A lot of the quantified support and conditions that our government raised, I think there were 76 conditions that were raised way back in 2005-2006. At that time there was a lot of input sought from all the Members of the Legislative Assembly. Now we have come to the point where in order to be able to present in final arguments to NEB before the Joint Review Panel provides their response, we have to measure our responses in a way so that we do not appear to be predetermining the responsible Minister’s answer. So we will be focusing our final arguments on specific areas of a technical nature that we have identified in the original submissions and we’re not going to stray very far from that.
With regard to the specific hearing on the economic feasibility evidence, we have looked at what was provided and we feel that we are satisfied with the technical evidence that has been put forward.
I’d say one assumption that I think would be worthy of some probing is the assumption that, well, OVRL notes, Imperial Oil notes that natural gas production from shale gas in both Canada and the U.S. is going up. Of course, that’s what has depressed gas prices now. I think that’s a well-established fact. Yet they say that these economic conditions will still be favourable for the project. I would think that would be an obvious one to pursue.
Sort of fundamental to this is there was nothing confidential required to consider this question. Why did the government not come to the Regular MLAs and have their input here? If there was a legal side binder to it, then we would have heard about that, but when are we going to start participating in this project?
All the Members were briefed on the legalities of dealing with the Joint Review Panel. One of the primary issues was the fact that we have three Members of this Legislative Assembly that are interveners in the Joint Review Panel process. As such, we don’t really have a process because there’s been no agreed upon process for dealing with the Members of the Legislative Assembly that are not interveners. According to the regulatory process, if we are to deal with one intervener, we have to deal with all the interveners at the same time.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. Final supplementary, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I won’t bother correcting the Minister again on the number of interveners we have. Given that 2018 is the earliest we can envision an operating pipeline and given the ridiculous degree to which this government has hitched its star to this project, what plan is there to proceed with economically, socially, and environmentally sustainable economic development that will benefit our people in the meantime?
Because of the cautions about predetermination, we will be taking a very active role and a lot of it will depend on the recommendations of and the government response to the Joint Review Panel recommendations and the recommendations that are accepted by the National Energy Board. On that basis we will work on the premise that the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline, if approved, should be sustainable and should provide for benefits for people in the Northwest Territories.
Thank you, Mr. McLeod. The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sunday past I watched an historic vote in the House of Representatives in the United States where Obama’s presidency was finally able to muster up enough support to pass health benefits to those who did not have health benefits. They did not worry about the cost as the driving factor. They worried about the principles of rights to make sure people were covered.
The problem we’re dealing with here now is that the Department of Health and Social Services has not identified the actual cost to delivering those types of rights to the people we have defined as the working poor. Would the Minister tell this House immediately how much it would cost to cover the working poor, that has constantly been referred to as the group that’s been left without, in order for this House to have a full and reasonable debate on this topic?
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the Member really thought about that question, and I don’t mean to be, I mean this in a very, no disrespect. If the Member really thought about this question, he would know that he’s asking me to project what a health expense will be of our residents. How could anybody do that? For example, myself, I’m quite healthy. I don’t see doctors very well. I mean very much. I am a pretty low-cost NWT resident in terms of health care right now. Tomorrow I could develop an illness. I could have a heart attack. Who knows? I don’t know what I’m going to cost the health system. I do not know that. I could tell you what I contribute financially to the GNWT. Remember, to say how much it would cost to bring everybody in is not a question anybody can answer.
On the other hand, we have provided the Members of the committee and Members of this House and the general public about in general how many people are going to benefit from the changes we are proposing. We know, and it’s on the website, that at least 2,299 people, who right now have either no benefit under supplementary health, or limited benefit, will gain access. Two thousand two hundred ninety-nine people. I can’t tell you how much that’s going to cost us because somebody may just have limited dental benefits or prescription glasses or a $2,000 drug cost. Somebody could develop a disease tomorrow and that could cost us $500,000.
We need to be reasonable about the level of information that we need to make an important public policy decision that is really aimed at and designed and is proven to help those who really need it.
I’m glad we have a low-maintenance Minister over there on our health system. I think the Minister answered the question herself. She has basically said that we’ve identified 2,299 people. How do you know that the messing around of the system will cover those 2,299 people? Tinkering with the system has not guaranteed anything. That’s the whole point of where I’m going with this. With all of these studies, analyses and changes, somebody should be able to give us context of what a projected cost of this would be. There’s been zero analysis on that to date.
The point I’m making is we have a butcher in charge of this policy, not the skills of a surgeon, going through this item by item. What is stopping the Minister from taking the time to direct her staff to do a thorough and complete analysis of what this would estimate out to be?
What is stopping the Minister? Nothing is stopping the Minister. I have a proposal right here. It’s on the website in colour. There’s no messing about. Certainly it’s far from zero analysis. We have not had more in-depth analysis of what our residents’ income profiles are and what level of claims they have been filing. The Member has right in front of him a proposal that would help the working poor. I don’t understand why he’s saying go back and do something that would help the working poor. This proposal right in front of him shows that 2,299 stand to benefit under this program who do not benefit right now.
I’m not sure what the Minister’s doing over there because if she can’t project what 2,299 people will cost, how do they project what a budget costs for the Department of Health? Why do we even bother with a budget for the Department of Health? Why do we even bother trying to earmark costs for supplementary health benefits? If we have no idea what’s happening over there, why do we even bother having anyone manage it? It’s kind of confusing.
Those are the type of things we have experts who can predict costs for, who are able to follow through and find some reasonable assumptions. We make them all the time when people do estimating, budgeting and planning. The Minister says there’s nothing stopping her. Why doesn’t the Minister stop, order an analysis as to what this will cost, and bring that for full and reasonable and thorough debate in this House?
The issue here before us is that the extended health benefits as they are set up are not fair or equitable. We have statistical information that shows that the income spread of our residents are such that it has no boundary between ages or whether they’re sick. Our program right now covers by age or by specified condition. We are saying that all of our information shows that’s not the most fair and equitable way. We have tons of analysis that is on the website that we are sharing. What we are saying is, can we not change the criteria so that we look at one’s ability to pay? What we are proposing is such that anybody whose income is $50,000 to $150,000 would have 100 percent coverage. After that our residents will be asked to pay a little bit out of their own ability to pay. Nobody’s going to fall off right at that point. It’s just that people who can afford to contribute will be asked to pay some.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
