Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for the Minister of Health and Social Services, and I’d like to look at a consultation process following up on my questions on Monday. When I asked the Minister why the NWT Pharmaceutical Association’s offer of advice and AGM appearance to the department was not taken up, the Minister replied saying she didn’t invite Mr. Dolynny’s offered input because he was not the current association president, and that five-day notice of the AGM was too short for her staff to make the meeting. I’ve gathered information from the association which paints quite a different picture of the facts.
First, I’m told that the stakeholders panel, set up by the Minister to advise her on the proposed changes, requested the participation of the Pharmaceutical Association, but the department specifically refused to include them in that process. Can the Minister tell me why the advice of these front-line providers was declined in participation of the panel? Thank you.
The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct that. I was not in any way suggesting that anybody couldn’t put an input into this unless they wore a title. So if the Member understood it that way, I do apologize. What I meant to say yesterday in answering the question why have you not consulted with the pharmacy association or Nurses’ Association or any other medical related health care professionals, and my answer was yes, we did. We wrote a letter to the pharmacy association. I have actually asked the staff to put that on the website. I have consulted with many people about this supp health plan. My point is, the pharmacy association did not respond to that, but Mr. Dolynny later on did respond and say you didn’t consult us. My point is that we did contact the associations and we are listening to anybody who wants to tell us. Thank you.
Thank you. Again the Minister has refused to answer the question. Why did she not respond favourably to the stakeholders panel she put together for inclusion of the Pharmaceutical Association? I also understand now about the five-day notice the department had to participate the in the Pharmaceutical Association’s AGM. The association actually invited the department quite early on in a timely way, but the department was very slow to reply. By the time the reply was received by the association office, only five days remained for the by then scheduled AGM, apparently a time too short for the Minister to arrange for a person to attend. But I have to ask the Minister to explain why is it this department, again, would have not been knocking on their door in the first place, and certainly why could they not free up a person to attend and take notes on the insights of a front-line provider like the Pharmaceutical Association of the Northwest Territories.
This is an important issue and I’m not sure if we want to talk about who sent what e-mail and when. I can assure you that I do have a chronology of the invitation from the pharmacy association and our response was prompt and swift. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, the pharmacy association is welcome to give their input, but the fact of the matter is, yes, they’re a front-line provider.
The Supplementary Health Plan we are suggesting is in place in every other jurisdiction in Canada. That’s what all the other pharmacists and pharmacies do use. So, Mr. Speaker, as a front-line provider, that’s not where the input would come. As a pharmacist, we consult with them regularly. All of the legislation we’ve had, all of the policies we have, we consult with the pharmacies and pharmacy association and other professional associations on a routine and as a regular course of business. Thank you.
Thank you. It’s sad that the Minister doesn’t realize what the main point is here, that this consultation process has been a sham and that some extremely important aspects and sources of good insight for us have been skipped over in the process. I’ve had many comments from constituents on the quality and bias, for example, of the on-line survey, and I know the Minister has received those same comments, a survey which was also difficult to fill out with complete comments. Many have noted that the survey may not have been available to seniors that don’t have computers. I’m told that the, well, I’ve concluded the results of the survey itself indicate highly equivocal responses. I’m sure the Minister must recognize that by looking at the answers, the proportions of answers, the yes or no answers provided, entirely equivocal responses, which is exactly what you would expect from a questionnaire with ambiguous questions. Can the Minister explain how she thinks this survey was at all meaningful? Thank you.
Thank you. Later today I will be tabling a document called What We Have Heard, and we outline everything that we have heard in all of our consultations and meetings we have had. We’ve had very frank and direct comments from our people. Also on the website there might have been yes or no questions, but there was always room for somebody to put in their input.
People have called us; people have e-mailed us; people have talked to me on the phone; they have called me. In the Northwest Territories we live in a very small space and we know everybody, a big space, but we know each other, and so I have had input from the people, as have the MLAs.
The challenge we have here is what we are talking about is a very, very difficult thing to talk about. When you are talking about anything to do with health benefits it is a very, very difficult thing to do. There are certain things we have to talk about: universality versus co-payment, non-insured health services versus insured health services, catastrophic drugs versus regular drug costs. All those things a lot of people don’t want us to change that at all. So I don’t think it’s necessarily true that there was a flaw in the consultation. It’s just that, at the end of the day, it is difficult to make changes. Thank you.
Your final question, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, there’s quite a disagreement both from the public and the Members here on the Minister’s perspectives on this. The Minister continually refers that we follow a system that’s a commonly used model in other parts of the country and so on. We’re not interested in that. We want to develop a specific system for the North.
Mr. Speaker, when I asked whether an analysis of the cost of administration had been made, the Minister replied, according to Hansard, “we will be going for RFP to find a service provider such as Blue Cross or any other insurance company. They are equipped and trained and set up to deliver a program like this.” Mr. Speaker, Blue Cross fills forms, not prescriptions. Why are we to have any respect for a consultation process that was biased, narrow, controlled, and based on pre-determined actions? I’m asking for a new consultation process where everyone can develop the respect for it that is needed, and that would indicate that a good process has been had and a good solution has been found. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been discussed in and out of this House since 2003. You will hear very frank input in the report that we have submitted today. I know people are very concerned about these programs and whenever you are making changes, it is difficult. It is difficult for us to talk about what we need to do. We need to be clear about what we need to do. We need to be able to find a way to help those who are currently excluded. We need to be able to do it in a way that minimizes the impact of the changes. We need to do it in a way that we have a sustainable health care system where our resources go to insurer services, nurses and doctors and health centres, surgeries, all those things. No government has all the money they need. This is not about cost cutting at all, it’s not about dollars, but it is about sustainability. It is something that we need to work through and I’m willing to work with the Members on the other side to see how to make this work. Thank you.
The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
