Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Premier, Mr. Roland.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The process we’ve engaged in is we’ve already made calls to the regional leadership to see if we can pull a regional leaders’ meeting together to discuss this issue. We’ll be following up with a letter today.
As you noted, there is a deadline that has been in place. I’d like to ask the Premier if that deadline will be extended to allow for this meeting to take place before we have a drop-dead date where they either respond to participate or don’t participate. Can we at least attempt to have that meeting before we come to that conclusion? Also to keep the Members in the House informed.
The deadline established was that through the chief negotiators’ joint letter that went to the leadership. We’ve started to see those responses. We’ve always had a meeting planned for near the end of November. We have now contacted their offices to see if we can move that up. We’ll follow up in hard copy. The deadline was put there in the sense of a response back from the regional leadership to the AIP. A decision going forward has yet to be made. In a sense, the comment was, can you respond back by the 31st on how you would be a part of it as the AIP states, and Members are aware that there’s always an open door for them to join, whether it is on the 31st their indication of what are the concerns or issues they have. Many of those we can address through our regional leaders’ meeting.
We have heard a lot of issues, whether it’s regarding the cap that’s been put in place or the aboriginal 25 percent or the whole area of how the powers are going to be shared, and what exactly the aboriginal role is going to be with regard to the negotiations and implementation of this arrangement. I’d like to ask the Premier if he is dealing directly one on one with those aboriginal groups that have those issues and are trying to find solutions to resolve these outstanding issues and trying to assure both the Government of the Northwest Territories and the federal government that these outstanding issues have to be resolved in some format. Would you deal directly with those aboriginal groups one on one and find resolution to those issues?
The agreement-in-principle that is before the regional leadership for their comment and feedback as well as that is before the federal government and ourselves, allows for that government-to-government bilateral process to proceed once an agreement is signed. There is a process built in to have the bilaterals with each group as we progress, if that is the decision made.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. Final supplementary, Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I stated in my Member’s statement, this issue is more than simply a transfer of power from one government to another. It is a transfer of responsibility to indigenous people in the Northwest Territories by this transfer and the affects it’s going to have on the indigenous population under treaty rights, land claim agreements, and Section 35 protection rights. I’d like to know if we have an aboriginal lawyer or aboriginal legal counsel to look at it from the aboriginal perspective on aboriginal rights and inherent rights. I’d like to ask again if that issue is going to be dealt with prior to a decision to sign off.
This process, as I said in my statement, of the engagement, role, involvement from chief negotiators to legal counsel from the aboriginal groups, they have been involved in this. They are well aware of what’s in there. We are as well. In fact, as I stated, we stand by the government’s position on self-government and the inherent right. We stand by that. This agreement-in-principle will not take away authority from any aboriginal group that has their rights established through treaty and the modern treaties, being the land claims and self-government agreements. We stand by that in our commitment to continue to work with those. This agreement-in-principle is talking about Crown lands that are in the North that would then be the authority and regulations, and how we deal with those would be decided by Northerners. Their role, again, is clearly spelled out and the continued role of their involvement as we progress is spelled out in the AIP.
Thank you, Mr. Roland. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For an hour this morning I was very pleased and very optimistic. When the Minister came out and said they’ve rescinded the Supplementary Health Benefits Policy that was great news. Unfortunately, since then I’ve heard a bunch of my colleagues ask some questions and I’ve heard responses from the Minister, and that optimism is pretty much gone. Mostly from one statement.
The Minister said that the problem with supp health is that people just don’t want changes to the supp health. That is not true. That is not true at all. I’ve heard people talk about changes. People do want changes to supp health. People who have catastrophic conditions are concerned about that. People want people with low income to be covered. I think the Minister has missed the point.
Coming to where we are today, the Minister has indicated that she’s going to make further announcements regarding implementation to these changes next week. Great, but we don’t know what changes those are. Could the Minister tell me what those changes are? What changes are going to start being implemented?
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Members, it sounds like they’re hung up on that sentence in the Minister’s statement that said I’ll be making announcements regarding the implementation of these changes. What changes? What changes are the three paragraphs prior to that sentence? Changes: to require the use of third-party insurance as the first option; a pharmaceutical strategy to include generic drugs, drug pricing and efficiencies, and cost containment; a pharmaceuticals procurement distribution and access; also changes to eliminate grandfathering that happened in 2004. May I remind all the Members on the other side, those were the exact suggestions that were made in the Joint Working Group report and the communication.
That’s what I wanted the Minister to say again. I know she’s already said it and the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes. The problem is that each one of those are so broad and so big that before anything can be implemented, some research has to be done around those on how we’re going to implement it. What aspects of each of those are going to require implementation today, tomorrow, and in the future? To tell me that they’re going to start implementing something right away seems pretty premature to me.
That’s the point I think we’re trying to make. We don’t oppose what you’re saying, Minister Lee. We support it. We agree with those things. What we want is to make sure that information is researched and how we do those things is done. I don’t see that here. Is the Minister, when she’s talking about an implementation plan, is she talking about the implementation of a work plan and how we’re going to research those things, design those things and implement those things, or does she already have something she wishes to implement? It’s a subtle difference but it’s an important difference.
These are important items. We take these recommendations very seriously. No, I will not be announcing on Monday that we are implementing these. I agree with the Members that these need work. We have knowledge in the department and I will be coming back on Monday to set a time frame and the process on when we’re going to get this work done and how we can work with the other side on implementing them. I will be consulting with the Members and sharing information and work through these ticket items, because those are important and we want to get them done.
Optimism is starting to creep back up. That is basically what we needed to hear, is that this is a work plan and not an implementation plan. A work plan may have implementation steps further down. We can’t implement things without it.
I want to talk to another statement that the Minister made that caused me some concern. Based on where we are today, we’re status quo, which is unfortunate but it is what it is. We do have to move forward on finding some ways to help the low-income people and I think that should continue to be a priority. But the Minister said that if we didn’t rescind this policy, that she was going to make changes on Monday for the low-income people. We’ll check Hansard tomorrow, but I’m pretty sure she said we would implement on Monday. I’m curious, what would she be implementing on Monday? Because I, on this side of the House, have never seen any program, policies or procedures about anything that the Minister was planning to implement on Monday. When she said that, quite frankly, I was very surprised. Thank you.
The Supplementary Health Policy that was rescinded would have come into effect on Monday. That’s what I said. But it’s not. It’s gone. I said that.
On Monday I will be making an announcement about how we move forward to look at the recommendations made by the Joint Working Group. What I was saying was had that Supplementary Health Benefits Policy not been rescinded, we would have been able to have coverage for those working poor that we were trying to extend the coverage to. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Your final supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
That’s my point, Mr. Speaker. The Minister was talking about implementing something for the working poor on Monday and, yes, it’s not going to happen, which is unfortunate, but that’s where we ended up as a result of the rescinding of this policy.
My point is still there, Mr. Speaker. We, on this side of the House, never saw anything about any program that was going to be implemented on Monday. How was the Minister planning to… When the working group report is tabled this afternoon, it doesn’t say anything about implementing any program on Monday for the working poor. So what program was this and where’s it coming from? It’s another surprise. It’s not going to happen, granted, but it’s just another example of what is she talking about, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, he’s got to calm down. All that is saying is that we know, we’ve been talking about this 2007 Supplementary Health Policy for the last three years, and that’s been delayed. The implementation of it has been delayed and delayed and delayed. Had we not done anything, it was set to come into effect on November 1st. The important point here is that we are moving forward. We are accepting the report. We want to work together and we will share the information. We have to work together on how to bring this third-party insurance and pharmaceuticals strategy and all of the recommendations, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Mahsi cho, Mr. Speaker. Today I spoke about the important work that Tu Nedhe schools are doing to promote and preserve aboriginal culture in their communities. I’d like to follow up my statement with questions for the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment.
Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday the Minister tabled the NWT Aboriginal Languages Plan. It’s good to see the government recognizing the importance of preserving aboriginal language. However, there was little mention about the connection between language and culture. I’d like to ask if the Minister acknowledges that there is a strong connection between language and culture. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, that is part of the process. The recommendations that were brought forward, there are over 70 recommendations, and some of the recommendations would reflect on what the Member is referring to, the culture preservation and also the language in the schools as well. There’s heavy emphasis from the elders, from the traditional leaders that we need to have that in the schools. So I’m glad the Member is raising that issue, because that is important. It’s important for this government to proceed with that. Mr. Speaker, that is part of the plan. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, will the Minister commit to developing a strategic plan for the preservation of traditional aboriginal culture activities? Thank you.
Yes, this will be part of the plan as we move forward to start implementing the 73 recommendations that were brought forward. We will have a plan in place with the schools. We need to work with the education councils, as well, and with the leaders. But, most definitely, we will have a plan in place to deal with those matters. Mahsi.
Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to hear that the Minister is willing to consider this. Many schools are struggling with the delivery of their culture programming today. Will the Minister commit to increasing funding to those schools that are being proactive in the delivery of aboriginal cultural programming starting the next school year?
Mr. Speaker, I think we have been proactive in the past. We had a ministerial directive to have that funding that’s been distributed to education councils directly spent on the language and culture preservation. This will be an area that we need to highlight as part of the business planning cycle for next year and the following years. It is a priority for us and definitely this will be part of the discussion as we move forward.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Your final supplementary, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my Member’s statement I talked about the work being done by the Lutselk'e Dene School and the Deninu Kue School in Fort Resolution, but more can be done. Both schools agree that they can do more. Will the Minister assist the Lutselk'e Dene School and the Deninu Kue by allocating an additional $10,000 to each school to help the culture programming immediately? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I must commend the two schools for promoting even more of a culturally relevant program, on-the-land program, and the activities that are happening. Definitely, that’s a discussion that we need to have and I will definitely include the Member, and also the Members as we move forward on the importance of identifying key resources of investment that we need to identify for next year’s business planning cycle. Mr. Speaker, definitely, we will keep the Members informed on that. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m a little bit conflicted and confused by some of the dialogue that’s taken place in the House here today. I’m sure anybody listening in the public must be wondering, too, and kind of scratching their head. Here we’re heralding this big victory that we got for rescinding the 2007 policy. Mr. Speaker, people should make no mistake: this doesn’t mean that we’ve entered from having the 2007 Supplementary Health Policy, and now because we’re rescinding it we’ve entered into some kind of utopia, you know, some kind of Shangri-La on supplementary health care services. Absolutely not. Mr. Speaker, the real facts of the matter are that the supplementary health system is broken. It’s unfair and it’s inequitable, and we, as legislators, have got to do something to address that. There are people with no coverage who need coverage. There are people who are getting coverage who maybe don’t need coverage.
Before people run out and start ripping up their third-party health insurance cards, we should just put this in context. This is not a huge victory. This is a lot of work ahead of us to make sure that we get something in place that is right, and I’m glad that we have the time to do that, because, Mr. Speaker, I do believe that there was one thing in that new policy which was the red herring out there that caused everybody concern, and let’s call it what it was. It was the income testing. Nobody wanted income testing. Maybe there won’t be income testing, because there hasn’t been enough research gone on to see if income testing is the way to go, but if we think that we’re going to continue to pay seniors on supplementary health benefits this formulary and this level and pay people on NIHB this level, think again. It’s not going to happen. There’s going to be parity. There’s going to be…
Do you have a question, Mrs. Groenewegen?
Anyway, my question for the Minister is: Just because we do not have the 2007 policy, the Minister will concur that it is not going to be status quo going forward. Correct?
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Absolutely correct. I couldn’t say it any better and next week I am going to come to the table and say how we are going to try to get it down, as much as possible, of what needs to be done.
The honourable Member for Yellowknife Centre, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In light of the great news of the rescinding of the 2007 policy, I am hesitant to ask questions, because I’m afraid that the government will take back the good news and change it or mess it up in one form or another.
In listening to the questions that my colleagues have been posing to the Minister of Health and quite namely one of the questions highlighted by MLA Bisaro, which is, okay, what’s guiding the future of the Supplementary Health Benefits program? It causes me to wonder where are the working poor in this equation and what can they have to look forward to. Can the Minister provide some guidance to this House where the working poor will fit in this equation going forward for supplementary health benefits, recognizing that all groups like the public, the seniors and whatnot all spoke in favour of immediate support to them? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s status quo for the moment because the policy to bring them in has not been implemented. I will be coming back next week, I said, to work on how we move forward on those recommendations of the Joint Working Group, which included expansion of coverage to the working poor. Thank you.
I appreciate the answer, because that was very clear -- status quo, which means if you’re in the working-poor bracket, that means nothing. At least it’s clear and no one’s fooled by that. So the reality is, what’s holding back from immediate coverage to the working poor if that will be the long-term principles and guidelines? What’s stopping this government from making that immediate decision? Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, as I have stated, the Joint Working Group, which was made up of six Members, came up with a number of recommendations and we are going to try and work through those and I am coming back with an implementation schedule/work plan on how to do them. It’s our wish to get it done within the life of this Assembly. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly tell the Minister right now, loud and clear, and I have no doubt I have a number of colleagues who would support this statement, which would be I would certainly believe that we could move on a policy to make an amendment immediately to include the working poor, as well as wait for the highlights and guidelines and certainly direction coming forward next week by the Minister of Health.
In short, Mr. Speaker, what’s stopping the Minister or, of course, the Premier, from answering the question, or perhaps the Deputy Premier from answering the question? Anyone else over there? The question being: What’s to stop the Minister of Health and Social Services from immediate coverage to this group and we work out the details as we go forward? Thank you.
The Members know, and the public should know, that the Joint Working Group provided the report to Cabinet and the Standing Committee on Priorities and Planning a couple of weeks ago, at the beginning of this session, actually, and we just got the response from SCOPP this Monday. We responded to that today, so we need time to work through the recommendations made in the Joint Working Group report.
The Members always speak to us about following the process and working together, and we will do that. We will have a work plan on Monday as to how we go forward. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, paralysis by analysis, as said many times by my colleague Minister Miltenberger. The reality is, we can move on this issue. Cabinet agrees the working poor need coverage. I haven’t heard any opposition on this side of the House that the working poor needs coverage and I can guarantee you today that if you went outside of this building, this ivory tower, and asked the everyday person in the public if the working poor deserve coverage, they need coverage.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is quite simple. What’s stopping Cabinet from moving on an initiative that they like, we like and everybody else likes? Thank you.
