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.
