Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, would like to speak regarding the Supplementary Health Program. I have to agree with my colleague from the Sahtu that we do have to have some limitations on what we provide here. I know a lot of people talk about the different programs, but I think we have to have programs that are consistent across the board. We have the NIHB for aboriginal health care and we have the Metis Health Benefits Program. But I think we have to ensure that whatever they’re prescribed for in those different programs, we have consistency in how it’s being delivered.
I would like to ask the Minister if we are going to also look at those other programs to ensure they are compatible for each other and we don’t have one program that’s a Cadillac versus something that’s a Volkswagen. I’d like to get some assurance from the Minister that we will look at the programs and that they are fair right across the board and that those programs are compatible with each other.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The NIHB programs are set up and administered by the federal government. I understand they have a panel of people who review the program. I think some people might not be aware that their program guidelines are quite strict. There are lots of things that they do not cover and that we hear from all the time. If we were to consider any changes to that, it’s a completely different process and we would not have much say in that anyway.
I’m willing to convey and communicate any concerns that the Member might have. Any changes to the Metis health benefits are something that would have to be dealt with between our aboriginal and Metis governments.
I think what’s important for us to focus on is that we have the Extended Health Benefits Program for non-aboriginal residents of the Northwest Territories. I’m not sure if it is a Cadillac, but it is very generous, because we understand that it is an important program and we do want to make sure that people who need it receive that.
The way it’s set up right now, there’s absolutely no regard for one’s capacity to pay. So we have a very strange situation where somebody making $150,000 with a private insurance coverage gets a top-up or dental plan and eye care plan and 20 percent covered, whereas we could have a situation of a 30-year-old mother with two kids just making enough money to not qualify for income support, no private insurance, and they have to struggle to pay for dental care and eye care for their children. What we are saying is let’s have a dialogue about this, keeping the benefits we have, but can we be more fair about the access that people could have to this program.
Can we have some order in the House? I asked a question of the Minister and I’m having problems hearing her answer.
Next question to the Minister: is there is a prescribed list that Health Canada has regarding NIHB benefits? I’d like to know if we are going to have a prescribed list for supplementary health so that we have consistency in regard to what programs are going to be offered, who is getting the program, and making sure we have a fair process. I think that’s what I’d like to ask the Minister, but more about ensuring that we have consistency in these programs.
I have to agree with you that there has to be some sort of threshold, whether it’s regarding income thresholds or whatever. The same thing applies to NIHB programs through the Indian branch. If you have a benefit with the government or whatnot, they’ll take that off before you’re allowed to access the Non-Insured Health Benefit Program.
I’d just like to get some understanding from the Minister that we also will be looking to these different programs to ensure that they are compatible and that we’re not having something that’s basically more lucrative than what’s being offered to other programs we already have.
The Member is absolutely right; we want to have consistency across the programs that our extended health benefits should be in line with what is covered under NIHB. The improvement to NIHB, if needed, should be advanced as well. But those programs should go up together. I’m not sure if our extended health benefits are much more lucrative than the other.
The point is, we need to open this discussion so that people understand what the extended health benefits are. These are extra benefits that are being provided and there are some people in our system who are not able to access that at all. Should we not be considering how we could bring them on? That’s the discussion we’re having.
In most of our programs we do allow for some sort of income testing, regardless if it’s the Fuel Subsidy Program in regard to the seniors maintenance repair program. So we do that already in existing programs. I’d just like to know if we’re also going to be looking at the whole area of looking at income testing and, more importantly, so that they all conform with other programs we have which are income tested.
Right now my focus is on working on the Supplementary Health Benefits Program so that there is fairness and equity in that. I need people out there to know that the government’s plan and intention is to provide coverage to those who need it, that we will continue to provide the Extended Health Care Benefits Program and we will continue to work and have programs that are comparable, if not better, than what’s provided in the rest of Canada. But in the rest of Canada there are no extended health benefits that either don’t charge premiums or has some kind of user pay and there is a very strict income testing. Not only do they test income, they look at all of your assets before you could ask the government to pay for your drug coverage and eye glasses and dental.
So, Mr. Speaker, for people out there, I don’t want the seniors or anybody to think that they’re going to have their benefits taken away. What we are saying is that anybody who can’t afford it, the government should still be there to look after them, but we do want to build in an incentive for people to look at insurance and private insurance first. We don’t want to be in a situation where we have a built-in incentive for people to get out of insurance coverage when they already had it because our plan is more lucrative, and also that we need to build in some personal responsibility to our extended health care benefits, because it is very important, it is very valuable, it is very expensive, and it has to be a partnership between our residents and our government. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Sahtu, Mr. Yakeleya.
