Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, life is never dull in this building. Something is always happening. Sometimes we know it’s going to happen, sometimes we don’t, but there is never also any shortage of opinions no matter what the topic.
Today I, along with other Members, will speak to the controversial issue of changes to our Supplementary Health Benefits Program. I feel like we’re jumping from the frying pan into the fire. We’ve spent the last several months sizzling in the pan over the very controversial bridge issue and we will now jump into the fire with the supplementary health benefits issue.
Just so everybody is aware, we’re debating this issue because of a policy decision made by Cabinet in the 15th Assembly, the previous Assembly. The Executive of the current 16th Assembly has decided that the policy decision should now come into force, so here we are. As the 16th Assembly we seem to be destined to bear the burden of our predecessors’ actions.
The Minister of Health and Social Services, in her statement yesterday, said that changes will expand access to the program for those who do not currently have access. The changes will make the program more fair and equitable and that it will be a step towards poverty reduction and addressing cost of living for our residents.
I agree with all of those statements. I’ve never disagreed with the philosophy behind the Cabinet policy decision or with the rationale for making changes to the Supp Health Program. We do need to ensure that all NWT residents have access to extended health benefits. At the moment some do not have that access. We do need to make the program fair and equitable and at the moment it is not.
My problem regarding the changes has been, and continues to be, with the way in which the changes will be made. About a month ago the Department of Health and Social Services released a discussion paper; a paper intended to allow NWT residents to consider the changes to the Supp Health Benefits Program and provide their input or comments. This week, consultation via town hall meetings began.
It all sounds good except that, like the first time around a year ago, the schedule for consultation and implementation is all wrong. There simply is not enough time in the schedule to get the public’s views for the department to consider the input and develop a draft plan, to review the draft with members of the public, and then to have the three months identified by the Minister to prepare for implementation on September 1st.
There must be a second round of consultation to adequately consult with those affected by these changes. Implementation must be delayed to at least November 1st, preferably January 1st, 2011.
Ms. Bisaro, your time for your Member’s statement has expired. Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. The honourable Member for Weledeh, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak yet again on the issue of developing new policies on supplementary health coverage in the NWT. I support the intent to begin delivering coverage to all people of the North. Unfortunately, I still do not know how many new people this involves or what the estimated costs are.
I support concerns raised about how the department is proceeding. First -- and on a point that is repeatedly being raised by public client groups, individuals, families, constituents, and committee -- is the expected expedited time frame that the Minister is insisting upon. We have an informed and experienced public on this issue and they need a full opportunity to contribute in an iterative fashion to the development of this important work. They have my support and I equally insist that the Minister recognize this call. New information was provided just yesterday. Consultation must proceed through the fall, not 10 years from now, as the Minister likes to say, but through this fall for implementation in January 2011; 10 months from now.
Philosophically I disagree with the main approach being taken. We have a tax system that could and may already provide, through federal transfers, the resources needed to cover supp health benefits. Government’s refusal to acknowledge and use this mechanism is leading to an ever more grossly deformed distribution of wealth and the rise of the super-rich. Continuing to ignore this responsibility contributes to the ongoing distortion and lack of resources for government to provide basic services that our public rightfully demands. Using the tax system to support the program simplifies administration, reduces costs and avoids the expensive and often justified difficulty of collecting payments.
The Minister proposes so-called net income thresholds, such as $30,000 or $50,000, used to define when those with supplementary health issues will have to pay for benefits. Let’s be clear, these thresholds are not net income in the common understanding of the term. They are really gross income. Net income is pre-tax income from which a few miscellaneous deductions are made, such as northern benefits. If the department insists on this approach, it requires a critical look at what proportion the payments will be of real take-home pay to estimate actual impacts on the well-being of people.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted.
Further, income on its own is not a good measure of an individual’s or a family’s ability to pay. Families must also juggle housing challenges, higher cost of living in some areas, unequal access to income, other health issues and debts.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I hear little from the Minister about how she is reducing costs and increasing efficiencies for supplementary health. Pharmaceuticals are acknowledged as a big part of the bill, yet we are still awaiting action on bulk purchasing and other opportunities to manage these costs further. I have heard nothing yet about how we will encourage or insist on third-party insurance coverage.
Mr. Speaker, we can do better. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, today would like to speak about the supplementary health benefits review. Mr. Speaker, the Hay River Seniors’ Society has met to discuss the supplementary health benefits consultation, and I had the benefit of attending two sessions with the seniors.
Hay River is the second largest community in the Northwest Territories and is the home of many seniors who have retired after careers served there and some have ended their careers after serving in various other northern communities. Hay River has long been considered an ideal place to retire due to the somewhat lower cost of living. So while still in the NWT, seniors found retiring here to be an affordable option.
Hay River has a very active seniors' community and many continue to serve in various capacities and contribute very valuable services through volunteer organizations. At the meeting held on March 17th, which was well attended, various opinions and concerns were expressed. Firstly, the supplementary health benefits currently available to seniors over the age of 60 in the Northwest Territories are greatly appreciated. Seniors understand that life expectancies are increasing and that the demographic of seniors in the NWT is growing.
As the GNWT grapples with the sustainability and affordability of services in general, seniors wish their voices to be heard. The survey and consultation efforts really come down to a question of whether or not the provision of supplementary health benefits to NWT seniors should in any way be contingent upon or prorated by way of an income or means test.
The cost of living in the North is higher than in any other jurisdiction. Seniors mostly live on fixed incomes. The longer that seniors can remain healthy and independent both physically and financially, the longer more costly care by the public is avoided. Seniors contribute to their communities in ways that are difficult to quantify or place a monetary value on.
The exodus of seniors from the North looking for a more affordable place to live would diminish an already declining NWT population. This would negatively affect the transfer from Canada. The GNWT expends resources in attempting to attract people to live, work and invest in the North, with limited success, Mr. Speaker. Equal attention should be paid to the efforts to retain the people that we already have. The NWT emphasizes and adheres to a principle of respect for elders.
Based on the above, it is the position of the Hay River Seniors’ Society that the GNWT…
Mr. Speaker, I am running out of time here. I would just like to seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement, please.
---Unanimous consent granted.
Mr. Speaker, based on the above, it is the position of the Hay River Seniors’ Society that the GNWT should place a high priority on the allocation of sufficient financial resources to support all NWT seniors not covered through other government programs for the provision of the existing supplementary health benefits regardless of their economic position or circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mrs. Groenewegen. The honourable Member for Great Slave, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Public discussions started on Monday with respect to the proposed Supplemental Health Program that the Department of Health and Social Services would like to implement. As predicted, residents are very concerned with the approach that the department is taking.
I would like to share with you one e-mail that a constituent, Cornelius Van Dyke recently sent to the Minister of Health and Social Services. Mr. Van Dyke has agreed to let me read it here today.
Minister Lee, I had an opportunity to hear a representative from your department discuss this government’s plans for the supplementary health benefits plan on Thursday night. This presentation was exclusively directed on discussing how the government currently pays for and how it might in future pay for the supplementary health benefits. Discussion about what would be covered under the revised plan and how it would affect individuals was deflected to a later discussion at an unnamed time.
Since the ancient Greeks introduced the concept of a democratic government system, governments have generally moved slowly and carefully before introducing changes which would affect the governed populous. There are many instances over the extended time of unpopular changes resulting in the ultimate change in the government.
Your haste to bring in the changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Plan is totally unreasonable. You have set an introduction date which does not allow reasonable discussion about the changes. It does not allow for reasonable give and take of varying points of view brought to the discussion by a wide selection of individuals and stakeholders. It does not allow the government to change its policies to accommodate the discussions and recommendations arrived at as a result of consultation with the affected people and stakeholders prior to the stated implementation date. It does not respond to the democratic rights of the population of the Northwest Territories and it does not reflect the exercises of its responsibilities by the Government of the Northwest Territories.
Your insistence that the implementation date for the changes to the supplementary health benefits will not be changed implied the hidden agenda and a disregard of the input by the people of the Northwest Territories.
I urge you to change the direction you are taking with this proposal. Careful consideration of all aspects of the proposed changes will result in a better product. Take the time needed for this careful consideration.
Yours truly, Cornelius Van Dyke, Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with Mr. Van Dyke completely and have made statements and questions in this House asking the same questions. Clearly, the Minister is not listening or hearing the people. As such, later today I will once again be asking questions and hope that the Minister sees reason and decides to do what is right, just and for the public good. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to join a number of my colleagues today in speaking about the proposed changes to supplementary health benefits. The Minister is very quick to say there will be winners in these proposed changes. There will be, Mr. Speaker, but when someone wins, someone else is bound to lose. If the department and the government want to truly live up to the statement that all families should have fair and equal access to Government of the Northwest Territories funded programs and assist with the cost of uninsured health services, then they are going to have to fully explain to residents how the proposed changes are not fair or equitable and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, what the government is proposing seems predetermined, not having changed much since the last time we had this debate over a year ago in this House.
Let’s be honest with our residents. This is a tax on the sick, those who are most vulnerable, and a direct attack on our seniors, most of whom are on a fixed income. If the Minister wants to address the gap that exists, then find a way to do that. But, Mr. Speaker, changes cannot be made on the backs of the sick and the elderly.
Income thresholds cannot be predetermined. Just because a household has an income of $50,000 a year, these thresholds do not take into account the ability to pay. The Minister knows full well that the cost of living is one of the biggest issues facing our residents. She even chairs the Strategic Initiatives Committee on the Cost of Living. Why would she, of all people, be looking to put the screws to people who are sick, elderly, and already facing exorbitant costs to living here in the Northwest Territories?
A $50,000-a-year family income here in the Northwest Territories is very much different than a $50,000 family income in southern Canada. After paying food, bills, a mortgage, car payment, most middle income families here do not have anything left. Under the Minister’s plan, God help them if one of them should get sick.
How can the Minister say what is being proposed is fair to everyone? The Non-Insured Health Benefits for aboriginal residents is funded by the federal government and, obviously, out of our realm of responsibility. However, the Extended Health Benefits Program for Metis persons is funded by this government. No changes are being proposed to this program.
I am not and do not believe there should be any changes to this program, but please stop using the words “fair” and “equitable” when it’s just not a reality.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m rising today to lend my voice to the many expressions of concern made here today by our Members about the Minister of Health’s proposal for changing supplementary health benefits. Thus far the Minister seems to have her decision already made up to rush the consultations through to stakeholders regarding how they feel. The process seems to change on the run. I wish the Minister could establish a realistic schedule and process that spells out to everyone in a way that we can understand, rather than what the Minister has already told us they’re going to do.
The process that the Minister is currently engaged in now is not getting positive reviews, other than her staff telling her everything’s going swimmingly. On the ground, seniors and other people will tell you that everything is not so well here.
As well, my concerns extend to how this process has been worked to ensure the people who are not presently covered and not eligible for current programs get covered immediately, so they do not face continued postponement. These are what we call the working poor. The Minister is quick to remind everyone and blame everyone in this Assembly that the implementation of the policy changes are done truly on the shoulders of Members. Members have not stopped the Minister from engaging and implementing a program that could cover the working poor. It’s the Minister’s fault that this has not been done, not ours.
Those changes could be done today without any delay and I have no doubt that would be warmly received and certainly supported in this Assembly to help our working poor. For the last two years there’s been more time and frustration talking about playing with the Supplementary Health Benefits Program to rearrange what will end up doing nothing but making everybody mad.
I don’t understand this Minister’s definition of fairness. I don’t think anybody understands this Minister’s definition of fairness, other than the fact that there’s a philosophy of taking something that’s been treasured by many, taken away to give to others. Any parent can tell you that if you have two children, when you take something away and just to give it to the other child, it is not reasonable parenting. Why does the Minister think that this is Health Benefits 101, to take from one group to give to the other? This is insanity and a ridiculous initiative that needs to stop today.
There has to be a better way to do this. As I’ve said several times, this Minister could bring forward a proposal in detail to this House to cover the working poor and I guarantee you it would be warmly received in this House and in this Territory.
