Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister is right; this is about what is fair, this is about what is right, this is about what is just. I also can’t agree that the intent behind what we are doing here is sound. We want to support the low income families, the low income earners who don’t currently have insurance now. The problem is how this Minister and this department happened to be going about the process.
The Minister said we need to have a debate about substance. Yes, please, let’s have a debate about substance. The problem is it would be difficult to have a debate about substance when the information the Minister agreed to get after we passed our motion didn’t come forward. They didn’t go out to talk to the stakeholders. They didn’t consider options. They didn’t research around other options. That is what the Minister said she was going to do. If the Minister had done that, we would have the information to have a debate about substance, a well-rounded, thorough debate about substance. We can’t have it now. Why didn’t the Minister go get the information that she said she was going to get after the debate, after the motion? We need that information to have this debate. We can’t have this debate. All this dancing around she is doing isn’t helping us do the right thing to the people of the Northwest Territories. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand why the Member thinks that he can’t put input into this process. Exactly what is the problem he has with the substance? What is it about the program as proposed that he doesn’t agree with or support?
Mr. Speaker, public meetings started this Monday. We are going to continue to have public meetings. In preparation for those public meetings and public consultations, we posted a conversation document a month ago. We are in the middle of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Member what in substance does he have a problem with. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, it is nice that they are asking us questions for a change. Technically, I can’t say what I have wrong with the substance, because in order to make a fair and accurate assessment of whether this program that they are proposing is a right one, we need options to consider. We need alternatives to consider. Research should have been done on this. When we did the motion, Mr. Speaker, the motion included a discussion around the department going out and meeting with the potentially affected stakeholders to get that information, get those options and they were going to research it. The Minister said they would talk to the stakeholders and get that information. They should be coming back to us with all of that information. What the result might be is this might be the best program, but without all of these alternatives we will never know and never be able to make the decision that this is the best. I want that information. The Minister said she was going to give it. Why didn’t she provide us with that information that she said she was going to provide? It is simple. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the direction of the House and the result of the last discussions were that people wanted to know more about who were using this program, how the income threshold would impact the residents who were covered and who would not be covered anymore. At that time we suffered from not having enough detailed information about exactly who was served by this program.
Mr. Speaker, as I stated already, there hasn’t been, I don’t think, a more thorough analysis of a program like we have presented as a result of doing this research for the last number of months and we are putting the information out there. But we understand that people may need more information to have a better discussion and we are willing to provide the information. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Member has more information he needs, I’d be happy to do everything I can to provide it. Thank you.
The Minister seems to remember the parts of the motion and the debate that support her case. What she’s not talking about here is that we are also asking for alternatives and options. I don’t see alternatives and options. Yes, they’ve done a lot of research, I’ve got to tell you. The product they are providing to us now has way more research. It’s a lot of research, it’s good information, it explains a lot to defend the model that they want to put forward. Where are the alternatives? Where are the options? Those options would have come from the stakeholders that she promised that she would consult with if they’d actually had consultations over a year ago. They didn’t. So I guess I’m going to ask: why didn’t the Minister ask -- and we all know she’s going to say they did -- but why didn’t the Minister not have the consultations that she said she was going to have to obtain these alternatives and options, the information that would help us make informed, reasonable and rational decisions in the best interest of the people? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is there is a lot of information to make informed, rational, logical decisions about where we should go with this program on behalf of all the people who need our attention with this program. Mr. Speaker, I know the Member is referring to the public working group. In fact, they asked for more information about the program. Exactly who does it serve? What is the background of the people that access this program? What would it mean in many different ways? So they asked for more detailed information before they put any input in, so we presented that information to the group and the group responded to the material we presented. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final, short supplementary, Mr. Abernethy.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again no references to alternatives and options, the thing that is important to make a healthy, rational and reasonable decision. Since I can’t get an answer there, I’m going to ask a different question.
In my Member’s statement from the quote that I read, the individual said the process that we’re going through now does not allow the GNWT to change its policy to accommodate the discussions and recommendations arrived at as a result of these consultations with the affected people and stakeholders prior to the stated implementation date. We’ve said since she announced the start date of this new policy, it’s not enough time to consider some alternatives and make changes. Sounds like they’ve already got their plan decided to implement what they want. Why can’t we push the date back a little bit so we have an opportunity to put in some of these alternatives or at least consider them reasonably? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The constituent that he mentioned, I have the copy of that e-mail too. That e-mail was written before we had all the details that we posted on the website just yesterday. That participant was part of the stakeholders group which did not have all of the income data and who would benefit or not. This is an evolving process, Mr. Speaker. The public hearings started today. That’s an opportunity for people to give us feedback into what we are presenting.
Mr. Speaker, the Member keeps saying where are the alternatives. I’d be happy to hear from him about what alternatives that he wants us to consider, because I believe the information we have gives a really good point for discussion. Thank you
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
