Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to follow up on some of my colleagues’ questions who have been questioning the Minister of Health and Social Services to the proposed changes to supplementary health. The interesting thing for me, I was at the briefing on Tuesday and the information provided was good information, but again, Mr. Speaker, with all the trouble that was caused last year, about a year ago, just over a year ago and the issue is back before us again, I don’t understand why it took that long to get that level of detailed information in front of the Standing Committee on Social Programs. That information, Mr. Speaker, should have been there a long time ago.
Mrs. Groenewegen was asking questions about what research the Department of Health and Social Services has done on the impact of these changes, what impact this proposed change would have on seniors here in our Territory and how many of them would actually pack their bags and leave the Northwest Territories as a direct result of these proposed changes to supplementary health benefits. Many of our residents are approaching retirement age as well and I’m not interested in grandfathering anybody. I think people who have paid taxes and raised families here in the Northwest Territories deserve and have every right to the same benefits that people enjoy today. I’d like to ask the Minister that question: what research was done?
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that question has come up: has the department looked at what impact this will have in terms of people wanting to leave. I have two direct answers to that. One is that we have no reason to believe that anything we are doing here would encourage anybody to leave the North because our program is as good, if not better, than what’s available anywhere else. So our supp health benefits are still a robust one and the fact is all across the country, except for Nunavut, all extended health benefits are income tested. Not only are they income tested, some of them are means tested, which means they look at more than just the income. In some places it’s asset tested, which we are not proposing to do at all. In Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and other jurisdictions, their income threshold is less than $25,000 gross. We’re talking about a program that you still have access to even if you make $200,000 a year. So we have no reason to believe that anybody would leave.
Now, why can’t you come up with a dollar? That’s the same question as if somebody could tell me if I’m going to get sick tomorrow. I do not know what my health care cost is going to be to my government because we cannot project people’s health expenses. To ask that, the Member has to know that’s an impossible thing to answer.
The Minister knows full well, she’s the chair of the Strategic Initiatives Committee on the Cost of Living. She knows full well that it’s not a fair comparison to compare the cost of living here in the Northwest Territories to that of southern jurisdictions where, I might add, many people choose to retire in the South. Somebody has to protect the social fabric of our communities and keep families together and keep seniors in the North. I’d like to again ask the Minister how come a survey hasn’t been conducted with the seniors in the Northwest Territories to ask them if proposed changes to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program would result in them leaving the Northwest Territories. Like I said, when they leave, that affects the social fabric of our communities. We need to keep families together.
I really think the Minister has to address that concern and the $22,000 that the government gets in transfer payments for every person we have on the ground here in the Northwest Territories. That would be gone with them as well.
Obviously I disagree with the Member’s position on that. The fact is the cost of living issue for everyone in the North is important to this government. It’s also important that we continue to provide a robust Extended Health Benefits Program to our residents. What we are trying to do is to expand the coverage to those who do not have it right now, who are experiencing cost of living issues, as well as anybody else. So we are proposing an income as a criterion to consider and we are open to listen to our residents through this public hearing process about what they think of this and what other information they would like us to consider. We are open to listen to our residents through this public hearing process about what they think of this and what other information they would like us to consider.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. The time for question period has expired; however, I will allow the Member a supplementary question. Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have to have some type of competitive advantage here in the Northwest Territories to maintain our population base, especially for senior citizens. I’d like to ask the Minister if she can explain to me how she feels that this proposed change to supplementary health is fair when it is a redistribution. She talks about it herself. She says there are going to be winners. Who are the losers?
Under this proposal, if you go to the information that we have on the website, you would have to make $400,000 net income, that’s line 236 in federal income tax, you would have to make $400,000 before you have to pay 100 percent of glasses, $1,000 dental benefits, and 100 percent of your prescription drugs. You would have to make $150,000 before you start making some contribution. That is being competitive. I would challenge any other government in the land who would pay for thousand dollar dental fees and glasses without a means test when you’re making $200,000-plus.
The Member should support this proposal where we are going to provide access to children and working families right now who do not have that. I would argue that somebody making $70,000 a year could benefit from a $1,000 dental benefit for each of their children before somebody who’s making $200,000 to $400,000 that they get dental benefits just because they’re of a certain age. I do believe that it’s really important for the seniors out there to know that their benefits will be covered. There are no losers here because we are just asking people who can afford to pay to start contributing.
Thank you, Ms. Lee. Final supplementary, Mr. Ramsay.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a government we’re spending hundreds of thousands of dollars by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Investment, and I thank him for the initiatives that the government’s started on trying to attract and retain people here in the Northwest Territories. The government knows how important it is to have people stay here in the Northwest Territories. Like I said earlier, it’s $22,000 per person.
I’d like to ask the Minister again, I didn’t really hear it, she said there are no losers. When there are winners there are losers. Can the Minister stand up in this House today and tell the people of the Northwest Territories who is going to lose under her proposed initiative?
As the Member for Hay River South and many here know, we know that we have a very good health care program in the Northwest Territories. I honestly don’t believe that somebody... Mr. Speaker, making a public decision and doing the right thing you have to look at things as a total package. We have 2,000 people who will benefit by having access to these programs. Remember, I think people should know, even for other seniors programs like the rental subsidy or fuel subsidy, the day care subsidy, a lot of other government programs are income tested. This is not the first program that would try to do that. Really it is a very fair and objective way to do it.
