Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the brief emergency session in March I had the opportunity to make a statement on the proposed changes to the supplementary health benefits. Like many of my colleagues, I am feeling completely frustrated and very uneasy about the direction that this government is taking with supplementary health benefits.
Why is it so easy for this government to state that they want a system that is fair and equitable when this is just not a reality? Why is this government so good at upsetting people? Again today we saw another protest in front of the Legislative Assembly protesting a decision of this government. Does the government care? Apparently not, seeing that Minister Lee has been given her marching orders by Cabinet and she is being too arrogant and too ignorant to see that by pursuing this direction she is doing untold damage to her reputation as a people’s politician.
I worked with Minister Lee on this side of the House for four years. She took no prisoners when defending her constituents’ interests. Why now that she is in Cabinet does she continue to ignore the people? Perhaps Members in this House should look at putting Ms. Lee back on this side of the House. I’d be very interested in seeing just how fast Ms. Lee would run from her stance as Minister.
A politician who does not listen does not care. It is becoming very apparent that Minister Lee requires a wake-up call from Members of this House, to remind her that she is listening to neither the Members of this House nor the public.
Why make those who are most vulnerable pay when they need help the most? Make no mistake about it, this is a tax on the sick and the elderly. It is a gross misrepresentation of the laurels of this government to be fair and equitable to all they serve. All of this for what? To divide people on racial lines, to save $2.5 million a year. Mr. Speaker, it’s just not worth it. Our values, our relationships, our social fabric is far more important than $2.5 million a year.
I do believe we need to address those who have no coverage. This should be done. These costs should be paid out of tax revenues or other revenues the government generates on a year-to-year basis. Why can’t this be a solution, Mr. Speaker?
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
It is Cabinet’s responsibility to manage these decisions, and given Cabinet’s track record of decision-making, it’s little wonder people outside in the public are so upset, again, at another decision this government is making. It’s the wrong decision. We need to park it. We need to find a new solution, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ramsay. The honourable Member for Nahendeh, Mr. Menicoche.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, on April 7, 2010, I attended a presentation veiled as public consultation conducted by the Department of Health and Social Services on the upcoming changes to their extended health benefits.
Based on the Minister’s response to questions asked in this House and in response to the motion passed in this House of March 2009, the Minister indicated that the department would be going back to the beginning on the proposed changes, that the department would openly consult stakeholders and conduct research into options presented by these groups, that the Minister would present Regular Members and the public with options for considerations, options and alternatives that would allow us, as politicians representing the people of the Northwest Territories, to make informed decisions in the best interests of all residents.
Unfortunately, upon receiving a briefing on the proposed changes by the Minister in February 2010, this proved not to be the case. Although a stakeholders group was established, it was never asked to provide input on alternatives for consideration. Further, key stakeholders, the individuals whose input would have been valuable such as the medical and pharmacy associations of the NWT, were completely excluded from the process. Worse, during the April 7th meeting the departmental representative made it clear that he had been directed by a Cabinet policy to constrain the discussion which ensured that it would not be opened-ended and that we weren’t dealing with a blank slate. It was definitely not an opening up of options to the plan desired and supported by the Minister of Health.
I must say I was surprised to learn that the departmental representative was working from an existing Cabinet policy. You would think that a transparent Minister would have shared that information with Regular Members during the discussion and debate on the motion in March 2009. If we had known of the Cabinet policy that the Minister was committed to, which, for the record, was approved by Cabinet on September 30, 2007, the day before the election of the 16th Legislative Assembly and the same day as that Cabinet approved the consolidation agreement on the Deh Cho Bridge, we would have adjusted the motion to request changes to the policy itself.
The policy is very clear. It indicates that the Minister will recommend to the Executive Council income tests, income thresholds, and benefit formulas necessary to the implementation of this policy. Everything the Minister said with respect to going back to the drawing board and considering options and alternatives is completely inconsistent with this policy where only one option is laid out.
Mr. Speaker, I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
Based on this policy, no options other than income-tested models could or would ever be considered. How could the Minister go back to the drawing board if the final income-tested product was already agreed upon and supported by Cabinet?
We must do something to help the low income families who do not have insurance through their employer. It’s the right thing to do; however, this is not the way. Minister Lee’s redesign of the Extended Health Benefits lacks credibility, transparency, or sound evidence to help justify it as the only model worthy of consideration. It’s not right, it’s not just, and it’s not in the best interest of the people of the Northwest Territories.
The Minister of Health and Social Services must take this policy back to Cabinet and set a new, more responsible direction for future amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Abernethy. The honourable Member for Tu Nedhe, Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I’d like to talk about the proposed changes to supplementary health benefits. Canada is a shining inspiration to the world. It continues to make great strides to represent itself as a beacon of hope, opportunity and fairness. I don’t believe the proposed changes to the supplementary health policy mirrors those principles in any way at all.
By taking away supplementary health benefits, this will go down as a great case study many years from now when people watch and wonder what happened. Why did the GNWT start acting like Ottawa? If the Minister and this Cabinet continue to circle around this policy, it will truly be a dark day for consensus government.
Let me be clear. Could our health care system benefit from a fiscal review? Absolutely. However, should a policy on supplementary health benefits passed by the last government tie the hands of this Assembly? It should not. If you will notice, some of the major distractions of the 16th Assembly have all been around what was signed off by the last Premier and Cabinet, then this Cabinet continues to circle around them and protect them without any question. I believe they have lost their way, and at times I wonder if they can think on their own.
May I remind this House of some of those brilliant policy decisions this Cabinet has been following. Remember the butchering of the board reform? What I like to call now the Deh Cho Bridge-gates? And certainly now the bitter pill served up as supplementary health benefits changes? All things that are important and certainly need to be discussed in their own way, but not at any cost and certainly not to our residents.
When will this Cabinet work to develop territorial policies with a vision of the 16th Assembly and not the ghosts of the 15th Assembly that keep haunting or lurking in the halls upstairs? If you ask the Minister, she’ll say it’s not about the money. But let’s be serious; who is she kidding? Of course it’s about the money. But when I ask her to hire an efficiency expert to look at how the department does its business just like big and small companies out there, it got brushed off like it didn’t matter.
The Ministers say it’s about the working poor. What’s stopping her? If this government really cared about the working poor they would have stopped dragging their heels over three to four years ago to provide coverage immediately to those working poor who definitely need it.
I view this Territory as a family, regardless of their background.
I seek unanimous consent to conclude my statement.
---Unanimous consent granted
I don’t see one opportunity that the government has taken to revisit this, other than cutting benefits to the sick and elderly simply down racial and cultural lines. No, because there of course has been no direction from the 15th Assembly to do that. That’s why.
I question if this policy was reversed if it would stand the test of fairness. I’d say no. This policy is about division, not about unity. It preys on people’s differences by splitting our Territory down cultural lines and I believe it’s truly not fair and extremely hurtful to a lot of people out there.
In closing, the Minister has not gone to the doctors who want to provide solutions. The pharmacy association has been begging to provide input. This may not legally be wrong, it may not be technically wrong regarding human rights, but I can guarantee you it’s morally wrong and our constituents are suffering.
Thank you, Mr. Hawkins. The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
