Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are so many places to start here. I want to follow up on my colleagues’ questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services. I’d like to start with the last theme there. Groups and many of my constituents were opposed to the supplementary health benefits proposal. They’ve raised the issue of whether the changes will pass the test of a human rights complaint. The changes being proposed are unwise, in my mind, but implementation and administrative costs and the lost service to the sick would be a further waste if we go ahead without legal advice when indeed it was needed. Has the Minister received legal advice on whether the changes she proposes can legally stand?
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. The honourable Minister responsible for Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Using income threshold and looking at one’s ability to pay to determine whether you have access to a program or not is used in many places. We have those in lots of government programs, including the seniors’ fuel subsidy. This is a very commonly accepted way of doing it. We’re expanding the program to those on the basis of income, whereas before it was on the basis of age. I believe that this is the right thing to do.
I was more interested in the Minister’s perspectives on the divisive, racially divisive, culturally divisive proposals that she has coming forward. I would welcome any further comments she might have on that.
It was noted at a recent public meeting that the representatives of the NWT Pharmaceutical Association have repeatedly offered to meet with the Minister and her department to share their knowledge and experience in any considerations of changes to the supp health program. The department was also invited to attend the annual general meeting of this association. In both cases the department and the Minister failed to take up those offers. Can the Minister explain why the department would not respond to these offers and how they can design a program without the wisdom and advice of important front-line providers such as these? Thank you.
The fact of the matter is, as a part of our consultation process we did write to the pharmacy association and the NWT Medical Association. The pharmacy association did not respond. We had written in March. We did get an email from Mr. Dolynny, who was not a president of the pharmacy association. He invited our staff to come. We had five days’ notice. Our staff was not going to be available for that time. It was five days’ notice. We had offered to meet with them at another time when it was more convenient, Mr. Speaker. So it is entirely inaccurate for anybody to suggest and it’s without evidence of a basis to say that we did not listen to them. We had written to them and the pharmacy association did not respond.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, this supplementary policy is something that’s used everywhere in the country. Everywhere in the country this is how the pharmacy program is… A lot of programs across the country are income tested, so I’m sure that the pharmacists in the Territories will be able to adjust to this policy.
I guess the word should be put out that if you’re not president of an association, don’t bother contacting the Minister on an opportunity for input
---Applause
Last year when the Minister was directed to go back to the drawing board on supp health, she promised to go back to the beginning and carry out consultations with no preconceptions such as a means test. Yet at her departmental community meetings, Mr. Dana Heide said he was directed to base the proposals on an income threshold model. Can the Minister explain how this could be a fulfilment of her promise, please?
When the motion was passed we had a big debate about whether or not income test is a good option. We should look at things from the blank slate. We did review those. I directed the staff to look at the user profile, look at who’s using it, how much it’s costing, what does it mean, how can we expand the programs to those who are excluded. We looked at all of that, Mr. Speaker, and I know that there are those who choose not to accept some of the information that they received. But the fact of the matter is we have done the research and the research shows that, in terms of income profile of our people, that we have low income, middle income, high income, in all peoples in their ages and background. I believe fundamentally that government’s role is to provide support to those who need it the most, and we will do that. We will provide for seniors. We will provide for working families. We will provide support to those who need assistance from us. Thank you.
Your final question, Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Minister is really about the really good suggestions and incredible amount of thinking and thoughtful drafting of options to be pursued by the Minister. Certainly the progressive taxation was one of them. I think there was some mention of fees. I assume that the Minister has developed a perspective on those in response to the overwhelming comments from the public on those suggestions. Thank you.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have referred those suggestions and we have reviewed them and looked at the implications of progressive taxation, taxation to pay a program like this, which is not an insurer service, and we have reviewed the suggestions made in the Minister of Finance’s roundtable on revenue options. There was a suggestion for progressive taxation by Alternatives North. I believe that the program that we are proposing under supp health is a progressive taxation within the program in that we are supporting those who need it the most and we are asking those on a higher income to make a contribution to a supplementary health care cost, where in any other province they would be required to pay 100 percent unless they had insurance. Thank you.
The honourable Member for Hay River South, Mrs. Groenewegen.
