Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Tuesday, May 11th, I asked a question to the Minister of Health and Social Services regarding Section 5, in a very similar vein as Mr. Abernethy has. I asked the Minister of Health and Social Services, has she ever taken back some of these issues to Cabinet to revisit this change to the policy of supplementary health. In her answer on page 31, she remarked outstandingly with a clear absolutely. Mr. Speaker, of course, later during the day, I had asked if she could table those facts. Of course, she began to tell me no, how she can’t. Today in answering Mr. Abernethy’s question, when he asked the same question in a different way, of course, regarding Section 5, about what had been brought back to Cabinet for reconsideration, her answer to Mr. Abernethy was, they don’t see the need to because the analysis has already been done. Mr. Speaker, in an unclever way, I am trying to figure out the contradiction of these two answers over simply two different days.
Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health and Social Services clear up this clear contradiction that the House is now struggling with one way or the other? Thank you.
Minister of Health and Social Services, Ms. Lee.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is no contradiction there. I don’t think it will surprise anybody that the Supplementary Health Benefits Policy has been before Cabinet more often than most issues; probably not as many as Deh Cho Bridge, but, Mr. Speaker, it has been a popular topic in Cabinet.
We take the input from the public very seriously. We understand how difficult it is to make any changes to a health basket of benefits that a lot of people hold dear. We went out with the first implementation at the end of November 2008. We heard a lot of things from the public. We took it back to the drawing board. We had somebody look at the entire program, top to bottom, upside down. We did do that and throughout the course of that review, I have gone back to the Cabinet about what we are finding, what does it mean, what are the other jurisdictions doing, what is the user profile of the people that are using it, what is our people’s ability to pay, what is a non-insured service versus insured service, what does it mean to have an income threshold of this and that and whatever, how are we going to do the public hearing, who are we going to talk to, how long do we have. We have done all of that.
Mr. Speaker, I do totally respect that this is a very, very difficult issue. But, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there has been lots of discussion on this side of the table about this policy. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I have to admit, I think the contradiction in two answers still lies before the House. The Minister will tell us that she is looking for suggestions. It is almost as if she is pointing at us for those suggestions. Mr. Speaker, time and time again Members have said, as well as the public who is here today have said, consider this. Additional taxation, look for efficiencies, find another way.
Mr. Speaker, where is the analysis in answering those questions? Where is the proof to show that they have been considered? Where is the proof that the Minister has taken the time to listen to the public who struggled very hard with this issue that she seems to be clearly ignoring? Thank you.
This is just to remind the Members in the gallery if we can have some order in the House. We don’t usually applaud in the House, so if you could keep it down. Minister of Health and Social Services.
Mr. Speaker, the policy says if the Minister wants to make revisions, the Minister has to make specific recommendations on that. We incorporated the feedback that we had heard and if we were to decide that income test will not be used or the major items of the policy was to be changed, that would have had to go back to Cabinet.
The fact of the matter is, we did the analysis. We as a government feel that this cannot be universal. The Minister of Finance did a round of consultation on revenue options and taxation. We heard soundly from everyone that raising tax is not an option that we should look at. We heard people suggesting premiums, people suggesting other means. You do the analysis and you listen to those and you review them, but unless you are going to make a recommendation to change the policy, you don’t have to raise that specific question. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, I think we could have saved five minutes by just saying nothing. Mr. Speaker, honestly, this is very upsetting and certainly shameful. The Minister will keep telling this House and the people of the North that the silent majority support her. Mr. Speaker, I was camped out in front of the post office, Shopper’s Drug Mart and a few other places having people sign post cards. Lots of people signed it to tell the Minister to revisit this policy, Mr. Speaker. I only had maybe one or two people said they liked the direction. Mr. Speaker, there is not a silent majority on this issue. Where are the Minister’s facts on that silent majority supported? I am not talking about the people who are covered or the people who always will be covered. I am talking about where are the people of the silent majority who won’t be covered showing you this is the right way to go? Will the Minister prove that to this House and prove that to the people in the gallery and prove that to the people of the Northwest Territories? Thank you?
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated already, I will be tabling a document later today that speaks to what we have heard. Mr. Speaker, there are people who are writing to us and telling us that, and even the Members here have said that we do need to find a way to bring in the people who are excluded. We are having disagreements about how we do that. I appreciate that. There are people who say, go universal, make this part of core service. We have a challenge to that as a government.
If I had all the money in the world, I would like to make everybody happy and pay for all the medication, equipment and no income testing, no nothing, just take care of our people to the fullest extent possible. We do not have that luxury. Yes, taxation option, we have consulted with their departments about raising taxes to pay for this, but the challenge we have is no other governments in the country would raise taxes to pay for something that is not a core service. I know some people would like us to make this a core service, but that is a value question on the government. That is something that I would differ.
Mr. Speaker, I’m not in any way suggesting that people are telling me to do this, do this, do this, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is I am listening. I do understand what people are saying, and I understand how difficult this is. We need to keep on trying to work this out. Thank you.
Final supplementary, Mr. Hawkins.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m not sure I’m going to call this a consultation, because I certainly would not define it as meaningful. Mr. Speaker, there were legitimate questions asked by the public in a way to address this situation. Certainly, find efficiencies in some form and do a strategy around that, and certainly consider the option of taxation. If it can be spread out across the Territory so we can all share in the much needed, important essence of health care. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Dana Heide, probably to his long-term regret, let it quite clearly slip that he was always given the direction, because of the policy, to do this with a co-payment. Mr. Speaker, that was never the intent from this side of the House, as the focus. Mr. Speaker, it was always about starting in a fair and equitable way.
Mr. Speaker, when will the public be able to listen to the answers that the Minister has heard in the form of questions? Will the Minister be responding in any public way before the policy is cut and dry and can never be changed? Will she give the public that one more chance to speak to it once the formal policy is made public before it’s implemented?
Thank you. The fact of the matter is we are, and the Members know that I have made a presentation to the planning committee. We have a process in place where we work on policies like this together. Mr. Speaker, I don’t know if there is any forum more public than the Legislative Assembly. This is a work in progress and I have a proposal before the Members and I look forward to hearing what Members have to say. Thank you.
The honourable Member for Kam Lake, Mr. Ramsay.
