Sandy Lee

To be honest, I am not sure if that would be part of…That might be going outside of the work the Department of Health and Social Services would do in terms of addressing some of the major concerns that were brought up about the supplementary health benefit changes. Having said that, I do acknowledge that within the course of the last six or seven weeks since the policy changes were announced, we have heard lots of stories and background situations that does make us think about it and put it into context in thinking about how these changes will affect our population. So in general terms, I will...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The document that the department will prepare as a point of start for discussion will include such information. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, first of all, it’s really important for the seniors out there to know that this government will continue to provide a package of programs that are better than any of the other comparable, competitive, very good…We have very good packages for constituents. As the changes are laid out right now, for a single income senior, if your retirement income is around $60,000 to $70,000, you will still get supplementary health benefits. I think talking about net income has missed that point. When I travel across the country and the Territories and tell them that most...

The people that are included are those who are making $50,000 net income, or those who are not over 60, who are not defined as a senior, who don’t have a specified condition, who do not work for an employer with a third-party insurance, who are not eligible for Metis health benefits or the indigenous aboriginal health benefits. So we estimate -- and these are hard because our population fluctuates so we cannot say in specific numbers -- but the analysis has shown that we exclude about 10 percent of the population on lower and working poor. We have families who cannot have their children go for...

I believe there was somebody else who was quoted to say we have a Cadillac program. Mr. Speaker, I think there is no dispute by seniors and everybody that we do have a very good program for seniors, not only for health benefits but for housing, property tax exemption and such. I have told the NWT Seniors’ Society that we are committed to making sure that we have a very good package of programs for seniors. So I will continue to work on that principle and I am sure everybody else will make sure that I do. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I’ve said I am committed to a meaningful consultation. We have received some really good information that we need to revisit. It’s pretty simple what we need to fix right now. There are some glaring things that we need to fix on what’s proposed; income threshold and the eligibility for catastrophic drug program. We will do a meaningful consultation to make sure that we have fixed this program and we will take the time we need to. I’ve agreed to consult on the process. We’re going to have an exchange and workshops so that you don’t have a situation where people go and have a meeting and then...

Unless the Member has information that I’m not aware of, there is no jurisdiction in Canada that has a universal coverage for supplementary health benefits. In fact, programs like home care services, which the NWT provides as a core service universally, is not included as supplementary health coverage. There is no jurisdiction in Canada that covers 100 percent for anybody who is over 60. There is no...It’s a supplementary health benefit, is what it is. It is supplementary. It’s extra. It’s not part of the Health Care Plan. So universality does not apply here.

We do have a more generous program...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the Member’s question on the motive can be answered by the intent of the policy. The intent of the policy is to cover or expand the supplementary health benefits to those who do not have them right now. We have a segment of the population right now, better known as lower income working poor, who may be self-employed or working for employers who do not have employer’s coverage and are not getting those basic supplementary health benefits. We have situations like over the last few months where we’ve had people who need an artificial prosthesis that we were not...

Yes, we will be talking to all stakeholders, not just the seniors. I was just using that as an example. I say yes to the follow-up questions that the Member asked.