Sandy Lee

I believe the objective of the Members and the seniors in the gallery and everybody I have talked to is to make sure this program is good qualitatively and it’s not, the time is not the most important thing; it’s that we do the right thing. We are committed to do the right thing and I have agreed with the Seniors’ Society and the NGOs that I have been talking to, that we will have roundtables, we will have workshops, because these are very complicated issues and we will make sure that we do not cause undue hardship to those people who need our assistance and that we will have meaningful...

I believe my statement was that we would keep the policy intent, which is to make this policy more fair and equitable. Income tests are a mechanism to achieve that, but obviously all the details are up for discussion. So we will go to the public with what we have learned, we will ask the public about what we need to consider, what we need to change. I have learned a lot in this process. I have made it clear from day one, December 19th, when I got the first e-mail, I learned new things and I responded to everybody, saying thank you for giving me that information, I will take that into...

The fact is we do not have universal coverage for supplementary health right now. We don’t. So we’re not moving away from universal coverage. The whole point is the impetus of changing this is the fact that we have a group of working poor, as we call them, or low-income families, or if you have a job that doesn’t have third-party insurance. So the self-employed. We have a group of people who are not covered under the existing system. So it is not accurate to say that we have a universal program. We have a universal program for those who are over 60. We have a universal program for those who...

Mr. Speaker, obviously he didn’t catch my first answer. An analysis was done, policy approved in 2007. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that our government’s objective is not to encourage people to move away, not to incur extra costs because people are not taking drugs they need or medical supplies. We are committed to improving this program. We will cover the vast majority of our population who need the support from the government and that’s what the seniors told us during the consultation between 2003 and ’07; that we need to make the program generous for seniors. We have tried to do that and...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can advise you and the Members that that is in fact one of the main topics that were under discussion between myself and the executive of the NWT Seniors’ Society. As I stated in my Member’s statement, we are committed to doing consultation with the stakeholders. The Seniors’ Society has suggested that maybe we should have a workshop so there can be back-and-forth exchange.

I have learned since this program had been announced last December that the families and individuals in the North come in all kinds of shapes and sizes, with all kinds of unique health needs and...

Yes, I mean, that’s the regular process. There’s nothing new about that. We don’t do any of these without going to the committee, Mr. Speaker, and we never have.

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.

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...

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...