Sandy Lee

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.

Mr. Speaker, the Member could go back on the record. I have announced the audit program that we are doing to keep track of health records. The medical health officer, he made a personal choice to go work in Alberta. He was going to communicate to the Members himself, but Alberta decided to announce it two weeks before so that’s why the Member didn’t know. With respect to the physicians’ contract, we communicated to every Member, we wrote them a letter way before it was announced in the media. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the announcement of this policy, I happened to have travelled to Fort Simpson, Inuvik, Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Ulukhaktok, and I have to say, when I explained that the changes are meant to expand the program so that we include a group of people that are excluded, people agree with that. When we say the senior cut-off is $55,000 net, and for most people that is a really good income on a retirement, because that means you have to make about $75,000 to $80,000. The gaps that we have found are that we need to revisit the income threshold itself, whether it’s too low...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Members and the public for their interest in the Supplementary Health Benefits Program and Catastrophic Drug Costs Program. Mr. Speaker, since the details of the changes were announced last December, we have received numerous calls and questions regarding the programs. Comments were at times supportive of the direction we are taking with this new program, as a number of people will benefit from this new program.

The principle of providing benefits to those most vulnerable and who have no coverage has been well...

As I have already stated in my public statements, the income test threshold has been revealed to be too low; that a vast majority of our non-seniors are making a much higher income than that threshold. So we expect that if we were to implement the programs the way they’re outlined, we may be excluding about 5 percent of top earning seniors from the basic Supplementary Health Benefits Program. But we have introduced the Catastrophic Drug Cost Program as a safety net so that nobody in the North will have to pay more than 5 percent of their net income for the Catastrophic Drug Cost Program.