Sandy Lee

We are interested in listening to our public about transitional measures or the option of grandfathering. That was discussed with the stakeholder groups. Some have said no. We are getting feedback on that on the website; people are divided on yes or no. But definitely that is a legitimate issue for discussion and I’d be happy to receive input from the Members and others out there. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, all the information is there for the Member to say whether he supports an approach that would make the program more fair and equitable and extend the coverage to those who need it the most. This is not a situation of taking money out of Peter and paying Paul. This is a situation where we are trying to increase Peters. We are trying to make more Peters; we’re not trying to take money from Peter to pay Paul. We want to expand the number of Peters. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What is stopping the Minister? Nothing is stopping the Minister. I have a proposal right here. It’s on the website in colour. There’s no messing about. Certainly it’s far from zero analysis. We have not had more in-depth analysis of what our residents’ income profiles are and what level of claims they have been filing. The Member has right in front of him a proposal that would help the working poor. I don’t understand why he’s saying go back and do something that would help the working poor. This proposal right in front of him shows that 2,299 stand to benefit under this program who do not...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three documents to table. List of visits to communities in 2008-2009 by physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

Mr. Speaker, we have had very open and healthy dialogue and information sessions with the standing committee. The public hearing just started this Monday. The second one was in Hay River and they will go into all of the regional centres. We have been communicating through the website. Our people are responding. The interchange is quite productive. Our people wanted to know what we are considering for a threshold, because people want to have something solid to see how they are impacted. We have posted them on-line and the Members have details of that.

Mr. Speaker, I know the Member would like to...

Under this proposal, if you go to the information that we have on the website, you would have to make $400,000 net income, that’s line 236 in federal income tax, you would have to make $400,000 before you have to pay 100 percent of glasses, $1,000 dental benefits, and 100 percent of your prescription drugs. You would have to make $150,000 before you start making some contribution. That is being competitive. I would challenge any other government in the land who would pay for thousand dollar dental fees and glasses without a means test when you’re making $200,000-plus.

The Member should support...

Mr. Speaker, the information that we presented to the standing committee Tuesday morning has now been posted on the website and there is very detailed information about what number of residents in the Territories currently have no access to extended health benefits whether through the government program or third-party insurance. The proposal we are making is that depending on where the income threshold is, whether it is $30,000 or $50,000, and remembering again that that is the starting threshold so that if the income threshold was at $50,000, any family making a net income between $50,000 to...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know that question has come up: has the department looked at what impact this will have in terms of people wanting to leave. I have two direct answers to that. One is that we have no reason to believe that anything we are doing here would encourage anybody to leave the North because our program is as good, if not better, than what’s available anywhere else. So our supp health benefits are still a robust one and the fact is all across the country, except for Nunavut, all extended health benefits are income tested. Not only are they income tested, some of them are means...

The fact is there is a lot of information to make informed, rational, logical decisions about where we should go with this program on behalf of all the people who need our attention with this program. Mr. Speaker, I know the Member is referring to the public working group. In fact, they asked for more information about the program. Exactly who does it serve? What is the background of the people that access this program? What would it mean in many different ways? So they asked for more detailed information before they put any input in, so we presented that information to the group and the...

Mr. Speaker, I don’t understand why the Member thinks that he can’t put input into this process. Exactly what is the problem he has with the substance? What is it about the program as proposed that he doesn’t agree with or support?

Mr. Speaker, public meetings started this Monday. We are going to continue to have public meetings. In preparation for those public meetings and public consultations, we posted a conversation document a month ago. We are in the middle of the debate. Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear from the Member what in substance does he have a problem with. Thank you.