Sandy Lee

Mr. Speaker, the existing Extended Health Benefits Program is such that we know who is accessing the program and those who are accessing the program are those who are over 60 or who have a chronic condition or who right now make less than $30,000 which qualifies them as indigent. The information we have on the website says that there are a total number of 3,160 people who do not have extended health benefits coverage or a third-party insurance. That is the number we are trying to work with. Under our proposal, we could cover over 2,000 people out of this 3,000 people. Not only that, unlike the...

Obviously I disagree with the Member’s position on that. The fact is the cost of living issue for everyone in the North is important to this government. It’s also important that we continue to provide a robust Extended Health Benefits Program to our residents. What we are trying to do is to expand the coverage to those who do not have it right now, who are experiencing cost of living issues, as well as anybody else. So we are proposing an income as a criterion to consider and we are open to listen to our residents through this public hearing process about what they think of this and what other...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the Member’s statement quite closely, it appears that she knows exactly where this policy is headed, what the intent is, what we are trying to achieve, what unfairness and inequities that we are trying to ameliorate, because in fact she just said about 10 minutes ago that she agrees with the intent and the overall approach of this but that she would like it delayed until November. Putting aside the process, if she likes this policy, what is it that she would like to achieve by delaying the process, Mr. Speaker? Thank you.

The constituent that he mentioned, I have the copy of that e-mail too. That e-mail was written before we had all the details that we posted on the website just yesterday. That participant was part of the stakeholders group which did not have all of the income data and who would benefit or not. This is an evolving process, Mr. Speaker. The public hearings started today. That’s an opportunity for people to give us feedback into what we are presenting.

Mr. Speaker, the Member keeps saying where are the alternatives. I’d be happy to hear from him about what alternatives that he wants us to consider...

Mr. Speaker, the direction of the House and the result of the last discussions were that people wanted to know more about who were using this program, how the income threshold would impact the residents who were covered and who would not be covered anymore. At that time we suffered from not having enough detailed information about exactly who was served by this program.

Mr. Speaker, as I stated already, there hasn’t been, I don’t think, a more thorough analysis of a program like we have presented as a result of doing this research for the last number of months and we are putting the information...

I know that any debate about health benefits is difficult, it’s emotional, and it’s a difficult thing to do. In answering the Member‘s question, it is a little bit about redistributing resources, but most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it’s about fairness.

I hope you don’t mind if I use this example, but it just keeps coming at me. In this Assembly there is myself, MLA Bisaro, the Member herself, Member Ramsay, Member Bromley, Member Abernethy and Member Hawkins who would belong to this program. Right now, when some of us hit 60 years old, they will get so many dollars for glasses and $1,000 dental...

Generally speaking, it would be between the patient or the patient’s immediate family and the health care professional on the ground. They would talk about the need for a person to be medevaced, whether it’s Yellowknife to any other places, for what reason and that there would be all the people involved working together.

The situation that the Member described in his Member’s statement, I don’t want to get into the details of it, and I do not know the details other than what he said. But I would like to say that in certain circumstances, the medical personnel on a medical flight may say either...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as we begin our public meetings on supplementary health benefits, I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the substance of the changes being proposed.

Mr. Speaker, we want to improve “ACCESS” to the program. Our proposed changes will expand access to a group of people in our population who are currently shut out or have limited access. This will ensure that access to supplementary health benefits is no longer determined by a specific condition or by age but by income level. This is the accepted practice across the country. The change will also...

The wait times we’re talking about are similar across the country. So the services we need for our residents, we either provide them in Yellowknife or in Edmonton. Sending them south would not necessarily reduce the wait times. We do send our patients down south because that’s where the services are provided. So, for example, for orthopaedic surgery, our residents may get services here or in Edmonton. My point being we have medical specialists at Stanton in constant contact with patients that are waiting for the surgery and whether or not they need to be moved around to get the services they...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of specialist services and other services we provide at Stanton and other facilities. Different services have different wait times depending on the demand versus available personnel. I’m not aware and I need to check whether there are strict standards put on wait times. I would like to advise the Member, however, that our residents do receive procedures they require if it’s an emergency and acute cases, and obviously our medical professionals are on constant watch to make sure that our people get the services they need.