Robert Hawkins

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I want to express my grave concerns about the actions of the Health Minister with her decision to release information to the public in the context of public consultation about the changes to supplementary health benefits.

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents say it looks like it’s already a done deal. I have reviewed the material on the Health and Social Services website, and I’ve had feedback from my constituents. If anyone has read the documents, you would know there seems to be many assumptions and leading information that relates to the direction of the...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yet again the side of this House that has the shoehorn seems to be proceeding with blinders. They have no idea how much this will cost to cover this group that is mysteriously not covered. It doesn’t sound like they even have a clue how many people need to be covered. Will this Minister commit, before any decision is made, that we will identify the costs associated with this and with the number of people who need this assistance? Because we could do it immediately, we could provide support if the Minister could provide that cost, which she refuses to.

I guess I’ll have to spell it out a little slower so that the Minister picks it up this time. A predetermined process does not start out with an automatic implementation date. It has a closing, a consultation date, and allows the consultation discussion to drive the implementation date. The last point on this issue is when you tell people what income level it should start at, it tells me that the department has already decided that income testing is going to be a factor. It doesn’t say should it be, period, no questions asked.

What has this mysterious group that exists out there, what has this...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to recognize two very wise and certainly well-travelled Northerners. We have Mr. Ed Jeske and Mr. Mike Krutko, both constituents of Yellowknife Centre.

The ones with the shoehorn of course don’t feel shoehorned. Try being on the side of the shoehorn, not the ones with it. The reality is the Minister is blaming Members of the House -- this side of the House, we have to be very clear -- for not supporting that group of people who don’t have benefits. This Minister immediately could pass a ministerial directive that says this number of people need to be covered and this is how much it costs. How much money would it be to provide coverage to this mysterious group of people, as well as how many people? They can’t seem to answer that. Can the...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The manifesto is crystal clear. The Health Minister’s ambition to trim health benefits is obvious. Raising the cost of living for our constituents is obvious. Creating consultation that appears more like shoehorning the public into a direction by their design is certainly clear.

Can the Minister of Health and Social Services explain to me how this does not look like a predetermined process that has a predetermined, scripted outcome?

If we were talking about Rio Tinto or BHP, they have staff dedicated specifically to look at resources and how the system is being done to make sure they can do them in an efficient way. What proof does the Minister have that she can lay before this House that the Department of Health and Social Services examines the way it does business on a regular basis to ensure that we’re getting the best value for our dollars?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The particular issue I keep trying to raise here is linking the reduction of services to poor management. I’d ask the Minister of Health and Social Services what work is done from a waste buster point of view. With a department that has a budget of $326 million, do they have any staff or personnel dedicated to finding wasted resources within their organization?

Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure how the Health Minister can keep saying that there aren’t changes coming to the Supplementary Health Benefits Program when there are changes. What are we evaluating then? It doesn’t make sense. How can the Minister keep saying that there aren’t changes coming without it being reflected on the costs of the system? I’d like to understand that from the Minister’s point of view. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was listening to the Minister of Health’s answers really closely and I think what she represents is the exact reason why people hate politicians. Because when you move something around, it’s called a change; and when you reduce something, it’s called a reduction. So, Mr. Speaker, that frustration is articulated out there by playing with semantics. So I’d like to ask the Minister again -- perhaps another way we’ll get the answer -- what work and analysis is done by the Department of Health and Social Services to make sure that they’re collecting all the fees and...