Bob Bromley

We spend a lot of time and money dealing with the symptoms of poverty: $5 million approved just yesterday to top up payments for child placements outside the NWT, child protection orders resulting from neglect, high rates of alcoholism. These are all symptoms of poverty. We need to deal with the root cause itself: poverty. Substantive changes in income support such as those suggested will yield returns on such investments through savings in education, health and social services and corrections, and enhance economic activity.

I will have questions.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to table two documents. The first is called “Income Security for all Canadians.” The second is an infographic that has a lot of good stuff in it, called “The Case for a Guaranteed Income – Lifting People from Poverty: Fairly, Efficiently and Effectively.” Mahsi.

Thank you. I think there are a lot of people out there that could make suggestions that are caught in these poverty traps, but I’ll take the Minister’s offer and work with him on that.

I know the Minister and I have the same goal here, so I hope he takes these points as constructive and friendly suggestions.

Would the Minister commit to including the six recommendations I made this morning on income support in the anti-poverty work that he is doing? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to follow up on my Member’s statement with questions for the Minister of the social envelope today, Minister Abernethy. The Minister has been working hard on an Anti-Poverty Strategy and more recently an Anti-Poverty Action Plan. The strategy and plan are based around five pillars.

Could the Minister explain which pillar addresses the poverty traps that are built into our income security programs that I’ve been talking about for the last three days? Mahsi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe my amendment to the amendment is now before the House, but I will repeat it.

I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Frame Lake, that the amendment to Motion 13-17(5) be amended by adding the following after the phrase “first paragraph after the resolution portion of the motion”: and replacing them with the words “before that group begins in that community”. I would like to speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I see this is a request for Medical Travel Program costs. Again, I’m disappointed here. Basically we have poured in, in both during the 16th and 17th Assemblies, tens of millions of dollars to increase the efficiency of our medical travel system. Specifically on electronic medical records, telehealth, call forward physician access, community pharmaceutical supplies, community electronic imaging capacity. I am just again wondering what’s happening here on the increasing costs that we’re seeing, or is it a budgeting issue? I understand that Stanton Territorial Hospital...

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This phrase is awkward, but it is the kernel of the motion, I believe. I think what Mr. Menicoche is saying, and I agree, is we don’t want the whole program stopped if some community, JK group, doesn’t have an ECE worker. It’s just that that particular JK group should not go ahead until there is an early childhood education worker. On that basis, Mr. Chair, I would like to propose an amendment to the amendment. Mahsi.

Thanks for that information. It sounds like we’re never allowed to get ahead. We’re allowed to count for what the actual costs are this year through this unfortunate process, but wouldn’t it be great if we could do it at the beginning of the year so that we actually knew what our costs were roughly? We might even feed back a few thousand bucks at the end of the year, who knows? But I would be happy with a conservative estimate of increases based on our experience. It would just greatly reduce these sorts of costs, or at least adjustments. Thank you.

To the Minister, we’ve heard all about this amazing and costly maze of support, ineffective supports, that we have out there. We’re trying to move on here.

There are additional supports available to people in poverty, such as the GST rebate and the child tax credit. Despite their intent to help, our system takes that money away from families. I very much doubt that the money we save from chasing after these meagre funds even covers the cost of the government workers chasing after them.

How can the Minister justify clawing back payments that are meant to alleviate poverty when people are already...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know these costs are always going up. Is this amount generally going up from year to year, the $22.9 million, for example? Are we always requesting these extra dollars for the increased costs? Thank you.