I was just trying to get some clarity in how the department determines who lives in the household. Is it 20 days out of the month or is it 15 days out of the month? Because I know in this case it was, like, two or three days out of the month, and it’s not every month either there, Mr. Chair. What drives their policy or who makes those decisions and how do they determine it? Thank you.
Deputy Minister Daniels.
It’s really not a number in terms of minimum number of days or anything but it would be more of trying to determine is that the normal place of residence for an individual. If not, where do they typically spend the bulk of their time? If they’re not normally a resident in the household, then we could look at that and not include the individual. But if that’s their normal place of residence for carrying out their normal daily activities of eating, sleeping and other daily activities, then we would consider them a resident of the household. Thank you.
Staying with somebody for three days doesn’t make them a resident of that household, Mr. Chair, and I would take objection to that. You really have to have a look at the program guidelines and procedures. It’s really unfair to the elder, because the fact of the matter is, like, February they usually get their fuel delivered in December and up until now they have to use whatever little old age security pension that they do get and it’s tough in the communities, and somebody determining that somebody who stayed there for two days is a household member. Who makes that determination? That’s what I’m trying to say.
Most particularly, in this case, the senior was approved and then they changed their mind. If there are clear guidelines and procedures, then I think that we can avoid a lot of this. It just does not make sense and it’s not fair in this case, Mr. Chair. I don’t know how they’re going to address it. I continue to press the matter with the Minister’s office on this one. In fact, this senior is actually disabled and they’re saying they’re waiting for her to come to their office. She’s got no access to vehicles or anything like that. That’s incredible that the staff is unwilling to do home visits to check on this matter. This is the kind of stuff that frustrates myself as the MLA and community leaders and the whole family. I continue to press the matter. I know that this is not the nephew or whoever’s household. Passing through town doesn’t make it their normal household. I have to use my dismayed word again there, Mr. Chair.
Anyway, I’ll continue to press the matter and I’d like the Minister to really review the income security guidelines and procedures, especially for home heating subsidies, and there are many other grey areas out there that have to be reviewed. Yes, they’re trying to do the policy thing, but it’s a senior at home that’s suffering, Mr. Chair, and they’re broke and family members are doing their best to use whatever income they have to help that person with fuel. Thank you.
Mr. Minister. Where’s the policy?
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. I already did commit in this House that I will be looking at this. If we need to change the policy, we’ve always changed our policies in the past so it can reflect on what the Member is referring to, and if there can be home visits, that’s an area that we need to look at as well. Mahsi.
Thank you. Next I have Mr. Bromley, Ms. Bisaro, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The same sort of thing, I’m finding a lot of constituency work related to income security clients that, because of the way we deliver the programs, we are dealing often with disadvantaged people and the bureaucratic requirements are amazingly onerous, I have to say. I would be challenged with the hoops they have to jump through in terms of repeatedly submitting the same paperwork. The examples I’m thinking of, though, if you’re not on income support for a month or two, then you have to resubmit all of the applications and papers all over again and try and meet deadlines. This, like I say, is onerous. Everything is on file already. Their birth certificates and SIN don’t change, obviously. Often clients are made to apply for employment insurance or even housing when it’s clear that they won’t get EI and they won’t get housing, that’s very clear, and yet they’re made to go through these hoops. These are extremely onerous and the system just seems so rigid that they end up losing their support for a month and that just exacerbates and it ends up, you know, the snowball rolling down the hillside and getting bigger and bigger when what we’re really trying to do is help these people get out of poverty.
By way of a question here, when was the last time the delivery of income security was reviewed and are there plans for that in the near future? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The last time was 2007, I do believe. We made some changes to some of the subsidy programming. We may be up for a review as well. Like I said, our policy is always changing, so we clearly hear from the Members that there are certain areas. There is a poverty discussion that’s on the way that will definitely have a reflection on our income security framework as well. Mahsi.
I appreciate those comments from the Minister. I think some big gains were made last time. I think, probably, the main structure is there. It’s more at the delivery and it’s sort of like we’re hearing about our businesses, the red tape that seems to be involved is becoming a barrier. I’ll leave it at that. I appreciate the Minister’s intent to consider our comments seriously, because I think some tune-ups could be done here without too much kerfuffle, and I’m happy to sit down with the Minister and go over some of the details of the barriers clients are encountering.
I want to move on to the child care user subsidy program and ask what is the budget for this as proposed and what is it during the current year and the previous year. If I could get those numbers. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Mr. Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe it’s approximately $150,000 for the year.
If I could just get that repeated and confirmed that that’s the same for the current year, the proposed year and our previous fiscal year. Thank you.
Yes, I believe the budget for the child subsidy is about $150,000 a year and it is consistent with what it has been in previous years. Thank you.
What is the understanding of the Minister in terms of this amount meeting the need for this service?
We have been responding to the demand for the program within the budget. Thank you.
I appreciate that information. That wasn’t actually what I asked. I was asking how this fits with what the understanding is of demand. Thank you.
The child care subsidy is really used for parents who are working or maybe people who are attending school. It is an income assessed based program so it is... The budget that we have available is meeting the demand from the clients based on the utilization we have seen in the past three years. Thank you.
Are there other sources, other programs for example on the education side of the department that provide child care subsidy?
This program is for the users, for individual applicants, so it is the only program that we have that is actually for assisting parents with the costs of accessing child care. We do have child daycare support programs that go to the operators that help subsidize their costs to keep some of those costs down, but for direct access to an individual, this is the only program that is available in that regard.
Just for my clarity, for example, in the student financial assistance we don’t really provide child care subsidies through that program. Is that correct?
Student Financial Assistance program has some adjustments that are based on family size, however, there is not a specific element for child care. Students who are on student financial assistance or maybe on other funding sources can apply for the Child Care Subsidy Program to meet their child care needs. Thank you.
I appreciate all that information. What I hear is a real need for additional child care out there and I am also aware that in some jurisdictions where they provide child care there is a real benefit to society in general. Has the department considered broadening our provision of child care? I realize that we are in crunchy financial times right now, but is that something the department has looked at through just their work with policy and potential for expansion? Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Bromley. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are going through a financial crunch, but this is something that we can definitely explore for next year’s budget. We have already identified the $150,000 and Student Financial Assistance program, of course, with a number of family members, but this is an area that we can explore further. Mahsi.
I heard somebody estimated that if we provided child care for all in the Northwest Territories it would cost us something like $18 million a year in the line of the Quebec model, but we would probably get that back through other economic benefits, so it would be interesting to explore some of that.
I guess my last question is, the Minister, again, is aware that we have been interested in having a milk subsidy. Obviously he was able to get our support last year with the $400,000 support for nutritious foods and now that is disappearing. I think the interest still remains high on that. I don’t see it in here. The Minister continues to say he is continuing to consider it, but I am wondering if he is planning to recommend that the Minister in the next Assembly give serious consideration to that repeated request and note that the will of the House has been defied by himself repeatedly here during the term of this Assembly.
That is an area that is sunsetting and I can do that, I can make a recommendation to the potentially coming up Minister, but that will be at their discretion if they want to move forward with it. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. The next on my list is Ms. Bisaro, but before we go to Ms. Bisaro we will take a short break.
---SHORT RECESS
I’d like to call Committee of the Whole back to order. Prior to going on break we were on page 10-27 and next on my list was Ms. Bisaro.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to echo some of the comments that have already been made. I want to first talk about the income security reform that’s been mentioned. I think we talked about it the other day, but I see this as a great opportunity to do things cross-departmentally. I was pleased to hear the Minister mention the Anti-Poverty Strategy and that that’s kind of in his sights, I guess, as they look at income security.
I look at the description from the business plans and it says that the department administers a range of programs addressing cost of living issues, encouraging homeownership, ensuring access to health education, et cetera. I mentioned the other day and I’ll mention it again, I think that the relationship between income security and housing is one that is probably the most difficult for our residents when they try to access either income security or housing. They are co-related, they have to exist together.
Mr. Bromley talked about some of the red tape and the difficulties that people encounter when they’re filling out forms. I echo those sentiments. I’ve had the same sort of comments from constituents that it is not an easy process to get either income security and/or housing. I’ve spoken before, it was some time ago now that I made a statement about the lack of a customer service attitude within income security, the whole division. It’s not everybody, but certainly I think it’s something that does not exist. We have too many of our clients who are approaching in kind of a weakened state, for lack of a better way of putting it. They are not treated to good customer service. I think our staff sort of expect them to be a little more on the ball than maybe they are and very often I think they are totally intimidated by the whole process of filling out forms, no, this isn’t enough, you have to go back and get me more. I just think that similar to my comments about the Department of Human Resources, I think it’s every department in the government, but this area of education is one that should be very much client service and customer service-oriented. I just encourage the Minister and the department to look at that.
Customer service doesn’t only show itself in the staff. It also should be evident in our policies and procedures. That’s where Mr. Bromley was going with his talk about forms and so on. We need to enable people and encourage people and make sure that we treat them as a client, because they are. They are an internal client, but they’re a client. We have to treat them like we would want to be treated if we were going off to do the same job.
I wanted to go to Mr. Menicoche’s comments about the home heating subsidy and the difficulties there. It’s my understanding that we are establishing appeals committees in our communities, I think. At least in our regional centres. That would be something where I would think that the situation that he’s encountered with his elder probably could be dealt with through an appeal if necessary. Again that’s one more step that people have to go through. However, my question to the department at this point is: have we got the Social Assistance Appeals Committee set up and how many and where and what have we done with establishing them yet?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chairman. To date there are 22 committees that have been established throughout the Northwest Territories. A total of 80 people have been appointed to date.
That’s good to hear. Twenty-two committees. We have more than 22 communities. Are we going to have an appeals committee in each community or will there be some serviced regionally?
Some of the committees are also covering more than one community. Those communities that may not have an appeal committee per se are covered through these different committees.
Just one final question. Is this job of establishing appeals committees now done?
Thank you, Ms. Bisaro. Mr. Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We tried to get appeals bodies going in each community but some are being covered off, because we couldn’t get enough interest in some communities so they’re being covered by other communities. If the interest does come forward that a community that does not have its own appeal committee in place right now, if they come forward we will certainly pursue that in terms of establishing an appeal committee if there’s interest.
Thank you, Mr. Daniels. Next on my list is Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first question is in the Child Care User Subsidy Program. Financial assistance to parents that help child care so that they can go to school. I’m wondering if the threshold of income... I guess my first question is what is the income threshold in order for students to access. I’ll just put some context to that. I’m wondering if two students on full student financial assistance would be over the threshold.
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Lafferty.
The subsidy is based on the needs assessment of those individuals.
Needs assessment I’m assuming is income tested. I’m wondering if the income testing is fine. Is there any consideration for the cost of daycare or child care in that particular instance?
We do factor in those costs that the Member is alluding to. Part of the assessment.
I’d like to ask the Minister to review the financial thresholds on this subsidy program. I think it’s too low. I think that students that are in Aurora College from my home town are struggling with this policy. Daycare or child care costs are about $50 per day and I do not believe that they’re netting enough money to pay for that. So there’s something wrong with the system when what they’re netting from student financial assistance is lower than their daycare costs. It’s almost equivalent to their daycare costs, I would say. Individuals are forced to work part time. Which is okay, I don’t have an issue with students finding part-time work; however, with the part-time work it puts them over the income threshold. My assumption is that the income threshold is very low. I’m wondering if the Minister has any plans or incidents where this is an issue other than me bringing it up here today.
I did state in the House that with the existing policies there have been some changes. Whenever an issue or a concern has been brought to our attention we’ll seriously look at it and if we need to make changes to our policy, then by all means we need to sit down and inform the Members that there will be some changes coming. This is an area that we as a department can also look at.
The area of income assistance, I was wondering when the last time the department looked at the -- I forget what the term is -- but you’re allowed to earn so much money. Unearned or earned income. The earned income thresholds. When was the last time the department looked at the earned income thresholds?
Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The program has been always administered as a needs assessed program. More recently we did look at the senior’ home heating subsidy as one program under the income security area which is based on income thresholds and that one was modified a few years ago.
I wouldn’t advocate for income assistance to be increased to make it easier for people to stay on income support, but in the cases of need and cases where we want people to work their way off the system I think that increasing the earned income threshold would be a positive move towards getting people off of income support.
My third question is on the seniors’ home heating subsidy. My issue is a little bit different. It’s more of asking the department to review the adult children supporting aged and disabled family members, whether they be grandparents or parents. Right now the alternative is to move some of these elders into a home, because some of them are getting to a stage where they’re starting to forget things and not really safe to leave them alone to cook for themselves and fend for themselves. Generally day-to-day operations many widows and widowers are running households by themselves at this point. They are homeowners and they have adult children living with them. They are providing some support and so on. What I’m asking the department to do is look at the positives of that type of thing; the money that the government saves overall.
Putting someone in Woodland Manor in Hay River is a very substantial cost to this government. Although it’s to another department, it’s a very substantial cost to the government as a whole. However, having adult children living with the aged is a cost savings to the government because that person’s needs are taken care of by that adult child. However, because their income is taken into consideration, the children don’t want to stay at home and take care of their parents because their parents are going, well, if you’re here, in cases where they have to be anyway, they’ve got no choice, they lose their seniors’ home heating subsidy. My question is: would the government do some sort of feasibility assessment, or whatever we want to call it, an evaluation of actually exempting incomes of adult children that live with the aged in supporting them through their day-to-day life and see if that would be a possibility? We have many situations like that where had it not been for those adult children, many of those elders would be in homes. Very expensive. A very expensive proposition. And then, of course, I guess their homes would be either unutilized or that adult child would take over the home. But this is something that is saving the government a lot of money but it’s not as common as it should be, because it’s pretty simple. It’s like a policy and heating fuel is very expensive. It’s very hard for them to afford it. Then the burden is on the adult child to do all these essential things for their parents or grandparents.
In addition to that, they have to then fork out some money to cover the costs of operating the unit, because the government will then claw back or not provide this particular subsidy because of the adult child’s income. Thank you.
