Thank you, Mr. Beaulieu. Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chair, as I stated, these are areas that we continue to look into. To some degree, we have to be cautious of how we approach different areas of policy changes where if we allow adults to live in their parent’s or grandparent’s place, the individual could be earning a good wealth of income and others will follow. I’m just afraid of elders’ abuse, directly or indirectly, in the household, because it will be rent free for them. I can imagine in all the communities elders living in a household, they might have grandchildren living with them for a number of years and, to some degree, it may be best for some people, but some elders want to stay alone as well. But if an elder wants to stay alone and their adult kids want to move in at their own cost, I guess those are just some of the fears I would have. As I stated, we can look at this and see what we can come up with as a department. We need to work closely with the communities and also with the Members. Mahsi.
Thank you, Minister Lafferty. Next on my list is Mr. Krutko.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to talk about the seniors’ fuel subsidy program. I have to agree with Mr. Beaulieu. I think that we have to be realistic here and find ways of allowing for exemptions in certain situations where people are elderly and they’re into their 90’s. Maybe use 90 as the age level. That anybody over the age of 90 can have a family member or a relative living with them, because you’re talking about the well-being of seniors. I mean, if they’re 90 years old, they are going to need… I mean, I dealt with this situation similar to Mr. Menicoche in regard to a 96-year-old gentleman, his wife is 92. They’re independent. They own their own home. They’ve lived there all their lives, yet when family members come to visit, in most cases they come and spend the summer with them when the kids are out of school, grandkids and whatever. They go through this situation every year.
For me, the stress and the turmoil that you put these elders through, that’s elders’ abuse. I think that we should maybe look at allowing for certain exemptions to take place when you have people in certain status by way of mental ailment by way of dementia, by way of respite care, by way of there are certain elements they may require that 24-hour home care, which if the family can provide it, it’s a benefit that you keep them there than having to send them to a long-term care facility, say, in Inuvik or having to fill a bed in a dementia centre or whatever. But if you can save the cost for the simple cost of heating their homes, it’s a cost savings to government.
I’m wondering if we can seriously consider looking at the exemptions that are offered and look at age as one of the categories that you consider for an exemption and that you allow those circumstances in those elements that I mentioned. That if you fit that category or class of person, age will be one, the other would be the ailment and the other one, you’ll be allowed to have someone live in the home regardless if it’s a family member or a relative who will be able to take care of the elder. Again, I mean, I know there used to be exemptions allowed in the past and, again, it seemed like they have disappeared, but I think we have to find a way of taking the stress that’s being put on our seniors, especially the ones who have lived out their lives in their own homes, basically have paid for it, they own it, they basically maintain it, but yet they’re at that age where they’re fragile.
I think we have to be realistic here, and we know who those people are. Those people receive the property tax exemptions. Those people are the ones that have been on the list year after year after year getting the benefit of the fuel subsidy. But because of a simple situation, like I say, someone comes and spends the summer with the family, which we all have family members. When we travel to our different communities, we’d like to have families spend time with their grandparents or their parents while they’re still with us. I think we’ve got to be realistic here and we have to allow for those types of exemptions to take place.
Again, I’d like to ask the Minister if that’s something that your department can seriously consider in light of the policies and regulations we have, to allow for these types of exemptions to be applied under those types of circumstances. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Krutko. Minister Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. This is an area that we can seriously look at. When the Member touched on the age-plus, the 90-plus, definitely, those are the areas that we need to explore. There may not be that many elders so it might be workable. We need to look into that and we’ll come back to the standing committee if we’re going to make those changes. Mahsi.
I thank the Minister for that. I believe we do have to be realistic here.
The other issue that has come to my attention is the area of income assistance where you have individuals who, basically, for one reason or another, because they get medevaced to Edmonton and now we’ve got the 48-hour turnaround, those people have to get them out of Edmonton and back into their home communities, but these people are walking around with walkers. Then they go to income support to try to get support and they’re being told, well, sorry, you have to wait for a period of three or four months in order to get the benefit, because it takes that long to meet the criteria.
There again, we have to be realistic that we have situations where people need that emergency attention, especially when it comes to medical reasons in which, basically, medical professionals have basically instructed them that they have to be not mobile or basically have a walker or basically a wheelchair that they’re in. Again, myself and Ms. Lee had to deal with this situation in Aklavik, and again, the individual was told, well, sorry, you have to wait four months because of his disability.
For me, I mean, again, we have to be realistic. There has to be those special circumstances that people have to have access to these programs on an emergency basis and we have to allow that flexibility in our policies and programs. Again, that’s another area that I think we’d have to be cognizant of and consider.
I’d just like to maybe leave that with the Minister and see exactly, you know, is that something that we can also consider in light of the aged but also the people that are, because of medical reasons, require that attention regardless if it it’s because of being medevaced to Edmonton or southern hospitals, and now because we have another restraint we’re dealing with because you have to have a 48-hour turnaround and get these people back out of the hospital in Alberta, back to the Northwest Territories, back into their communities, because we are now under different restraints.
Again, that’s the type of stuff, I think, that we have to be realistic about and make sure that the time limits that we’re talking about, yes, we have to have time limits, but I mean, they also have to be realistic that in special circumstances we do have emergencies and we have to be able to comply with those emergencies.
Again, I’ve got patients who are basically going through cancer treatment and whatnot and they can’t go to work. The doctor told them, sorry, you can’t work, but they’re told, well, sorry, you’ve got to wait three months. But these people basically have a doctor’s note telling them you can’t work. Again, these programs, we have to ensure that they’re actually there for support, they’re there to help people when they need it, and more importantly, help the people that are the fragile, the elderly or the sick and lame people that we’re having to deal with.
Again, I’d just like to maybe ask the Minister is that something that your department again can also look at in light of these unique situations we’re finding ourselves dealing with.
Mr. Chair, this area would allow for coordination between my department and also Health. The Member discussed the health-related issues, that there’s been a waiting time. We need to seriously look at our policy as well. The three-month waiting period is questionable, the 48-hour turnaround, and if it’s emergency cases, doctor’s note. So all those need to be taken into effect, but I will be working with my colleague, the Minister of Health and Social Services. Mahsi.
Thank you, Mr. Lafferty. Mr. Yakeleya.
Mr. Chair, the programs that we have here to help people in need, I can certainly see the benefits of helping our elders as simple as possible, or helping the young mothers especially, or helping the child as simple as possible and also helping the seniors with some of their benefits from the federal government and also from the territorial government. What I want to ask the Minister in terms of what support we give to our people in the Income Assistance Program, has the department looked at the way we are dealing with people in terms of we are creating more dependency. Are we moving towards the interdependency or have we created a society of welfare dependants in the income assistance?
One of the biggest complaints that I get back at home is that we are teaching our young people, our people in general, to sit at home, lay on the couch, flick the TV off and on with their thumbs and in time to go over and pick up a cheque, because it is something that they are used to. We are not really helping them to be independent or self-sufficient. We may have good intentions, but is this something that the Minister’s department has looked at, has evaluated?
We are caught between a rock and a hard place and building the goals that we set out for and income assistance is a fancy word for welfare. So I want to ask that are we doing okay, are we doing good? Even though maybe our hearts and our minds are in that place are we really helping our people help themselves? Are we creating a stronger dependence on our system? I don’t know. Some people say it is a trap. So I want to ask, is his department really looking at the areas that we could be doing other things or not getting what we want. So I want to ask the Minister if he could shed a little light on my question here.
Thank you, Mr. Yakeleya. Minister Lafferty.
Mr. Chairman, I can shed some light on this particular matter. This area has always been a real challenge to balance or to strike the right balance between assisting those individuals that are on income support and pushing them towards or creating economic dependency.
There is a program in place with our department as well: Productive Choices. We have initiated, in the past, various programs so that we can get people out of their homes and work for the money that we provide to them, but there has been a push back. They went through their leaders and their MLAs and put more pressure on us to, sort of like status quo. I need a lot of support from the community leadership for us to pursue further with this. I am willing to do this as a Minister of Education, Culture and Employment and I feel that those individuals that have 10 fingers and 10 toes can be out there, employable.
It has always been that way with our ancestors as well, so I think that is the clear message that we always receive from our grandparents so we are more than willing to do that, Mr. Chairman, it is just that I guess taking the next step and working with the communities, so we do have the productive choices, and I like to see young individuals that are on income security to go out there and get some firewood for the elders or chop wood for the elders, or fishnet for the elders and so forth. Those are simple tasks that can be done and those are the areas that we exploring, Mr. Chairman. Mahsi.
I guess we need to have more discussion as to what the Minister is saying. Certainly it has been noted that is someone said that certainly if they can get up and walk to the income support office they certainly can walk to work. We have certainly changed our lifestyles in our communities. There are some young people who are really trying hard to make a go of it in life, there are other challenges that they have to put up with. Income assistance is one of them. There are also other people out there that know how to use the system and they think now that welfare is a right for them. We have created a generation of dependent people on our system and it is certainly eating up our resources. We talk about the fuel subsidy program for our elders and so we make it very difficult for our young people even to get a load of wood for our elders and that is where we need to have some discussion.
I know what you are saying; we need to really take a hard look at if we are doing any favours to our younger generation or to some of the people who are in the Income Assistance Program. I see the benefit of the seniors. We need to really take care of our seniors really well, especially of the young mothers with the young children, especially the single mothers with young children, but there are lots of able men and able women that could be helping and working in the communities. So that is why I ask if this department sat down with the regions and said, what are the results of our Income Assistance Program?
If you look in Deline, it has been noted in a meeting with the Premier and I in Deline, the employment rate in Deline sometimes is about 80 percent unemployment. That is a high number for unemployment in Deline, 80 percent. This is where he is saying the programs are beneficial, but there are a lot of people that could work. We are creative in our progress. I guess we need a larger forum to have this type of discussion in terms of this Income Security Program to really help our people, otherwise we are just maintaining the status quo.
I know what the Minister is saying, I am not too sure if the information is coming back to us in terms of are we really helping the young people, are we really helping our communities, are we helping our recipients, because people are telling me that they are recipients there that are experts in using the programs. They know all the regulations and policies. I am very, very concerned that we are going to have a hard time.
Imagine if we just cut the Income Assistance Program tomorrow. That is going to force a lot of people out of their houses and doing something, I am just thinking out loud here in terms of how do we help our young people, really help our young people. I want to ask the Minister in terms of getting a good evaluation, a good, true picture of income security programs, especially the Income Assistance Program that we deliver in our communities. That’s it, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, the quickest answer would be we can definitely explore this throughout resources, career centres in the regions. Also some students are in school who are on income support. One time an individual came up and asked about going to school and she said I have to go to school to get paid. I said don’t you go to school to get educated? It was more about getting money to go to school. So we have to create more incentives for them to change their lifestyle. That’s what we want to do. I’m willing to work with it, with the regions and MLAs. Sometimes you will get a lot of heat as MLAs and Ministers, but we have to do what’s right. Mr. Chair, I’m willing to explore this area. Mahsi.
We’re on page 10-27, income security, operations expenditure summary, $38.823 million.
Agreed.
Mr. Beaulieu.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have hopefully a short line of questioning. I am curious as to what type of PY reductions had occurred when the Public Housing Program was transferred back to the NWT Housing Corporation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Minister of Education, Mr. Lafferty.
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. The exact number we have is 10.75 public housing rental subsidy positions being transferred back to the Housing Corporation. Mahsi.
I’m curious as to where those positions were cut. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, maybe I should clarify. I’m trying to figure out if it was small communities, regional centres or Yellowknife. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What we do have are the regions and also headquarters. Headquarters lost three positions and the regions lost 7.75 positions. Mahsi.
The regional positions, were they necessarily in the regional centres of Smith, Hay River, Simpson, Inuvik, Norman Wells? Were they in those communities specifically?
That’s correct, Mr. Chair.
So no positions were cut in communities that we refer to as small communities. I could take that as correct. Thank you.
Deputy Minister Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. There was one position in one of the other smaller communities, Fort Resolution, that went from a full-time PY down to a half-time PY. It was based on caseloads once the Public Housing Subsidy Program was transferred back to the Housing Corporation. Thank you.
I guess I’m going to ask the department a question as to how many clients were being served for public housing only, I guess. I’m trying to figure this out because my understanding and I haven’t been able to actually talk to the income support officer because he’s not comfortable working for the government and dealing with this through the MLA, so I’ve been talking to other people. I’m trying to find out if the caseload actually did change. I’m wondering how many people were actually dropped from the caseload when the public housing was transferred back to the Fort Resolution Housing Authority.
The figure was around 2,000 altogether. I don’t have a community-by- community breakdown but that is the overall figure. Thank you.
Maybe I’ll ask the Minister if they could provide some details pertaining to Fort Resolution. My understanding is the majority of the people in public housing remained as clients with the client services officer. My understanding is the volume of the work per client may have gone down, but the actual client load... It’s based on client load, as the deputy indicated. I don’t think they have the information here, but I’d like to ask the Minister if he could provide me with that information. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Minister, can you provide that information?
Mahsi, Mr. Chair. Yes, we don’t have the detailed information here, but we’d be more than willing to provide that information to the Members. Mahsi.
Thank you. We are on page 10-27, income security, operations expenditure summary, $38.823 million.
Agreed.
Mr. Bromley.
Mr. Chair, if I could get your support to turn back to 10-24 for one question.
Page 10-24? The Member is seeking unanimous consent to go back to 10-24. Committee agree?
Agreed.
Mr. Bromley.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a clarification. I note the drop in funding for literacy by about $125,000. This is a key program. I’m wondering if I can find out where that cut is happening. Thank you.
Deputy Minister Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. That’s a reallocation to reflect where we’ve been spending money. There was an evaluation of the Literacy Strategy a few years ago in which there was a recommendation that came forward to ensure we have a position dedicated to supporting the Literacy Strategy. So, fortunately, the money is being used to support a literacy coordinator in the department. So that’s where the change is being shown. Thank you.
For the record, I’ll read out the totals again. Advanced education, grants and contributions, contributions, total contributions, $33.493 million.
Agreed.
Let’s go to page 10-28, income security, grants and contributions. Ms. Bisaro.
Thanks, Mr. Chair. Just a question with regard to the amount for student grants. We’ve got $9 million here on page 10-28 and then on page 10-27 student financial assistance is almost $12.4 million dollars. So is student financial assistance costing us the $12 million plus the $9 million? Thank you.
Deputy Minister Daniels.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The $12.395 million is the total cost of student financial assistance. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. The $12.395 million is the total cost of the Student Financial Assistance program. It includes staff and the grants the Member referred to, as well as the allowance for the loan fund.
That’s good. Thank you.
Mr. Bromley.
