Debates of October 12, 2005 (day 8)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The issue that I would like to raise is directed at the Minister of Education, Culture and Employment as the Member overseeing the Income Support Program, and it relates to the statement I made earlier. With the federal government’s announcement that it intends to flow some fuel or energy rebates to low income families and seniors, we’re told, Mr. Speaker, that $125 will go to individual seniors who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement and $250 will go to seniors who live together as couples. The thing I want to ask about is the money the federal government plans to flow through its $250 that would arrive in January 2006 to families receiving the National Child Benefit Tax Supplement. The federal government would use this as a vehicle to distribute money to people who qualify for the NCBS. So $250 in January sounds pretty good.

However, the issue, Mr. Speaker, and it’s been a long-running issue in this Assembly, is that our government claws back the National Child Benefit from families who are on our income support system. We already do this with land claim benefit payments. The question I have to ask, Mr. Speaker, is if the federal government is going to use the NCBS system as a way to get much needed fuel rebate money to these Canadians, does that mean that our government is going to claw back this much needed rebate money in January from the IS clients that we administer? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. The honourable Minister of Education, Culture and Employment, Mr. Dent.

Return To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, if somebody is on the Income Support Program, the Income Support Program would likely be paying their entire fuel bill. So the cost of fuel would not be something they would be impacted by necessarily. Therefore, this money, like all other income, would be considered as income when people come to the income support office and it would be part of what they bring to the table when calculating what they would qualify for in support for the next month. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So the answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. Does the federal government put any conditions on territories or provinces such as ours that have this clawback policy that would ensure that this money, which is intended for all Canadians -- it’s something that all Canadians put into and the federal government is putting back -- cannot be clawed back?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not aware of the details of the federal heating rebate. I think we will become more clear of what the details are in the not-too-distant future. In terms of something like the National Child Benefit, the federal government, the provinces and territories worked together when that was being devised and came up with an agreement that no person would be worse off after the NCB came into effect. So we made sure that our programs were not reduced, because the National Child Benefit was intended to improve the situation of people who were working, or those known as the working poor. That is where the focus of that program was.

I am not sure what the focus is going to be on the federal heating rebate. We haven’t seen the legislation yet. We have just heard the public announcements. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it would appear that this money would be counted as income in the hands of somebody who comes to us for support and we would include that amount as part of what they bring to the table when calculating what they would qualify for in subsequent months.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Mr. Speaker, the Minister in his previous answer indicated that if a family is on income support, we pick up the fuel bill for them. That’s right and a part of the program that I very much value. I can’t agree with the Minister when he suggested there is no other impact on those families. What about all the other things that they have to pay for which are going to be as a result of the higher costs of fuel across the board in our society? We talked about airlines. We know the taxi fares are going up. Canada Post, Mr. Speaker, already has a freight surcharge on parcels. I have to go back to the intent of the federal government and the impact that all Canadians and every household is feeling because of higher fuel costs. Where is the heart of this government? It’s mighty cold in downtown Yellowknife in January and $200 is going to make a difference to those families. Why won’t our government allow that money to go directly to those families?

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our program is designed to support those people who need support the most. For instance, the Income Support Program is one that reflects what actual costs are. So if somebody needs $1,000 this month for rent, that amount is paid. If the family the next month needs $1,500 for rent, that amount is paid. We don’t make them try to get by with less rent. We actually cover the full costs for utilities and housing. The costs of food, the food basket, are adjusted on an annual basis, at least, in order to reflect any increased costs there. So the program is designed to accommodate the actual costs that people are running into. People come to Education, Culture and Employment and say here is what I have in terms of resources, here is what I need in order to get through the next month and that’s how we work to make sure people can survive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Dent. Final supplementary, Mr. Braden.

Supplementary To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

That’s all true, but, Mr. Speaker, by that same token, this program keeps a lid on all those families. It does not give them an extra margin that they could use, such as this program to get a bit ahead to make a difference in their life. It’s been argued that while the program does sustain families, it in fact imposes poverty.

Mr. Speaker, this question is going to stay on our agenda. I would like the Minister to provide some information. I am wondering if he could provide me today or in the near future how many income support clients would get their energy cost benefit clawed back and how much money this would total. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Braden. Mr. Dent.

Further Return To Question 96-15(4): GNWT Treatment Of Federal Energy Rebate

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will endeavour to find that information, but I asked that very question of the department and have been told that there is no way they have of tracking it because it depends on who comes to the table and the resources they bring each month. So it’s very difficult for us to put it together as to who might qualify for this.

I will challenge the department to come up with at least a ballpark figure and we will endeavour to share that with Members. The Member has raised an interesting issue and that is to whether or not the program right now allows people to collect savings for moving forward and developing that independence we want to see. I think that’s a really important issue that we need to take a look at as we go through the redesign of the program. That is something I am undertaking over the course of this winter with external stakeholders and the Standing Committee on Social Programs. So we are going to take a look at some of those issues, but it will not happen quickly enough for a response for this heating program we are talking about right now. We were hoping by next spring to be able to talk about a redesigned program that I am hoping will have that sort of flexibility built in.